A modest proposal

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I have a modest proposal to improve the functioning of this board, by eliminating one of the main sources of contention. First, let me state some definitions:

A "named poster" is defined as someone who provides a real name and working email address on his posts.
An "anonymous poster" is anyone else who posts.

Now the proposal:
Any post made by an anonymous poster that denigrates the character, intelligence, or other personal attributes of a named poster will be deleted.

The idea behind this rule should be clear: if you're going to attack someone personally, you should be willing to stand behind that attack. Anonymous attacks on named persons are cowardly and disruptive, and should not be permitted. Other anonymous posts will be unaffected by this rule.

What do you say, both sysops and regular posters? Are we ready to take responsibility for our negative comments towards real, live, identified people who also frequent this board?

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 11, 2000

Answers

Steve, this Forum now has one foot in the grave, because Y2K was not even a bump in the road, and now you want to set up rules that should have been in place two years ago?

Come on, Steve, just forget it and reailze that the time is come for many of us lurkers to go on with our lives and do something differrent other than visit this Forum, which has become a waste of time, etc. etc.

-- ssssh...gone (ssssh...@gone.com), January 11, 2000.


Steve,

The title of this forum is "Timebomb 2000". No one here ever had any facts and data. The damn thing didn't happen. None of the "regular posters" are going to give their names. You can count on that. North is folding up his side show and I expect this one to be gone in a few weeks.

Doug

-- Doug (Doug@itsover.com), January 11, 2000.


Steve, you're an idiot! Just kidding (sorry, couldn't resist).

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 11, 2000.

None of the "regular posters" are going to give their names.

I guess you haven't noticedd that I give my name whenever I post? Ken Decker, whatever his faults, did the same. So did Ed Yourdon, and I'm sure there are several others who don't come immediately to mind. But in any event, my suggested rule wouldn't require anyone to "unmask", so long as they didn't use their anonymity to attack others.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 11, 2000.


ssssh...gone and Doug,

You are more than welcome to grace us with your departure. If you both left early, think how omniscient you could claim to be?

*Elusive Smile*

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 2000.



WITH A GOVERNMENT SUCH AS OURS, I WOULD NOT DARE POST MY REAL E-MAIL ADDRESS! IF YOU WAS SMART, YOU WOULD NOT EITHER!!!

FFFFFRRRRREEEEEEDDDDDDOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!

-- ... (...@...com), January 11, 2000.


I, for one, feel absolutely comfortable with giving my full name, where I live and I, too, encourage all of us to do the same.

So, thank you, thank you very much to those who are not afraid to tell this forum who they REALLY are!!

Sincerely,

ELVIS PRESLEY Gulf Breeze FL

(uh-huh)

-- Ric (ice163@worldnet.att.net), January 11, 2000.


Steve

Now, that is one of the most popular ideas I have heard in a long time! What next...does everyone want the flu?...or maybe...lets all post our CC#s on line because there are more honest than dishonest in the world. Wait, I got it...yeah lets all go out and get unnecessary dental work.

Not.

-- anonymous (anonymous@anonymous.anon), January 11, 2000.


Steve Heller: I agree. SSSSSSSH: Bubbye since you find it so unrewarding. I am willing to come out of the closet as a forum regular if everyone else is willing to do the same. I'm afraid that Sysops would be worked to the bone to maintain the quality you are suggesting unless a software could disallow posts from anonymous posters. I sure would loath being bombarded with e-mails from whacko's. That is the reason why I've stayed anonymous all this time. This board needs quality control. It needs responsible posters providing valid links to back up their points and information. If the idiots could become Kamikazi's and have a one time death never to return without full disclosure, this would be a first rate forum. Y2K may not be over AND this forum can evolve into an insiders haven. I sincerly hope the total integration of brains here at TB2000 are not risking their well- being by offering full disclosure if indeed national security or something similiar to that is breeched by all the collective information. The freedom of speech, from what I've observed, can get a little out of hand. Very interesting and touchy all in one ball of wax here at this very informative forum. My e-mail address will be posted when I see your idea work.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), January 11, 2000.

Stupid rule Steve. The sysops have shown excellent discretion in differentiating between a heated argument and a meaningless antagonistic attacks. I know from personal experience that there are many "named posters" who use very colorful vocabularies and personal insults to get their message across. Are you suggesting that because I choose to use an anonymous identity to protect my own privacy that I not be allowed to defend myself with equal vehemence? I can't help wondering if maybe you're just having some trouble with handling criticism and keeping it in its proper context.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 11, 2000.


I've got an idea. How about if we stopped posting denigrating, nasty comments about each other regardless of how we identify ourselves? I mean, some of this polly=dimwit, doomer=moron thing really gets old. I can disagree with someone without making comments about their mother, intelligence, etc. A little civility would help as we all try to understand the days ahead.

Jim

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), January 11, 2000.


Methinks ol' stevie is just trying to back down from his obvious shite predictions...

Here's Stooge Steve in his own words:

On January first, there'll be a spike of errors in process control systems that will cause widespread power outages, communication outage s, and other immediate effects. However, some power companies will manage to keep the power on in many places, and many people will breathe a sigh of relief.

Unfortunately, this relief will turn out to be premature. Over the next several weeks, breaks in the supply chains to the power companies, primarily fuel supplies, will result in a gradual degradation of the infrastructure. Water treatment plants will run out of supplies, hospitals will stop functioning properly due to lack of drugs and other supplies, and this will be repeated in every industry. The economy will grind to a halt.

But the most serious problem, in the north at least, will be frozen pipes. If the power's off for more than a few days in the middle of winter in Detroit, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other northern tier cities, they'll be devastated by frozen water pipes and sewer line backups. Plague will follow shortly. Most of the inhabitants of the northern cities will die within a matter of a few weeks, from cold, disease, fires started in an attempt to keep warm, or random violence.

Steve Heller - July 1999



-- Secret Guy (secret@guy.com), January 11, 2000.


Heller, you were an idiot in 1998. You were an idiot last year and you are still an idiot. What difference can it make if people use their real names when calling you an idiot? Guess you want the rest of us to be idiots like you, NOT.

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 11, 2000.

These cowardly attacks are not new. The SYOPS have done a great job sifting out the trolls.

Personnally I think some of these attacks may be coming from former doomers turned super pollies lashing out at people they put too much faith in and now are vindictive.

My grandmother use to say "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen."

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), January 11, 2000.


Jim Cooke.....YOU have the right idea! One can only WISH!

-- Jo Ann (MaJo@Michiana.com), January 11, 2000.


Security requires me to remain undercover. There are mean people out there who want my preps.

-- (hangin@the.firingrange), January 11, 2000.

I agree with Jim Cook. Posts which contain insulting remarks about an individual or group should be deleted. I note that there are still a lot of people saying that Y2K is over, yet they continue to come back to this forum and post.

-- Danny (dcox@ix.netcom.com), January 11, 2000.

Aw Steve, you are a big boy now, aren't you? Whatsa matta? Can't you take the heat? You were always right there to dole it out before all your predictions fizzled. Now suddenly the rules have changed.

Cry baby....cry cry cry!

-- (Lurkin@again.com), January 11, 2000.


I've got an idea. How about if we stopped posting denigrating, nasty comments about each other regardless of how we identify ourselves? I mean, some of this polly=dimwit, doomer=moron thing really gets old. I can disagree with someone without making comments about their mother, intelligence, etc. A little civility would help as we all try to understand the days ahead.

My original thought was that an anonymous poster by definition couldn't have any reputation to smear, but this modification is fine with me too.

As for my predictions, I haven't tried to hide from them, unlike the anonymous cowards who are attacking me but are afraid to stand behind their statements. I've already admitted that I was wrong about the rollover, and will post a message about the rest of my predictions by the middle of February, as I've stated numerous times.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 11, 2000.


Ummm, Flint is posting with his real name.
From yesterday's Debonker's board:
http://stand77.com/wwwboard/messages/10690.html

Please ignore this post

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ back to main page ] [ FAQ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by (171.213.233.176) Ladylogic on January 10, 2000 at 09:10:04:

Doc, (or whoever owns this website)

Please let me know if my posts for the next week are terribly disruptive, and I'll quit. I'll only post once a day, and I will always put the header, "Please ignore this post". I don't want to be a troll on both boards!

I need to wean myself of the internet...

-- (LadyLoony@aol.com), January 11, 2000.


Suggestion: post y2k facts/observations to the GICC forum (requires valid addresses); post y2k opinions/personal insults on this forum.

-- M (m@m.m), January 11, 2000.

Let's all skip the personal attacks. It really gets old fast.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 11, 2000.

This is not the first time Steve Heller has made a big deal about the fact that he posts "not anonymously". Focusing on whether or not one feels comfortable using his or her given name in a posting to a web site with many unsavory characters, is a refuge for those unwilling to deal with the issues. Given Heller's past predictions and half-hearted admissions of failure, this isn't too surprising.

-- Not (not.new@this.point), January 11, 2000.

Steve and all:

I follow several fora, not all y2k-related. On those where the posters MUST use real names & emails, the rudeness level is much, much lower than this forum -- where any 16 year old on school break can post multiple times daily using different "handles". Assuming a false or "cover" identity via a fake name and email sure makes it a lot easier to be an idiot in public -- no reprisals can even get back to your parents.

It's probably too late, but I'd vote for real names, real emails -- if you can't stand behind your opinions, you shouldn't be posting.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), January 11, 2000.


Focusing on whether or not one feels comfortable using his or her given name in a posting to a web site with many unsavory characters, is a refuge for those unwilling to deal with the issues. Given Heller's past predictions and half-hearted admissions of failure, this isn't too surprising.

The main "unsavory characters" here are those who use anonymity as a cover for personal attacks on others. Thanks for playing, though!

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 11, 2000.


Despite my dismay at the many instances of gratuitous rudeness on this forum, I find the idea of suppressing it even more repulsive. If people see fit to aim insults anonymously, their failure to identify themselves speaks for itself.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), January 11, 2000.

Despite my dismay at the many instances of gratuitous rudeness on this forum, I find the idea of suppressing it even more repulsive.

Why?

If people see fit to aim insults anonymously, their failure to identify themselves speaks for itself.

If only that were so, then we wouldn't see so much of this type of disgusting behavior.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 11, 2000.


Why?

Because I believe in denying others' freedom of speech only where they impinge on mine, for example, repeated postings of the same content (spam) whose form serve no purpose but to disrupt. (I realize this forum is privately operated, but I'm discussing principle rather than legality.)

My standard for what constitutes an appropriate post is arbitrary, hence for me to argue that my standard be made policy would open the door for others to seek to impose their equally arbitrary standard upon me, which I don't want.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), January 11, 2000.


Because I believe in denying others' freedom of speech only where they impinge on mine, for example, repeated postings of the same content (spam) whose form serve no purpose but to disrupt. (I realize this forum is privately operated, but I'm discussing principle rather than legality.)

My standard for what constitutes an appropriate post is arbitrary, hence for me to argue that my standard be made policy would open the door for others to seek to impose their equally arbitrary standard upon me, which I don't want.

You've left out one major point: It is the owners or operators of the forum who have to make the rules, arbitrary or not. In addition, the rule you support is indeed arbitrary, having no more intrinsic merit than my proposed rule banning personal insults. You might be interested to know that Compuserve forums operate under exactly that rule, except of course that there are no anonymous posters there because all forums there are limited to identified persons. Somehow, this has not "stifled" freedom of expression too much.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 11, 2000.


So what, Heller, you want our first born now or what?

-- (yeah@modest.proposal), January 11, 2000.

And if a "named poster" attacks the character, intelligence, or other personal attributes of an "anonymous poster"?

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), January 11, 2000.

You've left out one major point: It is the owners or operators of the forum who have to make the rules, arbitrary or not.

Steve, I acknowledged this in the answer you cited, though I agree that its wording may have made this difficult to infer.

In addition, the rule you support is indeed arbitrary, having no more intrinsic merit than my proposed rule banning personal insults.

I'm not sure what you're saying is arbitrary: the principle of not impinging upon others' freedom of speech, or that spamming violates that principle. If the latter, I'd answer that spamming, by hogging bandwidth, makes it harder for other posters to be heard, hence it's a clear-cut impingment of others' freedom of speech.

I concede that for any rule, one could construct a situation that the rule doesn't address, and to which judgment would have to be applied.

You might be interested to know that Compuserve forums operate under exactly that rule, except of course that there are no anonymous posters there because all forums there are limited to identified persons.

I wasn't saying that a forum shouldn't be allowed to require identification. I was saying that if a forum allows anonymous posters, I believe the same standards should be applied to them as to identified posters.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), January 12, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ