DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

the 'culture' of Libcom

164 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 7 2007 17:05

I meant on this thread

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Jul 7 2007 17:11
John. wrote:
I think the only stuff worth talking about is practical stuff that we can do to make things better.

Yeah I think it is clear that some people have issues, if those people want to suggest improvements or ways they think we can tackle things I am sure we would be interested.

However I maintain that there is a limit to what admins can do. The general culture of a forum such as this (where we try to be as hands off as the net allows) is that it is down to the users to manage their own behaviour. If someone is abusing you on a thread, and you think there is stuff worth discussing aside from that - ignore and it and concentrate on other stuff.

I think catch's proposed 'policy' of simply deleting one-liner crap between people in non-flaming forums is fine.

Discussion on a new introductions forum - http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/introductions-forum

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 7 2007 17:18

I think more people should start concrete discussions about problems at their work, what's going and what people can do about it. Those discussions are always good, and if they were more prevalent they would flood out the other stuff. But most people don't do that.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 7 2007 21:39
John. wrote:
I think more people should start concrete discussions about problems at their work, what's going and what people can do about it. Those discussions are always good, and if they were more prevalent they would flood out the other stuff. But most people don't do that.

Worth repeating.

If we ever get forum access going, I think we should have maybe a registered only forum just for that (so google doesn't get it, but not 'closed').

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jul 7 2007 21:55

could you stop google on a particular url with a robots.txt?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 7 2007 22:20
Joseph K. wrote:
could you stop google on a particular url with a robots.txt?

Joseph, yeah we can, but it'd be multiple urls (and maybe comment permalinks like comment/1234 one day), so it wouldn't be enough. Also some scrapers ignore robots.txt

We should use robots.txt more though.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jul 7 2007 22:45
jef costello wrote:
So surely then it should be returned to Syria?

I'll let someone with more patience and a better knowledge refute your arguments, they'll do it far better.

On this thread
Devrim countered the post first, then MJ chipped in, then Khawaga completely dismantled it. Eyal Rozenburg also added some. There was one insult, which Joseph K. edited out. This is an example of how the boards should work. Instead of having a slanging match which becomes about insults a couple of good posters demolished the arguments. Although Doreen (probably a troll anyway) didn't seem to take any of the criticism on board it was good to see the response.

We are in a position where we need to convince people of our arguments, so that is what we must do.

With regard to introductory though, I agree that there was a poor distinction between the two previously. Secondly I think that it would imply that flaming/insults was allowed in other forums. Thirdly it would require a lot of modding, not sure how much time the mods have or are willing to spend.

Quote:
I rarely post on libcom because of abuse I've received on this and other boards and because only a few, like Devrim and the admins and some others, are principled comrades worthy of being called revolutionaries.

This is an example of an insulting post, but it is unlikely to be removed.

I think insults are not just limited to swearing, the biggest problem for me is dismissiveness. The whole point of discussion forums is for discussion, which require effort and quite frankly if posters can't be bothered to make that effort then they should have the self-discipline not to post.

I think the open insults and flaming have dropped noticeably but there is still and aggressive competitive side that causes problems. It is a question of changing the culture but it is more about individual posters rather than admins having to play super nanny. Some of the complaints here have cited the libcommunity forum, which is, as JK said, to be taken seperately. IT's designed for people to mess about in.

I post a lot less than usual and I think my posts have improved, partly from learning more about politics from other posters and partly because I try to actualy add something to the discussion.

I do sometimes wonder if the news forum is worth keeping, because some of the posts/threads really belong in libcommunity.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jul 7 2007 22:55
Quote:
I think insults are not just limited to swearing, the biggest problem for me is dismissiveness

the you won't like rise's post here any more than i did

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jul 8 2007 02:30
JoeBlack2 wrote:
Dust wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
members of the WSM have said they "only come on libcom to troll"

I am not sure this is true. I think G Stapleton said Gurrier only came on the boards to troll. ...

Maybe i missed a post by an angry Joe Black but even so it would be a "member", not "members".

If so George should probably avoid ascribing motivations to others as his speculations are liable to be seized on and repeated as fact as naseum.

I don't think its a reference to anything I posted. However I certainly don't take libcom seriously in the way I first did . On the other hand when I noticed how I was starting to ape the accepted posting style here I took action and decided not to directly respond to the worst offenders as I noticed that was where my own posts tended to degenerate. I think my only bit of bad behaviour since was playing John. at his own game for illustrative purposes.

Maybe then you'll explain why you accused me of badjacketing?

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 8 2007 04:32

From this other thread, the Kevin K one.

revol68 wrote:
I don't think there can be a simple ban on insults because the line between an argument and insult is totally subjective
revol68 wrote:
policing of 'insults' is simplistic and nearly always gets reduced to some naughty words, terms that get flagged up.
revol68 wrote:
I rant on like [I do on libcom] because it's how i express myself, if other pople have a problem with it, I couldn't really care, i do wonder about people who are suppused to see themselves as revolutionaries getting so upset by some swear words, infact i think it's pathetic.

I for one would support a blanket ban on insults if the admins had the time and energy to enforce it. I think the costs to doing so - in terms of offense etc to people who like to insult - would probably prove no greater than the costs of the current frequent climate on libcom.

Revol also says this

revol68 wrote:
Joe Black calling people big nation nationalists with no explanation and a whole undercurrent of innuendo is more insulting that him calling me a ranting lil prick

and that makes a lot of sense. But if insults were banned stuff like that could be dealt with by simple argument - ask for evidence or argument, then take it apart if it's false or a bad argument. That at least is worth something. No insults would prevent those conversations from degenerating into totally unproductive namecalling. Also, the line between this second kind of insult - smears by applying inaccurate terms or positions - and argument is even more subjective than the line between the kinds of insults Revol is most concerned with protecting. This second kind of insult is best dealt with by insulting. Straight up namecalling should just be deleted.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jul 8 2007 04:39

yeah, i agree with you here nate. i think revol is engaging in rationalizations. a thing that i particularly dislike about the anarchist milieu is this attitude that "I never have to say i'm sorry", that i can do whatever i want. It's completely individualistic.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 8 2007 05:04
syndicalistcat wrote:
a thing that i particularly dislike about the anarchist milieu is this attitude that "I never have to say i'm sorry", that i can do whatever i want. It's completely individualistic.

Totally. I've said a bunch of times that if nothing else my union and organizing experiences has made me a better person than I was. The biggest one is learning to disagree. I'm from the midwest, in my house as a kid there were two way to be - agreeing with a smile or fighting with raised voices. My early political experiences had a similar dynamic. Later movement stuff (in the IWW mostly but not just there) is where I learned to tell the difference between disagreeing and fighting, and that really strong ties are the ones that don't demand constant agreement but can take or even grow from disagreement, even heated disagreement at times.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jul 8 2007 05:07

"Petit bourgeois" is a reference to the small business class. hard to see how a proposal for all means of production to be owned in common by everyone, and dissolving the power of the professional/managerial class hierarchy is "petit bourgeois".

in my organization, WSA, we don't countenance personal attacks and if someone did that it would be grounds for expulsion.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jul 8 2007 15:31
OliverTwister wrote:

Maybe then you'll explain why you accused me of badjacketing?

From memory

You were sort of suggesting rise was a state agent for sort of suggesting that the CRA were state agents.

It was in other words a weak joke made funnier by your failure to spot the contradiction in your argument even after the joke. But as with most weak jokes it doesn't get funnier on explanation so I didn't bother.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 8 2007 20:18

Edit: Comment moved here - http://libcom.org/forums/thought/banning-paid-organizers

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 8 2007 20:38

We don't "recruit".

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 8 2007 21:12

Edit: comment moved here - http://libcom.org/forums/thought/banning-paid-organizers

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Jul 8 2007 21:40
Dust wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
members of the WSM have said they "only come on libcom to troll"

I am not sure this is true. I think G Stapleton said Gurrier only came on the boards to troll. I disagree, Gurrier has no respect for the politics of most of the dominant people on here, and has no problem winding ye up on ocasion, but i think he contributions are mostly serious and even when you consider he rarely posts here it is very rare for him to flame or derail a thread.

Maybe i missed a post by an angry Joe Black but even so it would be a "member", not "members".

Just saw this now. It's quite accurate (dust, u reading my mind punK?)

For the first year or so I made considerable effort to engage constructively. At a certain point I basically abandoned any hope of the place improving. To be precise, once the place became overrun with ultra-leftist comedy outfits I realised that it wasn't just inexperience and a misguided reluctance to impose rules which caused the place to resemble a L4M3rZ SuX phorum, but that the malaise was rooted on a political level - since one defining attribute of ultra-leftism is the love of polemic, political insult and invective.

Since then I pretty much only look for comedy value from the place, whether that means making some ultra-leftist theoretician look foolish, or sniggering while the NEFACers do the same (hats off to them). I'm still entirely sure, however, that any objective observer would find that I'm much more polite and politically constructive than those who argue against me.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 8 2007 21:52

Edit: Comment moved here - http://libcom.org/forums/thought/banning-paid-organizers

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 8 2007 22:37

Edit: Comment moved here - http://libcom.org/forums/thought/banning-paid-organizers

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jul 8 2007 22:41

revol and Nate, I think it's worth bearing in mind that it's a pain in the arse for admins to split threads with the current software.

Anyway, I quite like the idea of a separate subforum within organise for specific workplace issues, which would encourage people to discuss stuff in their own workplace more and keep all the competitiveness and bitching away from useful discussions.

Not too arsed if threads about which page of Capital volume 3 has the bestest mathemagics get derailed or descend into flaming, to be honest.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 8 2007 22:42
Mike Harman wrote:
Quote:
admin - in the interests of keeping this discussion on topic, we'll be deleting, as much as possible, off topic posts and abuse, so start a new thread instead of posting in here if you want to respond in either of those ways.

Catch, Sorry for derailing the thread and for posting after you posted this. You posted it while I was typing. I didn't know the control function for new threads. I can set up the new thread and copy the content to it if you like.

Edit: new thread's here - http://libcom.org/forums/thought/banning-paid-organizers

I haven't copied any content to it yet.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 8 2007 22:45
Nate wrote:

Catch, Sorry for derailing the thread and for posting after you posted this. You posted it while I was typing. I didn't know the control function for new threads. I can set up the new thread and copy the content to it if you like.

Thanks Nate, that'd be lovely.

(ctrl-c is just a keyboard shortcut for copying (and ctrl-v for pasting). I was trying to indicate to revol that starting a new thread takes considerably less time than arguing with me.)

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 8 2007 23:17

Comments moved to this thread - http://libcom.org/forums/thought/banning-paid-organizers. Revol, let's continue there. Moving comments like that is really annoying. Kudos to the admins for the work of doing this stuff, I certainly wouldn't have the patience.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 8 2007 23:21
Nate wrote:
Moving comments like that is really annoying.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 9 2007 14:45
gurrier wrote:
Since then I pretty much only look for comedy value from the place, whether that means making some ultra-leftist theoretician look foolish, or sniggering while the NEFACers do the same (hats off to them).

That's quite funny, because the only person you've ever made look foolish on here is yourself!

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Jul 9 2007 15:22
John. wrote:
gurrier wrote:
Since then I pretty much only look for comedy value from the place, whether that means making some ultra-leftist theoretician look foolish, or sniggering while the NEFACers do the same (hats off to them).

That's quite funny, because the only person you've ever made look foolish on here is yourself!

Ho ho ho. Snappy comeback dude. You really learned me there.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 9 2007 15:34
gurrier wrote:
John. wrote:
gurrier wrote:
Since then I pretty much only look for comedy value from the place, whether that means making some ultra-leftist theoretician look foolish, or sniggering while the NEFACers do the same (hats off to them).

That's quite funny, because the only person you've ever made look foolish on here is yourself!

Ho ho ho. Snappy comeback dude. You really learned me there.

So's your face.

That wasn't a "comeback" gurrier, it was just pointing out your absence of self-perception.

That being the case, that you use the boards to insult people and piss about, should we ban you to improve the culture of the boards?

Should I also take it that by your own definition you are an ultra-leftist?

Quote:
one defining attribute of ultra-leftism is the love of polemic, political insult and invective.
Dust
Offline
Joined: 6-02-06
Jul 9 2007 16:09
Gurrier wrote:
Since then I pretty much only look for comedy value from the place, whether that means making some ultra-leftist theoretician look foolish, or sniggering while the NEFACers do the same (hats off to them).
john wrote:
That being the case, that you use the boards to insult people and piss about, should we ban you to improve the culture of the boards?

Thats not what he said.

Making some ultra lefist look foolish doesn't have to involve insulting people. Often bringing reality into the conversation works just as well.