...then 100% of those people could utilize the "Ignore List" and the campaign would be 100% effective. Problem solved. I know Steve asked this before, and nobody really wanted to talk about it, if I recall correctly, although I could be wrong, but aren't "ignoring" and "banning" redundant? An "ignore" is just like a "ban" for the person who decides to implement it, and it doesn't have any spillover for unwilling or unknowing participants.

Remember, these are just thoughts and observations, you don't have to "teach me a lesson" in your reply.

Oh, and obvious bots like the "ciagaretter" should get the axe, obviously.

Not quite.

Traffic on the board needs to be monitored for legal reasons...(kiddie porn etc.) so not everyone can use ignore...but there' still crap even a moderator shouldn't have to wade through, or is so offensive thet each and every user shouldn't have to look at a goatse or similar in order to discover that it's gross.

Also, some traffic is abusive of system resources...spambots, etc.

Sure, there is obvious stuff, but might that be a slippery slope?

If we use what is accepted by society as acceptable or not, as a yardstick to measure offensiveness, then at one point would a post about people of different races drinking out of the same water fountain have been banned? What about a post about people of the same gender having sexual relations? These are overly-dramatic examples, but, if you see what I mean, isn't offensiveness, at some point, relative, and where do you draw the line? It's a tightrope walk.

Offensiveness (or what's also been described here as "intolerably annoying", if memory serves) is of course a completely subjective judgement. We've been happy with how UT has managed it so far...and he's been doing it for a long time now. I know he's found it to be a tightrope walk at times.

I think UTs even-handedness and reasonable and fair judgement about such things is a key value proposition of The Cellar, and likely the central reason it has survived as long as it has.

So if you're in favor of a completely objective standard (something I consider mythical, but that's just my opinion), you should probably start your own board that implements one...where you can no doubt listen to such objections from others about your own style. Given how many free blogging engines there are, that's fairly easy on the "no-brainer" scale.

Of course then the task becomes attracting eyeballs, which brings us back to that "key value proposition" business again, and one reason attention whores get such rough treatment when they decide exploit the success of The Cellar to implement their own personal "Tragedy of the Commons".

The tragedy of the commons is a phrase used to refer to a class of phenomena that involve a conflict for resources between individual interests and the common good. The term derives originally from a parable published by William Forster Lloyd who was Drummond Professor at Oxford and a Fellow of the Royal Society, in his 1833 book on population. It was then popularized and extended by Garrett Hardin in his 1968 Science essay "The Tragedy of the Commons". See also the related real-world event of the 'Enclosure of the commons', and its attendant social problems, which may have inspired the content of the parable. The opposite situation to a tragedy of the commons is sometimes referred to as a tragedy of the anticommons.

I don't envy his position. That was implied in my post.


I'm not, and that's a huge "if" . . .

Of course it's mythical. Doubting the existence of a objectively measured subjective concept carries more weight than just one person's opinion - such a measurement flies in the face of reason!

. . . back to that huge "if" . . .
Based on any actual statements ever made by me, why would you think I should want to I start my own board? When have I complained about this one?


I was really dealing with this more on a theoretical level. You know, a discussion of ideas, as opposed to a pissing contest.

But I guess you can... ...for whatever flaots your boat.

Some people assume from actions (or posts) of another, that they "know" who they are dealing with.

Question: Does anybody know what the time-window is for making an edit? I just went back in ^^^up there^^^ to correct a spelling error that I missed in the first read-through, and now it looks like I changed my mind about the content, which I didn't.

I don't know, but it still says "flaot".

Damnit! That's what I went in for! But when it got to a "reason for edit" screen I tried to back out, but the "last edited" message showed up anyway. I don't want to be a late-editor.

Theory and ideas arise from experience with the real world, and sooner or later they encounter it again on the output side. Some folks believe there's some sort of separation between what happens online and "the real world". In fact all of what happens online happens in "the real world"; online is a subset of reality, not distinct from it...which makes slogans like "it's only a message board" ring kinda hollow to some ears.

"Flying in the face of reason" isn't exactly a strong argument, since different people reason differently..."reasonable" is no more absolute than "offensive" is. I was trying to allow for the possibilty that your questioning the subjectivity of moderating judgements actually had a purpose beyond seeing your words in print.

And if you don't distinguish between debate and "a pissing contest", then you'll probably be dissatisfied with The Cellar.

pissing contest

1. a dispute that's a matter of one side's claims or bluster against the other's; a word feud; bickering; belly bumping. Contrary to some definitions, women are quite capable of(although usually less inclined to) "hold their own" in a pissing contest, which could morph into a shirt-shredding cat fight

"Meanest" user doesn't have to be a bad thing. It can just mean someone who always wins their fights. This isn't boxing, this is streetfighting, yo.
[/tough]

mmmmmmmm...

belly bumping....

So far, your assumptions about me have been wrong. But, I think you do it on purpose. You know, cherry-picking an arguable interpretation with the express purpose of crafting a vicious reply? You know, what you always do, every time you post? So, I think you know your assumptions are incorrect. You do it on purpose. If you enjoy doing that, then fire away! I'm not being sarcastic, I hope you're enjoying yourself. just don't start to blur the line between what I actually post and the bizarre twists you put on it.