Let it go.
Please.
It's the (why must there be a) Morning After (earworm)
Printable View
Let it go.
Please.
It's the (why must there be a) Morning After (earworm)
This thread is now about the Lambada.
Planning is for accountants and actuaries. I refuse to plan. There's nothing better than a plan to take the fun and spontaneity out of something.Quote:
Originally posted by Liberal
There. Put that in you sig line and post it.
Plans are what people make when they are under the mistaken delusion that they are in control of their world.
That counts as a "plausible circumstance"? The reason it's not plausible is that there's no reason a moderator would want to do that. Even if we imagine that our moderators are acting out of deliberate malice, doing what you describe wouldn't really make sense. Are we now assuming, for the sake of argument, that the moderators have Alzheimer's? In that case, what purpose does inventing a rule to cover one tiny circumstance serve?Quote:
Originally posted by McNutty
The only circumstance in which a moderator would conceivably want to reveal a PM (and let me reiterate that QED didn't) would be because someone sends some crazy Dear Domebo letter via PM (as Oakminster may have done here, although I don't know for certain.) The consequence of that being revealed is some minor embarrassment for the sender -- embarrassment that they brought on themselves. Your scenario above doesn't even make sense -- what, The Flame is going to get a report, she's going to ask the poster why they're upset, the poster explains, and then MWA-HA-HA-HA, . . . uh, what? There's no plausible reason, even if we assume she's malicious, for her to reveal something that is almost certainly not embarrassing. The scenario doesn't make sense, at least not in how you put it forth.
That was my point with "plausible circumstances". Just like eleanorigby's one above, where she PMs a mod to complain about another poster, and the moderator just spontaneously posts it all over the board -- again, why? Again, even if we impute active malice to moderators, the story stops making sense here. The only actual circumstance it comes up is if a moderator gets some crazy, embarrassing screed by some loser who is taking their toys and going home. The thing this rule is trying to prevent is a situation in which one user embarrasses themselves. But, like I said, not in kindergarten, don't need hand-holding.
In any case, it makes a lot more sense to make it clear to users that moderators should and will treat them respectfully, but PMs are not presumed to be secret (just like they are not presumed to be secret anywhere else in the world.) That way, a user will be able to decide what to send for themselves. People shouldn't be relying on the moderator to stop them from embarrassing themselves anyway -- say Winston Smith gets a potentially embarrassing crazy rant from a user named "Caliburn". Caliburn sends a nutty, invective-filled screed so insane that Smith can almost feel the spittle in his face as he reads it. He doesn't share it with the other staff or with the users, because of the rule. But he sends it to one friend. That friend posts it on the snarkboards and it gets repeated and quoted until Caliburn ends up fleeing in shame.
See? In this case, Caliburn's reliance on the rule is actually to his detriment, since the rule isn't going to prevent some moderator from potentially releasing stuff. Sure, the moderator can be disciplined, but the damage is done. So then: not only have we invented a rule whose sole purpose is to protect people from having to take responsibility and not sending crazy, embarrassing rants to moderators (since the usual messages about posts and whatnot wouldn't be interesting enough to bother sharing even if the moderator was malicious.) Not only that, but posters who rely on this rule instead of policing themselves are quite possibly going to face embarrassment. There's been plenty of cases in which private information has made it to the snackpit and been gleefully repeated, and whatever is on there makes its way here pretty quickly.
If a moderator acts maliciously, it can be handled on a case-by-case basis. If a moderator is posting people's PMs and mocking them, they can be fired. It's not necessary to invent a new rule to prevent one of a dozen dozen possible types of malicious behavior if we act under the assumption that moderators should and will treat users respectfully, especially not a rule based on a bad premise (that PMs are "private data", which they aren't anywhere else -- mods potentially may have private data, like email addresses of users who keep theirs hidden, and actual private data should of course be kept that way), a rule that would forbid basic things moderators do (so then in reality they will be violating it at their discretion) and a rule that probably wouldn't even affect the circumstance that inspired it. That's why I think it's a bad idea.
Actually, my initial reaction was outrage too. But then I stopped, and thought, and realized that there's no reason anyone should act as though a message they send to someone else is sacred. It's the same with email. There's certainly no legal expectation that if I send you an email, you'll keep it secret. Or with a regular letter. (At least in the absence of some special circumstance; if it's information that falls under a non-disclosure agreement, that's different.) And, again, it doesn't work that way on other message boards. Shouldn't that, at least, be a clue that this doesn't actually make sense? If the kneejerk reactions of a bunch of posters here were actually representative of reality, why wouldn't this be standard practice everywhere, instead of one nutty, ill-thought rule on one tiny website?Quote:
Originally posted by McNutty
One of the things that, to put it bluntly, makes me smarter than other people is that, after I have an immediate reaction, like "how dare you reveal a poster's personal information?!", I stop and think about it, and try to figure out if my reaction is justified and reasonable, or if instead it doesn't actually make sense. This one doesn't. I couldn't come up with some scenario in which this rule would actually help. Maybe if you try again you will be able to, but the last one didn't.
In this case, the only thing QED 'revealed' was that he was fairly sure Oakminster was gone for good, since people were speculating on that. Even if a poorly thought out rule is invented to require PMs to be kept secret, it certainly wouldn't rule out giving out some basic information about posters. There's been plenty of times on the other board in which a user contacted a moderator to say that, for instance, a member had died, and the mods posted an announcement. So obviously, in many circumstances, we will expect the moderators to reveal things that are sent to them through some private means of communication. This isn't any bigger in scope than those other things. I can't imagine how to formulate this stupid rule in a way that would actually forbid what QED did, not if the rule is going to permit the stuff moderators are inevitably going to do anyway, like posting announcements about users. The incident has been exaggerated (or even mischaracterized) in a lot of the posts in this thread, and people have been proceeding from a poor premise in order to justify the overwrought outrage, but in the end the kneejerk response just doesn't make sense when you actually look at it. The basic idea here (that private information should be kept secret unless there's some compelling reason to reveal it) makes sense. The problem is that the characterization of what QED did as some sort of damning violation of that principle doesn't work, as I think I have pretty clearly shown.
And does this rule apply to emails as well? If I email a moderator, are they also supposed to keep that secret?
Well, Glee, no one else has managed, but maybe you can explain why a handful of people who are deeply, deeply traumatized by this event have the right to apologies and promises that nothing like this will ever happen in the future. Why do a couple people who are unreasonably upset get to ruin it for everyone else? Explain why that makes sense to you.Quote:
Originally posted by Glee
Excalibre, I fail to see any references to the Forbidden Dance in your post. And while you are so well spoken that most everything you write is a pleasure to read, this is all getting rather tl;dr.
Isn't that the...Quote:
Originally posted by Cluricaun
Forbidden Dance?
Show us how!
You show us, Jali.
Come on ladies, feel free to join in.
I'm sorry, it's just so frustrating to me that decisions have to be made so badly. It was exactly how it always happened at the other place; people would be upset about something, in this case the QED deal. And then a consensus just sort of develops, but it's a consensus that doesn't make sense. There's a simplistic emotional appeal here ("It's just outrageous that private information would be released!"), and the fact that this emotional appeal doesn't actually make sense in this particular circumstance doesn't matter, because people find it appealing. It's just frustrating that no matter how many perfectly clear reasons I offer; no one will even try to address them because people here love being part of a warm fuzzy consensus too much.Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
End result: we have a byzantine set of rules inspired by single events, the rules don't make sense (and thus are routinely ignored), and then people complain there are too many rules. It's just too bad -- this is a new messageboard, it's not necessary to proceed in the same dumb way things always happened at the old place.
But Exy, no rules have been made about anything that's happened in the past couple days. April Fool's Day pranks have not been outlawed. As for the PM thing, there is a discussion going on here and the consensus seems to be that it should be a matter of etiquette and not an actual rule.Quote:
Originally posted by Excalibre
People are just expressing their opinions here. Board policy has not changed. It's OK.
I just cleared my post as I saw this on my submit.Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
Myrnalene got it in one. The only rule that has been added is for those on the staff not to reveal when a poster is in stealth mode. I think you'll admit that is a reasonable rule. I don't think we'll have a hard and fast rule on PMs. I don't think we need one. I made the mistake already of trying to pre-regulate on something and I was burnt by it and am now in your (Excalibre's) camp of less rules are better. Having fun should be kept a priority.
I need someone to dance with. (Big Hint)Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
I'm trying to down the requisite amount of alcoholic beverages as quickly as humanly possible in order to reach a state where I can dance with you, jali.
It will of course mean I can only dance for 2 minutes before unconsciousness takes me, but it will be worth it, I'm sure.
I didn't see a discussion elsewhere about PMs but people in this thread seem to be all bound and determined to make it a rule.Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
As for the prank thing, no, no one's made a rule but What Jim?!, being the extraordinarily nice guy he is, has already apologized and said he regrets suggesting anything, which just sucks. I just think it sucks that someone who was trying to do something nice for us all, and gave me and a bunch of other people a pretty fun evening as a result, now regrets it. Great, you've successfully made someone feel bad for doing something fun for us and, I'm guessing, think very carefully before doing it again.
Good work, guys.
Quote:
Originally posted by Excalibre
"I will not be ignored!"
Aight, I've drunk enough. Let's shake it!
/passes out
But that's What Exit?! He's an awesome guy but he would apologize for the desert having too much sand. ;) I wouldn't worry that his response is signaling some new regime of humorlessness.Quote:
Originally posted by Excalibre
Exactly!Quote:
Originally posted by jali
Wut wut I tried for size 300, but I got this message: You may only use fonts up to size 200, so I guess you win.Quote:
Originally posted by Excalibre
Yeah, I tried 300 too! Why doesn't that work? Those jerks.Quote:
Originally posted by jali
I guess someone here might try "to infinity...and beyond".Quote:
Originally posted by Excalibre
Spontaneity is on my list of items about which to inquire. Therefore, I will discuss it at the scheduled time.Quote:
Originally posted by Winston Smith
("Scheduled" should be pronounced in that snooty British way.)
"Fewer"rules.Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
Too soon?
Quote:
Originally posted by Liberal
Pardon me Sir Liberal.
Since it has been established (above) that my signature line does, in fact, exist, your use of my signature line in quotes is unnacceptable without crediting me for using words spaked by Winston Smith earlier in said above.
Not too soon; but why is "fewer rules" better than "less rules"?Quote:
Originally posted by featherlou
Hell, I am just glad you're still posting.
Quote:
Originally posted by jali
Holy SHIT! I've been sig lined!
I'M A FUCKING SUPASTAR BITCHES!!!111!!1 I roolz11!
Those Canadian poseurs say it that way, too.Quote:
Originally posted by Liberal
Quote:
Originally posted by Glee
See, you're doing exactly that again.Quote:
Originally posted by Excalibre
Who has said they are 'deeply deeply traumatised''?
Who has demanded that 'nothing like this will happen again'?
It's certainly more than a couple of people who didn't like the joke or the followup behaviour, yet you state they are ruining it for everyone else.
My point (made by others too) is that pranks can upset some people. What Exit?, who is a classy guy, has apologized in this thread to those that did not like the prank. No worries and the gesture is much appreciated.
Hoever your insistence on calling posters who disagree with you 'ninnies, 'people who freak out', 'emotionally impaired ', 'fragile', 'nutty', 'extraordinarily delicate ', 'there's something wrong with you ', 'melodramatic whining ' and 'oversensitive'.
And you finish with :'This is a great illustration of exactly why all the people who are agonizing over something so trivial need to suck it up. Either it's a desperate ploy for attention, or else it's a sign that you're really screwed up.'
Thank you so much. :x
You make an excellent point.Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
I apologize to the mods and admins; I think was too harsh on you. I understand that your intentions were not to cause problems.
Several people in this very thread have made it very clear that they don't want anything like this to happen again. No, no one has said they are "deeply deeply traumatized", so forgive the hyperbole, but people have definitely claimed they were emotionally wounded by this, and yeah, that's an overreaction. Everyone has their emotional responses to things, and like I said earlier, everyone is over-sensitive to something or other, but it doesn't mean the rest of usQuote:
Originally posted by glee
I have so far seen two people claim to actually be really upset by the joke, Oakminster and Featherlou, and maybe half a dozen people who feel the need to show how much sympathy they have for their pain. It is not a great number of people who were really offended by this.Quote:
It's certainly more than a couple of people who didn't like the joke or the followup behaviour, yet you state they are ruining it for everyone else.
The claim is that this event was so upsetting that it should never have happened, and people are owed an apology for being so upset. Why is it not fair to use those terms? They are not terrible people, but they are overreacting to something really minor.Quote:
Hoever your insistence on calling posters who disagree with you 'ninnies, 'people who freak out', 'emotionally impaired ', 'fragile', 'nutty', 'extraordinarily delicate ', 'there's something wrong with you ', 'melodramatic whining ' and 'oversensitive'.
I'm sorry, I know that the squishy mipsims thing is to validate everyone's feelings, and agree that everyone is always right to feel however they feel, and have a community where no one ever judges anyone ever, and that's fine insofar as it goes. But it's not fine when everyone else suddenly has to change their behavior to accommodate every precious snowflake's personal sensitive spots.
Scroll back up and find Sarahfeena's brief post, she explained it better than me.
I'll have to take a look at that.Quote:
Originally posted by Excalibre
Huh. I think I got more attention when I first used "asshat". :D
I can tell my mileage varies here but I don't think this is an issue at all. It's not "excluded middle", it's just something I don't care about and I kind of think it's counterproductive to worry about it. I can see I'm basically alone here, and that's cool, but I'm still right and you're all still wrong. :)[/quote]Quote:
Excalibre, there is such a thing as "an excluded middle?" You don't have to walk on egg shells, but you don't have to stomp the shit out of them either.
FWIW, I thought the whole thing was pretty amusing. (And the fact that it started a day early I think made it even better-because it made it slightly more believable) BUT, I can see why people were pissed off-if only because of the recent events with the Dope, and that this is a new board, etc. And I don't think that means that they're thinskinned or butthurt or whatever. And I don't think you should be telling them that they're wrong to feel that way. Otherwise, you're no better than the jackasses over at the Dope telling people they're only complaining about the new rules because "you just want to say 'cunt'!"
Well, yeah-that's why they're called PRIVATE messages in the first place. And this isn't the first time Q.E.D.'s pulled rank and waved his dick around, and I doubt it'll be the last. And no, he's not a mod-but he IS board staff. And he should start acting like one. I believe that was one of the complaints that people had about Lynn and Tuba-revealing information they shouldn't have.Quote:
Originally posted by Excalibre
Hey, retard, pay the fuck attention: I did not reveal the contents of any PMs. So, take your me-too snark and shove it up your ass, you annoying cunt.Quote:
Originally posted by Guinastasia
Uh . . .Quote:
Originally posted by Q.E.D.
What?
The fun never stops!
FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOUQuote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
hugz
The success of a prank is directly proportional to the outrage over it. If no one was upset the joke would have been a failure. Six pages into this thread I'd say it's this one was classic.
Jali shall we dance?
Well, I am glad you decided to come back with a different tack because you could have embarrassed those who defended you and said you are not off your hinges.Quote:
Originally posted by Q.E.D.
look it is sapoQuote:
Originally posted by Sapo
sapo have you been in any knife fights lately
sapo how are the snarkboards
sapo are you popular and well loved there yet
The knife fight business has been slow of late. Estoy muy triste.
The snarkboards are fine, but you knew that. Your last post there came after my last.
As for my popularity there, I am afraid that my latest lack of interest on board drama has me off the radar. I guess I need to have less of a life and get back to business.
And notice how I didn't need to put your name on every sentence for you to know I was responding to you.
sapo luchemos con cuchillo
C'mon Papi!Quote:
Originally posted by Glazer
Sweet Christ on a hickory stick! Some of you people need to seriously get a fucking life. THIS IS STILL JUST A FUCKING MESSAGE BOARD!
A bunch of y'all are sounding like whiny little pussies, just like on the Dope.
Get a fucking grip or go join Giraffes MPSIMS board.
Unfuckingbelievable
I agree with klaatu. It's time to let this go.
I agree with BiblioCat. It's time to stop debating and focus on world domination.
I agree with beebs. I'm thinking a blitzkrieg type operation against Southeast Asia to grab the up-and-coming economies and establish a power base.
I'm with Harlequin. Panty raid on the girls' dorm at 0200 hours.
I'm with McNutty. If I'm not back in 6 hours don't send a rescue party.
We'll send beer.