Let's work out some official rules for this forum.

[Buster's Uncle]

Some might even argue that looking after 21 8-11 year olds is even worse.

But BU is right. I pushed the boundary, got snapped and now the issue is dead.

[Buster's Uncle]

Okay, I should probably explain something for those who don't know the history so no one gets the wrong idea - Dale and I totally have one.  We're friends who fall out from time to time, the power relationship used to be reversed, and I made (endless, intense - I was a very useful but very troublesome citizen) problems for him, then. 

[shrugs]  Water under the bridge, folks, and don't make too much of it.  This latest is, too - I'm pleased with him, ATM (or would be if he'd answer in the Rock Run thread)...

[Buster's Uncle]

Like some other policy announcements I've made in this thread, this is something that's sorta always been in my head, but not worked out completely, so only fair if I put it out there in public, so's nobody can claim it's secret rule.

We're a community, and we have a style.

This is all really covered by what I said long ago in Building a Community: act like an adult.

We're nerds, right?  Poor (/weak/no) social skills being one of the defining traits - or else we'd be cool regular people who happen to like gaming and SF, like we'd rather imagine.  But we're nerds in a nerd community, and that means we have to be patient and tolerant with/of each other and make allowances.  Most of us mean well.  Period.

But I have to ask everyone - pay a little attention to the room you're in, to the atmosphere, the general style of the members and posts.  Be different, sure -AC2 is diverse and cherishes diversity as interesting and edumacationable- but try to not make your difference anyone else's problem.  Be well-intentioned and try, and you'll get a lot of rope while I try to work with you.

-Obviously, I've still not gotten this crystalized enough in mah haid and need to at least sleep on it and try to articulate more precisely and clearly in the future.

It's part of a larger policy principal I call Serial Vexatious Poster; if you're managing to annoy enough people enough of the time, the management reserves the right to take action w/o need of other specific rule violation.  You have to be bad overall for the health/happiness community in our opinion, which is a mighty high bar of irritating-ness to hurdle.  Not to worry; I would never resort to this one in any situation where the offender does not know (s)he is in the doghouse far in advance.  It's really not much more than a catchall to help that much with shutting up &^%$#@! rules lawyers.

-So, if you're only sometimes Vexatious, you're in good company, and have nothing to worry about...

[Buster's Uncle]

Okay, I have thought of a better way to put it.  First, a little story for context.

I don't quite remember the sign on the front of a nearby Laundromat that said "Whites Only".  My sister and a friend only two years older say they do.  My mother has told me that when she was a girl, that sort of thing was considered crass and trashy.  -It wasn't because her 'Southern' family wasn't racist back in the 40s and 50s; it was just that they had more class than to approve of rudeness in public to total strangers, or ever engage in it themselves.

-And there it is.

We don't so much insist on politeness, exactly, at AC2, but it's something of a majority habit here, and we DO insist on civility.  This is closely related to the trolling rule, with the difference that expressing your honestly-held opinion can be not any sort of trolling and still be so far outside reason and decency -and tend to offend a vast majority- as to be something I CAN NOT ALLOW.  Some opinions are rude to say in public, no matter how diplomatically expressed, and we don't have a lot of room for rudeness around here.  It's not the atmosphere/tone we've got going, and it's not going to be allowed to change.

Or to put it another way, still using racism as an example: if you are dumb enough to think White Men are under siege, you have cherry-picked your facts, at best, because White Men Rule The World, and you are a racist, whether you acknowledge it to yourself or not.  That doesn't mean I automatically don't like you -I wouldn't have any friends if I rejected people for being wrong- but it does mean you need to keep that particular turd-in-the-punchbowl under your hat at AC2.  -Or not be doing anything at all here.  Period.  No 'but it's true!' (you idjit nerd; truth is only a defense in libel cases in court).  No rules-lawyering.

We cherish diversity.  We do.  And there is no paradox in therefore having a low tolerance for rudeness and/or anti-diverse opinions being expressed.  If you can't get your head straight that it's complicated and there are more truths involved than the ones you cherry-picked, while you're posting here at Alpha Centari 2 ---

Be civil.

[Yitzi]

if you are dumb enough to think White Men are under siege, you have cherry-picked your facts, at best, because White Men Rule The World

Actually, the truth is more complicated than either of those; White Men have a lot of power, but the push to reduce that power is increasing, and while most of that push is just to equalize things, there are extremists within it who want to reverse them (or who paint with an overly broad brush and want to equalize things even in those cases where the people who should have power just so happen in this case to be white men).

[Buster's Uncle]

..This speaks to the issue I was using as an example, not the site policy, but I opened that door in the context I provided, so...

I clicked on a link purporting to relate crime statistics broken down by race recently, and I noticed that the author at the link had failed to account for the obvious truth that black too often = poor, and poor usually = higher crime rates.  Turns out the author has his own page on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website.

Allow me to submit that there's an even larger truth - which you did touch on.  In a free society, there's always going to be people fighting the power -whether for the right reasons or wrong-headed ones- and who holds most of the power?  The Man is usually white, as I already mentioned.  QED, it's The Man under siege, and he happens to be white, not the White Man under siege, and he happens to hold the most power.

It's complicated, all right.

[Green1]

But, you know, ever feel like it is poured down our throat? I read a lot of anarchists stuff which a lot of folks don't see.

When I read the newspaper and someone murders someone, it is always "a black man killed a New Roads black man" or "a white Denham Springs man killed a Hammond Man". To me, I think the whole race of the victim or alleged criminal is irrelevant. It is like saying "A Blue eyed man killed a Brown eyed man". It would seem to me it would not matter. A life was ended.

The conspiracy theorist on me believes someone is pushing this on us. Making people like BLM crew and Stormfront.

Now, I suppose they have freedom of speech, but Morgan Freeman put it nicely. He said something to the order of he was a "man", not a black man and if we would stop bringing it up except as an identifying deal (ie: Look for the red haired white guy in the blue shirt.) and less as an identity (You are purple and you know all purple people have large... err nether regions) we would be much better off.

[Green1]

But, more seriously. I think the guy in that post was more guilty of posting a bad reference to back up his point. Yes, it used DoJ stats, but what they don't realize is while racism and profiling is a problem, the majority of the reason poor folks are in jail is because of the prohibition of pot and other drugs. If you already have a record, how else are you going to afford rent when everyone background checks or drug tests even for the most humiliating of jobs?

It would be like me going off on women, making sweeping generalizations, and using a site like Return of Kings or The Red Pill as my reference that is accepted as legit.

[Buster's Uncle]

But, you know, ever feel like it is poured down our throat? I read a lot of anarchists stuff which a lot of folks don't see.

When I read the newspaper and someone murders someone, it is always "a black man killed a New Roads black man" or "a white Denham Springs man killed a Hammond Man". To me, I think the whole race of the victim or alleged criminal is irrelevant. It is like saying "A Blue eyed man killed a Brown eyed man". It would seem to me it would not matter. A life was ended.

The conspiracy theorist on me believes someone is pushing this on us. Making people like BLM crew and Stormfront.

Now, I suppose they have freedom of speech, but Morgan Freeman put it nicely. He said something to the order of he was a "man", not a black man and if we would stop bringing it up except as an identifying deal (ie: Look for the red haired white guy in the blue shirt.) and less as an identity (You are purple and you know all purple people have large... err nether regions) we would be much better off.

I always worry a little when I see my pal Green has posted in a sensitive conversation - but yes; exactly.

Easy Reader is different from you or I, but mostly due to being a Very Big Star for a long time - and we knew him a lot longer ago as Easy Reader, besides.


-I should add that I'm in a difficult ethical situation - I was recently accused of "liberal bullying" for calling a member on personally unfair behavior that had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with acting like a griefer.  I neither want to be the 'liberal bully' nor do I enjoy being pushed into giving orders.  I don't like not being able to persuade instead.

The simple rule would be "No Racism", and I think that's a line most reasonable people would be very comfortable with - but then you're confronted with just WERE the line should be. -- It gets my back up when someone can't do any better than to make with the Ann Coulter-talk, but I'm throwing a party for EVERYONE, and I'm not about to start disinviting people for being wrong.

Instead, I'm using the don't-poop-in-the-punch standard.  It's regrettably more nebulous, but a courtesy standard is a better, fairer standard.  Stirring people up can be good for a conversation -and the search for truth if it's done right- as Uno would be glad to confirm; taking a dump in the punch ruin the party for everyone (but a few sick freaks).

-So let's take the issues talk back to Rec Commons, unless it speaks directly to the Site Policy.  -And you have my blessing to talk to me about themes in the adjacent thread right here in Council Room.

[Buster's Uncle]

But, more seriously. I think the guy in that post was more guilty of posting a bad reference to back up his point. Yes, it used DoJ stats, but what they don't realize is while racism and profiling is a problem, the majority of the reason poor folks are in jail is because of the prohibition of pot and other drugs. If you already have a record, how else are you going to afford rent when everyone background checks or drug tests even for the most humiliating of jobs?

It would be like me going off on women, making sweeping generalizations, and using a site like Return of Kings or The Red Pill as my reference that is accepted as legit.

AH!  Actual on-topic comment.

No, actually I didn't check the link in question until after I'd laid down the law.  I have a weak stomach for [lip begins to curl and quiver] right-wing ... truth-challenged slander.  The news is full of it for years and years, now, and I come here to be safe from that garbage-talk.

-I've seen people get six months off for less than a bald "Blacks commit more crimes than whites" at the end of a recent string of increasingly offensive posts.  If I've been talking to you for weeks about cooling it with whatever bad trip you're inflicting on the rest of us - it only takes a few feet of rope, but sometimes these problems solve themselves with gentle patience.  We've both failed if I have to start brandishing the hammer.

But I have it, and I know how to use it if you choose to test me enough.

[Green1]

There is a such thing as "liberal bullying". I will give you an example. I am a voting, card carrying member of the Unitarian Universalist church. So liberal, it is a poster boy for liberal. For those unfamiliar, there are no "holy works", only 7 rules you go by. Christians are members, most are pagan or atheist. UU ceased to be a Christian denomination in the 1960s. UU is always up knee deep in any anti homophobe, anti racist, etc movements. Surprisingly, income inequity is not important enough to make that list.

BUT... such a liberal base attracts it's zealots. One SJW managed to get a reverend collar from New Orleans. Of course, she is too divisive to ever get her own congregation. I would not vote for her (we elect our leaders) but her sermons are filled with white privilege, tales of patriarchy, etc. She has to make the circuit as part of her post seminary work for free. The Unitarians may dig it because they love loathing themselves and placing minority groups up on a pedestal, but the more Universalist of us know better. When you give some group "special snowflake powers" just because of a gender, sexual orientation, race, or even handicap you create people who use it as an identity to lean on. Yes, there is injustice and I will work to end it starting with my own home. But, saying you need to be "protected" or have special rights because of the above only leads to perpetuating "victim mentality" and really is not about equality.

That said, if I see hateful folks I will be the first to educate them. But that does not give you a pass to to lay up on it.

Unfortunately, occasionally the liberals are the worst to call me up on it then can work to destroy you socially. That is liberal bullying and a lot of the time it can be for even questioning a tenent of that religion.

[Buster's Uncle]

That the political issue, not the site policy, again...

(I have a Unitarian in the family, and have heard a lot of this.  And yes, God knows liberal bullying is a thing and is hypocritical.)

[Buster's Uncle]

-In fact, to bring it back on topic, I've heard stories about Unitarian congregations facing the exact same dilemma; the point of the gathering is to be tolerant and inclusive, not to be liberal club (though it always ends up being that, too).  -And sometimes Unitarians are faced with someone whose beliefs are rather inimical to the point of the enterprise -believes in something like racism or kiddy sex that infringes on the rights of others- there's never an easy answer.

[Green1]

-In fact, to bring it back on topic, I've heard stories about Unitarian congregations facing the exact same dilemma; the point of the gathering is to be tolerant and inclusive, not to be liberal club (though it always ends up being that, too).  -And sometimes Unitarians are faced with someone whose beliefs are rather inimical to the point of the enterprise -believes in something like racism or kiddy sex that infringes on the rights of others- there's never an easy answer.

Yeah. But sometimes the zealots get actual power.

But, it can be kept to a minimum with Socrates Cafe or UU Branches type rules that keep the BS (somewhat) under control.

- Freedom of Speech. Yes, that guy could do racist accusations. Even at UU (but, no one would probably want coffee or a beer with him). Even at Socrates Cafe. As long as such stuff is not just to troll just to pee folks off and cause the break up of the group. Spam (advertising and only being there to enrich yourself without adding anything) and very disruptive posts (AC2 is a home for neckbeard losers. blah, blah. Come to the cool kids at www.somesite.com/forums. Or causing crap) is NOT freedom of speech.

- NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Positions do not necessarily have to be respected. But attack the position, not the person.

Other than that, anything goes as long as folks arent overwhelming butthurt.

Unless the dude was PMing crap or your poster base was getting po'd or felt deeply offended and hurt. I would have debated him. Heavy handed techniques like that just has them go seethe in some crazy place to commiserate from "oppression" and  become even more staunch because he has proof of "being marginalized". The jokers there will reinforce beliefs. BUT, if shown holes logically, as long at it is not some religion at this point, beliefs can change slowly that way. Do you still hold the same belief as you had in your 20s? You (usually) wont have the same either in your 60s vs 40s.

[Buster's Uncle]

You've got room for growth in the area of organizing your thoughts and smooth transitions.  It makes it hard to respond in full.

We ARE a bunch of neckbeard losers.  So what?

It's tough to put a finger on, because few said much, but I rather pride myself on knowing my people - they're well-educated and they're drama-averse to the point of shyness in Rec Commons.  Faced with a young person expressing brutal opinions in a very simplistic (just plain simple, in fact) and blunt way --- I think it was seriously impacting traffic from some mature members who get that it's a complex world and express themselves in a sophisticated and stylish way.  Is anyone's life so infinite that it's worth making some other dude being wrong on the internet your problem?

In a classy room full of mature adults, the answer is no.  It's a hard lesson for us nerdz, but a bunch of the guys have worked it out for themselves - most of them seem to have earlier than I.

Some kids are cool, bring up the energy in the room, and are worth putting up with when callow enthusiasms get the better of them.  They'll learn, and are rather amusing while they do.  Some aren't going to learn though; I'm just not absolutely sure in this particular case which, but my doubts were increasing, and I was sure the price was getting too high.