My Photo

« Helping African-Americans Join The Ownership Society | Main | What the Military Thinks »

January 26, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200d83470269269e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Banning Rules (or, Watching Sausage Being Made):

Comments

Hey, mac, keep your policy - von and SH can discuss how SS reform will affect your opinion about the banning policy, slart can ... Ok, anyway, just poking fun, no disrespect intended, sorry to hear you won't be participating here at least for now.

Tomsyl: I see I worded my post in a way that could be taken as disparaging our fair hosts here. I was aware of and lurked on this great site ever since it was formed by a bunch of taciturns (seems like I used to see 'slac venting over there on occasion, too) and I certainly didn't mean to brand it as some sort of second fiddle.

Oh, fair enough. I read your post a couple of times and decided that it did convey the impression that you'd a lot rather be hanging out somewhere else - kinda the "I'm only at this party because so-and-so's party doesn't start till midnight" thing. But if that wasn't intended, then I apologise. (It is hard for me to resist a straight line, but I've been trying... Very trying.)

Macallan: However, as I said earlier, any blog that would ban the guy who was instrumental in getting it going in the first place in this way just isn't something I can support

Any organisation that let any one person get away with breaking the rules on a regular basis because of that person's standing is not an organisation I could support. I believe that an organisation (be it a blog, or a company) runs best when everyone has to obey the same basic rules or face the same penalty, whether that's "Don't indulge yourself with ad hominem attacks" or "Don't smoke at your desk".

Or, put another way "Too privileged to need to be polite" isn't an ethos that sits well with me: I prefer the tradition of noblesse oblige, where the more privileged you are, the stronger your obligation to behave well at all times. Precisely because Tacitus is blogfather to Obsidian Wings, my feeling is that he should have taken more stringent care to obey the posting rules, rather than presuming that he could break them and get away with it.

Can someone please point me to the thread in the archives that led to tacitus being banned from here? I don't understand and it sure bothers me.

Tomsyl: This one. It's (I think) a thread of record length for ObWing, but the point at which Tacitus got flame-y is fairly early on.

Thank you Jesurgislac. I'll read it very carefully. I have a great deal of respect for both Edward and tacitus.

I read the portion of the thread that lead to the banning of tacitus and have $0.01 worth of observations:
-the posting rules allow "speculation on personal habits and/or motivations" of politicians, yet apparently that does not apply to writers here.
-Edward was both the target of tacitus's "attack" and the person that decided to ban tacitus. That seems like a conflict of interest to me.
-I am a Bush supporter, and some posters (hi Harley &>) have claimed that colors my view of everything from the war in Iraq to the pronunciation of French pronouns. It never occurred to me that someone could be banned for pointing out my perceived biases.
-I thought Edward had thicker skin.

Like I said, my $0.00 worth.

your opinion devalued itself in the space of 10 or so lines tomsyl. ;-)

I value your opinion, but since this incident we've addressed your second (and IMO most important) observation (conflict of interest) with the new banning rules, which are retroactive. We do work hard to be fair to all here.

Edward was both the target of tacitus's "attack" and the person that decided to ban tacitus. That seems like a conflict of interest to me.

True. OTOH, Sebastian and Von both publicly agreed with Edward. (Their comments are a lot further down, and Sebastian's in particular are very much worth reading.)

For the record, I supported Edward's decision. I didn't post about it, because I didn't want it to seem as though the left was piling on in this thread.

tomsysl, please see liberal japonicus's January 25, 2005 03:01 PM in that thread if you missed it.

Re the first point:

-the posting rules allow "speculation on personal habits and/or motivations" of politicians, yet apparently that does not apply to writers here.

Correct, nor does it apply to any of the commenters. Different set of rules for public figures vs. members of the community.

tomsyl,

The only reason they banned Tacitus is because he's a lesbian!

The only reason they banned Tacitus is because he's a lesbian!

Hitting the namesake so early? ;p

Must be 5:00 somewhere.

Crikey, look at that, it's past 5 here...bartender!

Macallan: The only reason they banned Tacitus is because he's a lesbian!

Then surely they'd have banned me, too? ;-)

Hitting the namesake so early?

I bet you wouldn't say that if I weren't a lesbian.

Jes, but you're a female lesbian.

Great, just because I'm lesbian you're calling me Shirley.

Sheesh.

Rilkefan: Jes, but you're a female lesbian.

I'm not prejudiced! I'm sure Macallan and Tacitus both own the "Nobody Knows I'm a Lesbian" t-shirts. ;-)

The only reason they banned Tacitus is because he's a lesbian!

I thought Tacitus didn't believe in special rights for lesbians.

Jesurgislac is British?

And being banned from ObWi is a right?

Harley is a thespian too and no one banned him. Yet. Bartendress!

I know all this happened over a year ago, but I've only just evolved to this site (from reclusive leftist via Punkass blog). Does failure to understand the banning rules constitute a banning offence? and surely you must have to do very bad things to get banned when unfettered discussion of harry potter goes unpunished.

Wanna get a Typekey or Typepad account, just so's I can get banned.
Love your work! Hate your rules.
Rock on!

I wasn't cruising the Web much in 2005, so I'm really hoping you don't ban for lateness, but here goes anyway.
Since there appears to be no requirement for commenters (or authors) to use their real names, what difference does it make? If you were to ban me, and I did not want to be, what would keep me from employing another user name and e-mail? In my opinion, if you are going to speak (or write) in a public forum, then you should stand behind your words. It takes no courage or conviction to say a thing when you hide under a user name. If you are too scared to use your real name, why are you even in public? Shouldn’t you be at home cowering under the bed?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast