»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The Open Forum
| The Alley |
|
The Open Forum |
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
This thread in the Open forum refers: /pip/Forum106/HTML/002852.html#1 After a good deal of discussion about the poem, the message of the poem and the various beliefs of the poet and the responders, both Stephen and I suggested to the other main responder (Vestibular Bard) that the thread might more appropriately be continued elsewhere, i.e. The Alley or Philosophy. Balladeer then intervened with this: quote: As a matter of fact Balladeer I do not know better. Let's examine what you say here about the Open forum: 1 You suggest that "banter" such as displayed in the thread is not welcome in Open. 2 You suggest that in Open you don't have freedom to express whatever thoughts you like. 3 You suggest that Open is for posting poetry and commenting only on the poetry itself not the poet or his/her beliefs. Firstly, I have no idea where these specific rules about Open are. Perhaps you could direct me to the correct place. I have so far assumed that Open is what it says it is: "Open" i.e. within the overriding rules of PiP, open for anything connected with poetry. The actual headline for the forum reads: "For sharing and enjoying all of the many beauties and wisdoms of poetry". How does that exclude discussions about the poem, discussions about the underlying beliefs and thoughts of the poet, expressions of thought about the poem and matters arising from the poem? Secondly, how you think you can credibly suggest that Open is simply about commenting on the poem I have no idea. Practically every thread in Open is crammed full of messages of support for poets, references to the poet's character, the drawing of parallels with experiences in the responders' lives, personal good wishes to the poet, chat, nostalgia, anecdotes etc, all often relating to the poet or his/her personality and not the poem. In fact actual comments on the poem as a poem without reference to the poet or the responder are not the norm. Thirdly, could you please explain why in Open we do not have the freedom to express any thoughts we like, within the rules of PiP of course? More generally, when I agreed with Stephen that the thread should be continued elsewhere, it was not with any thought that we were doing something "wrong" by posting in Open, as you appear to now suggest. Rather it was simply because I thought such a long and increasingly complex discussion might receive a better and more thoughtful response in the Alley or Philosophy. On reflection, and given that several responders in Open seem to have enjoyed reading the exchanges, I think that that attitude is unduly patronising to Open posters. I suspect that there are posters in Open who don't frequent the discussion forums who might welcome the occasional more demanding thread, and to suggest as you do, that it is inappropriate to have discussions of this sort in Open seems wrong. Obviously this is Stephen's poem and to that extent "his" thread, and he may have been uncomfortable with that sort of exchange in that location, but that does not detract from the more general query which is whether you, Balladeer, were right to say that such discussions are not welcome in Open. Finally, lest you get diverted by an irrelevance, I acknowledge, re-reading some of the responses in the cold light of day, that some of the comments were close to, or even over, the boundaries of the main PiP rules as to personal attacks. But these instances were few, could have been edited out, and, again, do not detract from the main question, which is: on what basis do you maintain your contention that discussions such as this should not be in Open? [This message has been edited by moonbeam (12-17-2008 03:54 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2008 moonbeam - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obviously, moonbeam, you felt slighted by my "you should know better" comment. I suppose I was wrong in believing that. I overestimate a lot sometimes. Unfortunately, today is not a day that I have as much time for bantering as you have, with it being a 12 hour workday which begins as soon as I finish this response. Sometimes the actual world carries a bit more importance than the tempests in teapots that get brewn here with regularity. I shall return, however, and give you the explanations that most people wouldn't need...but then most people aren't that fond of nits  You will have ample opportunity to complain when I return....promise.  |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
If I Was Nice - by The Vestibular Bard If I was nice, then I would be, Less sarcastic, and more happy. I would smile, and be like Jesus, And other Christians wouldn’t tease us. If I was nice, I wouldn’t ream, A kind and thoughtful, clear moonbeam. I’d live in Georgia, near the shore, I wouldn’t be a poet bore. If I was nice, I’d go to church, And everywhere, for Truth I’d search. I’d bow my head, and get in line And drink the blood, that’s really wine. If I was nice, I’d be god’s gift, With other people, I’d be less miffed. I’d drive a Prius, not a Bimmer, Less a cynic, and more a dreamer. If I was nice, then when I died, I’d be in heaven, instead of fried, I’d be immortal, without care, With my self righteous underwear. But I’m not nice, I know it’s true… It seems there’s nothing I can do. So please forgive these things I say, It seems your gods, made me this way. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Mike, not so much slighted as initially mildly irritated, rapidly followed by genuine bemusement. Mild irritation alone would not have caused me to spend a while this morning trying to work out where you were coming from, and to start this thread. I understand you are busy, and it's kind of you to let me know. Whenever you have time will be fine. Ahh, VB welcome to the Alley. Now then, let's see. I was about to start the next sentence: "It's really cool to use poetry ..." or maybe "I really like the way you use poetry ...". But ~sigh~, I have been chastised oft times and enough for my use of the sarcastic bard, oops I mean barb, hereabouts so I'll simply say that I don't see how your poem contributes to this thread or is relevant to it, aside from the fact that I started it and you are using poetry to have a little dig at me and my immortal invisible only wise God (monotheist), which, I am sure it will amuse and gratify you to know, is another of my pet hates; miserable fallible sinner that I am. Anyway tis good to see that you didn't stick to your promise not to respond to me any more - even couched in off the cuff verse your reactions provide an enlivening sparkle to these blue blue pages. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Thank-you...it's good to be here....sniff...sniff...is that urine I smell?!? quote: How about, "I simply adore the way you use poetry to sardonically mock cherished traditions....can I please have your baby?..." ...just trying to help... quote: Really?!? quote: So it turns out that you DO know afterall...I thought so... quote: Thankfully, being an un-saved heathen, with no rational basis for my own morality, the last thing I have to worry about is keeping promises I make to fetching and 'dear' moonbeams. It's the 50 billion dollar investment scams I run at work, that keep me up at night.... Here's a couple of favorite quotes I'll share with you. 'Always laugh at yourself first, that way no one will beat you to it' 'If you don't learn to laugh at your problems, you'll have nothing to laugh at once you are old' I'm glad we're friends again, I like you. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Mwahhh ditto you lovely modest man you  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Firstly, I have no idea where these specific rules about Open are. Perhaps you could direct me to the correct place I'd be happy to, moonbeam. The rules ares listed in the Passion's Respect and Tolerance and the Guidelines, both found in the member's area. I must assume you haven't read them, since you are asking where they are. I will use bold text to quote from them in this reply. The Open Forum is designed for people to post their poetry and receive feedback or critiques. Can someone disagree with the poem? Of course.. Obviously, you're not going to agree with everything you find written at Passions. We consider that a good thing. How you express your disagreement, however, can too easily become a bad thing. Arguing against a concept or idea, even vehemently, is a good thing. Attacking the supporters of that concept or idea is a bad thing (even if the attack is subtle and indirect). Asking others to listen to your viewpoints and consider your arguments is a good thing. Refusing to listen to the viewpoints and arguments of others, simply because they contradict your own beliefs, is a bad thing. Conveying positive emotions (this is what X does for me) is a good thing. Conveying negative emotions can also be a good thing, but all too often becomes a bad thing (I hate Y). What that says in plain English is that you may disagree with the topic but you may not do it in an insulting manner. You may disagree with comments but you may not respond in an insulting manner even if the attack is subtle and indirect. In other words, if a poster says that God is great and a responder replies with "Anyone who thinks God is great is a fool", that is calling the poster a fool, even when the commenter says "I didn't call HIM a fool." In the thread in question, there was rudeness exibited, negative emotions conveyed and was magnified by further replies. Nor was there any indication it was going to stop. That alone was enough to warrant a move to a discussion forum at best, or deletion at worst. If you simply call someone's words stupid, by inference you are calling them stupid and turning it into a personal attack. Attaching derogatory labels, even to a concept, will often result in exactly the kind of behavior we are trying to discourage. Derrogatory labels to a concept were used. We do, however, try very hard to keep our poetry/prose forums separate from our Discussion forums Now, moonbeam, your complaints about me are what? 1" You suggest that "banter" such as displayed in the thread is not welcome in Open." Yes, that is true, the banter consisting of insults, rudeness and personal challenge. 2 "2 You suggest that in Open you don't have freedom to express whatever thoughts you like." Yes, that is true. If the thoughts you want to express are direct or indirect attacks against a poster, you do not have that right. 3 "You suggest that Open is for posting poetry and commenting only on the poetry itself not the poet or his/her beliefs." Again it's the same thing. When the comments toward a poet or his beliefs begin conveying negative emotions, they are against guidelines and unwelcome. In the thread in question, there were tickets issued that the thread was inappropriate for Open. Stephanos declared the this open debate would be better placed elsewhere. You agreed that it should be placed elsewhere. Vestibular Bard thanked me for pointing out the different forums that we have. You acknowledge that some of the comments were close to, or over the line, of the boundaires of the guidelines......and ,despite all of that, you come here to post a thread with the misleading and nonsensical title of "The Open Forum is Closed." I don't know what cause you are trying to champion or what point you are trying to make. The Open forum is alive and well and trying to stir a hornet's nest to suggest not makes little sense....unless the goal is simply trying to stir a hornet's nest. Essorant's comment was right on.. If you may keep it respectful, I certainly would encourage it and discourage anyone from discouraging it. Write poetry, read it, and share your minds alongside it. I don't think there is any need to discourage any conversation that takes place alongside the poetry as long as it is done without "clawing" each other to shreds, of course The thread in question had passed the respectful point and was on the road to clawing. You have a talent for injecting a bit of sarcasm and personal innuendos in your comment, Vestibular appears to be fairly well-equipped along those lines as well, and even I skip along that pathway quite often....but you'll never see it from me in Open. That is not the place for it and, as the moderator there, if I see a situation that could result in a problem, I will step in with suggestions to diffuse it. Stephanos had no problem with that. Neither did Vestibular Bard. You decided to call me on it here. No problem. Should the same type of situation occur in the future in some other post, my actions will be the same.....and that doesn't mean the Open Forum is closed. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: None. I didn't make any complaints about you, even when you were arguably slightly inflammatory in your choice of language. You told me I should know better, and so I queried what you meant. Not in Open but in the Alley as you suggested, with a title which seems to have riled you and was meant to catch attention, but which actually continued in the first line of my post to read: "The Open Forum is Closed to extended discussion (apparently)". I've now edited it to what I hope might upset you less. And I thank you for taking the time to reply comprehensively, I know you are busy, and I appreciate it. You refer me though to the general PiP rules, and the remainder of your reply essentially makes the point (which I had already acknowledged) that the exchange in the thread was near to or possibly over the "line" set by the tolerance and respect rule. Had you simply said that in your response in the Stephen's thread, then this thread would never have started. But you didn't. You implied, no wait, you actually stated overtly that the sort of "banter" that was taking place, though not allowable in Open would be "welcome" in the Alley. You then went on to imply that one has more freedom to express thoughts in the Alley than in Open, and that in Open, only comments on the poem itself are allowable. Those statements genuinely puzzled me because they suggested that you were applying a "rule" that was peculiar to Open and that would not apply elsewhere. I see now that what you meant to say was simply that the general rule on PiP tolerance was in danger of being breached and that in fact it would be as unwelcome elsewhere as in Open. In other words, what you call the banter and the extended nature of the thread would have been quite acceptable in Open had the tolerance rule not been challenged. I need to be clear about that as there is occasionally some good poetry in Open to critique and discuss. Finally I think perhaps you need to give some thought to consistency. In the thread entitled "I Wish I was Dead" by Lobsang /pip/Forum106/HTML/002533.html a few days ago, you allowed 4 pages of what you call "banter": negativity, name calling and general provocative nonsense. The irony is that it was me who eventually suggested that the thread be closed, and you responded to my suggestion that "A passing mod might like to consider locking" by not exactly pouring oil on troubled waters, when you said: "No, a passing mod might just smile at all of the responders having their buttons pushed so easily. My congrats to the author......" Was that congratulations to someone for stirring up a hornets nest Balladeer?  What was it you just accused me of?: "... trying to stir a hornet's nest to suggest not makes little sense....unless the goal is simply trying to stir a hornet's nest." Anyway again, I do thank you for clarifying this, and, as I say, the time you spent on it at a busy time of year. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, thoughts to consistency would be good. Actually we do try to do that, not always easy when a few mods are policing hundreds of entries per day. But we try. The thread you refer to has differences with the current one. In it the author of the poem was basically trying to pull people's chains to get reactions out of them. The responses in that one were actually trying to help the author. He wrote about wishing for death and the kind souls, of which we have many, tried to dissuade him and give him support. There was actually no name-calling or sarcasm going on. As the thread progressed, it was obvious that the author was not interested in advice, having his mind changed, or anything else except to keep jerking chains. One (I, for example) would think that the responders would be smart enough to recognize the leg-pulling and just let it die. They didn't and, when I realized they were not going to, the thread was closed. The author said it best... No . I am not the one that pushed MY beliefs. I wrote a poem about needing to die and OTHERS began to insert THEIR beliefs. I KNOW what I need. So it was not ME that opened the door. You have. I did not ask for people to try and debate or convince me that I was wrong. Remember you opened the door. Not me. At any rate, I feel that I do owe you an apology for my comment about you should know better. As I reread it, it sounds like I was talking down to you. Actually that was not my intent. I was simply try to differentiate between someone who has been here awhile mixing it up with someone new. You have had years seeing how Open and the site operates while he wasn't even aware of the forums we had. The way it came out, however, was like a teacher admonishing a student or something like that and I offer my apology for presenting it that way. We are all just people here, all equals, regardless of education, financial situations, job status, beliefs or nationalities. Moderators are just members who have agreed to volunteer their time to keep the site running smoothly whenever situations arise. They are no more important than anyone else and no moderator has the right to "talk down" to anyone in a condescending manner. ( I put "PIP Moderator on my credit application at the bank and it didn't impress them at all! ) have a good evening  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Mike Thanks very much for addressing this again. The consistency thing I should understand by now, god knows Ron has pointed out the infallibility of moderators often enough to me. But I keep forgetting - can you blame me? you are all sooo Greek God . Seriously though, you are of course right, and I appreciate the difficulties of moderating, and the time constraints. Also, it's terribly easy to evaluate with hindsight, but because you make a couple of interesting points about the Lobsang thread I thought I'd just spend a bit more time re-reading it to see if I was misremembering. Firstly, I agree with you that that thread was different to the current one. I think the main difference though was that it contained very little attempt to have a reasoned discussion with the author or respondents. Secondly you for one recognised that the author was just pulling chains and a lot of kind people were trying their best to help. That seemed to me, from quite an early stage of the thread to be an accident waiting to happen. For a start it breached the "rules" of Open. Open is there as you say for people to post poems and receive feedback - not for someone to deliberately try to upset kind and well-intentioned people. And, "even" (some would say "especially") well-intentioned people tend to get extremely upset when they find they are being made to look like mugs. Thirdly, I am not sure we are reading the same thread! You say there is no sarcasm?! It's riddled with sarcasm, not to mention several instances where the tolerance rule was near to being breached imo. Fourthly, you say the author said it "best": "No . I am not the one that pushed MY beliefs. I wrote a poem about needing to die and OTHERS began to insert THEIR beliefs. I KNOW what I need. So it was not ME that opened the door. You have. I did not ask for people to try and debate or convince me that I was wrong. Remember you opened the door. Not me." Humm, apart from the fact that we both know that he set a trap, waiting for people to fall into it, and to that extent this comment of his was at best cynically disingenuous, you have yourself pointed out that Open is populated by compassionate caring people trying to help, and I simply thought that leaving the thread open for that long was risking an outcome of very hurt feelings to an established PiP member all for the sake of allowing a trouble maker to ply his trade. Anyway I am not trying to start an argument Mike, simply, I suppose, trying to learn from situations - and be my usual interfering self of course . You are quite right about having the benefit of years seeing how the site operates, and I am forever reviewing my responses to try and see where I went wrong - and, yes, I acknowledge I still DO get it wrong all the time. Witness CA yesterday ~sigh~. And if I had to choose a school master it would be you! That, or else Neptune to Ron's Zeus and Sunshine's Aphrodite (Now, there HAS to be a poem there) . |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
