FIBS Board backgammon forum

Quote from: inim on July 03, 2008, 04:32:00 PM
But none of the above suggestions is of any interest to Don, because he is in it for the flaming part and to cause trouble. And this for a decade now. Patti is definitely blessed with the patience of an angel, isn't she?

Gee, as someone "in it for the flaming part" I hesitate to point out the 4 flames from inim on this thread before I responded to him (in part by quoting just one of his flames in shouts on FIBS after he admitted he was wrong in doing so).

--
don

I think that if we changed all shouts from English to German, we would eliminate lots of the flaming problems, and Cassandra could participate more fully, as well.

e.g.

donzaemon shouts: STFU
Joe_Tamargo shouts: Das ist kryptisch.
Anthony_J shouts: ja
vegasvic shouts: Ich würde niemals mein Vertrauen Bälle zu einem butch
donzaemon shouts:  es bedeutet, er kann nicht schreien
papillon shouts: so viel besser ohne seine blathering? aber Sie werden nicht alle shut up über ihn selbst
papillon shouts: Sie nicht sehen, wie lächerlich das ist über ihn selbst
Anthony_J shouts: nein...

It wouldn't take long for us all to learn the language, (especially anthony_j, who is a man of few words, apparently) and we'd all be better off for it. vic's german spelling has got to be at least as good as his english is already.

Quote from: inim on July 03, 2008, 04:32:00 PM
Patti is definitely blessed with the patience of an angel, isn't she?

How do you know that angels have that much patience? Did you actually ever meet one?

> definition: anything which is not illegal or bothers Patti.
ok. i can live with this...
ty inim,
ty @ll

special thanks to lewscannon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria

don and lambda_phage just got what they were asking for.

My most important rules of behaviour for any place in the world.

Do not ask for something you do not want.
Do not ask for trouble if you do not really want it.
Do not go to a chinese restaurant if you do not like chinese food.
Do not play a gBOT if you do not like them. They can happily live without you.

don and lambda_phage are not in prison, they are free to go to any IRC-server and create a #FIBSrants channel there.
don and lambda_phage are also free to build  their own backgammon-server and abuse it as a whine-server.

Quote from: lewscannon on July 03, 2008, 06:37:01 PM
I think that if we changed all shouts from English to German, we would eliminate lots of the flaming problems, and Cassandra could participate more fully, as well.

e.g.

donzaemon shouts: STFU
Joe_Tamargo shouts: Das ist kryptisch.
Anthony_J shouts: ja
vegasvic shouts: Ich würde niemals mein Vertrauen Bälle zu einem butch
donzaemon shouts:  es bedeutet, er kann nicht schreien
papillon shouts: so viel besser ohne seine blathering? aber Sie werden nicht alle shut up über ihn selbst
papillon shouts: Sie nicht sehen, wie lächerlich das ist über ihn selbst
Anthony_J shouts: nein...

It wouldn't take long for us all to learn the language, (especially anthony_j, who is a man of few words, apparently) and we'd all be better off for it. vic's german spelling has got to be at least as good as his english is already.

LOL...u crack me up, lews 

lews ist definitiv der wahre Vater von FIBS Philosophie und der gesunde Menschenverstand!

--
Herr don

Honestly, I'm bored with this thread. 

Can we talk about me?

Mookie, for whom you may vouch AFTER playing.

WITHOUT ANY COMMENT

Patti: Stop it please.
You: stop what?!
Patti: "free don".
You: FREE DON!
Patti: The reason don's not allowed to shout is so the controversy dies
down. Please stop
feeding it.
You: i dont feed anything.
Patti: You are
You: no i dont. only in your imagination.
You: do what ever you think you have to do.
You: its my protest.
Patti: And I'mt elling you clearly to stop.
You: free talking for free people on a free server.
Patti: It's a benevolent dictatorship.
Patti: There. Problem solved.
You: pardon? what do you mean?
You: problem solved?
Patti: I mean that if you won't do what I ask you, I'll help you out.

You: is this a ban?
Patti: You're not banned from FIBS.
You: but from shouts?
Patti: So long as you want to continue feeding the don controversy, yes.
You: lets try to shout....
You: ok i see...
You: ** Patti is waiting for you to log in.
Patti: I asked nicely first.
You: ** shouting has been disabled for you by the sysop.
You: its ok. you dont have to explain any more. i said it before. do what
ever you think you
have to do.
You: i am very sad now.
Patti: Please consider that you had complete control over the situation.
You: no thats not true. YOU HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL!
You: like big brother......
You: THATS REAL CENSORSHIP
Patti: I asked you nicely not to keep shouting what you were shouting. You
could have
chosen to do so.
Patti: Nope, not censorship. Free speech does not require me to allow you to
stand in my
living room doing it.
You: IF I ASK YOU NICELY TO ENABLE SHOUT YOU WONT DO THAT. so what kind
of argument is that?
You: your living room.
Patti: As we speak, you are using a server that is IN MY HOME.
You: a i see. your live is fibs and fibs is your live.
Patti: Nope, not hardly. However, I do what I feel that I need to do in
order to maintain FIBS.
You were a disruptive influence. I asked you to stop, and you failed to do
so.
You: and THIS host is in MY home. so what?
Patti: I'm not using your computer. However, you're using mine.
You: disruptive influence. hmmmm.....
You: YOU ARE USING MY COMPUTER!
You: otherwise we couldnt communicate.
Patti: No, you are using your computer to talk to my computer. I am using
another of my
computers to talk to my computer.
Patti: I am not logged into your computer. However, you *are* logged into
mine. You are
a guest at FIBS.
You: thats technical NOT correct.
Patti: How so?
You: just think over.
You: its like a phonecall isnt it?
Patti: Perhaps. However, in this case FIBS is the phone company and you are
a customer
of the phone company.
You: but dream your dream. good luck for it.
You: you dont want to understand it.
You: maybe you should better ban me COMPLETE from here?!
Patti: We both conenct to the phone company and the phone company makes
internal
connections so that we can talk.
Patti: I have no desire to do that.
You: Thank you for talking to me.
Patti: You are, however, free to choose not to log in shoudl you desire to
do so.

Patti: Look, I'm sorry if you don't like my ruling, but I asked you nicely to stop shouting about
don.
You: you dont have to explain yourself.
You: lets see what will happen next.
Patti: What will happen next is easy: your shouts will stay blocked until you convince me
that you're not going to continue being disruptive.
Patti: It had nothing to do with your agreeing or disagreeing with me, but rather that your
persistent and frequent shouts about a topic I'd rather see die down were disruptive.
You: why are you still talking to me? in your eyes i am a dumb person who cannot understand
what it is all about.
Patti: The whole reason don's shouts are blocked is that I'm trying to keep *him* from feeding
the fire. Your doing it was only making matters worse.
Patti: Interesting bit of projection there. I wouldn't have said that.
You: you wouldnt say but think it.
Patti: Not at all.
You: Good night. My bed is waiting. My best ideas were born in my dreams.

Sigh.  I'm on vacation this weekend, but since I just got nagged about this I'll make a statement.

The Don situation has been a persistent disruption on FIBS for many years.  There are two sides to the battle, and both sides are clearly in the wrong-- they nag, harass, abuse, and do all sorts of unpleasant things to each other.

I have clearly explained to Don in the past that it is not his duty to police behavior on FIBS, and that he should ignore any speech that he doesn't like.  He seems unable to understand this, and insists on harassing people both publicly and privately.  He then insists that he's the innocent victim.

On the other side we have some equally obnoxious assholes who harass Don in a variety of ways, both publicly and privately.  So after I repeatedly told Don to stop poking the bears, I took action and disabled his shouts.  This shall remain in effect until he understands what I'm asking him not to do.

My sincere hope is that I can make both sides back off, since I'm really bloody tired of dealing with this over and over and over.  To this end, I really want people to stop feeding the fire by shouting about it.  lambda_phage was shouting abut it repeatedly.  I asked her (?) nicely to stop.  When that didn't work, I asked more strongly.  When *that* didn't work, I disabled shouts.  All it would take to get them back is, "OK, I understand how I was causing problems and I won't do it again."


Honestly, you have no idea how many hours of my life I have spent on this particular mess, but it is far more than it deserves.  At this point I am not inclined to look favorably on anyone who contributes to it in any way, and I may well be quick on the trigger when it happens.  Frankly, I'm not going to apologize for that.  The whole thing is childish and annoying, and makes my life far less pleasant.   I no longer have patience for anyone who continues to contribute to it after I ask them to stop.

I fully agree with you Patti, whenever is this going to end?

There is one question i would like to ask you though: the Kindergarden gang as i have called them over the years always seems to be involved in  this particular incidents with Don (or almost any other incident/post about rudeness). When are you taking a stand against them? It seems to me that (as you stated yourself) where two parties are fighting, two are to blame. Yet your actions seem aonly aim at Don. To be honest: i was bothered by other players ten times more then i ever was bothered by Don. Although Don can be a pain in the neck, i think he also adds a lot of extra and even positive stuff to the community which i can't say for some other members.

Another question that has been asked but never answered: Why in gods name is that message about racists and facsist up there in the first place if it isn't going to be enforced? This doesn't endorse you as an sysop/admin since it implicated that rules are not to be followed on FIBS, so why should any sysop directions should be followed?
In my opinion: if you are going to hyave this rule up there: enforce it, or get rid of it.

Quote from: webrunner on July 05, 2008, 07:45:04 AM

Another question that has been asked but never answered: Why in gods name is that message about racists and facsist up there in the first place if it isn't going to be enforced?

Give a working definition of "racist", fascist" and "rude", please. If all fibsters would give their list of the top 10 offenders, not 2 lists would be identical. So what exactly you want to see enforced, a FIBS ostracism? How would that work?

We got a fracking unbiased and liberal admin, and should praise the internet gods for that in the age of censorship. As Rosa Luxemburg put it, "freedom always means the freedom of those with an opinion opposing your own.".

Quote from: webrunner on July 05, 2008, 07:45:04 AM
This doesn't endorse you as an sysop/admin since it implicated that rules are not to be followed on FIBS, so why should any sysop directions should be followed?
In my opinion: if you are going to hyave this rule up there: enforce it, or get rid of it.

I don't care whether the message remains, or goes away. Nevertheless, it encourages people to cite it, while susbtituting "racist", "fascist" and "rude" with their private definition. So removing it would be pragmatic, but surely a loss. As per my private definition, we got a few people with racist and fascist ideas on FIBS, and surely some more with poor taste. But none of them to a degree that required action. Thus IMO, the message IS sufficiently well enforced.

Andreas put that message in there many years ago.  I don't feel that I have the right to remove it.

At a practical level, policing language on FIBS just isn't going to happen-- it would require far more work than I am willing to put into it.  That's independent of whether I think it's a good idea to do so, a question I don't feel like addressing right now.  Posting a "you're not welcome" sign at logon at least establishes what code of behavior is expected, even if there is no effective way to police it.

I am, however, willing to take action in cases of egregious harassment and personal abuse.  Both sides in this particular battle have crossed the line in myriad ways, and both sides are going to stop.  Much of what I do happens behind the scenes, away from public view.  I'm sick of it, though, and I'm willing to take drastic action to get it to stop.  The perpetrators can chill, or they can find themselves locked out of FIBS.

Quote from: inim on July 05, 2008, 08:56:57 AM
Give a working definition of "racist", fascist"

FASHISM IS NOT AN OPINION - ITS A CRIME!

offtopic???
ok i opened another thread
http://www.fibsboard.com/general-chit-chat/fashism-no-opinion-but-a-crime-t1981.0.html;msg15122

Quote from: Patti on July 04, 2008, 11:48:05 PM
Sigh.  I'm on vacation this weekend, but since I just got nagged about this I'll make a statement.

The Don situation has been a persistent disruption on FIBS for many years.  There are two sides to the battle, and both sides are clearly in the wrong-- they nag, harass, abuse, and do all sorts of unpleasant things to each other.

I have clearly explained to Don in the past that it is not his duty to police behavior on FIBS, and that he should ignore any speech that he doesn't like.  He seems unable to understand this, and insists on harassing people both publicly and privately.  He then insists that he's the innocent victim.

On the other side we have some equally obnoxious #######s who harass Don in a variety of ways, both publicly and privately.  So after I repeatedly told Don to stop poking the bears, I took action and disabled his shouts.  This shall remain in effect until he understands what I'm asking him not to do.

My sincere hope is that I can make both sides back off, since I'm really bloody tired of dealing with this over and over and over.  To this end, I really want people to stop feeding the fire by shouting about it.  lambda_phage was shouting abut it repeatedly.  I asked her (?) nicely to stop.  When that didn't work, I asked more strongly.  When *that* didn't work, I disabled shouts.  All it would take to get them back is, "OK, I understand how I was causing problems and I won't do it again."


Honestly, you have no idea how many hours of my life I have spent on this particular mess, but it is far more than it deserves.  At this point I am not inclined to look favorably on anyone who contributes to it in any way, and I may well be quick on the trigger when it happens.  Frankly, I'm not going to apologize for that.  The whole thing is childish and annoying, and makes my life far less pleasant.   I no longer have patience for anyone who continues to contribute to it after I ask them to stop.

Frankly speaking, I think few people would devote so much of their valuable time and energy for a free, non-paid server like what have been you doing for years now, Patti. Thus, I think nobody can object your authentic authority on the way you handle the issues. That's for granted.

Secondly, as you definitly know, I was initially in favor of enforcing the FIBS behavioural codes, implied in the FIBS header, but now, I think that enforcing such an idea would have much more downsides and it's much better to have a totally free-speech community. Yes, this is FIBS, take it or leave it.

But, the problem with don's server-gagging is of another kind. That's the issue of impartiality. As far as I know, you've gagged don in hope of putting a permanent end to the ages-old don vs Nihi-zyx-vic-..... dogfight, right? And you've told don that his opponents would stop after a while. That's like I say rollingfool : 'Let me kill you so that donzaemon wouldn't kill you' ! In other words, you've done a worse thing to poor don that his life-long 'lovers', IMHO. Before being gagged, he at least could have responded to them, but now he even can't say hello to his friends.

My question is this: ' If you are really sick and tierd of this sh**, why are you prolonging it?' I really do think that gagging don has had a worse effect on this childish debate. Every morning, every evening and every night, people are talking about this damned, childish topic, and almost always ending in a heated exchange of swears, containing many of that 4-letter word. In other words, I mean if don is harassing and annoying others and wants to play the role of 'language cop' at FIBS, then, let him do that, who gives a sh**? You correctly don't give a sh** about the way people communicate and treat each other via tells, messages, kibitzes, whispers and even shouts, about being rude or fascist or racist, then what in god's name has forced you to care about don's shouts and/or his self-proclaimed 'language cop' role? No fibster gives a sh** about don vs X flame wars in shouts and nobody is asking you to take action on it. Let them swear at each other like what have they been doing from years ago. Why do you care about their shouts? And if you think, like inim, that don is harassing others via other than shout tools : tells, messages, e-mails, etc, then server-gagging him would NOT solve the problem and he can continue his abusive behaviour (if that's the case). And also, who cares about don's being a self-proclaimed language cop? Let him imagine he's the language cop, cuz as long as he lacks enforcing power, it will remain a dream job for him.

All in all, I think the best thing is ungagging don and letting him and his dissidents to engage in the flame wars as always, because otherwise you'd have a lot of annoying work to do. Just think of the signals your action would give to some people: That the sysop cares about their personal dogfights with their hated dissidents and that they can ask her to take action and this will lead you either to shutting the server down or to get a sevre cordial disfunctionality. Just ungag the don and save your valuable time and energy.

Regards

Quote from: inim on July 05, 2008, 08:56:57 AMI don't care whether the message remains, or goes away. Nevertheless, it encourages people to cite it, while susbtituting "racist", "fascist" and "rude" with their private definition. So removing it would be pragmatic, but surely a loss.

"Pragmatic", certainly, but "surely a loss"? That's just so wrong. The message make FIBS look foolish, feeble and whatever other words you care to throw at it. It's more than just a meaningless message, it's a message of impotence. It's a lie. It's not just a lie but it's a disappointing lie because it promises something that it can't deliver. And every time this topic comes up it's clearly stated that it's a promise that won't be delivered.

Quote from: Patti on July 05, 2008, 09:45:26 AM
Andreas put that message in there many years ago.  I don't feel that I have the right to remove it.

I hereby give you the right, on behalf of all people who over the years have been disappointed by, or even deplore or disdain, the falsity of that message.

QuoteAt a practical level, policing language on FIBS just isn't going to happen-- it would require far more work than I am willing to put into it.

That's fair enough. It's a pity that there's nobody else that you'd trust with the task and who'd be interested.

But if you can't honour Andreas' intent, you could surely avoid dishonouring him by displaying his message as a mockery of his wishes.

Quote from: playBunny on July 05, 2008, 04:55:08 PM
It's more than just a meaningless message, it's a message of impotence. It's a lie.

Same question as for webrunner, what particular definition of the three terms you have, and how you would enforce a policy? Give a concrete implementation including an assesment of person days per week needed.

And it's not a lie, it is a lie in your opinion, not in e.g. mine. Please don't confuse facts and opinion here.

Quote from: playBunny on July 05, 2008, 04:55:08 PM
It's a pity that there's nobody else that you'd trust with the task and who'd be interested.

How would that help? As long as there is no workable algorithm, parallel CPUs won't be of any use ...

You made the point that "If all fibsters would give their list of the top 10 offenders, not 2 lists would be identical." but that's concentrating on the differences. There would be overlap in those lists, some people popularly recognised as offenders. As long as you have people who could make lists and as long as you have people who would top those lists with regularity you have listed people whose output defines the terms given. If you want accuracy then it's not up to one person to define. If you have a single person or a small team working on the moderation then it's up to them to define. Mine and webrunner's definitions are of no importance unless we are the enforcers.

Currently Patti is the enforcer just by being the admin who stands next to that notice every time somone logs in. Her effective working definition is that there an no words or phrases on the rude list, none on the racism list and none on the facism list. How can any definition possibly be worse than that?

The question is moot anyway. As long as there are any people who recognise some form of rudeness, racism or facism in the shouts then the message is being seen to be a mockery of Andreas wishes. And, clearly, there are people who see it that way.

Quote from: inim on July 05, 2008, 04:59:22 PM
And it's not a lie, it is a lie in your opinion, not in e.g. mine. Please don't confuse facts and opinion here.

It is a factual statement unless you are saying that there is no rude, racist or fascist language to be seen in shouts. If you use Patti's working set then you'd be correct but not if you use any realistic set. I wonder how you define the terms such that you have not seen offensive people whooping it up in the shout room. Is your definition universal? Anybody who sees such behaviour and doesn't subsequently see those offenders not being allowed to login has been given a demonstration that Andreas' message is presented as a lie.

You need to prove that there are no such people in order to prove that the message is not a lie.

Quote from: Patti on July 04, 2008, 11:48:05 PM
I have clearly explained to Don in the past that it is not his duty to police behavior on FIBS, and that he should ignore any speech that he doesn't like.  He seems unable to understand this, and insists on harassing people both publicly and privately.  He then insists that he's the innocent victim.

On the other side we have some equally obnoxious #######s who harass Don in a variety of ways, both publicly and privately.  So after I repeatedly told Don to stop poking the bears, I took action and disabled his shouts.  This shall remain in effect until he understands what I'm asking him not to do.

My sincere hope is that I can make both sides back off, ...

I have always understood what Patti asks of me.  I've never perceived her requiring the kind of behavior of others that she requires of me.  It appears that is changing (whether my perception or actuality is moot).  Therefore there will be no problem from my "side".

I may even vouch mookie!
--
don