I have a rant ....
Posted: January 31st, 2007, 1:50 am
I am very disappointed and disgusted with another website which shall remain nameless.
Two internet acquaintances have had their memberships suspended while awaiting final "judgment" from said website's Star Chamber. I've seen most of the dialog and only one of the two members deserve punishment of any kind. That member has offended time and time again and ought to be cut off for good.
I don't see what the big hang up is. Where's the moral dilemma? Why are they hesitating to do the right thing? Isn't it clear to them? If it's not clear, it bloody well ought to be.
I can be objective. I think we can all go there and read the posts that remain available. Enough snarling is apparent in the posts that (strangely enough) continue to stay up. We can easily read who has violated the rules of the website, and who has merely stated facts. If the rules of the website are going to be interpreted THAT strictly, then there is a third member, who asked a question about dumpsters. He's not included in the suspension action. I am glad he's not, but it brings up some fine points, doesn't it?
I think the whole thing is arbitrary and ridiculous. I've already had my share of nonsensical debates about the rules over there, and I give up.
There is something very Roman and very unjust about a place where some people have votes and some do not. Maybe I am just rebelling against the whole website phenomenon when I say that, but there's a large body of people there that get to make decisions and another larger body of people who don't have a say. If a website is going to be an autocracy, it ought to be openly run that way, without the false attempts at rules and fairness.
I'm seriously trying to break that particular website habit. It's bad for my mental health.
One valuable contributor here was kicked off THERE a couple years ago. There were reasons, but it was a big waste of talent in favor of someone who (in my opinion) was a minor player, not very inspired.
It might happen again to someone else who has lot to say and says it well.
This makes me angry. There is enough injustice in the real world already. When I see it again and again in a virtual world, it's time to change the addresses I visit ....
Two internet acquaintances have had their memberships suspended while awaiting final "judgment" from said website's Star Chamber. I've seen most of the dialog and only one of the two members deserve punishment of any kind. That member has offended time and time again and ought to be cut off for good.
I don't see what the big hang up is. Where's the moral dilemma? Why are they hesitating to do the right thing? Isn't it clear to them? If it's not clear, it bloody well ought to be.
I can be objective. I think we can all go there and read the posts that remain available. Enough snarling is apparent in the posts that (strangely enough) continue to stay up. We can easily read who has violated the rules of the website, and who has merely stated facts. If the rules of the website are going to be interpreted THAT strictly, then there is a third member, who asked a question about dumpsters. He's not included in the suspension action. I am glad he's not, but it brings up some fine points, doesn't it?
I think the whole thing is arbitrary and ridiculous. I've already had my share of nonsensical debates about the rules over there, and I give up.
There is something very Roman and very unjust about a place where some people have votes and some do not. Maybe I am just rebelling against the whole website phenomenon when I say that, but there's a large body of people there that get to make decisions and another larger body of people who don't have a say. If a website is going to be an autocracy, it ought to be openly run that way, without the false attempts at rules and fairness.
I'm seriously trying to break that particular website habit. It's bad for my mental health.
One valuable contributor here was kicked off THERE a couple years ago. There were reasons, but it was a big waste of talent in favor of someone who (in my opinion) was a minor player, not very inspired.
It might happen again to someone else who has lot to say and says it well.
This makes me angry. There is enough injustice in the real world already. When I see it again and again in a virtual world, it's time to change the addresses I visit ....