I'd like everyone's thoughts, please.

[Absinthe is Benjamin]

I'm sure most of you are aware of the arguments that took place in this forum recently and how out of control they became. They may seem to be over for the moment, but the point at which they've escalated this time is likely drawing some concern from the forum as a whole. I honestly believe the issues can be sorted out eventually. The problem is, by the time the tension between these members is finally put aside, a lot of people will have already given up on this place. I think FPB put it best, and is a perfect example of how it has already affected certain members:

(10-19-2009 10:29 PM)fingerpickinblue Wrote:  Well, there's 15 minutes I'll never get back...I love absinthe, but this behavior is why I don't participate in this forum more often.

I'm sure he's not the only one feeling this way. The last time an argument became this distracting to the entire forum, I said the same thing, yet here we are in another duplicate scenario. I could copy and paste my response from the last incident and it would still apply.

So, what I'm asking for is for the TARN community to speak their mind. How would you like to see these incidents handled in the future? Would you like to see specific rules implemented if this continues? Suggestions for a new moderator to help keep things in line? So please, post your thoughts here or in a PM if you do not feel comfortable sharing them publicly.

Above all, if this atmosphere persists, I want everyone to be comfortable with whatever action that may need to be taken. By hearing from the entire forum, we can make the best possible decision in this matter.

[Astral_Absinthian]

It should've been kept private for the most part.
I tried to cut the tree by calling on Kirk to post actual evidence ON THE SPOT that Brian lied, but it didn't happen. Kirk could've just done a quick boot stomp paragraph and ended the whole thing, but he simply didn't have the ammo.
Kirk failed miserably and lost the argument he shouldn't have even started because of his immaturity.
And Kirk better not pipe up here, he's got NOTHING but a head hanging in shame.

Anyone who makes an accusation had better back it up ON THE SPOT and not drag things out.

This is still a worthwhile forum, and I urge members not to abandon it.

[Alan]

I assume you don't want this Forum to be WW Society 2 and of course there can only ever be one Lounge.

I also assume you want at least an element of Absinthe Reviews, given the forum name!

So you want credibility, but you also want people to have fun.

Sorry to say so but you may need to have some form of rules, or code of conduct, whatever. WW Soc has 11 rules, the Lounge doesn't seem to have any, so somewhere between 1 and 11 might work. How about adopting/adapting just 4 of the WW Soc rules:-

1. Be Polite. Have Respect. Be nice, or go away. We're here to discuss absinthe some or most of the time, and that may mean we need to drink. That's fine, but, if you need to vomit, do it over your own keyboard and not on the person next to you.

2. No flaming; No Trolls; No Puppets (aliases).

3. Respect Privacy.

4. NO SPAM. Don't join this forum just to sell things.

and adding 1:-

5. Have fun, lighten up, don't bring your hang-ups here for psychotherapy, and try to think of making it fun here for everyone else.

4 above might not be needed: we'll all gang up on someone like that straightaway!

So once you have a set of rules, sorry but they have to be enforced. Not with too heavy a hand, maybe, but you need a mod or mods (I didn't say Meds ...). Or a setting somewhere, allowing members to anonymously "Report Abuse." 5 separate abuse reports on 1 person in the space of 6 hours and that person is suspended for a day, etc. Maybe that's impractical ... I don't know how these forums work.

[Astral_Absinthian]

*clap clap clap clap*

[Ron]

AA, it's sort of counter productive to name names and throw blame with a side order of antagonism. There's nothing that Kirk can do here except go on the defense, and then it all blows up again.

Kirk could very well have the same argument that Brian had about posting things in public. There's no reason to call on people to post their private communiques, on either side. This all started when Kirk took exception to the story Brian told about how the dinner meeting went down. That's where the line was crossed. It could have been handled in private, if the interested parties were concerned with rectifying any dispute. But it appears in this particular instance, that was not Kirk's intent. I can't pretend to get into anyone's head and understand why they say the things they do. It should be suffice that there is always some underlying reason, whether we know the reason or not.

It's quite possible that even with Kirk's response to Brian's account of the meeting, that this could have blown over if everyone kept their cool. But a lot of folks like to push buttons, not just the handful that seem to do it on the regular. Basically, there's plenty of blame to go around. But we don't solve things with blame. We solve things by figuring out how to move forward.

And that's where we're at. Ben has to figure out how he wants to proceed here, and I think he's hoping for some input in that regard.

[Astral_Absinthian]

urmynv, I agree.
I like Alan's approach as a blanket solution.
Sadly it can't be assumed that everyone is mature enough to carry decency and respect.

[Ron]

Alan is correct in that there should always, in all aspects of our lives, be some sort of base guidelines. Ben will have to determine what those baselines will be. But rules are useless without enforcement. Too much enforcement, however, stifles the atmosphere. So again, Ben will have to decide what vibe he wants here and then regulate accordingly. Strike a good balance, and so on.

[Buddhagasm]

some people are just gonna bitch. That's why we call 'em bitches, right? Fuck the haters. Let 'em fuck themselves. I find it entertaining. This ain't a frickin' Zoloft commercial, is it?

[Ron]

I sent a message Ben a little while ago, but here's some of that email for everyone to chew on.

Quote:Ben, there are a whole lot of things going on here, and different problems you'll face in dealing with them all.

But the gist of this is that you're likely to lose members no matter which way you proceed. The hard choice for you is, which members will you be sad to lose.

Basically, and this is coming from my background, is that it's hard for you to implement leadership after the fact. It has to be established and up front when people arrive. Moderators have to be in place. It's impossible, and I mean, impossible to promote a member to a moderator status. People will just not afford the respect that the moderator position requires. So that's the first problem you'll have. People will start badmouthing, yelling about being censored, and try to create a general atmosphere of mutiny. It's present in all forums, actually.

And this isn't necessarily restricted to appointing moderators. The same can be said about implementing new rules, or adopting a new leadership style. The hard truth is you're going to risk alienating some members.

Now, in my personal opinion, it occurs to me that the majority of members who will find a problem with moderators, rules and oversight are probably the types of members you can afford to lose. By this I mean, they don't bring anything to the table other than strife. They don't contribute to the discussions, they don't contribute to the mission, they just steal oxygen and screen real estate.

Now all that said, you have another choice. You can continue to no-rules, no holds barred environment, but you probably already know where I'm going with this. You're going to risk alienating the others.

You've got the unfortunate and hard choice of deciding how you want to proceed. I would just caution that whichever way you decide to go, make it perfectly clear and pin it. And stick with it. It can't be a Brett Favre waffling thing. You'll have to be the bad guy, or appoint some bad guys as moderators and try your best to stay above the fray.

Either way, you're going to risk losing some members. But once it's set in place, you can focus on gaining new members who know and understand the rules of your house when they walk in.

[Absinthe is Benjamin]

Everyone, thank you for the feedback and optimism thus far. I need some sleep shortly here, but I will answer your messages and post my thoughts in this thread as soon as I can tomorrow.

[Alan]

It's tomorrow here ...

[Pee'n' Buddha]

I don't know. It's tomorrow here, too. But A.A. started by trying to drag us back into the ragged past. urmynv replied with the right rhetoric but seemed to continue in the same vein with a bit more diplomacy. You all know who I think is the lying, fucked-up dick here. If you don't, I have reams of paper trail in my pm's that prove who's incoherent. But of course, no sense resurrecting that. It's better kept private. There are the dweebs and hangers-on, the bandwagoneers and the pitchmen. They all bore the shit out of me. I didn't think I'd say it, but I agree with Buddhajism: I find it entertaining. And I don't mind if you think there's a contradiction in that.

Ben owns the place. He can do what he wants. And even if his leadership decisions are hypocritical, well, there'll be people that will be okay with that too.

[Ron]

PnB, I don't think that it's in anyone's interest to marginalize each other, or splinter into different groups and adopt a we/they atmosphere. There's no way that all people will get along with all others all the time. Impossible. But the best we can do is chat amongst the folks we choose, and maintain neutrality with others. At least those are my thoughts on it. The great thing about enthusiast organizations like this and the others is that there are so many people here with a variety of knowledge and experience, so it would be a waste if we alienated or blacklisted each other. I'm not saying we need to have the most civil decorum on the internet, but we also don't need to beat each other to death.

[Alan]

(10-21-2009 04:08 AM)Pee'n' Buddha Wrote:  But of course, no sense resurrecting that. It's better kept private.

If you agree that it's better kept private, will you do so?

(10-21-2009 04:08 AM)Pee'n' Buddha Wrote:  There are the dweebs and hangers-on, the bandwagoneers and the pitchmen. They all bore the shit out of me. I didn't think I'd say it, but I agree with Buddhajism: I find it entertaining.

If you find them/us boring and at the same time entertaining, will you just laugh privately at them/us? Or does your entertainment come from poking fun, goading etc?

(10-21-2009 04:08 AM)Pee'n' Buddha Wrote:  Ben owns the place. He can do what he wants. And even if his leadership decisions are hypocritical, well, there'll be people that will be okay with that too.

Can you not find it in yourself to say something nice about people? Ben may well have to find a compromise, a half-way position. He may have to unwillingly alienate one or two of us. But that's hardly hypocritical.

[Pee'n' Buddha]

"They" and "it" do not necessarily refer to the same thing.

An "even if..." refers to a hypothetical. An extreme case. In this case, the circumstances of a forum owner. One member here has publicly stated he finds it well within the rights of forum owners to be hypocritical. Thus, hypothetically, I would think that Ben would still have this member's support even if he were hypocritical in his decision making. I never said Ben was, is or will be a hypocrite.

And, Alan, if you want to stick your finger in my eye again, I'm warning you that I'm apt to fucking bite it off.

urmynv, you were marginalizing Kirk and his opinions. Take your own advice. Shut up.

[Ron]

Nope. I think Kirk may be a swell guy. I don't know him well enough yet. But in this instance, I think he was wrong.

And why would anyone shut up, least of all me? Get right, sir.

[Pee'n' Buddha]

Is this thread supposed to be about picking sides? Your message to Ben was constructive. Shit can the rest of it.

[Ron]

Deal. Now you shit can the attitude.

[Alan]

Ben did say:

(10-21-2009 01:00 AM)Absinthe Ben Wrote:  So, what I'm asking for is for the TARN community to speak their mind.

[Pee'n' Buddha]

Alan, when you're right, well, it can be a refreshing breath of fresh air.

Carry on.

[Alan]

And you continue to be unable to say anything positive without adding a negative.

[Pee'n' Buddha]

A breath of fresh air is negative? Oh, you Brits. If you took offense, excuse me, I was trying to avoid the worn cliché. Didn't think your skin was that thin. Pasty white maybe, but I'd hope you can get some sun when you're traveling at least.