Working on the Social Contract wiki

Navigation

User login

"All members of the OlyBlog

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 12/01/2007 - 7:47pm.

"All members of the OlyBlog community should strive to prevent the financial, political or other exploitation of the blog by an individual or group."

I think we should keep any for profit ads off of the blog. Classifieds should be for giving things away, work trade, or barter, nothing for sale.The blog is not here to make money, neither should it's content be.
Also, candidates should not be allowed to use the blog for campaigning, they may take part in Q&A's and leave comments, but not as a free soapbox. I think it is up to the community, or docents, to decide when a line is crossed, and it has to be for all candidates. I worry that we run the risk of becoming just another partisan site if we let this go unchecked.

Prohibition against Discrimination

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 12/01/2007 - 7:48pm.

'economic status', or 'class' should be added as well.

Too wordy and formal

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 1:27pm.

And what if someone doesn't want to sign this?

That would only be a problem if

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 1:34pm.

you were required to post on Olyblog.

Valid question

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 1:46pm.

There has been a lot of talk about a "social contract" which in and of it self is probably a good thing. There hasn't been much discussion about those who may choose not to sign it. Nor am I saying I won't sign it, in fact if it continues on the vein it is I will. But I am playing devil's advocate here for a minute. At the very least the wide open invitation needs to be changed.

"Olyblog will welcome your posts and discussions if you agree to this social contract"

Right now it still is open to interpretation. Furthermore, some of what I post can always be twisted to be taken anyway a person wants. In fact, I could probably twist a lot of what others post to be a violation of the social contract.

It is a fine, high minded ideal, but not sure that it will be enforceable. Who will decide if a person violates this? The Docents? "Everyone" else? I have had some pretty harsh words in public here, and in messages with one Docent, and I will never trust that person's objectivity when it comes to anything I write, or on a few other things that I will not discuss here.

So there needs to be a method of enforcing this contract, and it has to be done in a way that is as unobjective as possible.

There is already an implied social contract for posting here

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 2:08pm.

And it is enforced by docents and fellow posters. Unfortunately, some people are under the impression that they are being silenced because of their political beliefs. They refuse to take responsibility for their rude, dismissive, or offensive behavior and play the role of victim instead. I'm quite certain that we would not be having this conversation if it were not for the victim culture a few conservatives have cultivated to help them better survive prolonged exposure to a progressive atmosphere. Some times "Access Denied" just mean "Access Denied."

Then why

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 2:10pm.

Create a written one? And I suspect that your access denied statement is directed at me. I called it as software bug last time around as you may have noticed. I also still have some thoughts I have already expressed, but will state I have seen no censorship of late.

I will also state that I have acknowledged recently when I was being incorrect in my posting.

No...it's directed at me....

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 4:44pm.

It's mine, it's mine....

I got smacked with access denied too and I didn't like it.

Submitted by Mike on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 7:37pm.

I do, however, like the social contract. I suspect there could be extended discussions about what constitutes intellectual honesty. I suspect it's like obscenity, we all know it when we see it and maybe we know if it's not present.

I would agree to this contract easily. I like due process and a contract suggests process and accountability.

No Six

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 5:34pm.

you aren't the only one censored by Rob Richard's "Access Denied" bot. I was just using a familiar experience to make my point. I haven't seen anything I would regard as censorship of a political point of view. I only see people reacting to rude, dismissive, or needlessly inflamatory language.

Contract or Covenant?

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 4:25pm.

Olyblog (vague at best) will attempt to enfore the language but I highly doubt Olyblog will be objective. I've been around here long enough to know better.

I won't sign the contract in the current environment. It would take a change in docent appointment and current docents for me to reconsider. I understand what this might mean for my continued participation on Olyblog.

Maybe little green footballs would be more to your liking?

Submitted by Mike on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 7:43pm.

I don't know if anyone is trying to guarantee or enforce objectivity. There may be interest in honesty and civility.

What are you talking about with the footballs?

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 7:54pm.

You don't see objectivity being tied to civility?

No.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 7:57pm.

I think one can biased and be civil very easily.

Can you expand on your point here?

Oh, and Little Green Footballs is a conservative blog.

I agree. Just doesn't

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:01pm.

I agree. Just doesn't happen here on Olyblog. My opinion, but I can go back and cite way too many cases where the opposite happened. You and I would be in more than a handful of them.

No

Submitted by Mike on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 7:48am.

Subjectivity and civility tie together just as easily as objectivity and civility.

I see objectivity as a trojan horse that tries to enshrine a point of view without being responsible for the subjectivity that is inherent in the point of view.

I prefer concepts and frames such as factual, open and honest to a concept like objectivity.

So, I'll respond back to

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:36pm.

So, I'll respond back to this now that I know what the subject was referring to. This, under a social contract, would or would not be allowed?

I don't care one way or another but it wasn't necessary to make the points in the text.

I've edited the contract down...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 6:09pm.

...to a more appropriate length. Have a look now.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

Okay

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 6:18pm.

We now have the Reader's Digest version, but it is still largely meaningless without a means of enforcing it, or getting people to comply.

Let me give you an extreme example. Say I get voted off the island or whatnot. I can easily create more email addresses, user names, log on through several different IP address, and even forge the MAC address on my WiFi card. Every common means of "tracking" a person online is easily masked in this case, theoretically making the entire process meaningless.

And how many "Open Cary" comments

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 6:23pm.

would it take us to figure it all out?

Well

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 6:27pm.

I'm not the ONLY person in Oly doing it... I have heard rumors of maybe two other people willing to excercise a civil right in this manner :-)

If I were to go through the extremes of masking everything, I think I could hold back some identifying subjects....

I was merely trying to make a point here.

I have seen that tried on The Left Coaster

Submitted by Mike on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 7:50pm.

and they have a means to track and limit the alpha to no vowells for certain flamers who keep trying to come back under a new name. Don't know it works on the technical side, but the wheel is already invented. And the emasculation of having a limited alphabet is very funny. Matches a dearth of ideas.

Part of the attraction and power of a hyperlocal blog is that so many of us who post here are actually known and seen in the community. That makes for a somewhat different dynamic than might happen elsewhere with less local orientation. Of course, the Zero comments are local I suppose, but I never look at them and I seldom read that paper, so I am just thinking aloud on that. I understand the Zero is perfect for wrapping fish which is something you just can't do well with Olyblog.

That ought to be a byline I guess, Olyblog - Local News and Entertainment, but Useless for Wrapping Fish

I see

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 7:54pm.

That insults are acceptable when refering to another (competing?) form of media... Or in typical Oly fashion, anything other than the viewpoint presently being favored/pushed/whatever

Or are institutions okay to insult?

Given some of my more unique habits, I am a pretty visible person, and probably should have toned down my rhetoric sometime ago, but I didn't. Wah.

However now I am seeing a double standard where it is okay to be insulting, if it is directed agains the "mainstream"

It's truly amazing...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 7:57pm.

...how you can manage not to respond to the substantive part of any post.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

It's truly amazing

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:00pm.

That you think you can determine what I believe to be the substantive.

I don't need to know what you think...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:12pm.

...I just read what you write.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

Well

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:20pm.

What I write, is clearly based on what I think. And I think that given the current state of playing nice, that one should not be deliberately insulting, don't you think? I know I have been working on not doing that.

Some of the comments seemed downright insulting, and I said something about that, as it seems to be a double standard I have seen played out time and time and time again amongst those who take umbrage with "mainstream" or "conservative" or any other value/social structure that is unpopular with the "progressives" of Olympia. They can say whatever they want about whatever they want, but if a person argues against that, they are a horrible person.

At any rate, I'm not going to get into (another) pissing match with you right now.

Suggest you consider your sig line (again) because what you are saying is far from interesting.

I suggest you consider...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:21pm.

...asking someone a freakin' question before you go off on them. Novel concept, eh?

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

Try reading

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:25pm.

I did ask a question...

Or are institutions okay to insult?

I believe...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:30pm.

...the relevant question would have been: "Are you insulting the Olympian?"

In fact, I think you'd find out that many people refer to the Olympian variously as the Daily Zero, the fishwrapper, and other terms. It's not really that much of a dig.

Unless you're not really interested in what Mike was saying and were just trying to pick a fight. Given that you chose not to respond to the substantive portion of his post, I'm tending toward the latter.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

Why not just call it what it

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:34pm.

Why not just call it what it is and be done with it? If we allow "it's not really that much of a dig" as a standard, where do we stop?

For me, it's a question of balance.

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:36pm.

Mike did not make an overly hostile post. It was 99% ideas and 1% snark. No problem.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

I'm quite aware

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:39pm.

Of how people refer to the O... I simply picked up on the connotations here, that it is okay sometimes to be insulting to some things, but not others? Again, who are you to determine what I find substantive, and what I do not?

Draw the line, are broad based insults of individuals and institutions acceptable, or are they not? To me this was an example of the hypocrisy of the "progessives" in Olympia. You picked up on it, and decided to make a fuss.

So I will say it again, you have no business telling ME what I am to find as the substantive portion of a text.

I also think that you are looking to pick another fight with me this time.

As I said...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:42pm.

...it's about balance. However, if you are unable to tolerate complex thinking and nuance, I suggest that you go blog somewhere else. I'm sure that you'd be much happier over at SondraK or LGF.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

Now you

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:46pm.

Know where I will be happier blogging? Amazing! Why don't you just post under my handle Rick since you know where I am happiest, what questions to ask, and what I view as relevant portions of text! Wow! You must be Dog or something!

I say, and you may quote "Bite me"

I think it is amazing how badly things turned when you narrowed your sights on my posts in particular. Of course you couldn't bring yourself to comment on anything else I wrote today. Just this. Wow. Amazing.

Given the level of bitching...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 9:10pm.

...I just assumed you were pretty miserable. My bad.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

Yes, I think it is ok to insult an institution

Submitted by Mike on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 7:57am.

especially in the current context where the news and editorial components of the Zero have worked in concert to make a PDC complaint from the editorial board and then report same complaint and investigation on the front page without disclosing the paper's role in initiating the investigation.

I think that is so clearly unethical that the only beings that are truly being insulted now are the fish that are being wrapped in the Zero.

Intellectual honesty, transparency, disclosure. These are important concepts for a medium that purports to be a newspaper to adhere to strenuously.

But there is a different issue in your slippery responses and that is the element of moving the discussion away from substance in an area where you may not do well and trying to hijack the discussion into an area where you feel you may do better with your argument.

Much Better

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 6:31pm.

Enforcement? I actually don't think you can enforce a permanent ban. If someone wants back on they'll get on. Instead, make all bans public and let the community decide on whether or not to interact.

One other thing I think is needed: A way to report comments (or blog entries) to the olyblogdocents list. It provides a way for one to express themselves to all docents and is viewable by all. The accountability in reporting comments should exist for the reported commenter as well as the community. This probably needs some more thought but it's a start.

I'm thinking that we keep the Social Contract simple...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 6:45pm.

...and work out the implementational stuff in a different document on policy and procedures.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

They can come back as often as they want.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 6:45pm.

You're right. We can't stop that, nor should we try. If a person does come back and continues the old behavior then they'll be quickly booted again. Eventually, I think they'll get tired of it and either stay gone or change their behavior.

Exactly

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 6:55pm.

Can I have a show of hands?

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:23pm.

Is the contract ready to go, or does it need more work?

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

If I say

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:47pm.

I think it's ready to go, does that mean you will endlessly debate it with me, claim I don't know what I'm thinking, and generally junk it?

I actually think it is a reasonably coherent document.

It's the boringest thing I can think of...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 9:17pm.

...to tell you the truth.

You see, you're the one that keeps derailing these threads by focusing on small, and I would argue, insignificant, aspects of what some one writes. Mike's is a perfect example. He wrote a long and thoughtful post, and you choose to hammer away at that old theme: "See how hypocritical the liberals are! They call people names." It really is SO boring. If that's your interest here -- trying to undermine actual discussion with your rants, then take it elsewhere. If you're interested in joining the discussion, you are more than welcome to do so. But that means engaging with people about what they wrote. Get it?

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

Jawoh, Herr Commandant

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 9:26pm.

It looked to me that a good third of the post was meant to be a snub at a particular target.

I pointed out the peculiar double standards that go on here. If behavior is not to be tolerated, then it is not to be tolerated. Period. End of statement. Had I said in a post

"Olyblog, a small little fiefdom run by Rick McKinnon, has delusions of grandeur by claiming to be 'The Media' while arrogantly disregarding all other Olympia related publications and websites currently available." You would have blown a fuse, and told me I was insulting rude, blah, blah, blah, blah

BUT if a similar diatribe is directed against another institution, not only is it acceptable, you take it as a personal affront when the dual standard is pointed out.

Look, if you're so unhappy...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 9:41pm.

...then I invite you to go find some of your gun buddies, and play your little homoerotic games.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

Set a better example Rick.

Submitted by DC on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 9:49pm.

"An essential condition for community is the freedom and right on the part of an individual or group to express minority, unpopular, or controversial points of view. Only if minority and unpopular points of view are listened to and given opportunity for expression will OlyBlog provide bona fide opportunities for significant consciousness raising. There may be no discrimination at OlyBlog with respect to race, sex, age, handicap, sexual orientation, religious or political belief, or national origin in considering individuals' membership."

Being an asshat...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 9:54pm.

...is not a "minority point of view". It's just being an asshat. Go away.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

It's not about him.

Submitted by DC on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 10:02pm.

It's about you making derogatory comments about his political views concerning guns and accusations about his sexual orientation.

I think you need to step away and cool off. You really aren't following your own social contract here.

Go away? Fine. Ban me because I also tried following the second paragraph of your social contract. I'm not leaving voluntarily because right now in your anger you want me to.

That's crap...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 10:16pm.

...and you know it. S6 misbehaves (repeatedly), so we try to call him on his shit. Then we're the bad guys? No one is making him stay here. He can go play his games somewhere else where people don't get bored banging their heads against the wall.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

Yeah he did misbehave

Submitted by DC on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 10:27pm.

and with some due process I'd think you were right to get rid of him.

But you just made some pretty crappy statements that violated your own social contract and banned him.

I'm sorry Rick, but as long as you have the ability to decide who gets to be part of this community, you are going to be held to a higher standard. If not higher standards, then simply the standards you set for the rest of us.

I don't think you set a good example of how to follow the proposed contract here.

Your logic is all backwards...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 10:46pm.

...If someone is deliberatly antagonistic on the blog, and then screams "foul" when they get a less than perfect reaction. I've worked too hard to make this an open community, and I frankly won't have someone comming in here, picking fights, and telling me what hypocracy looks like. It's just not on.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

Um...

Submitted by DC on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 10:49pm.

ok Rick... You're the boss I guess.

This little interaction is

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 11:13pm.

This little interaction is exactly what I'm talking about when I saw I've been around here long enough to know better. I'm really, really surprised the one pushing for contract approval is so far outside of it.

You run the blog...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 11:34pm.

...then tell me about it.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

That's not the answer, Rick,

Submitted by Ehver Green on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 3:01am.

That's not the answer, Rick, and you know it. We could spit at other or have dialog. I don't see how your dialog with S6 and DC encourage a meaningful conversation. I thought that was the goal of the Social Contract. To keep threads from spiraling out of control.

EG...

Submitted by Rick on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 9:23am.

...you've been here long enough to know that people who claim victimhood here have no grounds for doing so. They get me up in their grill if they persist on hijacking threads, picking fights, and being rude. I wouldn't have to do that if you were more willing to stand up and tell them, as a fellow non-liberal, that their persecution fantasies are bs and they should try and have a reasonable conversation. Otherwise, it falls to me to call them on their crap. Until we have the social contract in place, it's really the only mechanism for maintaining an open forum.

> Say something interesting or say nothing at all. <

We have Olympia all rolled

Submitted by wilson on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 11:35pm.

We have Olympia all rolled into a nutshell, all right here on a blog. Someone needs to send this up to a college or something to be studied, or maybe put it in a time capsule.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our Social Contract. You should also look at our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Olyblogger of the Month:

decorabilia

Comment viewing options