Re: Delphi Vogons

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Paul Francis Gilbert writes ...
> 
> Just out of a curiousity of this matter, can someone clarify the specific
> events that happened? Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation, but:
> 
> 1) Poster posted a query for the current URL of Asimov (since it changed
>    while ago from asimov.net or whatever it was)
> 
> 2) Several posters pointed out in harsh tones that it was a pirate site and
>    shouldn't be touched. Not quite a flamewar, but partly there.
>

     Not exactly. My recollection is of three or four replies which,
chiefly, lectured the original poster in a condescending tone. The
replies were offensive but not especially harsh. They were mild flames
by our standards. The term "put down" fits.

 
> 3) Original poster got offended and posted back a flame

     More like a "Well, _excuse_ me for asking" with some comment about
moral purity.


> 
> 4) People started apologising and getting the tone back to reasonable again
>

     This is not my recollection. I'm pretty sure SiFan's post followed
very close to or immediately after the questioner's reply to the put
downs/mini-flames.

 
> 5) SiFan posted a message somewhat late with the URL and several kilobytes of
>    unspecified, but likely usless material, inciting a flamethread against
>    himself.

     The first post (the one mentioned above) contained little more the
the URLs for Asimov and GS-Asimov. Something like "You can reach Asimov
at ..." and "You can reach GS-Asimov at". This posting of the
information is what incited a series of flame posts.
 

> 
> 6) Moderators step in and say the thread is over, and any further threads will
>    be deleted

     My recollection is that after five or six flame posts, the
moderator said something about the "discussion" having covered the issue
and that it was over. I do not recall any threats to delete further
posts to the thread. 
 

> 
> 7) SiFan posts another message which gets canceled, and gets a message from
>    an administrator insulting him.

     SiFan posted a response to one of the final attack messages. It
began by acknowledging that the discussion was ending and briefly
outlined the case for Asimov. After a string of several attack messages
from the usual group of Asimov-haters, it appeared to be a fair
response.

     I'm pretty sure that, instead of deleting the message, the forum
manager at this time chose to hide the entire 'Asimov thread and
announce this in the From the Staff thread. Regarding a response to
SiFan, my recollection is that the announcement was not especially
insulting to him/her and probably mentioned no one in particular.

     SiFan posted a message to the From the Staff thread-- this is the
message which asked the question about fearing that users could not read
the 'Asimov thread and decide for themselves. The forum manager's
response to this message was rude and insulting. It is the one which has
been shown here.


> 
> 8) SiFan posts a message in a "From the Admins" (or something like that)
>    complaining about this rude message, and has this message canceled as well,
>    even though it's not really anything to do with the previous "dead"
>    thread.

     Basically, correct. However, the issue was the hiding of the "dead"
thread.


> 
> 9) Someone named Beverly? catches the article in time before it's destroyed
>    to post a reply to it. Apparently, this reply isn't cancelled, only
>    SiFan's is.

     Beverly's message was not cancelled; but, it was numbered "106 of
105". Since (as of yesterday at least) the thread is shown as having 105
messages, a user must guess that there is an extra message in order to
read it.
 

> 
> 10) Discussion starts up on c.s.a2 regarding the somewhat one-sided canceling
>    of messages against SiFan by the admins. Someone (I've forgotten who)
>    points a longish message pointing out that the Delphi admins may have been
>    justified in canceling SiFan's messages, since he seemed to be try to
>    incite a flamewar on an old topic, and one the admins are sick of.
> 
> Is that all correct? The bit I'm not sure about is 8), since it's a little
> vague about whether the Beverly mentioned was responding to his original
> messages in the thread, or to his complaint post posted in another thread.
>

     Since you appear to be interested in details, Beverly was
responding to the following SiFan message addressed to a third party in
the From the Staff thread. By the way, third party attack messages were
not deleted.

     Here is the message to which Beverly responded ("UTTER" is the
forum manager's user ID) ...



>>>

Dear Nick Heywood,

Below is UTTER's response to a simple question regarding a fear of
discussing an important issue-- i.e. the benefits of archive sites like
Asimov. He posted ...

>>
What I fear is that the same sort of jerks that frequent other online
areas with lies and provocation will think that they can hang out here
and do the same. 

That turns out not to be the case. Flames and flamers will not be
tolerated. 


All the previous messages regarding privacy and Asimov have been
removed, not because the subject is forbidden, but because certain
people think they have a license to press thier views with extreme
rudeness. 

We dislike rudeness even more than we dislike piracy. 

Any further discussion of this issue will be deleted as soon as it is
seen by a staff member. 

If you think that is rude of ME, well, you're right. Too bad.
....
<<

The UTTER person is the one calling names. He admits to being rude and
says it is "too bad". Evidently, he believes that it is okay to suppress
discussion when his position is shown to be flawed.

The odd thing about the response of the manager of this little piece of
Delphi is that it came after participants had agreed to end the
discussion.


You comment ...

>>
I would suggest that most of the users here are here because of the
benefits of action Taken by the staff relating to this thread
....
<<

This seems very unlikely. Most users welcome a discussion of important
Apple II issues. Relatively few persons truly enjoy being 'protected'
from the truth.


>>
I made up my mind before I joined delphi and this action is a good
reason to stay!!!!! 
<<

Perhaps it seems so now. But, truly, is this not the same rationale
employed by those who join and never leave AOL?


>>
Don't like it? LEAVE!!!!! 
<<

After numerous 'please join Delphi' postings to comp.sys.apple2, it
seemed only fair to explore this new A2 nook of the internet. It is a
bit of an adventure.

A2 Delphi has potential. It should be possible for Apple II users to
cooperate, work to develop, and to benefit from all such resources.


SiFan

<<<



     Beverly's response was 

>>


> Most users welcome a discussion of important Apple issues. 

I have to agree. I think that a great opportunity was missed to 
possibly work something out, and clean things up. 

We could use some sort of "Web compliance" committee or person. 

Beverly Cadieux 
TEXAS II An international newsletter for users of AppleWorks(R) 5.1 
The Apple II Mail Group: Randy Brandt on AppleWorks ownership and 
licensing; The IW2 tests. CrossWorks..Monitor probs..SEG.Anxiety. 

<<

 
> Thankyou.
 ....


     You are welcome.



Rubywand