in reply to On Being Silenced

Actually... the power to silence a user in the chatterbox *does* exist. I would know! Now I am not saying it was unfair that I have been silenced out a few times (since it has only happened when I had been using html in the CB), but I do agree that this great power should be used in a very limited fashion. As mischief said, we already have the /ignore feature...

And by the way, the disappearing CB input box does disappear when you are silenced (or "borg"ed as they say). And yes, tye has the power to do this. And yes, it is a complete silencing from the chatterbox, because using a different client than the CB will not allow you to post either (such as fullpage chat or framechat).

So in conclusion:

  1. Yes mischief, you were exluded from chat for a period of time.
  2. Yes, chances are it was tye who did so.
  3. Yes, it was maybe unfair (but since I was not around at the time, I cannot judge solidly).
  4. Yes, the /borg feature is useful during extreme measures, such as me (well not anymore, but it had been useful I suppose ;) ) but on the other hand, /ignore exists for this very reason! Just because one higher-level monk does not like what someone in the CB is saying, should not give them the right to silence that person. What one higher-level monk may find annoying/offensive, another monk might want to discuss, but if that higher-level monk excludes that user from chat, then that conversation cannot take place!!
  5. All in all, I do not believe the /borg feature should exist. In a post from a while back, this entire feature was discussed. One suggestion was to make it so that if a certain number of monks /ignore'd a specific user, then an automatic borg should take place. That's what I am agreeing with right now. It should not be in the hands of one person, but those of many users (perhaps 5?)!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: On Being Silenced: The Facts
by mischief (Hermit) on Jul 01, 2002 at 21:53 UTC
    I don't really care anymore whether I was silenced or not. But I can't agree with your reasons why the feature should even exist. What are the advantages of /borg over /ignore? As far as I can see, it's only that the god gets to a) save some effort on the part of other monks, and b) force their opnion on other monks. For users other than the borged monk, both commands have the same effect -- stopping that monk's comments appearing on the chatterbox. For the monk h(im|er)self though, it's a not even something they can question. They can't apologise, they can't protest, they can't ask whether anyone else disagrees: their opinion has been been cancelled and sent back for a refund. Like I said in my post, isn't the whole point of somewhere like Perl Monks the exchange of information and opinion?

    Maybe it would be OK to make the monk's comments not appear to guests viewing the site, who don't have an option to ignore people. And I can think of situations where someone losing the ability to use the chatterbox would actually be warranted (perhaps the situation I was talking about before was one of them?). Shutting someone up without explanation or the opportunity to appeal, however, is not so cool.

    But hey, you know, if I had a site I'd probably do it all the time.

      There's two important differences between /borg and /ignore: the latter lasts indefinitely, while the former expires after 15(? I think) minutes. And the important difference is that a /borg is a tangible admonishment. A monk who is the subject of thousands of /ignore's might still not even notice - not so with /borg. Sometimes, rarely, people do get far enough out of line that a slap on the wrist is called for.

      The question, really, is whether those who have been given the power to /borg are responsible and impartial enough with it. tye may not have been; I don't know. At any rate, so far I have been witness to very few /borg's even though I am a frequent visitor. I don't think we're looking at a big abuse of power issue that would warrant doubting the feature's value. Feel free to disagree, of course; I'm only speaking from personal observation.

      What I can say is, remember that /borg'ing is temporary. You did acknowledge you were not in the most rational of moods - maybe a /borg was not really justified, but it wasn't completely uninvited either. So - not a big thing really happened, in the grand scheme of things. I tend to be very sensitive to issues of power abuse and irresponsibility but this seems to have been an isolated incident, so let's just chalk one up on the crap happens board and get on with life.

      There's more important stuff to worry about :)

      Makeshifts last the longest.

        A quote (sorry, I did not ask permission to use this quote) from Aristotle:

        There's more important stuff to worry about

        I don't think I could agree with this statement more... the incident has occured and has been forgotten (or at least forgiven). Let's think about the more important stuff... like what I'm going to eat for breakfast tomorrow!

        I hate doing these things (because it makes me look human), but I apologize for instantly jumping to the conclusion that it was tye who had placed the /borg on mischief. Not only because it makes tye look bad, but because it makes him look bad even if he was innocent in the act (which I am thinking is quite very possible, since there are quite a number of users who hold this great power).

        So I apologize and at the same time I will make one suggestion:

        if the /borg feature is destined to remain in existence, then one thing should be done: a warning, along with a reason (you know, just in case the user in question has no idea that they are acting stupid) should be given before the user is /borg'ed, except in extreme (and maybe even serious) cases.

        And (since I hate looking human and showing that I have a gentle side) I will say one more thing: You people are inhuman! How can you post in this thread that has turned into a polite flamewar?!?! It sickens me! (1. the 'polite flamewar' quote came from somebody in the CB who, for the life (or lack of) of me, I cannot remember. 2. There, that sounds much more like crabby, hormone-imbalanced me!)

        *walks away pretending that he is not one of these "inhuman" people who "sickens me"*

        And for the humor-impaired, that last paragraph was meant as a kind of joke to lighten things up ;)