Ho, Boy

I seem to have gotten in an actual debate with J.T. This'll be interesting.

Wish I had an equivalent to a LiveJournal cut here, so that I could post the text of the back and forth without everyone having to read through it. But I don't, so please skip this if you don't care.

[1]
I correct a Learnlink n00b who'd replied to a comment in a very long thread without quoting the message he was referring to. This being a very key rule which can be found listed at the top of the conference. In the process, I mention that wouldn't normally do so, but that everyone who'd usually perform said function appears to be banned this week.


[2] (Initial volley.):
J.T. replies to the message publicly. Full text of message: "Your vigilantism is not appreciated."


[3] (I refuse to let it slide, particularly with such a nice opportunity to segue into complexity theory):
It's not about individual vigilantism, J.T., it's about having conferences that remain orderly thanks to a shared set of group norms. The learnlink community has to train more than a thousand freshman a year how to use this glorified system of bulliten boards correctly, and so in the absence of any sort of auto-filtration system (a la Slashdot or Amazon.com ratings), the next best thing is to create a system that polices itself instead of just putting a bunch of authoritarian controllers in charge of shaping the behavior of the masses.

No matter how much you may disagree with them politically, vocal members of the LL community contribute greatly to keeping a basic level of net ettiquette in these forums. I may be one of the few people at Emory to have seen a new Firstclass system get started without established community norms for spelling, abreviations, font readability, reply sender, and reply with quote*. And trust me, it's not a pretty sight.

- Laura

* As well as combining/limiting replies to a reasonable volume, which has never so much been one of your strong suits.


[4] (JT's response on Topic of the Week):
"The only thing that croddy and those like him have ever done is insult people and hide behind a computer screen. Also, you insulted the controller, so you will probably see your privileges revoked soon. Additionally, I want you to say all of this to my face in front of everyone at the next Academic team practice, which I will be attending. I also think you should make your opinions about me clear at the next BASE dinner in such a way that everyone can hear them clearly. Good night."


[5] (my public response):
*Sigh*.... Actually, my post was only nominally directed at either JT or David, as it's almost entirely about the management of Learnlink as a whole. I spend enough time online that I've become fairly interested in what makes a cohesive, organized whole out of a large, chaotic group of individuals. (If you get me started, I can tie this to complexity theory and intercellular communication, but I'll save everyone the bio dork rant and stick with internet stuff.) Hence the comparison of LL to Slashdot, and the Amazon.com ratings and recommendations. News.google is another interesting example, but it doesn't involve reader feedback. Anyhow. Learnlink generally operates one level below those sorts of sites, relying mainly on mockery and ignoring of inferior posts by the community at large, which, although they first appear to be the source of much of the excess noise on LL, actually also serve to set a certain standard for posts to be deemed worthy of reading. It's this kind of self-policing that I'd like to see more of on Learnlink. Left to itself with a light administrative touch, it makes for one of the most effective kinds of electronic forum... at least for anyone who can follow the basic expectations of the community.
- Laura

[6] (fed up, writing to J.T. directly):
Well.... if you really want me to talk about complexity theory and electronic bulliten boards at quizbowl and BASE, I'd be glad to, assuming anyone else is interested. As I said, it's a pet subject of mine. I'm not sure why you seem so keen on attacking me on this one, though. The only thing I said about you in there is that you have a tendency to flood conferences with posts at a volume considerably above that of the average Learnlink poster. I don't think anyone is going to be particularly shocked at that observation, do you?
- Laura

[7] (true colors):
"I simply do not like your tone, and I wonder if you're able to express this aggressive tone in person as readily as you do online. I wonder what Dr. Eisen would think of such aggression."

[8] (having just come back from a long conversation after class with Dr. Eisen about life, sleep, slime mold, BASE, and his kids, I try to stay civil while laughing out loud at the immaturity here):
Far as I'm concerned, my online discussions of the way Learnlink conferences should be run has little to do with BASE or quizbowl at all, and even less to do with Dr. Eisen. Again, should you like to get into a discussion of how electronic communication changes the content of conversations at one of the dinners or something, feel free to bring it up. We could have a great discussion of applying Marshall McLuhan to the internet age, if anyone else cared.

As for my tone, it's certainly not wishy-washy, but I wouldn't so much call it aggressive or out of character. Certainly not compared to your implied threat of revealing my "secretly aggressive Learnlink personality" to people I respect who weren't involved in the original discussion. Quite frankly, I am unimpressed. I moved this conversation from Topic of the Week to email because your immediate citing of BASE and quizbowl didn't seem to reflect well on either of those organizations, and I've a vested interest in seeing we get good PR for both. But I'll call your bluff, if you like. Go ahead and post a direct transcript of this conversation to the BASE conference or the academic team conference. I sincerely doubt I'm the one it's going to reflect poorly on. I do not seek out controversy online or in person, nor do I post much on Learnlink, but I do weigh in with my opinion on occasion if I think I have something that will contribute to the discussion. And I don't think anyone we know would be particularly surprised by that.
- Laura


So, what do you think? Could some fairly civil logic piss him off enough that he won't ride in my car to any tournaments this year? I'm hoping yes.

Continued...

[9]
"Fine; if you can say any of this to me in person, then please do so. If you cannot, then it is not too much to ask that you apologize for your attitude on totw. We live on the same hall, for crying out loud; it takes extremely little effort to express your concerns to me directly as opposed to sniping at me on a public conference that thousands of people read."

[10] (Waitwait... you think you deserve an apology?)
For the last time, none of my original message related to you at all. You came out of left field with "your vigilantism is not appreciated," a comment which was, I might note, at least as loaded with vitriole as anything else in this entire thread. Still, I responded in a civil manner that really didn't have much to do with you either, other than the fact that I was replying to your previous message, and so made a brief comment on your habit of posting a damn lot on conferences that I read regularly. I will not apologize for that, nor for your immediate jump from that to the idea that I was "sniping at you" on a public conference. Since I wasn't even being aggressive in the first place, I'm a little confused as to what you're after, because I'm pretty sure you're not the one who deserves an apology, here. Would you like me to tell you in person that I have found your recent responses immature and uncalled-for? That's not normally my style, but if it's that or apologizing for my so-called "attitude," I'm sure I can manage.

Anyhow, see you at practice.
- Laura