The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually *decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

JimH wrote:
The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually *decreased*
as a result of it.


Yes, "participation" is down and thank heavens for small favors. There
are entire threads missing. In fact, there are entire categories of
threads missing. Gone are the conservative cut 'n pastes, the liberal
cut 'n pastes, the duelling presidential popularity polls, the f'd up
debates about the "heroic liberation" or "political colonization" of
Iraq (take your pick). Gone are the "Harry Krause is a ________"
threads. Gone are the "Liberals are destroying the Christian religion"
threads. Missing from most posts of all types are the vicious name
calling and the endless Jr. High School "neener/neener's". Certain
posters, with little or nothing to contribute to discussions about
boating, are indeed missing in action. Too darn bad- they can take the
naming and flaming somewhere else as it should be a reasonable
expectation (when one visits a NG titled "rec.boats") that most of the
discussion should center around boating.

But check this out, please, Jim. Discussion of boating topics is way
*up* from what it has been.




I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.


If the atmosphere is "improved", how can it simultaneously be stale?
The challenge didn't impose any restrictions, it was a call to the
worst offenders
(that would include you and me) to modify our behavior and see if the
tone of the group changed as a result. It did. I'm sorry to hear that
you prefer the previous atmosphere that prevailed here- but that's your
call to make and you are free to conduct yourself here as you see fit.



Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)


Is this a continuation of last week's argument that "Everything is
appropriate in rec.boats, except any comments by anybody questioning
whether something is appropriately boating related or not. Any comment
suggesting that some posts are inappropriate for rec.boats
is.............. inappropriate for rec.boats" ?


There are no "rules" here. Never have been. There are common courtesies
that most people will follow in order to promote the smoothest
conversational interaction- and then there will always be a group of
people who feel that their personal compulsion to express themselves
however they see fit trumps any general desire among the group for
civil discourse and rational polite discussion. If some people are
feeling "tense" or unduly restricted by the general group attitude
toward anti-social behavior, there is nothing and nobody who can or
will stop them from dumping load after load of crap into the NG as far
too many of us have done in the past.


2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT
Then refer back to #1.

Who or what, other than peer pressure, prevents anybody from posting
whatever they want here- marked OT or not?


3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments


Here's where things get a bit blurry on my radar screen, so help me out
please.
If people should be "allowed" (and they are) to post "anything they
want" (and they can)
what happens when Poster X decides that what he really wants to post is
a long personal attack on Poster Y?

Question: Would you then suggest that Poster X do items 1,2,and 3
above? Would that be "netcopping"? Why can't Poster X post "anything
he wants" without somebody else saying anything?


6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.


You think? You don't see a difference in the type of posts, the tone of
the posts, an increase in the number of boating related posts? The
group is no better than it was in November? Interesting analysis.



:-)

PS:

Here's a copy of the topic list from the day the challenge began.

See any difference?

« Newer topics Viewing titles only View with message text

Family of Four lost at sea 2 new of 2 JohnH (2 authors) Dec 20 2005

Five Day Chatroom Challenge 23 new of 35 JohnH (10 authors) Dec 20
2005

The America's Cup - Team Swiss 6 new of 7 Smithers one of 1000's (3
authors) Dec 20 2005

OT Bush Uses Poll Selectively 8 new of 8 JohnH (5 authors) Dec 20
2005

Here's a Story You Will Never See On Fox News 41 new of 56 jabadoodle
(11 authors) Dec 20 2005

Happy Whatever 3 new of 3 JimH (2 authors) Dec 20 2005

Boating Movie Trivia Contest. 17 new of 32 Martin Schöön (7
authors) Dec 20 2005

OT: Christmas Card Disclaimer 2 new of 2 (2
authors) Dec 20 2005

fuel line hose clamps 4 new of 4 (4 authors)
Dec 20 2005

free Happy Henry eBook 1 new of 1 (1
author) Dec 20 2005

Liberals in mourning 72 new of 78 Doug Kanter (9 authors) Dec 20 2005

Our Fuhrer has done it again 34 new of 40 P Fritz (11 authors) Dec 20
2005

OT--Rasmussen no longermy favorite pollster ;-) 1 new of 1 NOYB (1
author) Dec 20 2005

OT: American Gestapo 84 new of 85 Doug Kanter (11 authors) Dec 20
2005

And then, you have this.. 1 new of 2 Doug Kanter (1 author) Dec 20
2005

God of wind 6 new of 13 brianM (4 authors) Dec 20 2005

OT: Inkjet Refill Kit Warning 6 new of 8
(6 authors) Dec 19 2005

Solution to nausea-thanks bush 7 new of 7 Dixon (4 authors) Dec 19
2005

New England ice fishing 37 new of 56 P. Fritz (13 authors) Dec 19
2005

NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE 84 new of 94 Dan Krueger (12
authors) Dec 19 2005

omc thermostat housing gasket sealing 2 new of 2 ben (1 author) Dec
19 2005

Ear to ear grin, holiday suprise 14 new of 16 Wayne. B (8 authors)
Dec 19 2005

OT: Better than multiplication tables 1 new of 1 JohnH (1 author) Dec
19 2005

OT: Nikon customer service. 22 new of 42 JohnH (3 authors) Dec 19
2005

OT: Understanding the NSA 3 new of 3 Bert Robbins (3 authors) Dec 19
2005

A War Without Heroes 1 new of 1 Mule (1 author) Dec 19 2005

Do flares expire? 14 new of 16 (10 authors) Dec 19
2005

A Soldier's Story About Life in Iraq 16 new of 17 Doug Kanter (6
authors) Dec 19 2005

OT: Cool greeting for Cheney

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually *decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Chuck's challenge was right on.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of
the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually
*decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Chuck's challenge was right on.
--
John H

So why not live it John rather than depending on flaming folks at alternate
NG's?

Actually, *my* challenge is more appropriate and easier to live by.

Do you sign on John?

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:26:46 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of
the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually
*decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules* here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Chuck's challenge was right on.
--
John H

So why not live it John rather than depending on flaming folks at alternate
NG's?

Actually, *my* challenge is more appropriate and easier to live by.

Do you sign on John?


Read Chuck's response. It makes good sense. *None* of us should be
name-callers.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

wrote:

JimH wrote:

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually *decreased*
as a result of it.

Yes, "participation" is down and thank heavens for small favors. There
are entire threads missing. In fact, there are entire categories of
threads missing. Certain posters, with little or nothing to contribute
to discussions about boating, are indeed missing in action. Too darn
bad- they can take the naming and flaming somewhere else as it should be
a reasonable expectation (when one visits a NG titled "rec.boats")
that most of the discussion should center around boating.

But check this out, please, Jim. Discussion of boating topics is way
*up* from what it has been.

The challenge didn't impose any restrictions, it was a call to the
worst offenders
(that would include you and me) to modify our behavior and see if the
tone of the group changed as a result. It did. I'm sorry to hear that
you prefer the previous atmosphere that prevailed here- but that's your
call to make and you are free to conduct yourself here as you see fit.

There are no "rules" here. Never have been. There are common courtesies
that most people will follow in order to promote the smoothest
conversational interaction- and then there will always be a group of
people who feel that their personal compulsion to express themselves
however they see fit trumps any general desire among the group for
civil discourse and rational polite discussion. If some people are
feeling "tense" or unduly restricted by the general group attitude
toward anti-social behavior, there is nothing and nobody who can or
will stop them from dumping load after load of crap into the NG as far
too many of us have done in the past.

You think? You don't see a difference in the type of posts, the tone of
the posts, an increase in the number of boating related posts? The
group is no better than it was in November? Interesting analysis.

Do you believe your admonition will moderate his behavior, Chuck? Does
he *ever* post about boats or boating? Do you really think he has the
capacity to ever 'get it'? The sad reality is that some are not here for
on-topic discussions. The cruising NG has found the right answer for
these mindless trolls...and that should be the goal for this forum.
Simple solutions are best, IMO.

--
Skipper

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:26:46 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of
the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually
*decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has
not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that
this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules*
here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as
OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Chuck's challenge was right on.
--
John H

So why not live it John rather than depending on flaming folks at
alternate
NG's?

Actually, *my* challenge is more appropriate and easier to live by.

Do you sign on John?


Read Chuck's response. It makes good sense. *None* of us should be
name-callers.
--
John H


Agreed.

And none of us should insult, personally attack or flame
others.............agreed?

While on that subject, none of us should be telling us what is right to post
here while doing the same...............agreed?

So...........................the netcopping needs to
stop....................agreed?

JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:26:46 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:

The *Challenge*: Perhaps it is time to revisit this issue since the
original *Challenge* a month or so ago.

I am not disputing the validity of that original challenge but I do have
some comments and suggestions.

Since that *Challenge* this NG is dripping wet with tensions because of
the
various mandates placed on it and the participation has actually
*decreased*
as a result of it.

I am not suggesting that the *Challenge* was wrong but that we need to
perhaps revisit the restrictions it called for as it is obvious it has
not
worked, including the netcopping of those mandates. I suggest that
this
new and improved atmosphere has made the NG stale and perhaps even more
confrontational.

Suggestions:

1. Stop all netcopping Ignore those who don't abide by the *rules*
here
(most important!)
2. Allow any sort of topic to be posted but make sure it is marked as
OT
Then refer back to #1.
3. Stop the personal attacks and insults.
4. Stop the flaming.
5. Stop the trolling for heated arguments.
6. Ignore those who do not abide by these rules.

Do those things and we are fine. Keep on as we are and we are nothing
better than what we were.

:-)

Chuck's challenge was right on.
--
John H
So why not live it John rather than depending on flaming folks at
alternate
NG's?

Actually, *my* challenge is more appropriate and easier to live by.

Do you sign on John?

Read Chuck's response. It makes good sense. *None* of us should be
name-callers.
--
John H


Agreed.

And none of us should insult, personally attack or flame
others.............agreed?

While on that subject, none of us should be telling us what is right to post
here while doing the same...............agreed?

So...........................the netcopping needs to
stop....................agreed?


JimH,
Let me cut and paste your last two sentences and see if you see yourself
in this:

While on that subject, none of us should be telling us what is right
to post
here while doing the same...............agreed?

So...........................the netcopping needs to
stop....................agreed?

In the first sentence you tell everyone that no one should be telling us
what is right to post here. In the very next sentence you are telling
everyone what they can post in here.

Chucks recommendations that was supported by 99% of the regulars is the
correct path to follow.


--
Reggie
************************************************** *************

Q. What's the difference between a brown-noser and a ****-head?
A. Depth perception.
************************************************** *************

Skipper wrote:


Do you believe your admonition will moderate his behavior, Chuck? Does
he *ever* post about boats or boating? Do you really think he has the
capacity to ever 'get it'? The sad reality is that some are not here for
on-topic discussions. The cruising NG has found the right answer for
these mindless trolls...and that should be the goal for this forum.
Simple solutions are best, IMO.

--
Skipper

I'm pretty distressed to hear that my philosophical disagreement with
JimH about the best course for rec.boats to take reads as an
"admonition". It wasn't intended to be. Jim has every right to express
his opinion. I have every right to disagree. As he points out, as long
as we avoid personal insults and name calling, that's not such a bad
thing. The problem is that history proves again and again that the mix
of personalities in rec.boats (and in most NG's if you look around)
*cannot* discuss a wide range of subjects without devolving to some
pretty nasty behaviors. Perhaps its a sign of the times, and there are
a lot of muddy skirts around in this regard.....certainly including my
own.

Are we a chatroom, or a newsgroup?

As I have said all along, if we want a chatroom we've had a dandy and
there is no need for anybody to change anything from the late November,
early December model where the majority of threads were OT, and even
the on topic threads quickly devolved into flame fests. If we want to
be a useful newsgroup, we may have to settle for fewer total posts per
day in order to attract a greater number of particpants and posts. As
we were, we were seeing example after example of new people coming to
the group, making a post or two, and then (presumably) running for the
exit holding their cyber noses. Who can blame them?

Why are OT threads a problem, even when the original poster avoids
calling names, etc?
In my opinion and observation, it's because 99% of the bitchy behavior
in this group occurs in OT threads. People then carry those personal
disputes into the on-topic threads and we suddenly have the Hatfields
and the McCoys all over hell. It's because I know darn well, (or
should), that even posting "George Bush did this yesterday" in as
objective a manner as I could manage, to *this* group, is going to
rally a half dozen people to declare that Bush is an idiot who stole
two elections and another half dozed to proclaim that he will be
remembered as the greatest president since Lincoln, at least, and given
the remainder of his second term he could easily eclipse ol' Abe. Who
needs that?

Don't they say that futility is the practice of continuing to do the
same old thing while expecting different results?