Why the Water Cooler can be Saved

[Anonymous]

I heard a rumor that someone turned in some real names of “trolls” to the CAS. Told the CAS that these 4 or 5 people said that they would like it if the WC was gone. So the CAS called these people and threatened to turn the case over to the ABCD for investigation.

I have a friend on COOS, and he verified this. He also said that COOS eventually came to its senses, recognized that this type of action would open up the possibility of lawsuits, and dropped the issue altogether.

I suspect that these 5 people know who turned them in. Is it possible that one or more of these folks started to complain about the WC in order to get back at the informant? It is possible. And it’s also possible that the complaints were legit. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

After Mike B. warned the trolls, most of the all caps stuff stopped. The “trolling” really tapered off, with the notable exception of the Pird Boop controversy and the Thanksgiving day spew. Unfortunately, the cyber flirters didn’t take Mike as seriously as the trolls did.

The first shot in this “war” came when COOS cancelled the Holiday Informal, and warned 6 or 7 of the cyberflirters. I never read this thread. Did the cyberflirters cross the line, in light of the Boa warning to “keep it clean”? I guess everyone has a different opinion on that. But the only opinion that really matters is COOS, and they evidently thought it did cross the line.

After that happened, I figured that things would totally cool down on the WC. I figured the only type of stuff we would see would be the usual politics, religion, current events, Access, etc. I guess people didn’t take the Holiday informal cancellation seriously, or maybe they just wanted to thumb their nose at COOS, because that’s not what happened.

Just look at some of the stuff that happened after the H.I. cancellation:

1. One poster started to post disparaging remarks about specific insurance companies, violating a long held rule of the WC.
2. Another poster published a link (the infamous Landover Baptist) to a pretty gross story about adolescent boys using Jar-Jar dolls for an unauthorized purpose.
3. Another poster pulled up a very old haiku thread. The first page of this thread has some haikus dealing with broken prophylatic devices (“size matters”), female dryness, and some other stuff. This after coos had specifically said that one area that violated the rules was any talk of reproductive anatomy.
4. The cyber flirters decided to thumb their nose at coos with a thread called “OFFENSIVE (all caps) words” that basically had a bunch of juvenille sayings that could be interpreted in either a legit or a “dirty” manner. Great stuff like “penal code” and the “cunning –“ remark.

Given that, I would say that it’s certainly possible that some of the stiff suits in the CAS started to send complaints. Maybe some of the “trolls” did too. But it doesn’t really matter. The bottom line is that COOS determined that the complaints had merit. If people would have just cooled it, this never would have happened.

That’s why I still have hope for the WC. If they bring it back, and if everyone behaves, I think it is workable. By everyone behaves, I mean: knock off the cyberflirting, which coos clearly thinks has crossed the line, and don’t pull up the old threads that did cross the line. Maybe we could even clean the slate, and get rid of all the old stuff. Give everybody a fresh start.

So who killed the cooler? I suppose you could mete out the culpability to several parties. The informant, the trolls (if they were behind some or all of the complaints), the stiff suits in the CAS who have been irritated by the WC for quite a while, coos for its policy of guilt by association, and the cyberflirters and others who continued to taunt coos even after the fit hit the shan. Different people would assign the guilt in different proportions, I guess.

I still think we can salvage the WC.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

I'd like to believe you're right. I guess we'll have to wait and see what comes out of the rumored COOS emergency meeting.

[E. Blackadder]

What's the big deal about dispairaging individual insurance companies? Some of them deserve it.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

It was never officially against the rules, as far as I know, but it was the general perception that using CAS resources to criticize an individual or individual company was a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Obi's right. It was always an "unwritten" rule.

I suspect that the CAS would respond pretty quickly to any poster who said something like "XYZ is going under". For one thing, having that one the CAS site could open the CAS up to a lawsuit from XYZ shareholders. Also, this type of comment could easily be regarded as anti-competitive. i.e. someone from ABC insurance may be posting this in order to steal XYZ business.

[Another day in Paradise]

I am curious, Fresh Start, where you are getting all these rules the CAS published? They never stated any parameters that I saw. As a matter of fact, I was told prior to the holiday informal debacle (by a member of COOS) that they had no problem with the flirt threads.

[Anonymous]

If they had no problem with the flirt threads, then why did they pull the H.I. and issue warnings?

Here’s what I was referring to:


http://www.casact.org/private/coos/112701/procedure.htm

[Anonymous]

Also, I guess Obi was wrong. It clearly says in these rules that you can't post disparaging remarks about individuals or companies. So I guess it was a "written" rule.

[Wolverine]

Fresh Start-

I have participated in the "flirt threads" as long as they have existed and to date have recieved no warnings. (yes, my e-mail account is still active and I check it regularly) This would seem to indicate that COOS does not have a problem with "cyber-flirting" in general, but only with certain posts.

You seem to pin all of the guilt on one group of people you label the "cyberflirters". If an old thread was deemed to be "over the line" why did they not just remove the thread before or simply warn the posters that put it "over the line"?

I think the process has evolved for the better as it appears that COOS now informs an individual what post they are being warned about when the warning is due to a specific post and not a thread in general. What one person such as yourself might find entertaining might not interest many of the rest of us. Should we then complain that your interests are offending and not suitable on a professional website? I would hope not. I have used the flirt threads to make contact with others in my same field who appear to be a lot of fun to talk with and with whom I would like to spend time at future seminars, both exam and CAS related.

I respect your opinion. Please respect mine as I have to disagree with you in that I feel you are glossing over a much broader problem. The problem is how to effectively manage a bulletin board on a professional web-site. Do I have the answer? Unfortunately no. I do applaud this site as it appears to be very effectively managed and has a wonderful mix of people contributing here. Thanks Traci and Glenn.

[Anonymous]

Wolverine:

I’m not pinning the blame on one group of people. I think the blame can be meted out to several groups of people. That was one of the points of my original thread.

I totally agree with your comments on complaints. I disagree completely with the coos policy of “guilt by association” If the WC is going to be a workable forum, then you should only be warned for what YOU say, not for what someone else on the same thread says. Unless coos makes this change, then I agree with Obi that the WC cannot survive.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

The "warn everyone on the thread" tactic was one of my two major complaints.

Warning and banning people for the haiku thread was the other. Whether or not its contents were appropriate, it was long dead. I can only hope that, under the stress of multiple complaints, nobody in the enforcement process noticed the thread was that old.

If they did notice the dates, choosing to take any action beyond deleting the thread was a display of extremely poor judgment.

[Pseudolus]

Even if things at the WC are put right in the short term, what about in the long term? Registration of new members has been shut down for months now. If it's kept shut, the user base will eventually dwindle away to nothing. If it's reopened, is the CAS willing to take the time to intelligently, effectively, and actively moderate?

I haven't heard anything to make me think that they are so willing. If they're not, the same problems will quickly resurface, leading to another blowup.

We're better off here. I argued to that effect before the latest round of chaos, and I still think it's so.

[Wolverine]

Fresh Start-

One point I was hoping to get across was that it appears that COOS does NOT have a problem with cyber-fliritng as long as it does not get too graphic. I have posted numerous times on these threads (including the ill-fated H.I. thread) and have gotten not warnings. Wouldn't I have been warned if cyber flirting were not permitted?

[Anonymous]

Wolverine:

The problem with cyberflirting is that it just has the inherent tendency to get out of hand. Also, once it begins, it starts to infiltrate just about every thread. Here’s a possible solution: if we get the WC back, let’s keep all cyberflirting over here, just to be safe.

BTW, why is cyberflirting so important? There’s lots of other things to do on a BB.

I think we’ll get the WC back, and both of Obi’s complaints will be resolved.

Here’s how Obi’s complaints should be resolved, IMO:

First, regarding old threads like haiku. The CAS has a dilemma here. What if someone pulls up and old thread and someone complains. The cas is obligated to investigate, and let's say that the complaint is determined to have merit. Do you warn posters for comments they made over a year ago, when the forum rules were still very “grey”? I say no. But at the same time, you can’t just ignore a legitimate complaint, or you open yourself up to legal problems. My solution (as my name implies) is to delete all threads on the WC, and thus give everybody a “fresh start”.

Second, it’s clear to me (as I stated earlier) that you should only be warned/banned for statements that YOU made. No guilt by association.

Also, I think we need to use better judgment. That’s goes for everybody, not just the trolls. I really don’t think trolling had been much of a problem since Mike B’s big warning. The stuff that got us in hot water last week did not appear to be related to the trolls.

[Wolverine]

FS-

Why is cyber flirting necessary? Simply put, it's not. But then again, why is talk about sports necessary? About politics? It is just one more way that people get to know a little more about the others that post to the BB. If you get rid of the cyber-flirting then you might as well get rid of everything but exam and professional discussions on the CAS and have all other discussions here.

Once again, to each their own. Some like the flirting.

[Anonymous]

Wolv – We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think coos did a pretty good job under some very trying circumstances. IMO, there were many posters last week who were going out of their way to taunt coos. After the H.I. got pulled, it seems to me that a few very vocal people decided that “if we can’t have cyberflirting, then we don’t won’t the WC at all”. So they went out of their way to stick a finger in coos’s eye, like on the offensive words thread. I don’t get it. As I said before, there’s plenty of stuff to do on a BB other than cyberflirting.

[Wolverine]

FS-
I agree that we will have to disagree about the cyberflirting. I do, however, agree that you don't want to push COOS. It's not the end of the world.

[Anonymous]

FS: It seems that what really annoys you is thread drift, and y'know, I hate thread drift as much as the next poster, but not all cyber-flirting is thread drift.
Last spring, I, too was annoyed by the cyberflirting, because for about a month, every thread would devolve into the Tiger-Bama-Franchise show, and it was really irritating. So, in the spirit of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em", I actually started e-mailing them, and others, and got involved in study groups with more folks, participated in Legends 3. Then, I actually met some of these folks, both at CLRS and NEAS, and found that these folks are as fun as they seem on the board.
Thread drift of the flirt-kind has pretty much stopped, as we have opted to have flirt threads instead. Many are even labeled as such, so you can avoid them if they annoy you.
There's room for all kinds of topics on the board, and while I don't agree with many folks' opinions, I can avoid topics I don't want to get involved in. If flirt threads annoy you, stay away! I don't go into political & sport threads because they don't interest me. But, I would never say that they have to be eliminated because a few people don't like them.
We should celebrate the fact that actuaries are actually a diverse group of people, not all nerds with no sense of humor.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

A new topic area for our immigrant friends would be just the ticket.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

FS: Why kill all the old threads? Why not say that:

1) As of 12/18/01, here are the rules.
2) Posts before that date which violate the rules will be deleted upon receipt of a valid complaint, but no further action will be taken.
3) Posts on or after that date which violate the rules will be deleted and the poster subject to discipline, upon receipt of a valid complaint.

[Anonymous]

Obi – I think that’s a great idea. I would encourage you to email that idea to either J. Liller or S. Sawyer.

Elmo – No, I don’t mind thread drift that much, if it fits within the framework of the rules. What I objected to last week was threads that were specifically created to taunt coos, like the offensive words thread. In general, there was a massive over-reaction last week to the H.I. cancellation. All I’m saying is that whoever complained last week had some legitimate gripes, whether it was “trolls” or non-trolls.

Obi – Here’s another problem. Let’s say someone complains about a post on a thread, coos investigates, and the complaint is found to have merit. Why can’t coos just delete the offending post, and not just the entire thread? For instance, it sounds like there were only about 6 or 7 people who got warned for the H.I. thread, and maybe there were only a dozen offensive posts. I think the reaction would have been much less if coos would have just deleted the dozen bad posts, instead of cancelling the whole H.I. Of course, maybe they just felt the whole thing was getting out of line, or maybe it’s just too much work to “pick and choose” which posts on a thread to delete.

[Anonymous]

I asked the same question: why couldn't the offending posts be deleted, leaving the thread in tact...I got no real response.

However, when they added the 9/11 section to the cooler, I suggested that threads that were already in the WC about 9/11 should be moved to the new section, and the response I got was, basically "we don't know how".

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

I'm not sure whether the software lets them delete a single post or not. They should at least be able to edit an offending post into blankness, and that is a far better solution than deleting an entire thread.

[MathGuy]

Ben -
Remember, we used to be able to delete our own posts. All you have to do is go to the "Edit Post" Screen, and check the "Delete Post" Box. As of now, only administrators have this ability.

[Anonymous]

One last comment, and them I’m out. Somebody (Pseudolus I think) had a post last week that said there were two groups to blame for the demise of the WC: whoever made the complaints, and coos. Lots of other people are out there saying “the trolls did this, they finally won, it’s all their fault, etc”. I think that’s just a way of deflecting personal responsibility. Yes, coos made some big mistakes, especailly the two that Obi has pointed out. And if “trolls” were involved in the complaints, then that was dirty pool. But the fact is that there were a lot of posters last week who were trying very hard to make life hell for coos, because they were upset about the coos crackdown on cyberflirting via the H.I. cancellation. This group, along with the original informant, deserves a big chunk of the blame.

[MathGuy]

I want to know what's going on over there. They seemed to act quickly on my second "Landover Baptist" thread (24 hours, 2 minutes from post to warning)*. However, I admit to complaining (Friday morning) about the RCism thread in which Lord Curzon claims 3/4 of all priests are homosexual, etc., and nothing has been done about it, apparently. They aren't doing a stellar job of protecting themselves from lawsuits, imho.

* Of course, they ordered me to edit the Simpsons quote (re: Catholics) or they would delete it, but it's still there (http://www.casact.org/students/forums/noncgi/Forum14/HTML/003024.html)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MathGuy on 2001-12-17 16:16 ]</font>

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

FS: I didn't post to the HI thread (cyber-flirting doesn't do much for me), but I did post to the offensive words thread. In fact, I started one of my own that didn't take off for some reason. Part of it was protest, but mostly (for me, at least) I was having fun with words--anyone who knows me in real life knows that my sense of humor tends to run in that direction anyhow.

The bit of COOS-ness that upset me before the Haiku and words threads debacle was Black Flag's "Free Tibet" thread. It was nothing but silliness and no threat to anyone.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Obi-Wan Kenobi on 2001-12-17 16:38 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

I guess I'm one of the people FS is accusing of over-reacting to the pulling of the HI thread. Guilty.

Unfortunately, the "offensive words" thread was clearly marked with "if you're easily offended, don't open"...I didn't start the thread, but recognized it as what it was: a statement on censorship. There have been quite a few threads like this in the past, Flora even found one from very early in the current WC's life (from early 2000).

Someone could have started a more blatant "we hate the COOS" thread, but that's not what happened. And what was the result? We were censored. Who'd a thunk?

[Franchise]

Elmo wrote:


"... for about a month, every thread would devolve into the Tiger-Bama-Franchise show"


And now, elmo dear, the student has become the master. I bow to you. You snatched the pebbles from my hand and proved you were worthy. :wink:

BTW, how dare you give that overgrown kitten top billing over me. (hehe)

[Anonymous]

[Arlie_Proctor]

The real question, at this point, is whether there is anything that can be done to attract folks back to the WC and at the same time protect the WC as a site branded under the CAS name. There is, after all, a pretty good substitute here, where posters are concerned.

The point of Obi's first post on this topic was that one can either not control one's BB or one must control it well. Given that the WC had problems with material that strayed into the lines of potentially offensive to some, that ran over the lines of posted rules about posting information/opinions about competitors, and that strayed into true Water Cooler type conversations; it would be hard for COOS to justify returning it to its former status of open registration and completely anonymous posting, that did not work.

Certainly, the SOA model of requiring confirmation of identity has not worked well in that it does not attract a critical mass necessary for good interchange. Rather, that method of controlling behavior has stiffled communication. On the other hand, with a prior posting volume running in the hundreds of posts per day, the cost of actively monitoring messages on the WC is more than the CAS could probably justify were it to attempt a true moderated board format.

What is workable between those extremes that would be superior to that offered here? I am hard-pressed to determine a solution that serves the diverse goals AND which will attract back posters.

In order to keep an electronic community healthy, some amount of "noise" must be tolerated, solely for the purpose of generating new posts and keeping posters coming back for a new look regularly. After all, nobody returns to a forum regularly where there are few new posts. That "noise" is fragile in that some will always find it irritating while others revel in it. Take any given topic and the constituents of those two groups shift.

How do we revive it in light of this dichotomy?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Arlie_Proctor on 2001-12-17 23:56 ]</font>

[E. Blackadder]

I would suggest that one periodically step in and pleasantly say "shhh" when the noise level gets too high.

I saw this happen once on the eBay discussion threads. A reference to "Hampster bags" * got everyone giggling and it all but completely took over the threads for about a day.

Then one of their moderators stepped in, mentioned that it was time to put that to rest. To soften the blow, she noted that future inappropriate posts (eBay exists to generate sales) would be relocated to the appropriate hampster forum.
We got over it.

* It was Hampster somethings. Probably not bags. And yes, it was misspelled.

[Anonymous]

Let me just say I’m a little biased as I have a friend on coos. Here’s some thoughts I have to add. FWIW.

Elmo says that she recognized the offensive words thread for what it was – a statement on censorship. Here’s a couple of comments on censorship:

I. If the US government tells the NY Times that it can’t print op-ed pieces that are critical of the Bush administration, then that’s censorship. If the CAS decides what can or can’t be posted to it’s private website, then that is not censorship.
II. I suspect that many of the people who posted to the offensive words thread (including elmo) had also complained to the CAS at some time about the “trolls”. Back in the day, the trolls were starting a lot of all caps threads dealing with partying, weightlifting, punk rock, etc. Granted, that got old. When the CAS reviewed the complaints and took action, these folks thought “awesome, the system works.” Then, the tables get turned, and the trolls complain about these people. Again, coos follows the exact same procedure, finds that the complaints have merit, and then pulls the posts and issues warnings. Now, these people cry out “that’s censorship!” No, that’s hypocrisy.

Here’s a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say that one of the trolls decides to complain about the cyberflirters to even the score. This troll opens up the H.I. thread and to his delight finds a lot of juicy material. So he sends his complaint, coos agrees, the H.I. gets cancelled, etc. What happened next? As I mentioned earlier, a group of people over-reacted. The offensive words thread got started, “haiku” got pulled up, we had the gross Jar-Jar link, somebody started to criticize individual companies by name, etc. At that point, I suspect you had a lot of legitimate complaints from non-trolls. I wouldn’t be surprised if coos got a large number of complaints about the offensive words thread and the Jar-Jar link. So the original complaint started a chain reaction. Eventually, some very childish people started to “bump” hundreds of threads and the Water Cooler became a jumbled mess of outdated garbage.

If that scenario is true, then think how well the original troll’s plan unfolded. He lit the match and just watched you guys self-destruct. Before long, the WC had imploded and most of the regulars were banned.

One more thing about coos. The chair of coos is a dedicated professional and a solid guy. He is human, so he may have made some mistakes and he has a breaking point. You guys pushed him to that breaking point. So if you want to find a culprit, don’t just point to coos and/or the “trolls” – just take a look in the mirror.

Sorry if this seems a little harsher than I intended.

[Wolverine]

Did your friend on COOS tell you they were against cyber-flirting, or was that your assumption due to the pulling of the H.I. thread?

I agree with you in that this is their board, it is not censorship when they tell us we can't post something.

I do feel it is wrong and malicious to attack individuals by complaining about their posts rather than complaining about ideas that are offending.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wolverine on 2001-12-18 09:11 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

Wolv – I agree with your comment that coos is not per se opposed to cyberflirting. As I mentioned above though, I think cyberflirting just has an inherent tendency to cross the line once things get rolling. Maybe I’m wrong. But I still say that if the WC gets going again, we should keep all cyberflirting over here just to be safe.

Also I agree that it is wrong to complain just to cause trouble. But keep in mind, that all complaints are individually reviewed. If the complaint has no merit, no action will be taken. Every complaint goes through the same process. And coos is the only opinion that matters. Coos decided that the complaints last week had merit. I agree. It really doesn’t matter if it was a troll or non troll that made the complaints.

BTW Wolv, thanks for not just ripping me. I think you’re giving my arguments a fair shake.

[Pseudolus]

FS - What do you see as the benefit of moving back to the CAS site? Here, we can do everything we did there, plus some better software stuff (like a working Search and Private Messages), plus we have moderators who know how to moderate - they communicate with us when we start to get out of line, and let us know why they do what they do.

The only benefit I can see is the drop-in factor - casual CAS surfers looking for exam info and happen across the forum. Of course, unless registration is reactivated, that won't do them any good, since they won't be able to post. They would, however, be able to see a tasteful "ad" suggesting they come over to this site for their foruming needs.

[Anonymous]

Obi:

I need to drop this and get back to work. I’ve lurked on the WC for some time, and I always liked your posts. I believe that you thought that the offensive words thread really was just fun with words, but I think most people thought like Elmo, that it was a statement against “censorship” and a way to poke a finger in coos eye.

Coos made some mistakes. I think we all agree on that. Please understand my point though. It’s not right for you guys just to blame this whole affair on coos. Or on the trolls, whoever they are, if they really were complaining just to be ornery. The WC regulars need to own up to part of the responsibility for what happened.

BTW, I don’t know who pulled up the haiku thread. I agree that it probably wasn’t malicious. But the fact is that it has some very raunchy stuff on the first page. I think there were probably a lot of non-troll complaints about this thread.

Same with the Jar-Jar post. Let me ask you, did you read this post? Did you complain? I did. Also, what about the very disparaging remarks that were made about specific companies? Wether or not these things were done to spite coos (unlike the offensive words thread, I suspect these threads were isolated incidents, albeit very egregious violations), the fact is that they contributed to the spate of complaints last week.

Obi – where did your post go? The one I am responding to here?

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

Sorry for leaving you in the lurch--I changed my mind and didn't want to argue the point. I'll summarize real quick so you're not out on a limb:

1) The Haiku thread was bumped not to spite COOS but because another haiku thread had been started.

2) The thread bumping occurred after most people had fled the WC. That doesn't make it a good idea (or a bad one), but it didn't affect the COOS actions that chased people away.

3) The COOS was under considerable pressure, which probably led up to their egregious fumbling in the mass and retroactive enforcement events.

4) The forum can't work without consistently applied and stated standards. The COOS may have tried to do that, but was unnecessarily heavy-handed in the attempt.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Obi-Wan Kenobi on 2001-12-18 09:57 ]</font>

[MathGuy]

I must be dense or something. When I received word of the complaint about my original "Landover Baptist" thread (the infamous "Jar Jar" post), I assumed it was because I linked to a religious parody site and posted a blinking banner ad. It didn't actually dawn on me that the content of the article I linked to was the problem. The original purpose of the thread was just to let people know of the existence of Landover Baptist. Knowing that there were quite a few fans of "The Onion", I thought it would be appreciated. I regret choosing the link that I did; I should have just had a link to the main page and left it at that. I was mainly thinking about the LB site as a complement to the various Catholic/Protestant/Mormon discussions that were going on. How do we view our own religion? How do we view others? Are our views justified, or fueled by misconceptions?

The story I linked to certainly has no place on a professional discussion forum; I agree that it degrades the profession and paints a bad picture for those who are seeking information on the actuarial profession. However, I think that I belong in a separate class that the so-called Trolls. What I did was completely ingenuous and non-malicious. That doesn't mean it wasn't stupid or offensive; just that I didn't mean it that way. The "Holiday Informal" thread is the same way. It's intent was to increase cordiality among actuarial-types; however, it arguably implied to those on the outside looking in that actuaries are a bunch of immature eigth graders. This also is not the best image to project. But I think that this thread was not meant to offend or hurt.

TROLL THREADS (CALL ME ON MY CELL ON FAT LOVE FRIDAY, WE CAN LIFT WEIGHTS TOGETHER!!!), on the other hand, were designed to be malicious. Posting many, many threads with no content serves only to disrupt the forum by making it difficult for others to post and otherwise use the forum for what it was meant. Indescriminately bumping threads belongs in the same category as trolling, and should be treated in a similar manner.

[Mobile Actuary]

FS, I didn't participate in the thread bumping or the Offensive Words thread, but I cheer on those who did. COOS needed a 2x4 between the eyes. They haven't done anything yet to mend fences for their terrible decisions.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mobile Actuary on 2001-12-18 11:22 ]</font>

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

Can anyone confirm that COOS is meeting today? If so, any idea when we might hear results? (Gosh, now I'm sounding like IHope2Pass.)

[Anonymous]

a little birdie told me that they met yesterday...and changes are afoot. We should hear by the end of the week...

[Gandalf]

On 2001-12-18 08:18, Fresh Start wrote:
Let me just say I’m a little biased as I have a friend on coos. Here’s some thoughts I have to add. FWIW.

Elmo says that she recognized the offensive words thread for what it was – a statement on censorship. Here’s a couple of comments on censorship:

I. If the US government tells the NY Times that it can’t print op-ed pieces that are critical of the Bush administration, then that’s censorship. If the CAS decides what can or can’t be posted to it’s private website, then that is not censorship.

That certainly is censorship. At least, the act of determining whether specific posts fall within the guidelines, and deleting the ones that it considers do not, is censorship.

(Check any dictionary; or find Ebenezer Kohl's link somewhere in this forum.)

The CAS / COOS have the right to do such censorship, and are not violating freedom of speech or freedom of the press when they do.

Posters should be free to comment upon how the CAS / COOS sets its guidelines and how it exercises its right to censorship, as long as their comments are acceptable. Most posts to "Offensive Words" were clearly not in violation of the guidelines, and should not have generated warnings. IMHO, all the posts to that thread should have been tolerated.

[Anonymous]

Wolverine
One point I was hoping to get across was that it appears that COOS does NOT have a problem with cyber-flirting as long as it does not get too graphic.

I received my first warning for telling moj not to get his panties in a bunch. COOS found this post to be inappropriate. The other post in the Holiday informal thread that I posted and was found inappropriate was where I debated receiving a kiss from Ammie on my birthday or watching a kiss between Ammie and Another day in Paradise. :grin: Whether this is inappropriate or not became irrelevant after COOS found my first post inappropriate. “Don’t get your panties in a bunch” has been said on many, many threads apart from the flirts.

My banishment came from a haiku I wrote more than a year ago. COOS didn’t find my haiku inappropriate. COOS administered my banishment by association.

I didn't post to the Offensive Words thread that was pulled.

Cyber-flirting had zero to do with my banishment.

[Anonymous]

1. Mathguy is right. Cyberflirting does not give actuaries a good image. It makes us look like a bunch of 8th graders.
2. I’m amazed that you guys are so eager to pin the blame for the demise of the WC on everyone but yourselves. This whole attitude that “the trolls must have orchestrated this because it couldn’t have been anything that we did.” What you forget is that the trolls really hadnt been much of a problem for the last several weeks. Other than Pirdie’s deleted garbage and the Thanksgiving morning spew. If the trolls turned you in, then that was dirty pool. But what you all fail to acknowledge is that there wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place if you didn’t cross the line with your cyberflirting, offensive words, Jar-Jar posts (Mathguy admitted his wrong in this, so I’ll give him credit for that), trashing companies, etc.
3. You guys complained about the trolls. So even if the trolls complained about you, are you telling me that it was a big surprise to you? If you start holding up other people’s posts to the coos standards, is it that big a surprise if these people turn the tables on you? You better be ready for it and not whine when it comes because you asked for it.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

"Looks like the foot's on the other hand, now!"

[Arlie_Proctor]

FS:

Like you, I have several friends on COOS. Among them, I have always found Stew to be a great guy. In the past, I have questioned him on COOS policies and he has always entertained the questions and provided thoughtful and professional discourse. That's what makes this situation particularly disappointing.

It is clear from reading the COOS minutes and communications that many of the members were blissfully ignorant of the WC prior to a few months ago. When they logged on, that was the true 2X4 between the eyes. Most of their actions seemed reasonable up until last Tuesday. Following Tuesday's actions, there has been very little discernable discourse from COOS, that's not like them. And, it's not helping matters that they've waited this long to back up their actions and propose something workable, if indeed, something is workable at this point that leaves the WC functional and thriving.

As a side note, I never saw the Offensive Words post as a slap in the face to COOS. Bad actuarial humor, absolutely; puns are the lowest form of humor. Puns and double entendre made up of obscure terms only a financial professional could love may be even worse. However, I had no intention of offending them or anyone else with what I posted there, nor, do I believe, most of the posters to that thread intended to offend. If they truly took offense, then I'll apologize, no big deal. But, someone on COOS needs to start communicating first. The silence is ominous.

[Cosmo]

FS,

You say that many people "likely" including Elmo complained about the trolls. You probably have an idea of how many people did complain from talking to someone on COOS, but to say that Elmo did without any specific knowledge is wrong.

I don't know if she did or not, so I can't say either way, but I would be surprised if many of the regular posters complained. All I know is that I didn't.

[Anonymous]

For the record, I did complain, once, without naming any particular poster, and I don't remember which one it was. It was a few months ago, and as was usual, one person created a persona, and posted ~50 posts in one day, pretty much hijacking the cooler. This poster then pretty much disappeared.

I never saw the Thanksgiving spew (I was with my family...no computer in sight), and until the Informal thread was yanked, I thought we had reached a sort of detente. At least the capital gang were keeping to their own threads, which could be ignored.

Am I to blame for anything that happened on the WC? Yea, probably. I never said I was blameless.

[Anonymous]

“Am I to blame for anything that happened on the WC? Yea, probably. I never said I was blameless.”


Elmo – I have a lot of respect for you for making that statement. What has irritated me is that everybody from the old WC gang seems to be blaming the death of the WC entirely on coos and the trolls. That’s not right. I’m getting up there in years, but I do remember what it’s like to be 20-something. For whatever reason, it’s a hard age to come to grips with your own fallibility. Maybe it’s because most 20ish kids have never really experienced a major personal failure. Let me tell you guys this. You eventually will. And you will realize that things aren’t always black and white, and you can sometimes make mistakes and be wrong. Anyway, the compliment is sincere, elmo. It’s too bad more of the WC gang hasn’t realized this. There will be ice cubes down under before you hear Psuedolus or Draco admit that they are partially to blame.

There are a lot of people who deserve some of the “credit” for the demise of the WC. Certainly coos made some mistakes, as well as anybody who made complaints just to be vindictive. Also, those who overreacted after the H.I. thread got pulled (Arlie: I don’t completely buy this whole line about “we were just playing with words”. You guys knew darn well that you were showing Stu your middle finger with that thread. At least elmo is monster enough to admit that the thread is what it is: a protest of the coos censorship.

And Arlie, you also deserve some special credit for that hysteria thread about getting the abcd involved. I haven’t heard you admit it yet, but you have to admit that there really is a lot of irony in that thread now that you have been warned. Yes, I know you have a “good excuse” (so do the trolls, Arlie – so tell it to the abcd!), but the fact is that you have been warned for inappropriate behavior on the WC. Just like the “departed trolls”. Now, does that merit an abcd hearing? Of course not. The abcd is not the thought police. You can claim that the trolls “vandalized” the board, they can claim that it was clever parody and good fun. The abcd doesn’t care either way.

Here’s some musings:

1. I respect Psuedolus’ comments about the feasibility of the WC. Unless you make the commitment to actively monitor a BB (as Traci does so well on this board), it is pretty unlikely that it’s going to last. I guess I have to admit that much.

2. The one action that clearly crossed the line in this whole charade was the reporting of real names to coos. I’ll put it this way. If someone made death threats on an internet BB, AND if I knew with 100% certainty who that person was, I would probably turn him in. If someone posted some irritating, annoying, and totally inane messages in all caps, would I turn that person in? No. Also, the sad thing about it is that the informant, who also happens to be a person who is predisposed to ridiculous conspiracy theories, was totally wrong. He basically blames the entire affair on IJR and Feelgood. He tells people that IJR and Feelgood share the name of “Harry” and that they launched all the complaints and then posted as Harry to rub it in people’s faces. He is 100% worng. You can choose to believe me or not. All I can tell you is to take anything he says with a grain of salt. He has a singular ability to concoct ridiculous conspiracy theories on the basis of very limited (or nonexistent) evidence. And he owes a lot of people an apology. But that apology will never come. Because he sits on his hands and tells himself that he was right all along and he’s always 100% sure what he claims to know. In reality, he’s as much to blame for the death of the WC as anybody. But don’t hold your breath waiting for him to admit it. Because he ain’t gonna.

[Maphisto's Sidekick]

FWIW, COOS' response has been posted up on the WC.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

Here's the link. (http://www.casact.org/students/forums/noncgi/Forum14/HTML/003072.html)

[frummie]

2) The thread bumping occurred after most people had fled the WC. That doesn't make it a good idea (or a bad one), but it didn't affect the COOS actions that chased people away.



I thought the thread bumping funny at first, but it takes so long to load the WC page that I'm not tending to visit anymore. I'll wait till the bumps disappear, about Dec 22 or 23. The one good thing about this is that it has cured my obsession for visting the WC so often. To me its like Dr. Seuss' book Horton Hears a Hoo. To Horton (the outside world), the WC is but a speck on a dandilion (sp?), but to us its important. My boss is thrilled that suddenly my work is getting done, though he probably doesn't realize why.