Plan B Forum

Anybody who has the keys should be fully committed to keeping the lights on and to absolute free speech, all personal feelings aside.

I have to agree 100 percent; indeed, to me that is the charm and attraction of this place. Banning should be a last resort which is impelemented rarely, if ever.

I think the second requirement is that someone have some rudimentary computer/internet skills, to help handle problems and deal with the host. Most of the time nothing happens, but when it does it's very easy to get led down the garden path by a well-meaning, but poorly trained tech service people (when I had my website for my practice, I had a lot of problems and implemented asinine "solutions" at the recommendation of tech service and that is from GoDaddy which prides itself on its tech service; not sure what we would get here ); we need someone with more than a modicum of tech savvy.

Sorry, I object to 'absolute free speech.' Actually to any rules that include absolute anything. People are sometimes ornery critters and just want to make trouble. Rules need some flexibility. There is always something, someone, seeking to game the system, what ever it might be.

"I holde these truths to be self-evident, that there is always some landmine ahead that was not self-evident."

snailgate.

So we should leave it in the hands of crackpot and bsg our youngest members. I also like the combination of Meade and JoeGuy or Sue and Big RR. Who is willing?

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 31, 2023 11:32 am

I think that the list of people who shouldn't hold the keys to the kingdom is actually quite short. Meade, for example, counts himself out as unacceptable but I don't know that anyone here would object to him - I certainly wouldn't, despite our sometimes heated disagreements on various topics. Andy would be great and had offered to do the job, but then subsequently withdrew his offer - would he reconsider? Econo, Big RR, Sue, Eddie, Crackpot, Snailgate - lots of good options.

I wouldn't have objected to Jarl except for Gob's revelation that he has repeatedly offered to buy the place to shut it down. Jarl says such outrageous things at times that it is difficult to know his true intent, but that alarms me. In the past when I've been very frustrated with what I perceived as bullying here, I have begged to have my account deleted and been ignored, but it would never in a million years occur to me to want to firebomb the place. It still makes me sad that the CyberSoapBox was nuked into the ether, and I would like this place to stay in existence until nobody wants to come here anymore. I still sometimes spend an hour or two here and there re-reading some of the better discussions on various issues in politics and law that included really great contributions from Andrew D and Lord Jim. And the music recommendations thread is a thing that brings much joy and I would hate for it to go away.

I offered to pay to have all traces of my presence here removed and my account deleted. Since that was not accepted, I am perfectly willing to buy the site and nuke it instead.

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:43 pm

I offered to pay to have all traces of my presence here removed and my account deleted. Since that was not accepted, I am perfectly willing to buy the site and nuke it instead.

Since you write that in present tense, is it a reasonable assumption that you still hold that view and objective? If so I think it makes you ineligible to run for co-administrator of Plan B Forum, since, like Trump, you are vowing to destroy the very thing you would be seeking by oath of office to uphold.

With regard to your other objective - I'm not sure why account deletion isn't allowed here, since it was once allowed for a poster who later returned under another moniker. Perhaps that is an issue for discussion of the membership.

Since it's Thursday, here's a throwback from the Plan B wayback machine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5468

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:06 pm

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:43 pm

I offered to pay to have all traces of my presence here removed and my account deleted. Since that was not accepted, I am perfectly willing to buy the site and nuke it instead.

Since you write that in present tense, is it a reasonable assumption that you still hold that view and objective? If so I think it makes you ineligible to run for co-administrator of Plan B Forum, since, like Trump, you are vowing to destroy the very thing you would be seeking by oath of office to uphold.

With regard to your other objective - I'm not sure why account deletion isn't allowed here, since it was once allowed for a poster who later returned under another moniker. Perhaps that is an issue for discussion of the membership.

This site jumped the shark long ago.

And yet....

You're still here, still posting.

That was quite a claque.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:48 pm

Since it's Thursday, here's a throwback from the Plan B wayback machine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5468

Sorry, I object to 'absolute free speech.' Actually to any rules that include absolute anything. People are sometimes ornery critters and just want to make trouble. Rules need some flexibility. There is always something, someone, seeking to game the system, what ever it might be.

So what is your alternative BP? So far as I can see it, we have two alternatives to "absolute" free speech--we can either allow the members (by whatever means) to judge and "mute and boot" someone on the board solely based on the opinions they express (however that is determined)or e can say that someone must to something else (which can be defined and proven) to get banned. I recall years ago the locatec was banned, but it was not because of the conduct of her post but that she used her access to target a member IRL and try to screw with his job. I think that makes sense in a very broad perspective and the Board acted on it; people can and should be able to post whatever opinions they want--but those who do more--like locatec, or like someone who seeks to infect the board with programs causing it to crash, etc., should face some sort of sanction. But to do any more, to say that there are some opinions that bother the members so much that we should be able to as a board sanction them in some way , destroys IMHO what I think the attraction specialness of this Board is. Now reasonable minds can disagree, and ultimately we all can vote with our feet, but I, for one, would not want to be part of a Board that would (or even could) boot people for their opinions. I've walked away from and avoided boards of that type many times, and sincerely hope that does not happen here. But if you have an alternative idea, I am willing to listen.

Guess my alternative is a sort of 'make it up as you go along.' Cafe Dartre got along for quite a while that way. The current options on this board let you blindfold yourself to a particular poster/ I like that option. Intentional cruelty is bad, but tough to define in advance. I favor the principle "incremental improvement is better than delayed perfection."

snailgate.

However it shakes out . . . just in case . . . I'd hate to wake up one day to find there was no Plan B forum . . . not going gentle and so on . . .

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 01, 2023 7:36 pm

However it shakes out . . . just in case . . . I'd hate to wake up one day to find there was no Plan B forum . . . not going gentle and so on . . .

Okay then so is that you offering to serve as one co-administrator?

More a precautionary farewell . . . wouldn't want the board to leave without a recognition of how much it's been a part of my life (ha ha) for the last umpty-ump. I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve

I don't think I'd be a reliable administrator, co or no. Tendency to want to do stuff and then another tendency to sort of put it off for ages. Mrs Meade refers to it as "lazy" IIRC. But what does she know?

Well, some serious decision needs to be made or it's going to be all she wrote. I am too busy in retirement to even think about it and I have no serious computer skills, plus everyone would not wish me in the role anyway, me included.

I vote we give it to BSG and let her run with it. Perhaps she can talk someone into helping her. I am guessing it won't be as bad as Econoline apparently thinks it will be. If no one else is going to take the position, well, beggars can't be choosers.

Well if BSG would be prime, I'd be willing to help out. Even with donations (which I did anyway altho' not as generously as some). I'm not much of a techy (or anything per my fiancees, wives, former and current) although Mrs Meade does seem to think I do wonders on her laptop.

Sounds good. I guess we just need to see if BSG will be prime then work up some kind of vote.

Long Run wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 31, 2023 8:44 pm

That was quite a claque.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:48 pm

Since it's Thursday, here's a throwback from the Plan B wayback machine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5468

I shared this old thread as a reminder that this place has always been chock full of cunts and which cunt is being reviled as top cunt is something that has shifted over the years, but there is plenty of blame to go around.

I find it ironic that certain posters who have been decrying me as top cunt in recent years are now suggesting I should be entrusted with the responsibility of keeping the lights on here. I doubt very much that Gob would allow that to occur, even if I had any interest in the role.

As I understand it, the responsibility of keeping the place going involves asking once per year for PayPal donations and paying the bill to DreamHost. On very rare occasion a technical glitch requires communication with DreamHost. The permissions to register here are so locked down we haven't had any new members register in forever - I referred some cool people here years ago and they never got their registration processed, so I can only assume that there isn't much human time going into that aspect of things. Methusaleh complained about this when he registered in 2020, and before his registration the last few souls who got through were Le Chat House refugees in 2015/2016 and that happened only because of advocacy from then current members.

It might be useful for Gob to take the time to write a post detailing the extent of actual effort required to keep the lights on, so posters who might be interested in seeing that happen can decide if the task is something they are up to.

Or perhaps it is time for the board to die, after all - since nobody has offered themselves as co-admin except Meade, who doesn't feel he could be the primary person in charge of things (and is anyways always running off to Africa where he doesn't get reliable online access ).

Gob refuses to communicate with me, including to the extent of merely confirming receipt of my contribution to the costs this year. Perhaps somebody else could ask him how many months we have left before the lights go off. I would like to get through as much of the music thread as I can before that happens.

Death it is then. Adios all.

Ahem, Gob is willing to keep it live as long as we ourselves organize the financing voluntarily. Approx $120 per year. And he doesn't want to be bothered with chasing money or dealing with anything other than maintaining the connection.

I'm happy to relay funds eastward but will expect not to have to foot the entire bill myself. Is anybody in to form a finance committee? And how much will each commit? I could manage $25/year but less would be better.

I realize not everyone who posts here, pays here. I don't care much. It's like learning that there are some people who travel on public transport without buying a ticket - the solution isn't to nuke public transport.