Post by Andre LievenPost by VikingOn Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne KulikauskasPost by VikingI just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
Indeed. If you go into Google groups, for news.groups, and search for
the term " soc.men.moderated ", you will find a post where a V. Cordero
pretty much says that Jayne was the figurehead for him and others setting
up alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite. Aug 28, 2006, 10:29 PM is the post
to look for.
So, thats yet another item that Jayne was not... forthcoming about.
Is this the post you are referring to?
Begin Quote:
From: V. Cordero - view profile
Date: Mon, Aug 28 2006 9:29 pm
Email: "V. Cordero" <***@debian.polarhome.com>
Groups: news.groups, soc.men
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by Andre LievenPost by VikingPost by Jayne KulikauskasOK, I'm really slow and I don't understand what you're saying. "Big-V?"
is... ???
All I'm getting from this is that smm was some kind of troll, and
you-all put up Jayne for something?
A troll, heavens no, trolls were what we wanted to eliminate! We all
wanted soc.men.moderated to be created and decided that the best way to
succeed was to fade from the front and let Jayne run the public portion of
the campaign while we did the legwork. If you recall, there were
originally two RFDs, Jayne worked on one, Bret, V. Cordero, and I were
working on another - we were soon after advised to work together on a
collective RFD.
Got it. Mostly. By 'trolls' you mean the AUKers?
I'm not Dante, but I'll offer my two cents. My answer is, originally,
yes, especially on Jayne's part. Many other people on soc.men
complained about the crossposting. I was orginally skeptical about
that claim. However, there seemed to be some justification for it. I
looked at the correlation between traffic, both number of posters and
number of posts, and the top five groups that shared crossposts with
soc.men each year. The only group that consistently appeared when
traffic declined was AUK. My initial conclusion was to agree with
Jayne and the others who blamed AUK for the problems with soc.men. I
even said so in two posts.
http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/f7946a7d7991a69a
http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/ac38230ff5325070
Now, I don't believe that conclusion any more. What I've seen from
the
various threads about soc.men.moderated that I've read since I've got
online is that the AUKers were, if anything, more supportive than not
about the creation of the group, and, for them, very well behaved.
They managed to sustain civil, if not friendly, debate about the
merits
of the proposal, and nearly always refrained from crossposting back
into AUK, indicating their sincerity about discussing the proposal,
instead of merely mocking it. I was impressed.
On the other hand, the most vocal regulars of soc.men were
inflammatory, paranoid, rigidly doctrinaire, and downright hostile to
the idea of creating a group that, by its charter and moderation
policy, would protect them from the crossposting into and out of AUK
that they blamed for their troubles. They were being offered a group
that included the solution for their problems, as they themselves said
they saw it, and they rejected it because it would be insufficiently
pure for their tastes. I mean, really, who cares if a cat is black or
white, so long as it catches mice?
In retrospect, while I'm sorry I wasn't around to help Jayne for the
last 2 RFDs, I don't regret not being involved in the discussion here
on news.groups and soc.men at all. I found the behavior of the
soc.men
regulars, the people who this proposal was supposed to help, downright
shameful. I now think that the problem with soc.men wasn't the AUKers
crossposting into soc.men, but the vocal regulars who escalated and
became more hostile and extreme in response. Thank you, Andre L., Ken
Pangborn, MCP, connor_a, and Viking for convincing me of that; I was
on
your side, and you guys blew it.
So, I still agree that soc.men.moderated was intended to protect the
regulars from trolls. It's just that I now believe that the trolls
that the users of soc.men.moderated will be protected from will be the
internal trolls of soc.men, the ones the AUKers have labeled as kooks,
not the AUKers, who I expect will find nothing in soc.men.moderated to
attract them. In the meantime, the men's rights extremists I listed
above will remain in the unmoderated soc.men, subject to "attacks"
crossposted from AUK and allied groups, like alt.fan.art-bell and
alt.fucknozzles. As far as I'm concerned, they can stay outside,
where
they are unprotected from ridicule, until they are ready to behave and
follow the rules of a moderated group.
V. Cordero
End Quote.
Speaking of fucknozzles...Cordero is a real knob. Was he one of
Jayne's co-conspirators or whatver they called themselves?
Post by Andre LievenPost by VikingPost by Jayne KulikauskasPost by VikingLooks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Looks like the charter is flawed just as was suggested last summer.
Yep. Along with installing Feminists and women as moderators.
Did she have anything to do with making that Kathy feminist a
moderator? I thought Jayne was no longer in power then.
Post by Andre LievenA real men's group thats moderated would be moderated BY men FOR men.
smm isn't either. By design.
That was the way SMM was "imagined" by soc.men regs over the
years...something created by men for men. Of course, that was more
information that wasn't "useful" to Jayne at the time she imagined
SMM.
And yes, I agree the current SMM was designed to be the way it is.
Post by Andre LievenPost by VikingPost by Jayne KulikauskasOriginally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
What were you "imagining" while Andre and I were raising oppositional
points to your ideas last summer? You certainly weren't listening or
considering them. You dismissed them faster than we could post them.
Indeed. Its pure crocodile tears from Jayne now.
Post by VikingPost by Jayne KulikauskasI think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team.
Yes, I do remember that. But what we have now is you passing the
buck. It's apparently GA's and Mark's fault that they didn't make
certain your flawed plans and charter worked as you wanted.
Indeed. Its noteworthy to see that Jayne, like ANY WomenFirster, wants
men to BE more responsible than she holds... herself.
Yes, in the last paragraph of her post, Jayne implores men to step up
and become moderators and indicates it is the "only" way SMM can be
saved. She made a mess and now she wants men to fix it. That's
classic behavior.
Post by Andre LievenPost by VikingPart of your "imaginings" for SMM should have been contingency plans
for when moderators didn't work out. Since 3 of your 4 initial
moderators flaked out right off the bat, this was an especially
important matter to have been more carefully considered.
And, the " replacements " have all been WomenFirsters, as was the one
" survivor ".
Borgerson. Remember how much opposition we put up about him
moderating right from the start? We weren't wrong about that one
either.
Post by Andre LievenPost by VikingThis all boils down to incredibly poor planning on your part.
Indeed.
Post by VikingPost by Jayne KulikauskasI doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
If you hadn't insulted most of the other regular posters in soc.men by
indicating they weren't suitable for moderating last summer, you
probably could have replaced the lapsed moderators with people with a
"background in understanding men's issues."
Quite. But, you know that Jayne, like any WomenFirster, wants to deflect
HER responsibility and the consequences for HER chosen actions, onto
others.
Post by VikingYou burned all of your
bridges with soc.men regulars during the RFD process which left you
now with two feminist men and a radically rabid female feminist as
moderators now.
Quite. alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite is certainly unfriendly to
men. Why should men read or post there, then ?
Post by VikingAndre and I told you so.
Yep. And, we keep being proved more and more... right.
Indeed!
Post by Andre LievenPost by VikingPost by Jayne KulikauskasMuch of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
It's way too late for that. That ship sunk months ago.
Yeah, at this point, Jayne is Bob Ballard, diving on the sunken Titanic...
You remembered my Titantic analogy during the RFD process! LOL.