The reason the FireShelby Board was orginally founded (and one of the primary reasons this board continues) was to provide a safe spot for discussion about the course of the university and, explicitly, actions of the administration. One of the reasons behind people taking on identities was because it provided protection -- it allowed things to be said that might not be said for fear of retribution from the power brokers. Many people with noms became well known in their anonymity because they took consistent positions that they were willing to continue to maintain under the same identity. This allowed for a certain kind of "knowing" of those anonymous contributors -- a knowing that encouraged critical thinking because it provided a context and history to ongoing discussions.

The current practice of the "one hit" johnnies who create new threads, make a comment or two, and then flee does little to do this. For one thing, the johnnies seldom say anything dangerous enough to need to hide behind a nom. In fact, the use of a nom allows at least some of them to avoid taking responsibility for anything they utter.

I'd like to encourage folks who have something to say but no real reason to fear retribution to come out and use your real name. Or at the very least, create one identity and stick to it. And then, if something you say gets challenged, come back and respond with good reasoning. A number of folks on this board who have sometimes challenged the perceived ethos of the Board have done this ("Seeker" I'm thinking of you.) It is far more helpful -- I think those kinds of conversations have pushed our thinking further. At the very least they have challenged us to continue to look for civil and rational ways to respond to disagreements. And that strategy also serves to help preserve some level of responsibility within those who use the Board for what they utter.

Any virtual community relies on some common agreements about the rules of civil discourse in order to preserve its unity. One of those is the trust that those who use a chat a chat board have good intentions.  The signs of good intent are easy -- honest and reasonably continuous engagement in discussion and the establishment of a stable identity.  People who violate those principles are not only having a good time at the expense of others, but they are an active threat to the trust necessary to keep this kind of discourse alive.

I'm sorry if I am stepping on any toes -- it isn't my intent.

Thanks to all.

qwerty wrote:

---

Petal Eagle wrote: sporty wrote: He (Dr. Thames) also had lunch at a local restaurant with Carl Torbush just a short while ago.  This is getting good. Is this the same Torbush who used to coach at UNC-CH?

---

stephen judd wrote:

---

The reason the FireShelby Board was orginally founded (and one of the primary reasons this board continues) was to provide a safe spot for discussion about the course of the university and, explicitly, actions of the administration. One of the reasons behind people taking on identities was because it provided protection -- it allowed things to be said that might not be said for fear of retribution from the power brokers. Many people with noms became well known in their anonymity because they took consistent positions that they were willing to continue to maintain under the same identity. This allowed for a certain kind of "knowing" of those anonymous contributors -- a knowing that encouraged critical thinking because it provided a context and history to ongoing discussions. The current practice of the "one hit" johnnies who create new threads, make a comment or two, and then flee does little to do this. For one thing, the johnnies seldom say anything dangerous enough to need to hide behind a nom. In fact, the use of a nom allows at least some of them to avoid taking responsibility for anything they utter. I'd like to encourage folks who have something to say but no real reason to fear retribution to come out and use your real name. Or at the very least, create one identity and stick to it. And then, if something you say gets challenged, come back and respond with good reasoning. A number of folks on this board who have sometimes challenged the perceived ethos of the Board have done this ("Seeker" I'm thinking of you.) It is far more helpful -- I think those kinds of conversations have pushed our thinking further. At the very least they have challenged us to continue to look for civil and rational ways to respond to disagreements. And that strategy also serves to help preserve some level of responsibility within those who use the Board for what they utter. Any virtual community relies on some common agreements about the rules of civil discourse in order to preserve its unity. One of those is the trust that those who use a chat a chat board have good intentions.  The signs of good intent are easy -- honest and reasonably continuous engagement in discussion and the establishment of a stable identity.  People who violate those principles are not only having a good time at the expense of others, but they are an active threat to the trust necessary to keep this kind of discourse alive. I'm sorry if I am stepping on any toes -- it isn't my intent. Thanks to all.  

---

LeftASAP wrote:

---

I wonder why there is no discussion of this on EagleTalk.  I hope this is not a new kind of troll.

---

LeftASAP wrote:

---

I wonder why there is no discussion of this on EagleTalk.  I hope this is not a new kind of troll.

---