posted on October 11, 2000 06:50:46 PM new
Judge: (gavel slam) This board will now come to order.
Judge: Are all parties ready to proceed?
Judge: Good!
Judge: Will both sides please cut and paste your evidence.
(couple of weeks to read threads)
Judge: Hmmmm....cut and pasted email, with headers, cut and pasted I.P. addresses, second and third hand testimonies , innuendo and implication based on completely unverifiable information…………very compelling.
Judge to the jury: Jury, have you reached a verdict?
Jury: We have your honor. We find the defendant guilty.
Judge to defendant: A jury of your peers has found you guilty as charged. The prosecutor has recommended the maximum sentence. Three years in an AOL chat room but since this is your first chat board conviction, I find that sentence too harsh. So, I sentence you to cut and paste yourself into Leavenworth.com triple password protected prison chat forum for a period of not less than one year and not more than 3 years. I hope you will use that time to reflect on what has happened here. May the sys-op have mercy on your scroll. (gavel slam) Next case!
posted on October 11, 2000 07:28:02 PM new
Hang on, hang on...
The jury didn't get a chance to chime in with their opinions and the bailiff(moderator) didn't *ahem* once.
Oh, and the opposing attorneys didn't go off-case and start discussing whatever popped into their heads whilst the jury was opining nor did the defendent stand up and announce an exit manifesto.
Appeal granted on technical lapses and the case is sent back to court to be tried again.
posted on October 11, 2000 08:12:53 PM new
We convict on the scarcest of evidence, and often due to our allegiances, which are based on little more than our need to fit in with those who have the loudest/most compelling voice, or the ones who somehow make us feel like more than random voices in the crowd.
It's a microcosm of life outside the net, but frightening because more and more of life is reliant on the net, and on the net, both the positive and the negative move faster and without the consequences of face-to-face contact.
We tiptoe on the tightrope wire of assumed allegiances, and find ourselves shocked when they prove to be as ephemeral as the cyberspace they're based on.
(Yeah, krs, I'm gettin' strange...bear with me.)
But I believe that humanity doesn't die completely when forced into another mold, and I believe that we adjust, and that we'll find a way to make this work if/when it becomes the chief way we communicate.
It's not for long that the center cannot hold. We find a way of balancing. And we are testing our instincts on new paths, and we are learning. Groping in the dark, but progressing. Backing it up with whatever traditional thing we can grab (phone calls, meetings, whatever geography allows), but progressing.
We are pioneers, I believe - I don't know of many industries that have pushed the boundaries of online discussion to the extent that the online auction industry has engendered.
Like it or not, we're leading something new. Mostly, I don't like it. The ugliness makes me feel physically ill at times, and I don't know who I am out here, and I've lost my signposts and directional maps.
At the same time, there is something awesome and beautiful when you get outside of yourself, and see that the humanity of us, both good and bad, transcends any medium, no matter how limited.
Wonderful to watch from a distance, painful to participate in up close. At least for me.
posted on October 12, 2000 06:26:38 AM new
Year 2050, random thoughts from the front porch rocker...........
Yes, I can remember a time when our online judicial system would actually sentence a person to build web pages for Howard Stern and Billy Grahm. (shudder)......those were barbaric times.
I remember a time when a company called eBay (now known as God.com) grew so large that they were able to auction themselves off while shill bidding themselves into another dimension.
I remember when 200 million dollars in venture capital would last for a whole year............(sigh)
posted on October 12, 2000 08:09:43 AM new
articbreeze,
You just never know. The next NEW show could start anytime OR it could just be another re-run until the next one comes along.
I think judge Mills Lane said it best with reference to the struggle of humanity against itself within the scope of inner turmoil versus outer tranquility when he said: "Let's get it on!"
posted on October 12, 2000 08:22:14 AM new
I remember a time when a person's feelings were not considered irrelevant or unimportant because they chose to communicate in written form (e.g. If you choose to communicate on chatboards you MUST play a fantasy game and it's your fault if you are unable to do so, switch off human feelings and behave like a two-dimensional caricature.)
I remember a time when it was considered socially unacceptable to blame a victim for being the cause of abuse or injustice.
(He/she "deserved" it - it's their fault, not mine, that I am abusing them.).
posted on October 12, 2000 08:50:13 AM newI remember a time when it was considered socially unacceptable to blame a victim for being the cause of abuse or injustice.
And in what rose-colored fantasy time and place do you suggest this state of mind existed? This century? The last? Before or after the fall of Rome?
Blaming the victiim is neither "right" nor "fair," but it's a fact of life in every generation. At its base, it's an attempt by the members of a group to preserve the status quo (and therefore their position within the group), and to maintain the idea that true justice actually exists - the rationale behind statements like "It wasn't meant to be" and "It was God's will". Blaming the victim is merely another means to try to lay blame on something other than the culture/system.
What amazes me is that anybody's actually surprised that net culture plays out any differently from office/neighborhood/family dynamics. How is being pilloried on a chatboard (where at least there's the "victim's" chance for a modicum of anonymity, if he wants it) to a whispering campaign conducted over the backyard fences of Mayberry, or in the hallways of junior high?
The real travesty, I'd suggest, is in behaving as if we expect any new technology to actually change fundamental human behavior. They're just tools. Human nature doesn't change no matter how "modern" we like to think we are.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 12, 2000 08:51 AM ]
posted on October 12, 2000 08:52:51 AM new
I'd suggest that rather than dehumanizing the folks on the other end of the chatboard line, one simply learn not to personalize the statements made by them.
posted on October 12, 2000 09:10:15 AM new
No one has the right to tell another human being how they should feel.
HCQ: I am not personalizing. Oddly enough, I have never been attacked in all my months on AW (unless you count a minor skirmish one Sunday some months ago).
posted on October 12, 2000 09:19:58 AM new
Yes, blaming the victim is a time honored mechanism. And it's not just abusers who blame the victim, it's the victim's friends, and even the victim himself. Think of Job, who wondered what he had done wrong to bring about his tribulations.
However, I think this device is more an effort to maintain the illusion of control. The illusion of control is absolutely necessary in order to function. Who could get out of bed in the morning without it?
A victim blames himself so that he can believe that there's something he can do, something within his control. that will prevent a repeat of the victimization. His peers blame him so that they can believe that victimization won't happen to them (I won't do what he did, therefore I'm safe.)
posted on October 12, 2000 09:55:57 AM newdonny - Very perceptive. Funny part is, Job ends up by finally telling God "Hey, this is NOT fair!" God says "Yeah, you're right," and makes all nice again (doesn't raise Job's kids/animals from the dead, but you can expect only so much, after all.) Funny part is, although Job's now been presented with incontrovertible evidence that God is not only not fair, but can be tempted (by Satan, into torturing Job to prove how faitful he is), Job forgets all that and remains a follower of Yahweh. Another example of cognotive dissonance at work.
HCQ: I am not personalizing. Stockticker - When did I state (or even imply) that you were, or that my statement regarding personalizing even applied to you?
I did, however, ask you when the halcyon days you seem to yearn for are supposed to have existed. So....when were they?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 12, 2000 09:56 AM ]
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 12, 2000 09:59 AM ]
posted on October 12, 2000 10:05:50 AM new
HCQ: They existed in my world/my reality and the people I chose to interact with in real life. I can't speak for your world (or your country).
posted on October 12, 2000 10:24:50 AM new
So, stockticker, rather than look at chatboard dynamics in light of human behavior on an historical continuum (and with the understanding that although the chatboard population is self-selecting it does show a diversity of experiences and values), you prefer to compare it to the behavior of a small group of people you've personally chosen to share your time with (and who are therefore more likely to share your ideas).
That certainly does provide for more drama and pathos, but I think it's just a tad light in the logic department.
posted on October 12, 2000 10:44:22 AM new
Yup. Life may not always be fair. However, I can choose to try to act fairly. My sense of right or wrong was not developed through logic (nor religion) and I doubt in logical historical study will change the sense of right or wrong.
posted on October 12, 2000 01:25:40 PM new
What it appears you are doing, stockticker,, is arguing that a certain group behavior is abnormal (i.e., an aberration) because it does not exist in your own purpose-built universe. This is quite different from opining that the behavior is morally wrong. I suggest the distinction be made.
I have stated that the sort of pillorying that occurs on chatboards is not peculiar to the medium, and is in fact a norm of human group interaction in every culture at every point in history. You state that it was not always thus. When pressed for clarification, you give as your only example your own personal hand-picked group of associates, and continue by making some sort of vague moral statement, confusing "normal" with "good" and adding that you base your actions not on reason but on feeling.
I would suggest that if less "feeling" and more "reason" were used by those participating in conversations (whether on internet chatboards or across the garden fence), perhaps the sort of pillorying you bemoan would be a bit less prevalent.
posted on October 12, 2000 01:58:53 PM new
Hi Stockticker,
Yes, you are charged with being illogical in the first degree. The online judicial system takes a dim view of this kind of crime. (and incidently, the prosecution never rests. It goes on 24/7)
However, if you are convicted and are sentenced to a prison forum, you can always hope someone will email you a file with a file in it.
posted on October 12, 2000 02:04:22 PM new
Well, Ray, I think the judge (whoever that is) should have reprimanded the prosecution for making speeches. I thought you were only allowed to do that in closing arugments.
posted on October 12, 2000 02:22:47 PM new
Stockticker,
Hmmm........you may be right. It's possible that HCQ is in violation of the online verbosity statutes. Do you wish to press charges? I believe a first offense conviction is punishable by being forced to spend six hours reading the AW TOS.
posted on October 12, 2000 02:25:34 PM new
I'd charge you with sophistry but you weren't subtle enough, and I don't see clear intent. However, I don't think you're going to be able to use a defense of diminished capacity resulting from nostalgia; you've got a record of articulate posts (can we stipulate to that?)
So...about second-degree hyperbole? Unfortunately there's that aggravatiing factor of vagueness, but if you promise to avoid personalizing for the next 90 days, I think the judge'll go for it.
P.S. I wouldn't use RM as my defense counsel. Like Mozart's patron who complained of "too many notes," he's easily tired by intellectual excercise.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 12, 2000 02:29 PM ]
