The talent show was a frickin' blast. I posted some pictures up for those that missed it. If you have any more you'd like me to add, please send them along.
28 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Yeah, even with the previously mentioned problems w/ international beer day the talent show was good times.
I thought it was cool that there was more than just music acts this year. I was pretty impressed with the two legit martial arts acts.
The interpretive dance/wood chopping was impressive in its own special way.
Fascism wins out! Great day for CU Blawg! Everyone has enjoyed the vibrant, open discussions made possible by anonymous posting, and even our "problems" have prompted self-reflection, interesting discussions, and generally acceptable resolution. Are two outings--one intentional, but likely unthinking and not mal-intentioned; and the other likely accidental--going to shut down this whole forum? This is a BAD decision, and the irony is that the 400+ people who looked at this blawg daily last week won't be able to chime in and tell you what a BAD decision this is, because you've cut off their voice. This decision undermines all this blawg's (previously) valid criticisms of the ADMINISTRATION's unwillingness to listen to student voices, and proves the old adage about power corrupting, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.
(Update: I wrote this comment and then realized that the the blawg had DISABLED COMMENTS ALTOGETHER in its post below regarding the end of anonymous commenting. Unbelievable. I would never have guessed that the administrators of this blawg had this in them.)
I think the administrators of this blog just decided enough is enough for now. I can't say that I blame them, and I don't think it's too big of a deal because anonymous commenting will return after exams when we'll have a whole new set of complaints and people to gossip about.
Rice Eater--your post exactly proves my point; now that anonymous commenting is forbidden, the only people who will post are people who know the administrators, have accounts, or (like me), have undergone the trouble of creating yet another "anonymous" email account, signing up for the blog, and then speaking his mind. In other words, this decision has created an echo chamber, and stacked the deck against a fair debate, in a very anti-democratic fashion.
As an experiment, the administrators should, in good faith, reopen anonymous comments for a day to see what people have to say about having anonymous versus non-anonymous posting. Of course, if they do this, they'll have to consider opinions which aren't their own, which goes against the whole point of summarily cutting off anonymous comments without any discussion.
This is a sad day, and I'm honestly surprised that the administrators did this--I know them all, and like them all, and am REALLY surprised they would pull something like this. I hope they're just tired and hungover from yesterday, and have had a momentary lapse of judgment.
I know I might get slammed for this, but I'm not sure there is a facism issue in asking someone to sign up for a free, still anonymous account through Google and post away? It worked for a year or so, and it will work going forward. I have personally been targeted for an anonymous outing, but I was against turning off anonymous comments. I missed the whole event that led to the decision, but knowing Bolder and HS, they made the right decision; the time had probably arrived. I don't think this blog lacked vibrant discussions before anonymous comments, and I'm sure they will continue going forward.
If it is a choice of going down the road of autoadmit, I think the right decision was made.
Random, You can have an anonymous account through Google and still comment; no need to ask the administrators for permission to comment (posting a new article has always been limited). So long as your blogger account exists (free and easy to do) you can post. No clearance with the administrators is needed to comment.
Again, the deck is stacked against me (and anyone else who happens to share my opinion) in this debate. I'm like a straw-man Colmes to the administrators' Hannity. Open this to a fair discussion, and see how many people have valid opinions on this issue.
(You're right, NJL, about the relative ease of creating a new email account, but it's still not simple--you have to remember yet another account name and password, and you can no longer argue in the alternative on the same topics, or argue without people having prejudged your opinions based on your previous (identified) posts. Requiring log-in is basically like a poll tax; it doesn't totally cut off access to the blawg, but it does discourage it. How many lawyers, and post-3Ls, and prospective students, and faculty, and DU students, and friends, and family will take the time to create an account (or to remember old account names and passwords) when they have 2 cents to give on a particular topic? We're all poorer for this decision, because we all have benefited from the diverse views of the past few months.)
Random, Could you at least explain why you used "Fascism" in your discussion? In a year and a half of having log-in accounts, the administrators deleted maybe one or two comments for being totally out of line or outing someone.
Yet in the last few months, it seems to be a non-stop job of deleting completely out of line comments, having to explain decisions and then having to delete and change posts after an anonymous poster went after someone by outing them for no good reason. Which is better? You are right that more people post when it is open, but is a cacophony of voices (including malicious ones) leading to a better discussion? This one seems to be working out alright.
NLJ--I generally agree with H.S. and Bolder, and have defended each of them on numerous editorial decisions in the past (both anonymously, and in the guise of different identified posters). Still, this decision is wrong, and the manner in which it was made was wrong. Debate is the hallmark of this forum, and a summary decision to block off anonymous comments is troubling. This blog is not, and never has been, autoadmit--we all discuss things like adults, and deal with problems as them come up in a fair manner, usually by consensus. We are democratic. The question at issue in the Talent Show post was an outing of a student who had been mentioned by name in front of a live audience of 200 people, and who was identified by initials by the administrators themselves. This hardly marks a significant enough departure from previous practice to limit anonymous posting without any discussion.
The decision is the opposite of democratic, and, even if not quite fascistic, is certainly autocratic. I dissent.
As you can see, I'm having difficulty responding to each post in a timely manner, because I am simply outnumbered here. This is not a fair discussion. Let other people chime in, to see if they agree or disagree with any of us.
Random, the comments were turned of that post in switching the format by accident. They're now on.
As for the "outings," I don't particularly care. I haven't been all that concerned with my identity. Most people know who I am. What I am concerned with is the fact that this blog has devolved into lowbrow infighting. I'm not admittedly completely above that criticism. Still, if you want to start your own blog, do it. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to visit this site. Unlike you, the character of this blog is imputed on us, the administrators/creators. This is especially true for H.S. and me. I'm not stoked being associated with a forum exclusively reserved to discussions about some girl's "rack," who snorts Adderall, or which class parties the most. I doubt H.S. is either.
Interestingly, this sort of discussion has grown exponentially since we enabled anonymous comments. If people want to take ownership for these sorts of comments, then they're more than welcome to leave that comment with their username. I see you didn't have much of a problem doing so. Further, the practicalities of continually referring to people by the time they leave a comment is problematic.
[This comment had several misspellings and should be above Random's last comment.]
And yes, NJL, a “cacophony of voices,” is preferable to a refined discussion amongst like-minded friends. John Stuart Mills would likely have a few words to say on the topic, but he’d probably be discouraged from chiming in due to the difficulty of opening a new account . . . Re-open anonymous comments, at least for this discussion, and see what other people think.
Last thing I will say about the issue. I think the question is having people take ownership for their comments. Posting about someone's "rack" is fine in my opinion, so long as someone is willing to stand behind it. HS, Bolder and others whose identites are widely known, must account in a far greater way. They have to face people (in reality) and be judged for what they write. In an open and free society, one still has to account for what they say (Imus, Limbaugh, Jimmy the Greek, others).
Random, I obviously concur with Bolder on this one. Most of the CU Law community knows who I am, and unfortunately tends to confuse my contributions with those I would rather not be associated with, sometimes even directly from the podium in class. So while I can understand and appreciate the "effected with a public interest" argument, the flip side (the personal interest) has equal weight, at least for me. IOWs, the initials/name outing is only about half of it; as Bolder alluded to, we may not be in auto admit territory yet, but we're seeing a disturbing trend in (what we think is) the wrong direction. So if you could cut us a little slack while things trend upward from the nadir, I'd appreciate it.
BTW, volunteers for an administrator-elect are welcome, since our administrator-elect recently recanted a willingness to assume the position. My email's on the top RH side of the page if you're interested.
I respect your concern, H.S., and the way you have always run this blawg. But, again, a summary decision without any input from the CU Blawg community is wrong. This blawg has become common property, and rightly so. We all defer to your ultimate decisions on what to do, since this is your blawg, but we’ve also come to expect an open discussion on important matters, of which this clearly qualifies. Don’t make this decision based on your own assessment without giving the CU Blawg community a fair opportunity to comment, because it’s untrue to the spirit of this blawg, and to what has made it so popular.
For one last time, before I give up, I’ll point out that this is not a fair discussion, and the that preponderance of opinions against me should in no be viewed as dispositive; no leader ever thinks he’s isolated from popular opinion, which is why every leader relies on the approving counsel of his of his personal advisors, to the eventual detriment of the common weal.
Reopen anonymous comments, and let everyone discuss this.
The only reason I miss anonymous posts is that more people aren't cutting on Random for being a geek. Please.
Stop being lazy and start another blog. If you are right about this blog's style being an affront to our rights then I'm sure you'll gather many enlightened bloggers to post about community property. No doubt the discussions will be fascinating.
That's not quite true. I do think the blog is better and more interesting with anonymous posts, but understand the need to cover your ass in our stiflingly small and potentially litigious social environment.
Random: lest you think that I lowered the boom unilaterally, I can assure that prior discussions took place among the administrators, and that the decision was a joint one. Also, it's worth noting that, after all, the Internet is s$&t. (The link is probably safe for work)
Dear Random, while I can see where your concerns are coming from, I can testify to the fact that it took me a total of a minute and a half to create an account that is now just as anonymous as any other anonymous posting. I don't know who you are and you have no clue who I am -- that seems pretty anonymous to me. As for the admins, sometimes you know who they are, other times you wonder. It keeps the mystery alive, although in some cases it's just a letter puzzle ready to be put together.
Ok, upon reflection, I accept the change in the posting rules as necessary, and retract my “fascism” comment as overheated and unfair. Good luck with the blawg.
28 comments:
Yeah, even with the previously mentioned problems w/ international beer day the talent show was good times.
I thought it was cool that there was more than just music acts this year. I was pretty impressed with the two legit martial arts acts.
The interpretive dance/wood chopping was impressive in its own special way.
Fascism wins out! Great day for CU Blawg! Everyone has enjoyed the vibrant, open discussions made possible by anonymous posting, and even our "problems" have prompted self-reflection, interesting discussions, and generally acceptable resolution. Are two outings--one intentional, but likely unthinking and not mal-intentioned; and the other likely accidental--going to shut down this whole forum? This is a BAD decision, and the irony is that the 400+ people who looked at this blawg daily last week won't be able to chime in and tell you what a BAD decision this is, because you've cut off their voice. This decision undermines all this blawg's (previously) valid criticisms of the ADMINISTRATION's unwillingness to listen to student voices, and proves the old adage about power corrupting, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.
(Update: I wrote this comment and then realized that the the blawg had DISABLED COMMENTS ALTOGETHER in its post below regarding the end of anonymous commenting. Unbelievable. I would never have guessed that the administrators of this blawg had this in them.)
I think the administrators of this blog just decided enough is enough for now. I can't say that I blame them, and I don't think it's too big of a deal because anonymous commenting will return after exams when we'll have a whole new set of complaints and people to gossip about.
Rice Eater--your post exactly proves my point; now that anonymous commenting is forbidden, the only people who will post are people who know the administrators, have accounts, or (like me), have undergone the trouble of creating yet another "anonymous" email account, signing up for the blog, and then speaking his mind. In other words, this decision has created an echo chamber, and stacked the deck against a fair debate, in a very anti-democratic fashion.
As an experiment, the administrators should, in good faith, reopen anonymous comments for a day to see what people have to say about having anonymous versus non-anonymous posting. Of course, if they do this, they'll have to consider opinions which aren't their own, which goes against the whole point of summarily cutting off anonymous comments without any discussion.
This is a sad day, and I'm honestly surprised that the administrators did this--I know them all, and like them all, and am REALLY surprised they would pull something like this. I hope they're just tired and hungover from yesterday, and have had a momentary lapse of judgment.
I know I might get slammed for this, but I'm not sure there is a facism issue in asking someone to sign up for a free, still anonymous account through Google and post away? It worked for a year or so, and it will work going forward. I have personally been targeted for an anonymous outing, but I was against turning off anonymous comments. I missed the whole event that led to the decision, but knowing Bolder and HS, they made the right decision; the time had probably arrived. I don't think this blog lacked vibrant discussions before anonymous comments, and I'm sure they will continue going forward.
If it is a choice of going down the road of autoadmit, I think the right decision was made.
Random, You can have an anonymous account through Google and still comment; no need to ask the administrators for permission to comment (posting a new article has always been limited). So long as your blogger account exists (free and easy to do) you can post. No clearance with the administrators is needed to comment.
Again, the deck is stacked against me (and anyone else who happens to share my opinion) in this debate. I'm like a straw-man Colmes to the administrators' Hannity. Open this to a fair discussion, and see how many people have valid opinions on this issue.
(You're right, NJL, about the relative ease of creating a new email account, but it's still not simple--you have to remember yet another account name and password, and you can no longer argue in the alternative on the same topics, or argue without people having prejudged your opinions based on your previous (identified) posts. Requiring log-in is basically like a poll tax; it doesn't totally cut off access to the blawg, but it does discourage it. How many lawyers, and post-3Ls, and prospective students, and faculty, and DU students, and friends, and family will take the time to create an account (or to remember old account names and passwords) when they have 2 cents to give on a particular topic? We're all poorer for this decision, because we all have benefited from the diverse views of the past few months.)
Random, Could you at least explain why you used "Fascism" in your discussion? In a year and a half of having log-in accounts, the administrators deleted maybe one or two comments for being totally out of line or outing someone.
Yet in the last few months, it seems to be a non-stop job of deleting completely out of line comments, having to explain decisions and then having to delete and change posts after an anonymous poster went after someone by outing them for no good reason. Which is better? You are right that more people post when it is open, but is a cacophony of voices (including malicious ones) leading to a better discussion? This one seems to be working out alright.
NLJ--I generally agree with H.S. and Bolder, and have defended each of them on numerous editorial decisions in the past (both anonymously, and in the guise of different identified posters). Still, this decision is wrong, and the manner in which it was made was wrong. Debate is the hallmark of this forum, and a summary decision to block off anonymous comments is troubling. This blog is not, and never has been, autoadmit--we all discuss things like adults, and deal with problems as them come up in a fair manner, usually by consensus. We are democratic. The question at issue in the Talent Show post was an outing of a student who had been mentioned by name in front of a live audience of 200 people, and who was identified by initials by the administrators themselves. This hardly marks a significant enough departure from previous practice to limit anonymous posting without any discussion.
The decision is the opposite of democratic, and, even if not quite fascistic, is certainly autocratic. I dissent.
As you can see, I'm having difficulty responding to each post in a timely manner, because I am simply outnumbered here. This is not a fair discussion. Let other people chime in, to see if they agree or disagree with any of us.
Random, the comments were turned of that post in switching the format by accident. They're now on.
As for the "outings," I don't particularly care. I haven't been all that concerned with my identity. Most people know who I am. What I am concerned with is the fact that this blog has devolved into lowbrow infighting. I'm not admittedly completely above that criticism. Still, if you want to start your own blog, do it. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to visit this site. Unlike you, the character of this blog is imputed on us, the administrators/creators. This is especially true for H.S. and me. I'm not stoked being associated with a forum exclusively reserved to discussions about some girl's "rack," who snorts Adderall, or which class parties the most. I doubt H.S. is either.
Interestingly, this sort of discussion has grown exponentially since we enabled anonymous comments. If people want to take ownership for these sorts of comments, then they're more than welcome to leave that comment with their username. I see you didn't have much of a problem doing so. Further, the practicalities of continually referring to people by the time they leave a comment is problematic.
[This comment had several misspellings and should be above Random's last comment.]
And yes, NJL, a “cacophony of voices,” is preferable to a refined discussion amongst like-minded friends. John Stuart Mills would likely have a few words to say on the topic, but he’d probably be discouraged from chiming in due to the difficulty of opening a new account . . . Re-open anonymous comments, at least for this discussion, and see what other people think.
Last thing I will say about the issue. I think the question is having people take ownership for their comments. Posting about someone's "rack" is fine in my opinion, so long as someone is willing to stand behind it. HS, Bolder and others whose identites are widely known, must account in a far greater way. They have to face people (in reality) and be judged for what they write. In an open and free society, one still has to account for what they say (Imus, Limbaugh, Jimmy the Greek, others).
Thank you NJL.
Random, I obviously concur with Bolder on this one. Most of the CU Law community knows who I am, and unfortunately tends to confuse my contributions with those I would rather not be associated with, sometimes even directly from the podium in class. So while I can understand and appreciate the "effected with a public interest" argument, the flip side (the personal interest) has equal weight, at least for me. IOWs, the initials/name outing is only about half of it; as Bolder alluded to, we may not be in auto admit territory yet, but we're seeing a disturbing trend in (what we think is) the wrong direction. So if you could cut us a little slack while things trend upward from the nadir, I'd appreciate it.
BTW, volunteers for an administrator-elect are welcome, since our administrator-elect recently recanted a willingness to assume the position. My email's on the top RH side of the page if you're interested.
This is ridiculous. Stop complaining. Just stop it.
This is the internet. It's an unauthorized blog. Make your own blog if you want to run things your own way.
I respect your concern, H.S., and the way you have always run this blawg. But, again, a summary decision without any input from the CU Blawg community is wrong. This blawg has become common property, and rightly so. We all defer to your ultimate decisions on what to do, since this is your blawg, but we’ve also come to expect an open discussion on important matters, of which this clearly qualifies. Don’t make this decision based on your own assessment without giving the CU Blawg community a fair opportunity to comment, because it’s untrue to the spirit of this blawg, and to what has made it so popular.
For one last time, before I give up, I’ll point out that this is not a fair discussion, and the that preponderance of opinions against me should in no be viewed as dispositive; no leader ever thinks he’s isolated from popular opinion, which is why every leader relies on the approving counsel of his of his personal advisors, to the eventual detriment of the common weal.
Reopen anonymous comments, and let everyone discuss this.
The only reason I miss anonymous posts is that more people aren't cutting on Random for being a geek. Please.
Stop being lazy and start another blog. If you are right about this blog's style being an affront to our rights then I'm sure you'll gather many enlightened bloggers to post about community property. No doubt the discussions will be fascinating.
That's not quite true. I do think the blog is better and more interesting with anonymous posts, but understand the need to cover your ass in our stiflingly small and potentially litigious social environment.
instead of taking a shot at RS, micah should have ridiculed mcdivitt. this ain't dazed & confused and he's not matthew mcconaughey.
Random: lest you think that I lowered the boom unilaterally, I can assure that prior discussions took place among the administrators, and that the decision was a joint one. Also, it's worth noting that, after all, the Internet is s$&t. (The link is probably safe for work)
Dear Random, while I can see where your concerns are coming from, I can testify to the fact that it took me a total of a minute and a half to create an account that is now just as anonymous as any other anonymous posting. I don't know who you are and you have no clue who I am -- that seems pretty anonymous to me. As for the admins, sometimes you know who they are, other times you wonder. It keeps the mystery alive, although in some cases it's just a letter puzzle ready to be put together.
Ok, upon reflection, I accept the change in the posting rules as necessary, and retract my “fascism” comment as overheated and unfair. Good luck with the blawg.
Micah, I don't remember if I told you this to your face, but the whole world must know: that goatee has got to go!
The reverse-mohawk style is not a good look.
Sorry to call you out, but I know you can take it ;)
According to the Beard Index, the style is actually known as "Friendly Mutton Chops."
Oh my hell, Micah. Seriously. I had no idea you had decided to make this facial hair change. Please reconsider!
It's not permanent.
Hahaha, nice find on wiki.
Post a Comment