Further Adventures in First Impressions

But I have to admit I am really quite confused, which I think may be the proper attitude on this forum. My impression after a few days of perusing the articles and the reply posts here is that this is a place wherin people post showing just how good they can imitate actual news items - sound real and sincere, but actually post whatever irony they can whip up. [Editor's note, by dmg] Offensive content removed

Take the 'Mission Statement' for instance. It is a parody of someone's concept of what a mission statement is. It sounds serious, but it turns out to be self-contradictory. Paragraph 1: people whose opinions offend and/or turn them into pariahs can find a home here (yeah, right, like the 'bee girl' in that song wouldn't get her big ass run out on a rail here...). Paragraph 2/3: amputees who control the media agenda aren't welcome here, and neither are Blacks who support anti-discrimination laws. Paragraph 4/5: The punch line: those very same marginalizing people who are also marginalized are welcome here, too. Because Everyone has a gripe, Everyone is Marginalized to some degree, and Everyone feels alienated in this society.

But it says its about News for Grown-Ups.

Okay, wait. I get it. The faq explains it all. I shoulda read the faq first.

My first impression of what could be a wonderful experiment in communication but ends up being so self-contradictory that the only thing I am sure of is that it has an identity crisis:

Websites such as these are almost entirely a product of the people they cultivate. The editors and web monkeys, etc... are there to provide for the best experience possible for the people they want to keep. The rest are on their own. That's fine, but one can take irony a little too far, no matter how self-conscious it appears. One Should take a stand eventually, but while one is young and has for most of his life been insulated from real human interaction since the time they were ten or eleven, by the time they get around to finding something absolutely serious that they want to endorse in completely unequivocal terms, they are so unfamiliar with how it feels to have that sort of unambiguity that they ultimately fail.

Show me an article now that is serious, that has import, that is really news for adults. I have been looking, and no, I don't have AHDD or the attention span of a hummingbird, but I'll tell you this.

I don't have all day to waste.

No, I don't subscribe to the traditional customer/provider relationship that, say, one would expect if one actually paid for a service. I understand that sites like these aren't here for my amusement alone, if at all. But when I read an article, I would hope that one could easily distinguish a parody from a serious piece. In K5 most of the articles are serious. Here, I can only assume that most of them are [Editor's note, by dmg] more offensive content removed

. That being the case, if it IS the case, then I can only say that the onion does a fine, fine job of making me laugh, whereas this site would stand to diminish my expectations of 'independent' news sites.

I'm serious. I'm looking for an actual alternative to what is broadcast on TV and spoon-fed to us by the media. So far, K5 comes closest, and /. is the best thanks to its extended contributor base. indymedia.org is also great if I want to know what the protesters are up to. Cryptome is great if I want to read about echelon. Plastic is great if I want to laugh at the irony of it all. Quorum is great if I want the occasional well-thought-out piece.

Can someone tell me why or when adequacy is great? I am hopeful for a good answer.

[Editor's note, by dmg] I don't like to have to edit someone else's diary, but Adequacy has some very clear rules on trolling. I would like to delete this whole diary entry, however in the interest of fairness, I have merely removed the most offensive sections.

	Your expectations (4.50 / 2) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 5th, 2001 at 10:59:58 PM PST

	There is a distinct possibility that Adequacy has no designs on being great at all. Consider the name. You have brought your own expectations to this site. From what I have seen, the people who run this place don't really care what what those expectations are or whether or not they meet them.

	Oh no! (0.00 / 3) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 01:36:21 AM PST

	The mighty Bluesee doesn't like it! If you, Bluesee, can seriously claim that Kuro5hin is a worthwhile news source and that Slashdot's redeeming value is the halfwits^H^H^H^Hpeople who contribute to it, then you are really, really fucking stupid. If you don't like it round here then fuck off, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

	Wow, Define Offensive (1.00 / 1) (#3)
	by Bluesee on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 08:40:28 AM PST

	...this is really a funny place. I forget what I posted, but, hey, it's your site, you can define offensive any way you want. This place is truly bizarre, and I can see why I don't fit in here at all. But I will take the time to add one more thought... trolling, to me, has always been about writing passages designed to invoke response. You can define that any way you want, too. But I tried to present thoughtful insights. I really tried. I wasn't being emotional. I wasn't trolling. I tried to present an honest critique of this place, my first impressions. That forums remove the interpersonal nature of human interaction is fact; the concept of trolling and flaming is a fairly new phenomenon, and somewhat unique to electronic discourse. dmg, I was asking for clarification on what adequacy is. I didn't mean to insult, but I guess that's how it came out. For that I apologize, but I would like you to tell me what you mean by offensive? Perhaps you would take the time to email me the passages. I'm sorry I don't get it... see ya...

	You were trolling, plain and simple. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
	by dmg on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 09:50:10 AM PST

	You accused this site of being full of trolls, which is not a true statement. It is designed to provoke a response. Therefore it is a troll. Hence I deleted the two areas where you made the erroneous comment. Don't take it personally, its just that with the levels of trolling at other sites causing almost all the signal to become lost amongst the noise, adequacy.org has decided to come down hard on trolls. We don't want anyone reading adequacy to have their time wasted by these morons who post inflammatory comments just to get a response. It may be that some innocents may get caught in the crossfire, as we strive to provide a troll-free environment. We consider that to be a price well worth paying, and we hope our readers do, too. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	MyExpectation.com (1.00 / 1) (#6)
	by Bluesee on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 01:33:48 PM PST

	Maybe it is me... I think I had expectations coming in here. One of my sources of personal angst is the fact that the media provide less and less in the way of Real News. Then, when I saw this site, I thought to myself "Finally! A bona fide source of news!" but when I read the cow stuff and the D&D stuff I began to get the feeling that I was being had. But it takes time to get to know a site. I'll learn. Sensitivity to trolls is not a bad thing; trolls can ruin a site. It simply occurred to me that I was victim of trolling (i.e., the cows and the D&D stories, as well as possibly the "I'm not a Man" story). I began to get doubts, and reacted as I sometimes do. Let me gather information about this site and practice humility. Thanks.

	censorship (1.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 07:34:15 PM PST

	well, of course trolling is what you define it too.. Now, I guessed adequacy.org might be against censorship, but if an editor deletes "offensive" material poseted by Bluesee, without a decent explanation of what the subjective term "offensive" means to The Powers That Be at adequacy.org , then your open mind / free speech attitude surely must be seen to be a sham? Help me here, I must be missing something (*apart from a brain, which I take for granted) I am not bluesee, and I live in London

	Adequacy.org is pro-censorship (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by iat on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 02:33:53 AM PST

	Although you have mistaken making simple editorial improvements to the diary for censorship, we at Adequacy.org believe that censorship is a good thing. Face it, the majority of the population doesn't have sufficient intelligence to be able to think for themselves (look at how easily the rabble is roused by tabloid newspapers) and censorship is the most suitable means to protect these people from ideas that they are unable to evaluate rationally for themselves. If we lived in a society where everyone was of above-average intelligence, then there would be no need for censorship. However, the average person needs to be protected from dangerous ideas by a higher, more knowledgeable power. At Adequacy, it is the editors' job to protect our impressionable readers from reading unsuitable material. Also, unlike other liberal websites, we at Adequacy.org have no "free speech attitude". I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but it is certainly wrong. Free speech is a privelege that must be earned, and should only be given to those who have demonstrated that they will use it responsibly. I am not bluesee, and I live in London. Thank you for sharing that with us. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Censorship (1.00 / 1) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 10:28:21 AM PST

	I would suggest that censorship is like astroturfing in that it reduces the value of a free and unfettered discussion. Now, that is your choice, but how are the readers to determine what is the truth when it has been filtered by persons unknown to them?<p> No thanks, I like my posts straight and neat...

	The mission statement (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by seventypercent on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 09:51:33 AM PST

	The mission statement is not self-contradictory. It may appear to be so on its face, but in reality it was written in a sort of self-deprecating and humorous manner, and its primary purpose is to make one point: Adequacy does not discriminate. We are a forum for the airing of controversial opinions. Period. There is no idelogical slant one way or the other. If it's controversial, it's appropriate for Adequacy. One day we might publish a non-"politically correct" point of view from a moral person of God, and the next day we might publish homosexualist propaganda. So when the mission statement says that we are for one group of people in one paragraph and for another group of people in the next paragraph, it's not being contradictory. It's saying that we are really for or against nobody. And there's nothing contradictory about that. Some of our editors and contributors are social conservatives; others are leftivists. We cover all of the bases at Adequacy. -- Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

	I hear ya (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 04:41:20 AM PST

	I agree with the sentiment of your post entirely. I wonder how long before this 'troll' is pulled too. =) What a place.