What would be the result of allowing Thread starters to Police thread participation?

@hawkeye10,

Hey bright boy, i've already posted that comment from RG. He hasn't proposed anything of the kind, he simply mentioned to O'Bill in passing what he was "leaning toward." Nothing there to authorize a typical Chicken Little response by you. What a f*ckin' drama queen.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Hey bright boy, i've already posted that comment from RG. He hasn't proposed anything of the kind,

Maybe Robert has made up is own definition for "moderation", but I doubt it.

0 Replies

What would be the result of allowing Thread starters to Police thread participation?

a circle jerk

that's the one problem i see with the forum creation thing

i had a little discussion with mr. e. mail on robert's forum thread about this very point

djjd62 wrote:

electronicmail wrote:
I want to run a Tea Party forum.

Anybody can read but only TP forum members can post, right?

like some kind of right wing circle jerk

electronicmail wrote:

Why, you plan to join? I thought you said you're Canadian?

djjd62 wrote:

discussion needs inclusion for all, even those who only want to mock and deride

i got no reply to my last post, not sure if mr. e. mail agrees or what

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I was not talking about anyone in particular . . .

That's a lie, and you are a liar--which isn't news to anyone here. You have repeatedly referred to Idiot Bill. I simply mistook to whom you referred. I realized after i had posted that that you meant OCCOMBill, and not BillRM. It was't worth the effort to go back and correct it, though.

But it is always entertaining to point out your outright lies, such as the one quoted above.

2 Replies

@djjd62,

and don't get me wrong, i'm not worried about being or not being included, sitting with the cool kids is not my style, i tend to navigate through all the social groups but never attach to any in particular, i come at this from the position that a closed discussion is stagnant at least and dangerous at most

1 Reply

@djjd62,

I would tend not to agree with your conclusion. I'd say that closed discussions would stagnate to the point of killing the discussion, but i can't see that as being dangerous--just silly.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

true, but take okie and ican in the politics threads, they are able to just keep hammering the same points endlessly with no sign of getting bored or letting up, now interject some real anger into a group like that, say a tim mc veigh type character, the same insular ideas going round and round might lead to a dangerous frustration rather than a dying stagnation

it's a stretch i agree, but in the end i'm only trying to support open discussion

1 Reply

@djjd62,

OK, sure . . . but their threads, or the ones they have decided to monopolize have become circle jerks already. No big loss if other people stop participating.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

after i had posted that that you meant OCCOMBill, and not BillRM

LOL........and more LOL

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

That's a lie, and you are a liar--which isn't news to anyone here. You have repeatedly referred to Idiot Bill. I simply mistook to whom you referred.

I have not ever called idiot Bill a troll, I do believe that trolls exist but they are rare on a2k and idiot Bill is not one of them. He honestly believes in his moral crusades and that he is a saviour of poor unfortunate women and kids who get hurt by what he sees as the inherent evilness of the male gender.

He is pretty much the direct modern equivalent of the evangelical barn raising bible thumping preachers of old.....good entertainment but if you find yourself taking them seriously it is time for some self evaluation.

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

Thread stalkers need to be exorcised when they reach a critical mass of unstoppable harassment whose repugnant activity can be prevented if that person was thrown out of the forum when it's obvious that person can't handle his or her interactions in a reasonable and sane measure.

Just love that sentence Smile

I'm seriously considering stalking you.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

Thread stalkers need to be exorcised when they reach a critical mass of unstoppable harassment whose repugnant activity can be prevented if that person was thrown out of the forum when it's obvious that person can't handle his or her interactions in a reasonable and sane measure.

hey, don't attack my posting style Razz

2 Replies

@djjd62,

Putting up with the drama , lies, and idiot posting is just one of the minor inconveniences of fora like these. I may have a personal animus against a particular poster (or two) but, in order to be able to get some of the great responses and inputs from others who really put effort into their posts, thats just the husks on the corncob.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

By all means Emperor DJ post away! Play your fiddle while Rome burns!

0 Replies

I don't think it would be good to let thread authors delete posts and that was not part of the idea I expressed recently. What I had in mind was somehting like allowing the thread starter to block users from participating. But I'll be the first to say that there would be significant downsides with that and there's a reason this idea has been sitting on the shelf for years without any forward movement.

Since I posted the quoted post I've come to believe that threaded conversation would be a more useful way to address it. That way if someone votes down a post it can collapse all the children. Those who want that fork of the discussion can pursue it more easily and those who don't want to can avoid it more easily.

Right now, the linear nature of the conversations makes it legitimately difficult for people to avoid branches of the topic that they find disruptive or not edifying. Threading the discussions would simply organize the conversations more into the different "threads" that sprout up and there would be less friction between folks on the basis of diversions because the conversation branches would all be self-contained.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Straw man--i didn't say you had called him a troll. You said that you weren't referring to anyone in particular, that is a lie, and i have pointed that out.

By the way, this is typical of your MO, too. You wait hours and hours after i have nailed you in a post, and them cobble together a response like this, which would lead the uwary to believe either that i had called Bill a troll (i don't particularly like him, but i don't consider him a troll), or that i had alleged that you had called him a troll. Neither is true. The truth is that you said you weren't speaking of anyone in particular, and that's a lie.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

which would lead the uwary to believe either that i had called Bill a troll (i don't particularly like him, but i don't consider him a troll), or that i had alleged that you had called him a troll. Neither is true.

In that case kindly parse the following quote in such a way that allows for the conclusion that you did not claim that I called idiot Bill a troll

Quote:

Then we see you attacking your asshole buddy in the most current rape thread and the men whining about women thread, and calling him a troll..

http://able2know.org/topic/163037-1#post-4390248

I am beginning to wonder about your grasp of the english language.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I'd say you're the one with a problem comprehending the English language. I said that you had been attacking the one you call Idiot Bill in the most current rape thread and the men whining about women thread. I didn't say you had called him a troll in this thread.

Get a grip, Rapist Boy.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye, I was always under the impression that one element of how a troll was define as someone who had taken positions that they have no honest beliefs in just to be annoying to others.

We both had annoy people on this system and for the most part I frankly do not feel bad about doing so however I had never taken a position on an issue for any other reason then because that is my true belief and position on that issue.

Did the meaning of troll change over time to just mean someone who world-view is annoying to others?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Hawkeye, I was always under the impression that one element of how a troll was define as someone who had taken positions that they have no honest beliefs in just to be annoying to others.

troll to me means someone who is purposefully disruptive without any intent to redeem that disruption (by bringing about something needed or good), though how I get labeled a troll when I have been clear from nearly day one that I have a strange background, have been through much of my life a self described radical, and even now am a self described socialist IDK. I fight for what I believe in, I argue for what I think is true, no way am I eligible for the label troll in my opinion. The good that I am after is the truth, it is a better understanding of the truth through out the community.

1 Reply

What would be the result of allowing Thread starters to Police thread participation?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know