@Setanta,
They certainly have, Ollie.
what if we banded them instead, so we could track their movements
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I can't for a moment agree with Fart's claim that you cannot distinguish between threats and unpopular opinions--that just absurd. I do know (not think, know), that they do a lot more than just remove spam. The thing is that the rules for post content have been greatly relaxed in the last eight years.
I'm just saying that people will begin to use the feeling of insult or offense to claim that they are threatened.
Obviously a distinction can be made. I only wonder if we are disciplined enough to exercise that kind of power. I'm not confident we are.
A
R
T
I don't know why you keep saying "we." As far as i understand it, RG is not asking the membership to police the site, he's just soliticting feedback. In fact, i don't think he's even doing that. As i've said here recently, i think he started this thread confident about the response he'd get from the members.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote: As far as i understand it, RG is not asking the membership to police the site, he's just soliticting feedback.
I agree.
As a separate thing, I do think he's asked that membership contribute to moderation of the site by using thumbs-up and thumbs-down buttons. (For example, when I clicked on a link leading to the offensive post by BillRM at some point, I didn't see anything on the page that fit and thought the link was faulty. Then realized there was one of those "post collapsed" notes [not the right wording but I can't remember the right wording right now], clicked on that, and there was BillRM's post. So the membership DID police that by down-rating it.)
@Setanta,
Forgive my use of "we." It's not transparent who the mods are, and I'm assuming some in here are.
A
R
T
I've only seen one moderator in this thread (other than RG), and moderators, as members, have the same right to post their opinions. If RG ever seriously solicited peoples' input on what rules there ought to be for conduct at the site, i would assume that his decision in response would be written into rules, which would be announced, and for which there would very likely be a grace period. I believe he bends over backwards to be fair about these things. Thereafter, rules would be enforced by the moderators, just as they are now.
Just to obviate any claims which someone might want to make that i'm sucking up--i don't particularly like RG, don't have a high opinion of his forensic skills, and have frequetly, and sometimes bitterly disagreed with him. I am able easily to separate my personal feelings from my estimation of his performance as a moderator and his management of the site. I believe he does that well.
@JPB,
OCCOM BILL wrote:Since then, only JPB even bothered to reply to the argumentation he requested from me (and barely at that), and a whole slew of mostly abuzzers piled on to the ad hominem bandwagon… but there’s no bias… none.
More on your argument...
OCCOM BILL wrote:Rule: Members should be sanctioned for launching personal attacks on other members for sharing personal hardship experiences. These attacks are repugnant to decency, and only the anonymous nature of the board shields offenders from the natural consequences, that would otherwise curb this offensive behavior. This is the cowardly trolling I so despise. You correctly point out that Shorteyes tends to mask his hurtful intent in a veneer of civility, so his posts tend to violate the spirit rather than the letter of the law, so to speak. That doesn't make his demented misogyny any less repugnant to decency.
I disagree. As much as I cringe whenever some unsuspecting poster who comes here asking for advice gets trounced on for opening his/her soul, it falls to those who care about the person's plight to offer support, remind them that the internet is full of all types of people, and give them what they were looking for when they made the post.
Are your rules to apply only to "regular" members who get trounced on? Do they apply to posts that are themselves made by sockpuppets looking to pull folks into a sympathy bath? We have all kinds of people here making all kinds of personal posts. It's the internet, Bill, not a clubhouse.
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
High Seas wrote:
Quote:="Thomas"
....... I think I presented my argument in a civil, factual tone---no less so than my usual posts at least. For that I got lynched by a mob of righteous people making false allegations about my my criminal record (nonexistent), my mental health, and the presumable safety of leaving me alone in the same room with their daughters.
Having dealt both with trolls and with lynch-mobs trying to enforce "morality", I prefer trolls, thank you very much.
The PC contingent here (standard-bearer: Snood) is worse than a lynch mob. Give me trolls any day, some of them are fun to read.
You enjoy reading your own stuff?
You're terminally illiterate, aren't you?
Before you type any more nonsense try reading who is being quoted; here it is Thomas. I only wrote one sentence in commenting on his post. Should I use colors, in addition to bold and italics? How much more dumbing down will you need in order to reach some level of basic reading comprehension? Let me know - will try to oblige. Up to a point - you can't expect everyone to suffer fools gladly.
@High Seas,
Sometimes it's evident that you really enjoy being deliberately obtuse.
Certainly not a banning offense. Just annoying.
@High Seas,
You really are a silly goose, aren't you.
It was your one line that I was replying to.
"terminally illiterate?" No, I am not. You, however, seem to fit your own quote. I told myself I would not respond to idiots. It seems that I broke my rule when I responded to you. What some refer to as obtuse, I prefer to refer to it as idiocy.
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
No, I am not. You, however, seem to fit your own quote. I told myself I would not respond to idiots.
Perfect! I try to follow the identical rule and was only replying to you out of courtesy, since you addressed your post to me. I've added your name to my ignore list and advise you to do the same with mine. One more verbose dimwit off my screen
@High Seas,
Quote:I've added your name to my ignore list
Pretty soon, you'll have ignored yourself out of existence. But I'm sure that you'll still impress yourself with your frequent name dropping.
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:try reading who is being quoted[/i]; here it is Thomas.
Actually, Intrepid quoted your reply to Thomas. So both you and Thomas were quoted in Intrepid's post.
You said that some trolls are fun to read, to which he quipped, "You enjoy reading your own stuff?"
If anyone is terminally illiterate, here, it's you. (Based on this and other exchanges where you have been so wrong as to seem either delusional or otherwise incoherent.)
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote: I've added your name to my ignore list
May I ask what is required to get oneself added to said list?
@DrewDad,
Quote:May I ask what is required to get oneself added to said list?
That's simple, DD. You only have to confront her on any of her myriad specious comments.
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
High Seas wrote: I've added your name to my ignore list
May I ask what is required to get oneself added to said list?
"You can take nothing from me madam, I will more willingly part with all"
@spendius,
I am I the only one who considers that Trivia and Word Games being absent from the "Search Forums" list to be a form of censorship?
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
No, I am not. You, however, seem to fit your own quote. I told myself I would not respond to idiots.
Perfect! I try to follow the identical rule and was only replying to you out of courtesy, since you addressed your post to me. I've added your name to my ignore list and advise you to do the same with mine. One more verbose dimwit off my screen
Oh, happy day! Courtesy? You don't know the meaning of the word.
So let us know when you get down to 5 posters who are not on your list.
