63
   

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

 
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 07:58 pm
@NoOne phil,
Quote:
I don't collect stamps, my bill collectors do.
Very Happy I dont pay bills ! Speaking of Bill, is he still here ? I wanted to ban him but I cant if he doesnt post. This is a quandry......if I ban people how will I ban people ? Will I be measured by how many people I dont ban or by how many I do ? Have I saved a majority if I play it safe and ban most people ? Where is the cost-satisfaction intersection on this graph ?
BillRM
 
  -2  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 08:11 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Speaking of Bill, is he still here ? I wanted to ban him but I cant if he doesnt post


Are you referring to the mental case Bill or myself?
Wink
Ionus
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 08:12 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Are you referring to the mental case Bill or myself?
Causing confusion in the censor.....thats an offence......youre out of here....
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  2  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 08:24 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Speaking of Bill, is he still here ? I wanted to ban him but I cant if he doesnt post


Are you referring to the mental case Bill or myself?
Wink


Wouldn't they be one and the same?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:06 pm
To hell with this minutae...you are all banned. I am a graduate from the Basil Faulty School of Advanced Dilpomacy...our moto is "It would be a very well run hotel if it wasnt for all these guests". Applying that to A2K, "It would be a very nice forum if everyone agreed with me and complimented me".

Get out all of youse....you are all out of here. Boy, I am working hard today....
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:19 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

msolga wrote:
I think it's a very good working definition.


It is but the point NoOne made is spot on, the concept is well defined but the application is inherently subjective. Likewise beauty has been well defined but is in the eye of the beholder.


I disagree.

Beauty is a concept with parameters that actually hold up well through history and across cultures, generally speaking. Eg symmetry and other features generally fairly well delineated.

You are correct in that there is a great deal of local and individual variability, but nonetheless there is a consistent broad agreement about what constitutes beauty.

Re trolls...you also appear to agree that there IS a definition of troll. I think that, like beauty, there is a broad general agreement about what constitutes a troll, with significant local and individual variability.

You simply place the "troll" boundary at a different place from many others.

Inevitably.

I don't think you have any real right to accuse others of "daft" subjectivity per se...we are not arguing about WHETHER there are boundaries...we are simply inevitably disagreeing about WHERE the boundaries are.

I have no doubt that it is annoying and difficult being constantly badgered about this, but I'd have thought it comes with the territory.

msolga
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:36 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I don't agree, Robert.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:37 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
I disagree.


For what it is worth, I don't think you do, I think you just spell it differently.

Quote:
Beauty is a concept with parameters that actually hold up well through history and across cultures, generally speaking. Eg symmetry and other features generally fairly well delineated.


So then are the concepts of what constitutes forum trolling, yet you get as widely diverging an interpretation of the concept as you do of beauty.

It is in the eye of the beholder, no matter how well you think its definition is codified.

Quote:
You are correct in that there is a great deal of local and individual variability, but nonetheless there is a consistent broad agreement about what constitutes beauty.

Re trolls...you also appear to agree that there IS a definition of troll. I think that, like beauty, there is a broad general agreement about what constitutes a troll, with significant local and individual variability.

You simply place the "troll" boundary at a different place from many others.


You know, you are saying the same damn thing here, but with different wordy-thingies.

Quote:
I don't think you have any real right to accuse others of "daft" subjectivity per se...we are not arguing about WHETHER there are boundaries...we are simply inevitably disagreeing about WHERE the boundaries are.


I do think I have the inexorable right to accuse others of any imagined or not-imagined daftitude I want. Whether or not the benevolent spirit of technical-correctness smiles upon me as I do so is a wholly different matter.

Quote:
I have no doubt that it is annoying and difficult being constantly badgered about this, but I'd have thought it comes with the territory.


Yeah, and there's also the possibility that I am just an intolerant asshole with precious little patience. Or that I am just not of forum management timber, but whatever the case may be I think it's time for the community to step up and run itself. It's too big to depend on personalities already and I'm gonnna keep acerbically calling unto it to do so for lack of intimacy with a more highly-evolved way.
Ionus
 
  2  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:37 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
we are not arguing about WHETHER there are boundaries...we are simply inevitably disagreeing about WHERE the boundaries are.
No, we are arguing what to do with people who have different boundaries.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:40 pm
@msolga,
I may just be engaging in my own brand of daftitude ehre but I just don't see how that makes sense. I am, as I think NoOne was, jsut saying that despite a general consensus on what criteria constitutes forum trolling the interpretation thereof is necessarily subjective.

If I am wrong on this, or if this is even a subjective point itself I lack the discernment to see how.
dlowan
 
  2  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:42 pm
@Robert Gentel,
So...go delineate the wordy-thingies. I am truly interested.

Do you agree that you, in full tantrum mode, you are as much a troll (in terms of personal attacks) as, Bill?
msolga
 
  0  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:43 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Apologies, but I'd prefer not to continue debating the point with you, Robert.
But I wanted to register my disagreement with your comment.
dlowan
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:44 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

I may just be engaging in my own brand of daftitude ehre but I just don't see how that makes sense. I am, as I think NoOne was, jsut saying that despite a general consensus on what criteria constitutes forum trolling the interpretation thereof is necessarily subjective.

If I am wrong on this, or if this is even a subjective point itself I lack the discernment to see how.


I agree with that on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

If you truly disagree on a community basis, I don't see how you can hope that the thumbs down stuff has a hope in hell of working.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:45 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
Roberta.
Roberta ?????There are no women on the internet. The men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI men.
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:47 pm
@dlowan,
Yes, absolutely. Trolling is in the eye of the beholder, I think I would generate more complaints about me to me than OB does if I were not me. I am as pedantic, if not obdurate and I am as arrogant and self-absorbed as they come. My own personal obsessions can as easily be just as disruptive as Bill's and I'm sure they are as unwelcome to as many if not more as Bill's are.

That may be why I advocate individual liberty and tolerance. I lack the self-control to meet pass many troll criteria muster and try as I might I think I can just do what I can and those who don't like it can learn to ******* deal with it without top-down authoritarianism. It simply takes a lot less to take matters into your own hands and ignore me if you don't like reading me than trying to change me or try to ban me. And that is a concept I think is nearly universally applicable.
msolga
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:47 pm
@Ionus,
Fixed now.
Good old edit button!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:48 pm
@Ionus,
Ok...that's funny.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:49 pm
@msolga,
Duly registered (and no need to apologize for being more normal). I like that you can disagree with me and it matters to me whether or not you feel like persisting in explaining why (though I admit to the pedantry of valuing the pedantic persistence more so).
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:52 pm
@dlowan,
And no matter what anyone says about Inous every 10 thousand posts or so he really is hilarious (and that justifies all in my book).
msolga
 
  0  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:59 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I'll say as briefly as I can (because I genuinely don't wish to make an "issue" of it, OK?), Robert, but the last time I offered opinions in a discussion with you (think warplanes & US spending & world poverty) I was quite offended by your responses. So I'm sorry, I really don't want to experience anything like that again in a hurry. On this thread all I wanted to say was that I disagreed with what you said about trolls. (because you were responding to a comment of mine.)
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/01/2025 at 10:00:57