63
   

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 09:49 am
@firefly,
I always wondered why you added "Hey" to the title of your thread, firefly. Adding such a word to any title would be considered confrontational.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 09:56 am
@wandeljw,
The "Hey" was simply to call attention to the question, not unlike, "Hey, can we get together for lunch?". There was nothing confrontational intended.

0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 09:59 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Then you should probably apologize to her. As you clearly agree the comments have a very different context depending on who you are talking to. I personally think that in the context of the person you were talking to your comments were incredibly insensitive and that it wouldn't hurt you to apologize for.


As I said I was not aware that this story had any direct connection to her and would not had made that comment if I had been aware of that fact.

I am sorry if it cause her any pain as a result.

Okay, let's get real here shall we? You were told repeatedly that story was about her and you argued that it was not. You were also told how insensitive and disgusting those remarks were and you also argued about that. So why don't you just tell the truth?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 10:01 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
The answer to the original question is so blatantly obvious, I consider it rhetorical...


the original questions (for those who aren't familiar with the thread under debate) in the thread opening post



Quote:
What do you think of this campaign?

Do you think that video clip (of the TV ad) gets the message across?

Would it be useful to run TV ads of this nature in other countries?

How effective can a campaign like this be in actually changing attitudes and behavior?




The thread title and the opening post / questions - perhaps not a clear relationship if you hadn't read the first post.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 10:19 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
(S)he who gets his or her ox gored in a politics forum is not as vulnerable as (s)he who gets his or her feelings hurt in an abuse/help thread. For that matter, how about a depression-contemplating suicide thread? Surely the membership can appreciate that certain deviations from decency can be more harmful in some areas than others, and all I’m suggesting is that this be factored in to the system… and that some consequences eventually come to fruition to curb the behavior of the worst of the worst.


But what we have here is a case of a member sharing a personal story on a debate thread. The thread in question is titled, "Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?" I agree that Bill's response to BBB was uncalled for. I agree that he's a dolt. I also see that he isn't the one who kept that portion of the thread going and that, once it was reposted by AM in all her dungeon, he did a mea culpa and said he didn't realize it was a personal story. Yes, I think he's doltish enough to have missed that fine point the first time through. You and your pals then took it into overdrive. She's STILL going on about what folks said to BBB! And, when asked for a link to the offending posts by Hawkeye she responded with a "if you don't know then I'm not going to tell you" type response. WTF?

BBB's ax was gored on a debate thread after sharing a personal story. That's unfortunate, surely. But, probably something to be expected here.
First, may I ask what "AM in all her dungeon" means?

This is not just about what he said to BBB. Those two have continually tried to derail that thread with their off topic posts. They were asked by nearly everyone posting to please stick to the topic or start their own thread. Like firefly said, we were all basically told to go to hell and they couldn't care less about what anyone was asking them.

I tried many times to get them to understand. I tried so many times I got so mad at them I let them both have it, and that was wrong, and I apologized for it.

I do not think you will find one single time on that thread where either of them showed any sympathy for anyone that shared their experience or for anyone in the articles posted.

I don't necessarily think they should be banned but when you are asked to stick to the topic over and over and over again but yet you disregard it and continue to try to derail the thread I think maybe you should be banned from that particular thread.

Their opinions are their opinions and they have a right to them and I wouldn't ever say they don't have that right.

As I see it, their intent is not to discuss anything or learn anything from anyone else. Their intent seems to be to use A2K as their playground and say whatever they want to whomever they want regardless of the topic at hand.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 10:25 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Were they to start a thread of their own, and present their grotesque proposals with some class and in a straight forward manner to forewarn the passersby, I don't think I'd have any room to object whatsoever. If, on the other hand, they spam seemingly every remotely related thread with that opinion, I think that's entirely out of line. I do not think a free flow of ideas requires the freedom to put any particular opinion in everyone's face at every opportunity.

I think it does. So we still disagree. (Not a problem--I was just checking.)
Miller
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 10:30 am
@Arella Mae,
One way to handle this situation, that's worked on other sites, is for the moderator to lock the thread thereby proventing a continuation of the discussion.
This will force a cooling off period to begin and thus allow a new thread on the same subject to be opened down the road. If the interference continues, the disruptive posts should be deleted.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 10:43 am
@Miller,
I could accept that. God knows I sure need someone to step in so I shut up when I get angry.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  5  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 10:47 am
1. The rape thread had been driven off the tracks long before BBB posted the story of her childhood rapes. There were 130+ pages of drama, rudeness and statistical pissing matches in that thread long before she entered it.

2. She made less than a dozen posts, most of which were answers to questions asked about the book in which her story was recorded. She left the thread and never went back. The thread has continued on in the same manner for another 100 pages.

3. She never asked people to defend her, nor did she ask people to shut the hell up. She just said she was getting on with her life and left the thread. More than a few people have been exploiting the telling of her story and reactions to it for their own agendas and have done so for 150 pages on that thread and continue to do so on this thread. Please stop, it isn't helpful and it is dishonest.

4. The problems in that thread, and this one, are not about BBB and never were.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 10:55 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
The ignore function works; cjhsa doesn't come around anymore.


You genuinely believe that's why he's gone? I don't know . . . it is possible that he's got a life and is now living it.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 10:59 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

One way to handle this situation, that's worked on other sites, is for the moderator to lock the thread thereby proventing a continuation of the discussion.
This will force a cooling off period to begin and thus allow a new thread on the same subject to be opened down the road. If the interference continues, the disruptive posts should be deleted.

I like this modest measure of calm and rationality. And Miller? You should wander on done to Washington DC this October 30 to the Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity.

A voice of reason like yours could help keep the event civil and alluring to those so called independent moderates who are undecided still in the next election.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 11:22 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
The ignore function works; cjhsa doesn't come around anymore.


You genuinely believe that's why he's gone? I don't know . . . it is possible that he's got a life and is now living it.


Or, is still here under a different name?
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 11:23 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

One way to handle this situation, that's worked on other sites, is for the moderator to lock the thread thereby proventing a continuation of the discussion.
This will force a cooling off period to begin and thus allow a new thread on the same subject to be opened down the road. If the interference continues, the disruptive posts should be deleted.


You mean like they used to do here?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 11:25 am
@Intrepid,
That's possible, although it is difficult for people to hide their writing style--witness the Possum. He gets outed sometimes within minutes of showing up again. So i really doubt that that's the case.

The election of Mr. Obama was just no fun for the conservatives. Most of them are laying low, or have just wandered off.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 11:26 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
So far you have been willing to tolerate me saying that in the interest of collective health the definition of rape should be changed, that we should change our whole approach to dealing with sexual transgression. I however have never said that currently laws should not be followed until such time as we can get them changed.


If you never said current rape laws should not be followed, you've certainly come close to saying it.

Hawkeye:
Quote:
I can see why a person would want to rape or be raped.I have both raped and been raped, and so far as I recall I have tended to enjoy the experience immensely. I recommend the experience, no matter what the law says.
http://able2know.org/topic/162398-2#post-4378052

0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  6  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 11:37 am
There is a big contradiction with the internet.
The free flow of opinions lets place to a growing number of assinine opinions and, increasingly, these opinions block true discussion and information exchange.
If you use moderation (or censorship) in excess, the result will be a lack of spine in the forums.
If you use none at all, the result will be either a takeover by a group, usually some kind of zealots, or the growing presence of unwanted, overheated discussions. Both things tend to lead people away from the site. Only the guys with the thickest skin remain. This is what happened to Abuzz, and helped kill it.
Robert has tried to keep the forum as free as it can get (with the ignore option as a good proxy to a personal banning) and at the same time has tried to keep it plural (for him, this meant attracting conservative voices). I think he has reasonably succeeded in both elements with the present rules.
But this has not been enough to preserve a2k from the general dumbing down of discussion forums in the web. Some intelligent voices and some funny ones from different sides of the ideological and political spectrum are sorely missed (due to trolling, name-calling and belligerant extremism, I believe). Others have taken refuge in non-confrontational, strictly community threads.
The fact is that A2K has lost momentum and needs an overhaul. And it is telling that when Robert asked for some opinions about it, he got rants.
I don't think able2know should ban people "for having untoward opinions" that do not constitute crimes, but for trolling and personal attacks.
I think it needs to change some rules, creating cloister forums, in order to attract people who really want to discuss (and not just to confront paralell prejudices and throw venom). I want to think that people who want to freely exchange knowledge and opinions still exist and can make a site flourish.



Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 11:43 am
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

1. The rape thread had been driven off the tracks long before BBB posted the story of her childhood rapes. There were 130+ pages of drama, rudeness and statistical pissing matches in that thread long before she entered it.

2. She made less than a dozen posts, most of which were answers to questions asked about the book in which her story was recorded. She left the thread and never went back. The thread has continued on in the same manner for another 100 pages.

3. She never asked people to defend her, nor did she ask people to shut the hell up. She just said she was getting on with her life and left the thread. More than a few people have been exploiting the telling of her story and reactions to it for their own agendas and have done so for 150 pages on that thread and continue to do so on this thread. Please stop, it isn't helpful and it is dishonest.

4. The problems in that thread, and this one, are not about BBB and never were.
You won't hear another word about it from me. I apologize for my part in the fray. I assure you though, my intent was never to exploit anything nor did I have an agenda.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 11:48 am
@Arella Mae,
Everyone has a different "line." I don't want to operate within the confines of yours.

I'm for as free a form of speech as is legally safe for the site.

Use ignore.

We all know that we can't police the decorum of everyone who wanders in here, and when we choose to open our personal lives on threads, we are taking quite a risk that we will be embarrassed, scrutinized unfairly or toyed with cruelly. It comes with the territory. No one has made a plausible argument why the ignore feature can't take care of this efficiently. I'm beginning to feel that the people who refuse to use ignore have control issues.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  9  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 11:55 am
Ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore. Whether you have to hit the button to do it or just don't respond to them. If you don't want people engaging in your thread, don't respond to them. They WILL give up and leave eventually, and your life will be better for it.

I used to call for certain people to be banned, but when it didn't happen, I took personal responsibility for banning them from MY discourse. And it's worked wonders.

Cycloptichorn

edit: I should add that if you find someone to be objectionable, a jerk, an ass, or just a downright Troll, ignoring them is a far better way of sticking it to them then engaging is, over the long run. It causes them to feel marginalized and unimportant in ways that knocking their idiot points down one by one just doesn't.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 12:04 pm
@fbaezer,
fbaezer wrote:

There is a big contradiction with the internet.
The free flow of opinions lets place to a growing number of assinine opinions and, increasingly, these opinions block true discussion and information exchange.
If you use moderation (or censorship) in excess, the result will be a lack of spine in the forums.
If you use none at all, the result will be either a takeover by a group, usually some kind of zealots, or the growing presence of unwanted, overheated discussions. Both things tend to lead people away from the site. Only the guys with the thickest skin remain. This is what happened to Abuzz, and helped kill it.
Robert has tried to keep the forum as free as it can get (with the ignore option as a good proxy to a personal banning) and at the same time has tried to keep it plural (for him, this meant attracting conservative voices). I think he has reasonably succeeded in both elements with the present rules.
But this has not been enough to preserve a2k from the general dumbing down of discussion forums in the web. Some intelligent voices and some funny ones from different sides of the ideological and political spectrum are sorely missed (due to trolling, name-calling and belligerant extremism, I believe). Others have taken refuge in non-confrontational, strictly community threads.
The fact is that A2K has lost momentum and needs an overhaul. And it is telling that when Robert asked for some opinions about it, he got rants.
I don't think able2know should ban people "for having untoward opinions" that do not constitute crimes, but for trolling and personal attacks.
I think it needs to change some rules, creating cloister forums, in order to attract people who really want to discuss (and not just to confront paralell prejudices and throw venom). I want to think that people who want to freely exchange knowledge and opinions still exist and can make a site flourish.


Worth repeating!!
 

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 © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/29/2020 at 02:34:33