17
   

It's about time for a2k prime

 
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 04:38 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

A2k has become overrun with freaks, geeks, and trolls.
I humbly suggest a prime division be created where only the elite may post.
But I wonder . . .
What should be the criteria for selection?
Who should decide?


Way back, when the Earth was much younger, a2k had several closed forums. I recall one was conservative, one liberal, and one for recovering alcoholics. Many of the discussions were worthy of publication, but there was one serious disadvantage. The private forums siphoned many topics away from the public discussions, which was not good for the growth of a2k as a whole. Final selection was at the discretion of the group leaders.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 04:47 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
Way back, when the Earth was much younger, a2k had several closed forums. . . Many of the discussions were worthy of publication, but there was one serious disadvantage. The private forums siphoned many topics away from the public discussions, which was not good for the growth of a2k as a whole. . .
Of course.
I should be drawn and quartered for my suggestion.

I repent.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 05:09 pm
There is no in crowd. I have not advocated tossing anybody off the site. What I have advocated is using the site in a way that allows a thread to move forward, instead of being immediately bogged down by usually the same individuals before it can run its useful course. When a thread is begun to discuss dishonesty by companies selling herbal supplements and such, I consider it trolling to immediately launch attacks on the use of herbs, a totally different matter. The reason we can start more threads is so that the anti herb people can begin a thread on that topic. When a thread is started to enjoy atheism, rather than argue religion, a poster tearing into it like a rabid hyena, can only be characterized as trolling. I don't say, kick them off the site. But use the vote down and ignore function as they are intended. To enhance your own use and enjoyment of the site. If they are universally ignored while trolling, but treated decently elsewhere, they get tough love, also positive enforcement.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 05:40 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
. . . But use the vote down and ignore function as they are intended. . .
Sounds reasonable to me.
Beats vitriolic, expletive laced invective, IMHO.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 05:47 pm
@roger,
I enjoyed the conservative forum.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 05:59 pm
Was it one anybody could read?
Just not post without authorization?
That would take a lot of effort to maintain, no?
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 06:06 pm
@neologist,
It was originally hidden, and replies were not visible to non members. I think they were open on a read only base towards the end, but shortly thereafter, they were deleted.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 07:33 pm
@edgarblythe,
There is a clique here Edgar, and you know it.

And you are wrong that anyone, or any group of members, has the right to control how other members post. You can choose to engage or challenge or ignore. But you can't control the right of other members to express their opinions on a thread... even if you happened to start that thread.

And there is hypocrisy here. When I started my thread on whether the science behind the 1 in 5 claim was valid, many of the in crowd came to express their opinions which covered much more than scientific method.

I accept that this is a public forum with free expression. You should too.
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 08:06 pm
@maxdancona,
That's because you like to fight and argue. My post was addressed to the ones wanting something more.
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 08:08 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

That's because you like to fight and argue. My post was addressed to the ones wanting something more.


What's wrong with being a berserko, you ask? If it has to be explained to you there is no hope it will sink in.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 09:01 pm
@edgarblythe,
No Edgar. It is because I express my opinion that you disagree with.

My response to your post was me expressing my opinion. It was addressed to people who want to have a discussion on the topic. You were free to ignore it (if my opinion didn't interest you), or to engage me, or to question my opinion, or anything else.

But you don't have the right to shut out opinions or to prevent other people from expressing them. This really is the problem.

You seem to be confusing Able2Know, an open forum where any member is free to express his or her opinion, with Facebook where you can restrict your discussion to a group of friends who agree with you. The strength of Able2know is the freedom of expression... that anyone has the ability to express their opinion without anyone (even the person who started the thread) has the ability to restrict an opinion.

This is true even on threads you start. The technology here doesn't assign "ownership". As soon as you post the thread... anyone is permitted to respond with their own opinions on the topic. You started a thread on herbal supplements. I responded with an opinion on herbal supplements. I am sorry, but that is the way it works here.

I express my opinion. I don't make personal attacks, but I am going to say what I believe on a topic and I am happy to defend it, or discuss it, or answer questions on it.

You are free to ignore any of this. But you are not free to shut people down or prevent them from expressing their opinions.

maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 09:06 pm
@maxdancona,
I would also like to hear your answer to the hypocrisy of your position.

You are upset that trolls have expressed their opinion on a thread you started. Yet, you are currently active on Frank's thread about agnosticism disagreeing with his point (quite caustically I might add). You have been involved on a thread written to support Donald Trump (when you seem to not be supportive of Donald Trump).

There are many other examples where you do the exact thing that you are criticizing the trolls for doing. Personally I think anyone should be able to express their opinion on anyone else's thread. But if you are going to oppose this behavior in trolls then you shouldn't be doing it yourself.

That is hypocrisy.
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 09:15 pm
@maxdancona,
The ******* problem is that if I start a thread to discuss garbanzo beans and you start posting about Geronimo you are being a disrespectful turd. There are threads where off topic is expected and humor is welcome, but not on every thread on a2k.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 09:18 pm
@maxdancona,
Here, you are either confused or making **** up. Frank has rarely started a thread about anything. None that I can name. How could I be active on a thread I never heard of? I frankly didn't understand your criticism of my Trump thread.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 09:22 pm
@edgarblythe,
Ignoring posts you don't like is fine. Engaging is fine. Calling names and making personal attacks is not fine (at least in my opinion).

You don't control the threads you start here. As soon as you start a thread, people are free to post their opinions and you are free to ignore them. You don't have ability or the right to shut down other peoples opinions.

I wish you would accept that.

The fact that there is a group of you who are actively trying to shut down the opinions of other members bothers me... that it is why I am standing up to you here.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 09:30 pm
@maxdancona,
We are trying to run threads without having them trolled. Trolling is almost always not about having differing opinions, but is meant to attack the fundamental nature of the thread, to disrupt my free speech in the name of being a sadist. As I said before, the new thread function is a great place for that kind of crap.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 09:37 pm
@edgarblythe,
What do you mean by "run threads"? Do you understand my point that you don't control the threads you start here; that anyone is free to express their opinions even if they disagree with you?

I think you are wrong.

You have every right to question the premise of a thread I post. I have the right to ignore you, or to engage with you, or to challenge you. If I ignore you, I can still engage with the responses to my post that I feel are relevant.

Free speech means that you get to express your opinion and I get to express mine. Me expressing my opinions doesn't in any way restrict your right to express yours. I think your understanding of Free speech is a little backwards. You want the right to restrict responses that you don't like. And you want to prevent people from questioning or challenging your opinions.

That isn't free speech.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 09:50 pm
@maxdancona,
Run a thread in the sense that people are actually participating in the thread instead of fending off the crazies. And we could eventually have a few civil threads if people would make constructive use of ignore and vote down in the way I described earlier. Anyway, you have yourself a nice life.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2015 09:56 pm
@edgarblythe,
In my opinion, the "Ignore" feature should be a personal thing. Each person should decide for him or herself who is worth engaging with, and who is one of the "crazies".

The issue is when the in-crowd ignores people in a concerted way. The recent public calls to identify and shun "trolls" are part of this. This is much more than individuals choosing to ignore ideas, or even people. And all too often it is more than just ignoring, it is public personal attacks (along with shunning) This is a concerted effort to use public pressure to shut down certain viewpoints from being discussed at all.

This is bullying, and I feel the need to stand up to it.

(The way the in-crowd coordinates tagging and downvotes en masse is telling and a bit amusing)

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2015 05:30 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

There is no in crowd.


That's obvious to everyone except self centred little tits who can't accept the fact that nobody is interested in what they have to say. It's a lot easier to blame it on a conspiracy than accept one's own shortcomings.
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
OBVIOUS TROLL - Question by Setanta
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Soon to be world traveler, Dog willing! - Discussion by Stacey the red baron
The Bah! Humbug! Christmas thread. - Discussion by msolga
A good cry on the train - Discussion by Joe Nation
Why all the Decryptonite stuff? - Question by Tes yeux noirs
Oh rest ye, Merry Gentleman - Discussion by jespah
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 09:12:00