The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

So you like the informer system?

Do not worry in any case as I had jump on the bandwagon and will cheerfully do the reporting that Robert seems to wish for.

Let see if he will get rid of the "assholes" or not.

My bet is hell no but time will tell one way or the other.

The idea of informing on people is very unattractive, but honestly preferable to the status quo.

So, ok. No more open carry in Tombstone.

I haven't formed an opinion since I can't envisage the finished product. I barely post here any more. The religious freaks and right wing nut jobs essentially ruined the site. If the changes enable me to interact with like minded individuals, as well as permanently separate me from the long list of arseholes I've ignored, then perhaps I'll be more active.

A patterns seems to be revealing itself glitterbag. Someone posts a comment and you post a reply professing that you have no desire to argue, and innocently wondering why the person is so angry. Some short time thereafter you post a second reply in which you reveal that you really do want to argue, and the indication that you've been stewing in anger, during the interim, composing what you think is a perfect zinger.

The link you provided is busted so I can't comment on my involvement in that thread.

I've acknowledged that on occasion I've been guilty of less than civil behavior in this forum, and you're welcome to report any and all posts that I've made, including the one the busted link is supposed to take us to. Don't count on Robert combing through old posts in search for my old sins or those of anyone else, for that matter, seize the day!

I only wanted to remind you of your steller behavior on the RIP James Galdofini thread. I was able to find it, you can as well, but you want to appear blameless. I actually understand, many men who made vulgar comments to women tend to blame the women for provoking them. Your not alone, just not much of an honest broker.

I haven't formed an opinion since I can't envisage the finished product.[/quote]

Neither can I.

So, is that door going to be soon or with the reinvention of A2K? Several members seem to want to get a close look at it.

I don't know. Back in 2012 Robert mentioned he might reform the forum and several members went nuts. A2K has changed over the years, I haven't seen much of a difference. It's pointless to worry, change happens.

And it's quite difficult which is why I coming around to the idea of some form of restrictions on speech, even though my experience with such moderated forums is that their ability to enforce civil behavior is quite limited and inevitably ideas and not rhetorical behavior is moderated (AKA censored).

Just about everyone in this forum asserts (if not actually believes) that they "never start a fight," and virtually everyone who makes this assertion adds "but I won't back down from one." Of course we know that regardless of what they may assert, there are a few individuals whose only reason for participating in this forum is to start fights, but I also think that part of the dynamic is that, for some, once engaged in a "fight" in one thread, the fight never ends. Someone may not start the fight in Thread A, but their notion that they will not back down carries over to Thread B and the comment they make there that starts a new fight is seen by them as merely a continuation of the one from Thread A; from which they refuse to back down. Meanwhile the person responding to the first salvo in Thread B feels that he or she has not started this new fight, but also refused to back down. Obviously this can lead to never ending feuds. Somehow that cycle needs to be broken.

I must be getting something from A2K or I wouldn't keep coming back, but there have been plenty of times where I felt frustrated by the derailment of an excellent thread by pages of bickering and fighting between two or a handful of members. Too often I have found myself caught up in such exchanges and I've felt embarrassed and sullied. The principle of "never backing down from a fight" doesn't assuage these feelings. More than once I have vowed to "take the high road" and not succumb to base instincts and more than once I have broken that vow and disappointed myself.

I've stated in previous threads that I appreciate this forum as a means for me to flesh out ideas I have. For this to be effective, there has to be someone or someones arguing for the other side. We should be able to do this without acrimony. If we were gathered in a room together, I can practically guarantee that there wouldn't be anywhere near the number of over-heated exchanges that occur in this forum, and if they did occur the person or persons responsible would be shamed, silently or otherwise, into leaving the room. Here in cyberspace where there are only written words being typed by largely anonymous people and without accompanying non-verbal communication, social regulation is very difficult.

The ideal "community" in Robert's Brave New A2K would somehow function as if we were all in a comfortable room together (one without an over abundance of alcohol); where social norms and pressures would, largely, take the place of moderators.

It is difficult to imagine ten or twelve of us sitting in the great room of a lodge to discuss and debate any number of different topics and tolerating the sort of invective laced rants that sometimes appear in this forum. If the ranter didn't banish him or herself, I'm pretty certain that the 9 to 11 other participants would ask or demand that they leave.

It might be possible for the guilty party to gain back the good graces of the rest of the group and be invited to join in the next session, but a repeat bad performance would almost certainly lead to a permanent ban.

It will be interesting to see if something like this can be achieved in the Brave New A2K.

The problem is that this site, by virtue of all the religious nut bags who have posted here in the past, has a high page rank on a web search. The more holy rollers post here, the more they are likely to find the place when they do a web search. The same thing with atheists and so-called "atheism." Any holy roller who wants to find a forum where they can bash atheists, or attempt to convert them is likely to find this site with a high page rank.

I fear we will never be without them.

Well. you might just need practice.

Very few people that I've seen here actually want to discuss ideas. Many don't think there's anything to be discussed and they only want to assert/impose their preconceived ideas without debate. They made up their mind a long time ago and they now see it as their duty to inform others of the "truth."

Many others just don't care for ideas, per se. This site is more of a social event for them where they can say hi to their friends.

There have been very few threads I've been in that continue the discussion of some central idea very far. It soon deteriorates into someone announcing that anyone who is even trying to debate him is just a complete dumbass.

Some rely almost solely on cheap sophistical fallacies to convey their "ideas." I guess that have to because they don't really have any independent thoughts or ideas, just dogma.

I know how you feel. I've never used it before.

When I was a kid, if I told on my brother for some minor and ultimately silly offense, my father appropriately punished my brother for the offense and me, as well, for tattling. I applied the same rule with my children and I assure you, none of them got away with constant bad behavior because one of their siblings wasn't ratting them out, and none of them became "tattle-tales" using the "I'm telling Dad!" as a weapon. It was also clear to them that advising us that one of their siblings was engaged in seriously dangerous or destructive behavior was not "ratting." Kids know the difference.

It's difficult to assert that any of the bad behavior exhibited in this forum rises to "seriously dangerous and destructive" behavior in the vein of what was involved with my kids, and I freely admit that informing the moderators of a members bad behavior could never be construed as doing that member a favor or a product of my worry for their safety. However within the context of A2K some of this behavior is seriously destructive so there is a legitimate reason to report it.

In light of the title of this thread, it's also important, to me, to know that the rules are being applied equally. Right now, I am only aware of two people having been suspended: Hawkeye, because Robert announced it, and orolloy because he told us so in this thread. I have an opinion on who has deserved suspension and perhaps it has already happened, but I'm not aware of it.

Since Robert set a precedent by announcing hawkeye's suspension, I don't think it unreasonable to expect him to do so with all others. I doubt that will happen, though, and I'm not asking for it.

I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that I will know when someone I have reported has been suspended. This will inform me relative to my continued involvement with A2K.

This is not an effort on my part to have anyone banished from this forum. If a suspension leads to someone cleaning up their act, that's fine with me.

It is also certainly not a way to get back at or harass any anyone. Clearly that would be so petty as to be pathetic, and I'm relatively confident that Robert and the moderators are not going to tolerate a bombardment of abuse reports from anyone if there is actually nothing of substance to report. Using abuse reporting as a weapon would not only be pathetic, it would be a large mistake.

I also appreciate that by so conspicuously calling for reporting I am probably setting myself up to be reported, which is fine. I'm hardly a model of perfect discussion forum behavior. If nothing else, it will keep me on my toes, but there are a lot worse things in life than getting suspended or even banned from a discussion forum. I am aware of how I behave in this place and if I cross the line and am suspended or banned, I will have brought it on myself. If I haven't crossed the line and suffer the same "punishment" then that will inform me as well, and it will certainly make the decision whether or not to stay engaged with A2K a lot easier.

If you're going to quote me, you might try something I actually wrote. It works better that way.

You don't know what has passed between Finn and myself. What have I made up about you? You did not understand how Nazi propaganda worked, you asked if Stalin really was being controlled by Jews. You did not know the difference between the British electorate and the tiny group of people who were eligible to vote in the Labour leadership contest. And you blame all Moslems for your own Islamophobia, your own bigotry.

You can't handle the truth, you would rather believe you're own hype, and your vanity is such you will side with anyone to try and score points against me. With Layboy, Oralboy and Finn you're in good company.

We both know what was said. I don't want to go into it only for you to pretend you meant something else, like when you pretended not to know my wife was dead. Your mask slipped, I saw what was underneath and you can't stand it.

Anyone who believes poor people should be allowed to die from operable conditions just so they can get their snout in the trough isn't a nice person by any standards.

I don't blame them for that.

I blame YOU.

Do you like Islam, there, eh, Dizzy?

All of that tripe is a collection of purposeful lies you carry all over the site.

Look over your shoulder. There are people with asshole nets headed in your direction.

It's all true, you know it's true, but you'd rather kid yourself that you're more knowledgeable, smarter, and nicer than you really are.

I only point out your posts that are factually incorrect or bigoted. You follow me around trying to make alliances with all and sundry because you can't face reality.

I know what you mean - you had that great idea to nuke all the muslims and no-one wanted to discuss it.

Tough thing, sustaining a persona.