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

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Another element we are taking action against next are some of the examples of people calling others (some of whom have positions that many of us find untenable) "pedophiles" etc. When this occurs in a pattern of insults across multiple threads it is an example of the boorish behavior we will not tolerate.

Here here!

(Wow, I leave for a couple of days and come back to find all my wishes have come true! I hasten to add that I realize this is pure coincidence and take absolutely no credit for influencing in even the smallest way any decision Smile

)

0 Replies

@layman,

I get your point, but harassment can be a problem for anyone of us that gets angry (I am no saint).

A pattern of it as a mode, I can see why there will be a blocking button. People need to feel safe here, re any taken danger. I can see blocking as reasonable on occasion.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Remarkable ! I find myself agreeing completely with Frank!

There are some folks here whom many others appear to find obnoxious, mostly, it appears, because of their viewpoints. Some 0f them I find interesting and others I don't. A few are persitently contrarian in any discussion and appear to seek confrontation. I don't find it very hard to ignore them with or without the "ignore" function.

There's also a large group of other posters who perhaps too often engage in uncivil behavior and discourse, but who also contribute interesting and informative commentary to the site. I have been guilty of that as well. I would wish for a more mutually sympathetic substitute for all of that, but other than the willing consent of those involved I don't know of a workable solution for it.

The thumbs up/down feature appeards to me to be mostly a way for opposing groups to exercise their intolerance for something they don't like. I don't see much in the way of enhancement for the site resulting from it.

Free expression has lots of bad side effects, but I believe the side effects of efforts to control speech and such expression are generally far worse. Be careful you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the side effects of efforts to control speech and such expression are generally far worse

a right to free speech is not the guarantee of an audience

__

Some people are here to practice debate skills, others are here for sheer entertainment, some come to socialize, some come to work on their language skills, some have specific technical questions they hope to have answered.

One group's baby is going to be another group's bathwater.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

I aint got no problem with the "ignore" feature. It's a necessary crutch for them who aint got no kinda self-control.

But, now, this here "blocking" feature....that aint nuthin but the empowerment of every petty-ass dictator wannabe on the site. And they's a shitload of them.

I may not fully understand the "blocking" feature but based on what I think it is, I don't see a problem with it, and prefer it to "ignore".

If I block you it means I won't see anything you write and you won't see anything I write. Ignoring someone doesn't guarantee you will never see their comments, because they could show up in the post of someone who you have not ignored, and they could be directed at you.

Now this is a question of individual tolerance, but if you've reached the point where you want absolutely nothing to do with someone, the block feature works better than ignore.

As for someone blocking me? Unless they were someone who I actually enjoyed conversing with, why would I care? I don't know if I am being ignored by anyone right now, but if I am, it hasn't diminished my experience. For the most part (and this is just a guess based on what people state in threads like this one) the ignore feature is not widely used and even when it is there is a whole lot of peeking going on.

I suppose the future A2K has the possibility of a sub-community in which blocking by one member effectively means banning someone from any participation, but I think this is a rule that would be known to all the members of that community and, frankly, I wouldn't care to participate in such a group.

It's true that there are some folks here that will want to exercise power over others. Whether they are able to or not remains to be seen.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I believe the side effects of efforts to control speech and such expression are generally far worse

a right to free speech is not the guarantee of an audience

However, if you eliminate the possibility of an audience, you have eliminated the right to free speech.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I may not fully understand the "blocking" feature but based on what I think it is, I don't see a problem with it, and prefer it to "ignore".

Well, Finn, I've elaborated at some length on the reasons for my objections earlier in this thread.

I don't know if you've read those posts or not.

If you have, and disagree with my analysis of the effect it can have on general discussion, then maybe you can respond to those posts directly. That would help me understand why you don't see any problem.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

People can find their own audiences. I have no obligation to be part of them (in my free time/home).

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I'm tending to agree with Finn on a lot of this, though we disagree a lot of matters, when typing opinons. Dunno re right now, as it would take a monitor to find nastybody stuff. Mostly I think some others (who?) should be able to add.

The tag thing can be complicated, as we all know. I get making the thread starter the purveyor, but many thread starters are, for the time being, l lost in space re tags re their own question. Up until now, some of us have tried to put a category in, to help clarify re google points or whatever, but mostly to find the thread if we want to see it again, or help others to get a clue what it is about.
Something may come up in the thread that is actually useful to others, and then can't be noted in a tag.

Sometimes we know more than the poster, re, say, art or the artist.

Which brings up another subject. I sometimes give Tico's summary for a How To to newbies, mostly useful. My trying to tell an older a2ker how to do it with an oldmac landed me in grief. So...
I hope some how to instructions happen for photography, if it is allowed.

That's another whole question.
I get it that it is expensive.
I think some of it is calming and also educational. Losing Roberta's Beautiful Animals would kill me, and probably annoy her and make her kvetch.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I suppose the future A2K has the possibility of a sub-community in which blocking by one member effectively means banning someone from any participation, but I think this is a rule that would be known to all the members of that community and, frankly, I wouldn't care to participate in such a group.

OK, I hadn't read your whole post when I made my last comment. When Bob said the blocking would apply ONLY in private communities, I said my objection was moot. But then he said it was going to be available across the board in A2K, so I do think the problem extends beyond personal choices of forums.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Yup, really really in disagreement there.

My blocking of someone else does nothing to their possibility of finding an audience. I've got no influence over anyone else here and don't share my ignore list. Similarly on FB, I don't share details of my block list (unless someone tries to connect me with someone I have blocked and insists on knowing why that other person can't find me).

Someone else's right to free speech doesn't include the right to have me listen to them.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I'm tending to agree with Finn on a lot of this, though we disagree a lot of matters,

Do you realize that virtually every time you agree with anything I post you feel compelled to offer the disclaimer: "though we disagree a lot..."

It's alright osso. I don't think anyone will throw you off the island for agreeing with me from time to time. Smile

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Someone else's right to free speech doesn't include the right to have me listen to them.

Of course not. Not in your living room. Or your personal facebook page. But if you're out on a public street, you can't have people removed because you don't want THEM to hear what YOU say. If you don't want to listen to them, you can put cotton in yours ears. But you don't want that. You want to have someone stuff cotton into THEIR ears, for your convenience.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Yup, really really in disagreement there.

My blocking of someone else does nothing to their possibility of finding an audience. I've got no influence over anyone else here and don't share my ignore list. Similarly on FB, I don't share details of my block list (unless someone tries to connect me with someone I have blocked and insists on knowing why that other person can't find me).

Someone else's right to free speech doesn't include the right to have me listen to them.

I agree. No one is required to be an audience for anyone else and if everyone freely chooses to block someone, that person's right to free speech hasn't, in any way, been infringed upon.

I am referring to a situation where one person or the site can block someone from participating, irrespective of the wishes of other members.

Now it's all moot from any legal aspect because this is a private site and the government will not be doing the blocking (at least I hope not), but we often discuss "free speech" here on a broadly conceptual basis.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

If I can make "the cut," you have no worries. Wink

If I disappear after this post, you'll know why.

0 Replies

@layman,

Whether or not you'd like to declare this public property it remains a privately owned and maintained space. This is not public property where everyone who wants to yell on a street corner has the right to be there. It is a privately owned club with rules on not being able to be an annoying asshat, we are under no obligation to allow everyone in and under no obligation to allow you to behave however you would like within this space.

Furthermore even on a street if someone decides to disengage you and walk away you do not get to follow them around and keep trying to talk to them.

Finn has it absolutely right, if someone doesn't want to talk to you that's their prerogative and you really have no right to care about it or to try to force them to interact with you. And why would you care? Just to have the right to be obnoxious and insist on interacting with people who are trying to avoid you?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I've done that. Once in a while, I became attentive to a person named removed by others' comments, and then looked (his being on ignore) and then thumbed down more than once. I don't mean by dozens, but a fair lot, maybe more than a dozen, and over time, maybe two. Then I corrected myself.
Others may do this.

This is not to exonerate me, just to say this stuff is complicated.

Someone pestered a person here at great length, unbearable to some of us, and I, at the least, voted him down, each time. Is that a Fail?

I think decisionmaking on all this can be yarn for a cat.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I am referring to a situation where one person or the site can block someone from participating, irrespective of the wishes of other members.

this is already the case - and always has been. Robert and his team can block people from participating - the title of the thread reminds us of that.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

You're just bringing up a bunch of non-sequiturs again, Bob. I didn't say this was a public forum, or that you can't ban anyone you want. You can ban anyone who doesn't praise Hitler, if you want. But that's not the point.

I stated the point at length, but you just misconstrue it, or don't respond in meaningful way for other reasons.

Quote:

Furthermore even on a street if someone decides to disengage you and walk away you do not get to follow them around and keep trying to talk to them.

That is a problem IGNORE solves. Blocking doesn't add to that.

Quote:

Finn has it absolutely right, if someone doesn't want to talk to you that's their prerogative and you really have no right to care about it or to try to force them to interact with you.

That's not what I'm advocating. Not for one second. Why distort my position?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

All right, we have an established base.

Your friend, the liberal, my group oft derided by you. I still can agree and like.

Or maybe progressive, what the hell.

Maybe I'm just glad for agreement and mention it.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know