|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 6, 2024 7:57:29 GMT
This forum is doing fine. To keep it that way means decisive control if some new member(s) start to erode its quality. Conflict is the engine of a discussion forum. I'd go a bit further. I would say that 'political discussion' is largely just a mask for disputes between 'personality types'. What we are really arguing about is 'approach to existence'. If i were forced to calmly and politely discuss the benefits or otherwise of tiny tax reductions or shifts in public policy priority, without being allowed to resort to pointing out the obvious and glaring attitudinal deficits of my opposition, it would bore me stiff. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 6, 2024 8:09:36 GMT
It looks to me like (at least) two posters here have indicated that they would strongly prefer that all insults and personal comments be excluded from the discussion. Delphi and Zany, Could you give a brief explanatory summary about how you feel about Tin's Red Rum suspension, which, to give context, was for calling another poster a 'holocaust denier'? Was Tin right or wrong? How right or wrong was he? My position is not that insults and personal comments be banned, but that they not be allowed to dominate threads, be thinned out. There are certain posters on the other site who never post anything other than insults. They hang around looking for fall outs between posters and jump in to stir up the arguments. And no, I have no idea what they get from it. I don't think I've ever seen B4 post content on the subject being discussed. On Red Rums suspension. My opinion is nuanced by my experience of Red Rum who I don't see as a troll just looking to stir things by making disgusting comments about people. For me simply removing the offending words and asking Red Rum to rephrase his point would be sufficient. That said, I am not here because Red Rum got a ban. I had virtually left the other site long before that happened and was informed about it by PM. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 6, 2024 8:17:59 GMT
Conflict is the engine of a discussion forum. I'd go a bit further. I would say that 'political discussion' is largely just a mask for disputes between 'personality types'. What we are really arguing about is 'approach to existence'. If i were forced to calmly and politely discuss the benefits or otherwise of tiny tax reductions or shifts in public policy priority, without being allowed to resort to pointing out the obvious and glaring attitudinal deficits of my opposition, it would bore me stiff. Who would you invite from the old forum? |
|
|
|
Post by delphicoracle on Apr 6, 2024 8:34:08 GMT
It looks to me like (at least) two posters here have indicated that they would strongly prefer that all insults and personal comments be excluded from the discussion. Delphi and Zany, Could you give a brief explanatory summary about how you feel about Tin's Red Rum suspension, which, to give context, was for calling another poster a 'holocaust denier'? Was Tin right or wrong? How right or wrong was he? No idea. I had already stopped reading or posting to the site by then. IMO the issue is not what you think, it is how you express it. Is your expression impersonal or personal? Attack the post, not the poster. And any admin must support this. I have been in groups which had a warning system. Three warnings and you are suspended. Three more and you are out. No appeal. It worked very well. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 6, 2024 9:00:14 GMT
It looks to me like (at least) two posters here have indicated that they would strongly prefer that all insults and personal comments be excluded from the discussion. Delphi and Zany, Could you give a brief explanatory summary about how you feel about Tin's Red Rum suspension, which, to give context, was for calling another poster a 'holocaust denier'? Was Tin right or wrong? How right or wrong was he? No idea. I had already stopped reading or posting to the site by then. IMO the issue is not what you think, it is how you express it. Is your expression impersonal or personal? Attack the post, not the poster. And any admin must support this. I have been in groups which had a warning system. Three warnings and you are suspended. Three more and you are out. No appeal. It worked very well. I would nuance this. Which would you find more acceptable "I think you're just being a gullible leftie" "I think you're just being a gullible leftie , if you read this report 'link' you will see you numbers are completely wrong. " I don't think the insult matters as much as the lack of content. For me posts like this Orac' "Extraordinary isn't it? It appears, Zany will do handstands and turn himself inside out to point only at one particular group. My theory is he went on a management course"Are what drove me to leave the other forum. They and no content and invite no reply beyond an insulting back. They are thread killers. |
|
|
|
Post by delphicoracle on Apr 6, 2024 20:30:55 GMT
No idea. I had already stopped reading or posting to the site by then. IMO the issue is not what you think, it is how you express it. Is your expression impersonal or personal? Attack the post, not the poster. And any admin must support this. I have been in groups which had a warning system. Three warnings and you are suspended. Three more and you are out. No appeal. It worked very well. I would nuance this. Which would you find more acceptable "I think you're just being a gullible leftie" "I think you're just being a gullible leftie , if you read this report 'link' you will see you numbers are completely wrong. " I don't think the insult matters as much as the lack of content. For me posts like this Orac' "Extraordinary isn't it? It appears, Zany will do handstands and turn himself inside out to point only at one particular group. My theory is he went on a management course"Are what drove me to leave the other forum. They and no content and invite no reply beyond an insulting back. They are thread killers. IMO that is a clear personal attack, particularly naming someome but I wouldnt get excited by it. I dont think going on a management course is an insult. Nor is selective use of facts. The game demands a rebuttal of those facts or proof that we all do it. Particularly the actual government of the UK. Ever hear the appointed minister of the day doing his milk round of media outlets? IMO there is no need to reply to such vaccuous dark matter. What blocks my view is the opportunists who look for a slanging match and offer nothing to the conversation. They arent here to discuss politics. They are here to have a street battle. To shout slogans and follow the megaphone. Politics demands knowledge of history, religion and culture. Not assuming someone is programmed to repeat mantra like a speaking doll snd attacking them personally for it. IE "you would say that you stupid rightie/leftie". I had a thought today. I have not only been in groups with clear sanctions but with conditional membership over a certain number of posts being held for approval before full free posting is given. You get a good idea of the "potential" of someone after 6 posts. |
|
