|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 11, 2024 19:28:49 GMT
Jonksy uses your Achilles' heel
If you work on your 'last word' addiction, Jonksy will no longer have power over you.
I suggest we open a thread so you can practice. I will start an argumentative conversation and when you feel the most desperate need to reply you should refuse to do so - eventually the 'post now' voices stop because you ignore them.
We used to run some of these exercises in the therapy workshops Skills and I had on the old site.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 11, 2024 19:40:30 GMT
Jonksy uses your Achilles' heel If you work on your 'last word' addiction, Jonksy will no longer have power over you. I suggest we open a thread so you can practice. I will start an argumentative conversation and when you feel the most desperate need to reply you should refuse to do so - eventually the 'post now' voices stop because you ignore them. We used to run some of these exercises in the therapy workshops Skills and I had on the old site. You just don't get it do you. Its not just me, very many on here think the likes of Jonsky ruin threads not by engaging us, but by destroying conversation. You reply to me and I will demonstrate how the killing of a thread is done. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Apr 12, 2024 22:14:15 GMT
As I've repeatedly said, there's no reason why there can't be a two-tier system. Jonksy is outspoken. He sets out to raise hackles. That's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. If it amuses him, who are we to question it? If an alternative space for intelligent conversation is created, one that excludes Jonksy's typical approach, why would you or anyone else care? Such a space exists - it's called the Mindzone. I am not interested in your disinterest in our argument with Tinculin. Tinculin manipulates rules for his own purposes. He spent 40 minutes copying and pasting Fox's old site. He didn't build the community. That work was done by others - by the members and mods on Fox's site. For reasons known only to himself, Tinculin appears to believe his copy-and-paste job gives him the right to exclude members, like Sword, from the community, despite their having contributed far more to building the community than Tinculin's mere 40 minutes. A lot of discussion in 'our' community centres around democracy. We appear to think it's a good thing. Tinculin held a poll asking if the membership wanted more rules and moderation. The poll returned a strikingly conclusive answer: NO! Despite that, Tinculin went ahead and introduced more rules, which resulted in the banning of long-term members.
You might think Tinculin's rules are sensible. You might think they're conducive to intelligent conversation. But you can't reasonably think they're democratic. Nor can you reasonably think they're applied fairly. Tinculin is owed a debt of gratitude for stepping up and creating 'his' site when Fox withdrew. He has rightly received our thanks for that. But he has no right to start dictating or pruning the community into a shape that best pleases him. His 40 minutes of work hasn't earned him that right.If this board is to be a success, and I would like it to be, then there is no room for the thread destruction tactics employed by the likes of Jonksy, Fair scociety and Bentley. Similarly and as I said I said at the in the dying moments of Fox's forum, a 'Mind Zone' is wide open to abuse: i refer you to the Other Sie and your comments there.
I suggest that rules should be kept to the absolute minimum and that any sanction should only be for thread destruction. Proposed sanction should be published with reasons with a seven day period for appeal against sanction, again with appeals being published..
I'd suggest that Mags, having taken the trouble to set this up, should have the final decision. Clearly, Mags is a bit odd, but is probably no odder than the rest of us.  [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 12, 2024 22:43:38 GMT
As I've repeatedly said, there's no reason why there can't be a two-tier system. Jonksy is outspoken. He sets out to raise hackles. That's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. If it amuses him, who are we to question it? If an alternative space for intelligent conversation is created, one that excludes Jonksy's typical approach, why would you or anyone else care? Such a space exists - it's called the Mindzone. I am not interested in your disinterest in our argument with Tinculin. Tinculin manipulates rules for his own purposes. He spent 40 minutes copying and pasting Fox's old site. He didn't build the community. That work was done by others - by the members and mods on Fox's site. For reasons known only to himself, Tinculin appears to believe his copy-and-paste job gives him the right to exclude members, like Sword, from the community, despite their having contributed far more to building the community than Tinculin's mere 40 minutes. A lot of discussion in 'our' community centres around democracy. We appear to think it's a good thing. Tinculin held a poll asking if the membership wanted more rules and moderation. The poll returned a strikingly conclusive answer: NO! Despite that, Tinculin went ahead and introduced more rules, which resulted in the banning of long-term members.
You might think Tinculin's rules are sensible. You might think they're conducive to intelligent conversation. But you can't reasonably think they're democratic. Nor can you reasonably think they're applied fairly. Tinculin is owed a debt of gratitude for stepping up and creating 'his' site when Fox withdrew. He has rightly received our thanks for that. But he has no right to start dictating or pruning the community into a shape that best pleases him. His 40 minutes of work hasn't earned him that right.If this board is to be a success, and I would like it to be, then there is no room for the thread destruction tactics employed by the likes of Jonksy, Fair scociety and Bentley. Similarly and as I said I said at the in the dying moments of Fox's forum, a 'Mind Zone' is wide open to abuse: i refer you to the Other Sie and your comments there.
I suggest that rules should be kept to the absolute minimum and that any sanction should only be for thread destruction. Proposed sanction should be published with reasons with a seven day period for appeal against sanction, again with appeals being published..
I'd suggest that Mags, having taken the trouble to set this up, should have the final decision. Clearly, Mags is a bit odd, but is probably no odder than the rest of us. I don't see how such a small group of people, especially like-minded people, can sustain a politics forum. I could be wrong. It goes without saying that I will abide by the decision of the majority and site owner. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue making the case for a wider membership. En garde! |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 13, 2024 7:49:42 GMT
If this board is to be a success, and I would like it to be, then there is no room for the thread destruction tactics employed by the likes of Jonksy, Fair scociety and Bentley. Similarly and as I said I said at the in the dying moments of Fox's forum, a 'Mind Zone' is wide open to abuse: i refer you to the Other Sie and your comments there.
I suggest that rules should be kept to the absolute minimum and that any sanction should only be for thread destruction. Proposed sanction should be published with reasons with a seven day period for appeal against sanction, again with appeals being published..
I'd suggest that Mags, having taken the trouble to set this up, should have the final decision. Clearly, Mags is a bit odd, but is probably no odder than the rest of us. I don't see how such a small group of people, especially like-minded people, can sustain a politics forum. I could be wrong. It goes without saying that I will abide by the decision of the majority and site owner. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue making the case for a wider membership. En garde! Where we disagree is not on the size of the membership, but where it comes from. I still believe this forum can grow organically if visitors see conversation they can join in, rather than watch as a mad show and then walk away. The fact that intelligent people who want to discuss issues tend to be centre left and centre right is a problem only if you miss the name calling and clever crap we here have left behind, |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 13, 2024 8:23:18 GMT
I don't see how such a small group of people, especially like-minded people, can sustain a politics forum. I could be wrong. It goes without saying that I will abide by the decision of the majority and site owner. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue making the case for a wider membership. En garde! Where we disagree is not on the size of the membership, but where it comes from. I still believe this forum can grow organically if visitors see conversation they can join in, rather than watch as a mad show and then walk away. The fact that intelligent people who want to discuss issues tend to be centre left and centre right is a problem only if you miss the name calling and clever crap we here have left behind, Do you have any theories as to why the members on this site visit Tinculin's site so frequently? If you look at the bottom of the page, you can see who visited in the last 24 hours. Many names from this site can be seen there. Why is that? I mean, if the members on this site don't get anything from countering the nonsense on Tinculin's site, why do they keep returning? When you go to Tinculin's site, whose posts and threads do you read? I hear complaints from people like Oracle about how awful the people over there are. Then I visit the site and see that Oracle has just made a visit. (I'm using Oracle as an example - she's not alone). |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 13, 2024 9:58:31 GMT
Where we disagree is not on the size of the membership, but where it comes from. I still believe this forum can grow organically if visitors see conversation they can join in, rather than watch as a mad show and then walk away. The fact that intelligent people who want to discuss issues tend to be centre left and centre right is a problem only if you miss the name calling and clever crap we here have left behind, Do you have any theories as to why the members on this site visit Tinculin's site so frequently? If you look at the bottom of the page, you can see who visited in the last 24 hours. Many names from this site can be seen there. Why is that? I mean, if the members on this site don't get anything from countering the nonsense on Tinculin's site, why do they keep returning? When you go to Tinculin's site, whose posts and threads do you read? I hear complaints from people like Oracle about how awful the people over there are. Then I visit the site and see that Oracle has just made a visit. (I'm using Oracle as an example - she's not alone). I check in almost daily. Primarily to see if I have any PM's. I was getting a lot towards the end. Secondly to see if its changed at all since most of the lefties left. I do not read any threads beyond a cursory glance and I don't participate in any. Vinny still posts on both sites, other than that I don't know. But its a free country if people enjoy what's there its fine by me. If they want to bring it here that is also fine by me, I shall just leave. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 13, 2024 10:56:29 GMT
Do you have any theories as to why the members on this site visit Tinculin's site so frequently? If you look at the bottom of the page, you can see who visited in the last 24 hours. Many names from this site can be seen there. Why is that? I mean, if the members on this site don't get anything from countering the nonsense on Tinculin's site, why do they keep returning? When you go to Tinculin's site, whose posts and threads do you read? I hear complaints from people like Oracle about how awful the people over there are. Then I visit the site and see that Oracle has just made a visit. (I'm using Oracle as an example - she's not alone). I check in almost daily. Primarily to see if I have any PM's. I was getting a lot towards the end. Secondly to see if its changed at all since most of the lefties left. I do not read any threads beyond a cursory glance and I don't participate in any. Vinny still posts on both sites, other than that I don't know. But its a free country if people enjoy what's there its fine by me. If they want to bring it here that is also fine by me, I shall just leave. Zany, your guess is as good as mine, but I don't see this site being successful without a substantial right-wing membership. We're not exactly spoilt for choice in that regard. I sincerely believe that the best thing to do is to focus on what the MindZone could be. I know I have said I would like to see most of the other forum join us here. That doesn't mean I believe they would choose to. |
|
|
|
Post by cartertonian on Apr 13, 2024 12:34:34 GMT
As noted earlier, I check in over there every day because I'm one of the mods.
Regarding right-wing membership, I just say this; when I joined politics forum (UK and .org) in 2008, one of the things I was searching for was right-wing members who could actually provided balanced, rational and reasonable arguments for their point of view.
I found none on PoFo.UK and only a handful on PoFo.org, but that was why I lapsed on the former (until I came back as a mod, to help Lewis) and stayed at the latter, where I became a mod and later an Admin. Albeit infrequently, I found I could have (relatively) dispassionate and objective discussions with right-wingers, without the thread degenerating into the usual partisan mud-slinging.
Orac will recall that I have commented many times as a mod, that the 'problem' lies with how many members read and contribute, solely to satisfy their appetite for the aforementioned partisan mud-slinging...from both sides in some cases. My mantra as a mod was always that these places are 'discussion' forums, not online analogues for a bar-room brawl. But unfortunately, there's a sizeable number who come here for the entertainment of bar-room brawling and lack either the emotional maturity, the interest, the knowledge or all three, to engage in anything resembling 'discussion'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 13, 2024 12:53:11 GMT
As noted earlier, I check in over there every day because I'm one of the mods. Regarding right-wing membership, I just say this; when I joined politics forum (UK and .org) in 2008, one of the things I was searching for was right-wing members who could actually provided balanced, rational and reasonable arguments for their point of view. I found none on PoFo.UK and only a handful on PoFo.org, but that was why I lapsed on the former (until I came back as a mod, to help Lewis) and stayed at the latter, where I became a mod and later an Admin. Albeit infrequently, I found I could have (relatively) dispassionate and objective discussions with right-wingers, without the thread degenerating into the usual partisan mud-slinging. Orac will recall that I have commented many times as a mod, that the 'problem' lies with how many members read and contribute, solely to satisfy their appetite for the aforementioned partisan mud-slinging...from both sides in some cases. My mantra as a mod was always that these places are 'discussion' forums, not online analogues for a bar-room brawl. But unfortunately, there's a sizeable number who come here for the entertainment of bar-room brawling and lack either the emotional maturity, the interest, the knowledge or all three, to engage in anything resembling 'discussion'. Yes. People come for all reasons, in different moods, and even in different states of sobriety (check out late Saturday night contributions). It's more of a social club than a debating forum. Obviously, we need opposing viewpoints to have debate of any kind or any quality. Where are we going to find those, if not from the membership of Fox's old site? |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Apr 13, 2024 14:01:41 GMT
If this board is to be a success, and I would like it to be, then there is no room for the thread destruction tactics employed by the likes of Jonksy, Fair scociety and Bentley. Similarly and as I said I said at the in the dying moments of Fox's forum, a 'Mind Zone' is wide open to abuse: i refer you to the Other Sie and your comments there.
I suggest that rules should be kept to the absolute minimum and that any sanction should only be for thread destruction. Proposed sanction should be published with reasons with a seven day period for appeal against sanction, again with appeals being published..
I'd suggest that Mags, having taken the trouble to set this up, should have the final decision. Clearly, Mags is a bit odd, but is probably no odder than the rest of us. I don't see how such a small group of people, especially like-minded people, can sustain a politics forum. I could be wrong. It goes without saying that I will abide by the decision of the majority and site owner. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue making the case for a wider membership. En garde! I don't understand why you imagine I might be against widening membership. What I am suggesting is pretty much a rule free forum except for clamping down on daft 'one-liner' thread spoilers and endless squabble exchanges. I am particularly against a 'mind zone' granting protection to posters attempting to stir up racial hatred or glorify murderous regimes. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 13, 2024 14:21:31 GMT
I don't see how such a small group of people, especially like-minded people, can sustain a politics forum. I could be wrong. It goes without saying that I will abide by the decision of the majority and site owner. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue making the case for a wider membership. En garde! I don't understand why you imagine I might be against widening membership. What I am suggesting is pretty much a rule free forum except for clamping down on daft 'one-liner' thread spoilers and endless squabble exchanges. I am particularly against a 'mind zone' granting protection to posters attempting to stir up racial hatred or glorify murderous regimes. I get where you're coming from when you say you're against a MindZone that grants protection to racially-motivated posts. We've seen that happen. As you have implied, the MindZone was a gift to one particular far-right member at the other place, a platform that gave his racially-motivated malice a voice. Yeah, that's perfectly understandable. Who wants to politely counter argue a defence of Nazism? But the problem was with only one member. Surely, it's not beyond the wit of an intelligent moderating team to deal with that. It's less important that someone like him should be stopped from posting in the GeneralZone, though. There, he will be subject to the same kind of robust criticism he could expect if he voiced his opinions in any ordinary social setting (provided there isn't some ridiculous rule about calling someone a Nazi). |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 14, 2024 7:56:20 GMT
Isn't the usual wisdom that 'if you have to resort to impoliteness, there is something wrong with your arguments'? Why would this suddenly not be the case if it involves ideas your strongly disagree with?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 14, 2024 8:12:10 GMT
As noted earlier, I check in over there every day because I'm one of the mods. Regarding right-wing membership, I just say this; when I joined politics forum (UK and .org) in 2008, one of the things I was searching for was right-wing members who could actually provided balanced, rational and reasonable arguments for their point of view. I found none on PoFo.UK and only a handful on PoFo.org, but that was why I lapsed on the former (until I came back as a mod, to help Lewis) and stayed at the latter, where I became a mod and later an Admin. Albeit infrequently, I found I could have (relatively) dispassionate and objective discussions with right-wingers, without the thread degenerating into the usual partisan mud-slinging. Orac will recall that I have commented many times as a mod, that the 'problem' lies with how many members read and contribute, solely to satisfy their appetite for the aforementioned partisan mud-slinging...from both sides in some cases. My mantra as a mod was always that these places are 'discussion' forums, not online analogues for a bar-room brawl. But unfortunately, there's a sizeable number who come here for the entertainment of bar-room brawling and lack either the emotional maturity, the interest, the knowledge or all three, to engage in anything resembling 'discussion'. Yes. People come for all reasons, in different moods, and even in different states of sobriety (check out late Saturday night contributions). It's more of a social club than a debating forum. Obviously, we need opposing viewpoints to have debate of any kind or any quality. Where are we going to find those, if not from the membership of Fox's old site? Have you considered the idea that if you bring the old forum here, then the same thing will happen here as happened there? That those who don't want a brawl will all leave again and leave the site vacuous. Can I ask, if you want the old site here why don't you just carry on there? As for good debate, I am quite enjoying the finesse of debate on this site and it still has opposing views. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 14, 2024 8:12:44 GMT
Orac will recall that I have commented many times as a mod, that the 'problem' lies with how many members read and contribute, solely to satisfy their appetite for the aforementioned partisan mud-slinging...from both sides in some cases. My mantra as a mod was always that these places are 'discussion' forums, not online analogues for a bar-room brawl. But unfortunately, there's a sizeable number who come here for the entertainment of bar-room brawling and lack either the emotional maturity, the interest, the knowledge or all three, to engage in anything resembling 'discussion'. Barroom fights have proper context if we are playing-fighting 'world wrestling' style. This is very much the position Red Rackham takes - ie we fight , but we are mates really and nobody wants anyone to be actually hurt. Everyone on the board should have this position imho. We all have a common interest The trouble with huge piles of supposedly consistent rules is they paradoxically sow mistrust. Board members stop play-fighting and the game becomes 'serious ' ie exploiting the rules to remove each other from the discussion. Every rule provides a new avenue for this gambit. I have been very much against allowing this pattern to grow because, I suspect, many of our posters use the forum as a significant social venue. |
|
