EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

just a thought
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1896
Page 2 of 4

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:09 am ]
Post subject: 

josh knauer wrote:
Jim- You do raise a good point and one worthy of consideration. I actually welcome real discussion on this point (if you don't have something substantive to contribute... don't post here).

My intent behind creating the rules here was to create a safe place for people to disagree. It is possible to debate without being disrespectful or attacking others. I really believe this, but I do wonder if it is possible on such a hot button issue like animal rights. The enviro side of this board seems to stay cordial enough, but clearly the animal concerns area is not.

What to do? Suggestions? Are there other forums that you visit that deal effectively with heated subjects? I have no interest in having a one-sided forum, so I'm more interested in other places that deal with controversial topics effectively.

-josh



what to do? get more black and white with what is allowable or not.

#1 id prefer no holds barred, but that's just be me.
#2 but if you can't do no holds barred, disallow all forms of insults and the little creative jabs that circumvent the rules.
#3 just because you are personally sick of hearing a word,instance or name, don't ban it's use as when folks talk of "the poster who won't be named" we all know who is being spoken of. and in my opinion the avoidance of being able to reference particular items is just childish. i get this image of me saying "phantomuk" and others covering their ears screaming..lalalalalala.
#4 dont set yourself up to be "babysitter" or "king of all" by ripping on behavior or scolding. if you truly don't care what a poster thinks...just take care of business and ban where ya think is necessary. talking down to people about what you percieve as their percieved behavior issues puts you in a seemingly dictatorial position that can and will stifle honest debate.
#5 dont encourage whining to the feedback forum as has been done. my purpose for bringing up the whole apology thread thing was to show a pattern of squeaky wheels getting grease. my whole purpose for getting al offensive to ranka was to expose the natural hypocrasy of "underhanded goading" as opposed to just out and out honestly stating feelings on a subject. if you look back at that (turkey)thread....things were moving along famously prior to that.
#6 black or white....no in between will give you less of an image of taking sides by either side. ill ask you to recall what y'all were accused of just prior to the banning of phantom. you were accused of one sided slant, while others on the opposite side of the coin view a one sided slant as well going the opposite direction.

as for other boards....well i've liked fmb because one can say...you are a so n so. and the reply to that can be to ignore it or to say...you are a such n such. ok now that slam was retaliated against...now move on. people at fmb when they go too far are policed by each other.....if someone says "asians are cruel and heinous" the bigotry of that statement is called out without hesitation. you may only see the sillyness of the boob topics when visiting there...but there is alot of discussion that goes on there. other boards that have "up for grabs rules" all appear to be slanted. another board i go to on the other hand does not allow any type of slamming or slander at all period.....none...nada. it works ok....there is really not alot of debate there except just a few issues here n there.

#4

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:50 am ]
Post subject: 

Sandra John wrote:
I agree with wiijim except that I think witty insults like the crickets and belt should / would really be acceptable to most people and isn't the sort of thing a mod would get excited about. I also think it is perfectly possible for there to be a respectful discussion of animal rights issues (notwithstanding your parody of the AA side RF). I agree with xveganx we shouldn't make rules we don't enforce (though you have to allow for the occassional rash statement xveganx) and I think the military have the right idea - this time. No more discussion. No more conflict resolution. What is the point? Anything considered offensive and any response to it is just deleted by Admin/Mods without comment. Anybody objects they can talk to Josh about it (it might do them some good, who knows) :P . Anybody who doesn't like the rules can play somewhere else. Ow'zat?
O.K?


i think by allowing that.....as a mod you set yourself up to which side gets their similar dig reprimanded as it spirals out of control. i realize you dont care what others think about you personally, but you do josh's board a disservice by allowing yourself to look as though you sway...which will inevitably happen by swaying toward either who you like or overcompensating and swaying to the side you oppose.

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Archer wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
I agree with wiijim except that I think witty insults like the crickets and belt should / would really be acceptable to most people and isn't the sort of thing a mod would get excited about.

I'd have to agree with that. I don't mind receiving or giving a witty insult like that. Keeps things interesting on both sides.


but regardless you begin to get into judgement calls. you know like interpretting the meaning of the word "coon"...(and no this is not a stab at anyone...its an observation on judgement calls).....or how anyone takes the so called "witticism".

as well the over use of the eye rolling emoticon gets to be kind of redundant as well, as folks use that as a statement of..."oh god, here's another moronic comment from you i need to be sarcastic about". the perfect example of passive aggressive communication.

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

dont get me wrong, i could really care less how y'all run your forum....i am just pointing out how i see it and so far i think with the actions and reactions of people on here...im fairly accurate in my assessment.

Author:  DELETED [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

DELETED

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

xveganx wrote:
wijim wrote:
Archer wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
I agree with wiijim except that I think witty insults like the crickets and belt should / would really be acceptable to most people and isn't the sort of thing a mod would get excited about.

I'd have to agree with that. I don't mind receiving or giving a witty insult like that. Keeps things interesting on both sides.


but regardless you begin to get into judgement calls. you know like interpretting the meaning of the word "coon"...(and no this is not a stab at anyone...its an observation on judgement calls).....or how anyone takes the so called "witticism".

as well the over use of the eye rolling emoticon gets to be kind of redundant as well, as folks use that as a statement of..."oh god, here's another moronic comment from you i need to be sarcastic about". the perfect example of passive aggressive communication.


No mistake in why Archer used the word since he knew and understood what its meaning was.

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1531

josh knauer wrote:
emuking5 wrote:
I have never once in my life heard "coon" as being offensive so I have no clue what it means in Europe. But I hope you don't leave the forum because of it :cry:

Also I say this is not to be mean at all but, you are making WAY to big a deal out of it.


To be fair, in the "right" (or rather, wrong) context, coon can be an exceptionally offensive racial slur towards Africans or Australians of aboriginal descent. You can learn more about the many meanings of the word "coon" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coon

I will repeat: the context in which a word is used determines whether it is a racial slur or meant to be offensive.

-josh


Archer wrote:
Phantom, I do know that the word is used as a vulgar term for blacks, but I never once thought about it being a problem since I was talking about raccoons. And I honestly don't see a problem with me using it, but I'm willing to stop using the word if it does indeed offend you.


No mistake, he knew exacly what he was doing.


my intent in my above posting was not to drag the use of the word "coon" or your problem with calling raccoons "coons" to light as though this is a debate forum. it was to call out how interpretations are easily viewed as deviant in intent when they are clearly not. this is not the thread or forum for that debate xveganx. take your gripe to a new thread please. as i am discussing something copletely different than what you attempt to bring here.

feel free to take up your "coon" use cause in another area as it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Author:  DELETED [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

DELETED

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

xveganx wrote:
Who are you to say what goes on? You mentioned it so I followed on. Notice you have done a lot of butt licking since last night. Greaser we call em.


im not certain why you've stuck your nose in here. and constructive criticism is now butt licking in the uk? and you call them greasers? why is that?

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

one would assume your intent in this thread xveganx, is nothing more than to rudely and negatively draw attention away from the crux of what is the start of this thread. why is that?

Author:  Archer [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

wijim wrote:
Archer wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
I agree with wiijim except that I think witty insults like the crickets and belt should / would really be acceptable to most people and isn't the sort of thing a mod would get excited about.

I'd have to agree with that. I don't mind receiving or giving a witty insult like that. Keeps things interesting on both sides.


but regardless you begin to get into judgement calls. you know like interpretting the meaning of the word "coon"...(and no this is not a stab at anyone...its an observation on judgement calls).....or how anyone takes the so called "witticism".

as well the over use of the eye rolling emoticon gets to be kind of redundant as well, as folks use that as a statement of..."oh god, here's another moronic comment from you i need to be sarcastic about". the perfect example of passive aggressive communication.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but a lot of mod. actions are judgement calls anyway, so I don't see that being a problem. I could be wrong, though.

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Archer wrote:
wijim wrote:
Archer wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
I agree with wiijim except that I think witty insults like the crickets and belt should / would really be acceptable to most people and isn't the sort of thing a mod would get excited about.

I'd have to agree with that. I don't mind receiving or giving a witty insult like that. Keeps things interesting on both sides.


but regardless you begin to get into judgement calls. you know like interpretting the meaning of the word "coon"...(and no this is not a stab at anyone...its an observation on judgement calls).....or how anyone takes the so called "witticism".

as well the over use of the eye rolling emoticon gets to be kind of redundant as well, as folks use that as a statement of..."oh god, here's another moronic comment from you i need to be sarcastic about". the perfect example of passive aggressive communication.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but a lot of mod. actions are judgement calls anyway, so I don't see that being a problem. I could be wrong, though.


my point is it becomes a problem when some take the liberty to insult as much as they can on the fringe of rules thereby creating a "bad blood" scenario.

Author:  DELETED [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

DELETED

Author:  Bean [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Cool...so, it's okay to slam people, as long as the slam is creative and polite, i.e., the indirect slam okay, the direct slam not okay.

So, calling someone a "f&*ing moron" is entirely out of the question, but something like, "I've seen bigger brains in rocks." is acceptable.

Awesome.

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

xveganx wrote:
Archer wrote:
wijim wrote:
Archer wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
I agree with wiijim except that I think witty insults like the crickets and belt should / would really be acceptable to most people and isn't the sort of thing a mod would get excited about.

I'd have to agree with that. I don't mind receiving or giving a witty insult like that. Keeps things interesting on both sides.


but regardless you begin to get into judgement calls. you know like interpretting the meaning of the word "coon"...(and no this is not a stab at anyone...its an observation on judgement calls).....or how anyone takes the so called "witticism".

as well the over use of the eye rolling emoticon gets to be kind of redundant as well, as folks use that as a statement of..."oh god, here's another moronic comment from you i need to be sarcastic about". the perfect example of passive aggressive communication.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but a lot of mod. actions are judgement calls anyway, so I don't see that being a problem. I could be wrong, though.


Archer you are a dirty racist. Stop posting to me dirty racist.


in my opinion....you are doing nothing but harrassing since it is quite evident coon was used to describe a racoon in the instance you speak of. and your placement of this post is purely out of place and ridiculous. mods please address this or i will wind up going off like a cherry bomb on xveganx......

Author:  Archer [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Bean wrote:
Cool...so, it's okay to slam people, as long as the slam is creative and polite, i.e., the indirect slam okay, the direct slam not okay.

So, calling someone a "f&*ing moron" is entirely out of the question, but something like, "I've seen bigger brains in rocks." is acceptable.

Awesome.
I don't know, that second one wasn't all that creative.

Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/