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

just a thought
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1896
Page 1 of 4

Author:  wijim [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:22 pm ]
Post subject:  just a thought

withoiut dragging any other discussions into this thread, i am making an observation. i think the administration and moderation of this forum does a good job with the absolute mountain they have made themselves in how they have to police this board.

by not allowing insults and the like, while a nice peaceful idea, is setting up just a better amount of creativity in the insult flinging. the intent of the outright insult is still there, but it is just veiled in a way to where the poster can just dishonestly claim..."i didnt say that". when we all know the intent....therby circumventing your rules.

its a no win situation from a hypocrasy standpoint now, because when you decide which posts include which meanings you are obviously set up to slight one side or the other.

by not allowing past circumstance to be "mentioned" or "uttered"....it creates the same type of creativity in circumvention as well. i know im can say in all honesty (which many haven't been honest enough to acknowlege they do this....but make no mistake they do it as well as i) that i've done that here.

its technically within the guidelines set that that type of thing is allowed. and when you pick and choose when to enforce it.....you will wind up as though you are favoring a side.

just an attempt at helpful criticism.....not slamming the board admin. cuz with the tools you've given yourselves as rules..its got to be a monumental task to stay non-biased. or at least appear that way

Author:  wijim [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

guess i'd prefer not pussy footing around the fact that insults are insults.....and calling a spade a spade...and not just another shovel.

Author:  Bean [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

wijim wrote:
insults are insults....


Yep.

Calling someone a F&%ING moron may be a direct slam, but an example of an indirect slam is something like, "I've seen smarter brain cells in crickets."

People.are.funny. 8)

Author:  Donnie Mac Leod [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

Bean wrote:
wijim wrote:
insults are insults....


Yep.

Calling someone a F&%ING moron may be a direct slam, but an example of an indirect slam is something like, "I've seen smarter brain cells in crickets."

People.are.funny. 8)



Do you ever forget anything I print Bean. :lol: Then again you come up with some pretty creative stuff yourself without any help from anybody else. :wink:

Author:  ranka [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Bean wrote:
wijim wrote:
insults are insults....


Yep.

Calling someone a F&%ING moron may be a direct slam, but an example of an indirect slam is something like, "I've seen smarter brain cells in crickets."

People.are.funny. 8)


You know what they say, most North American's leather belts have higher IQs than their wearers.

Ranka.

Author:  Bean [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

ranka wrote:
You know what they say, most North American's leather belts have higher IQs than their wearers.



Well, I have a fairly high IQ and I don't wear leather belts, so I'm pleased that I'm an exception to what "they" say. :D

Author:  josh knauer [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:38 am ]
Post subject: 

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

Author:  RF [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:00 am ]
Post subject: 

I think you're placing an undue burden on the ARAs, Josh.

How is someone whose ideology is generally supported by...perhaps necessarily includes the idea that the opposition is composed of murderous thugs greedily slaking their unholy bloodlust, and satisfying their innate compulsion to wreak unjustified domination and havoc upon the corpses of their innocent victims...how does someone with an ideology like that show respect when explaining that ideology in the presence of their opposition?

I mean....it's gotta be tough.

Author:  RF [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:04 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
I have no interest in having a one-sided forum, so I'm more interested in other places that deal with controversial topics effectively.


You mean like the United States Congress?

Author:  RF [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:23 am ]
Post subject: 

I've seen one military oriented board where if a poster resorts to personal attacks during a political discussion, one of the (anonymous) moderators will come in and offer the poster a time period during which to edit his own post. After that, the moderator edits the attack, and the poster is generally prohibited from posting for a time period of a week or two. I believe the moderators reach consensus among themselves as to the appropriate censure for willfully breaking the ROE. (Rules of Engagement) There seems to be no appeal for their decisions....but then, their decisions seldom go so far as permanent banning of a poster for becoming too heated in the course of contentious discussion.

Author:  DELETED [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:45 am ]
Post subject: 

DELETED

Author:  oinks [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:52 am ]
Post subject: 

I like having rules to a certain extent, but it seems that the mods need to agree on a specific set of rules- not allowing "foul" language could mean no use of the word "coon" to one person, and the word "f***" to another.

Quote:
What ever you decide I think you should stick to it. If you have a rule that is broken and you do not take action then that rule is not worth the paper it is written on. Wijim broke the rules twice and is, by the admins own mouth, an instant ban, the other an obvious personal attack. If you do not take action people will see how far they can go and you end up with a situation we have now.


And then you have people that whine and cry no matter what you do, Josh. :wink:

(By the way, vegan, you have broken the rules in this feedback forum, so let's not forget that, shall we?)

Anyway, a little controversy is always going to happen with an "animal concerns" forum, but there's nothing wrong with keeping it to a dull roar.

Author:  Sandra John [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:04 am ]
Post subject: 

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?

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:10 am ]
Post subject: 

To this point most of the rules required a modicum of civility to work. There are certain words we all recognize as being inappropriate and the FCC has them on a list too. The wide variety of cultures present requires some understanding that there will be misunderstandings and some of those will flare up. That is where the moderators try to get the misunderstanding resolved and reach an agreeable resolution based on common sense and common courtesy. The emphasis on the banning was necessary due to that being the only real punishment available and the level of discord at the time.

I do like the idea of the moderators having a posting username and a moderator username which is separate as was mentioned in another post. I will not beat on that dead equine any further.

I do like the idea of being able to limit posting for a time instead of outright banning. In fact there have been several instances where there could have been banning but the majority of the moderators choose not to. The goal of this forum is to allow the freedom of discussion to a reasonable level and through that discussion to become educated on the issues being discussed. This means more education in manners more often than I would have expected.

I think a listing of who is in "timeout" and how long they have left would be a good idea if it were possible to add without significant trouble. Nothing like a little public embarrassment to make people think twice about losing their cool. Why don't we still have the stocks in the courthouse lawn anyhow? :lol: :lol:

The time period to edit would be good too, in most cases. Some would require immediate action as we have seen, but that may not be as difficult to establish.

Author:  Archer [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:49 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'd have to agree with that. I don't mind receiving or giving a witty insult like that. Keeps things interesting on both sides.

Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/