Thread bans

[Michael Hardner]

Can't message you privately. I've tried in the past. Says you're not configured to receive PMs. Not that I want your real name and contact information. I'm just saying. You can't be messaged privately.

That can't be right. I received a message from Guyser just this week. Maybe my in-box was full - I just deleted a pile of messages.

[Michael Hardner]

You mean it isn't? Could've fooled me.

Exactly. You can bet that people like Mr. Canada wouldn't appear in the special section.

I don't like the moniker VIP, nor do I like 'special section'. When I was a kid my parents had a living room called 'The Quiet Room' for the grown ups. I think it would be like that.

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly. You can bet that people like Mr. Canada wouldn't appear in the special section.

I don't like the moniker VIP, nor do I like 'special section'. When I was a kid my parents had a living room called 'The Quiet Room' for the grown ups. I think it would be like that.

If they aren't worthy of the "Quiet Room," why are they worthy of being a member of the forum at all? And who gets to decide who's worthy? Many posters here responded to Mr. Canada et al rather than ignore him the way a "grown up" would. Many provoked. Are they any better?

And as Bonam said, what's that going to do to the rest of the board? - who would be interested in it while there are other, separate discussions going on in a "special" section of the board - that they are excluded from? I don't understand the reasoning behind such a section - or the need. If everyone would act like a grown up, the Mr. Canada's would have no reason - no incentive - to stay. And if they can't act like a grown up on the board in general, why would it be assumed that they could in a "special" section?

[Michael Hardner]

Really. So you "meet up" with people from forums now?

I tried to meet up with a few - Morris for example - but it didn't pan out.

My point is, if it's no big deal to give out your real name, why is your blog even under "Michael Hardner?" - not to mention your "Talk Radio" show. I trust there's a reason you aren't freely giving it out.

I give it out to friends, and to people who seem 'ok'. The only real reason I see to keep an online persona - for me - is that I've had cyber attacks spread my handle around the web. I change jobs every 2 or 3 years and I would hate for potential employers to google me and find white supremacist screeds attributed to me. That happened when I moderated an offshoot of the National Post board years ago - somebody copied my name and email address and eVited feminist groups to events with pornographic and violently misogynist names.

[Michael Hardner]

If they aren't worthy of the "Quiet Room," why are they worthy of being a member of the forum at all? And who gets to decide who's worthy? Many posters here responded to Mr. Canada et al rather than ignore him the way a "grown up" would. Many provoked. Are they any better?

My opinion isn't that the quiet room has better posters, necessarily - so it's not a question of people being worthy. I just see it as an incentive or loyalty program.

And as Bonam said, what's that going to do to the rest of the board? - who would be interested in it while there are other, separate discussions going on in a "special" section of the board - that they are excluded from?

I wouldn't expect there to be any impact. My vision would be one special topic every once in awhile, kind of like a 'live' event.

I don't understand the reasoning behind such a section - or the need. If everyone would act like a grown up, the Mr. Canada's would have no reason - no incentive - to stay. And if they can't act like a grown up on the board in general, why would it be assumed that they could in a "special" section?

It would be fun for some of us, I guess. There's no "need" for any of this, of course...

[GostHacked]

This is not going to be an all the time thing, this is a once in a while type thing, and should be moderated all the way through. It's not bad idea.

The only reason it may seem elitist to some is possibly that those posters cannot stick within the forum rules, let alone a controlled 'live' debate,

[Guest American Woman]

his is not going to be an all the time thing, this is a once in a while type thing, and should be moderated all the way through. It's not bad idea.

The only reason it may seem elitist to some is possibly that those posters cannot stick within the forum rules, let alone a controlled 'live' debate,

It seems elitist to me, and I'm perfectly capable of sticking within the forum rules.

[Guest American Woman]

I tried to meet up with a few - Morris for example - but it didn't pan out.

So that's your story and you're sticking to it, eh?

I give it out to friends, and to people who seem 'ok'. The only real reason I see to keep an online persona - for me - is that I've had cyber attacks spread my handle around the web. I change jobs every 2 or 3 years and I would hate for potential employers to google me and find white supremacist screeds attributed to me. That happened when I moderated an offshoot of the National Post board years ago - somebody copied my name and email address and eVited feminist groups to events with pornographic and violently misogynist names.

So why would you be suggesting that people give their real names here? Do you think people here can't do that?

[Michael Hardner]

It seems elitist to me, and I'm perfectly capable of sticking within the forum rules.

It's elitist in the same way 'Air Miles' or 'Reward Points' are elitist. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate - assuming it went forward. On the other hand, it's a pretty early idea - there may be more issues with this. I'm only musing on it right now.

[Michael Hardner]

So that's your story and you're sticking to it, eh?

Hmmm ? What ? I don't get this. Did you hear otherwise ?

Morris used to post here and I know him and some other posters from another board. I lost a token bet with him and another poster suggested we all meet up to settle the bet. It just never happened. I haven't met anybody else from these boards although I have spoken with - I think - one other poster.

So why would you be suggesting that people give their real names here? Do you think people here can't do that?

I don't know - with facebook things seem different now. Maybe that's inconsistent.

[Guest American Woman]

It's elitist in the same way 'Air Miles' or 'Reward Points' are elitist. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate - assuming it went forward. On the other hand, it's a pretty early idea - there may be more issues with this. I'm only musing on it right now.

It's not comparable to air miles or rewards points - which don't exclude others' participation - or have potential effect on the whole. It is elitist, as "elitist" by definition caters to a specific class - in this case a class which certain posters would fall into, and others would be excluded from.

[Guest American Woman]

Hmmm ? What ? I don't get this. Did you hear otherwise ?

Morris used to post here and I know him and some other posters from another board. I lost a token bet with him and another poster suggested we all meet up to settle the bet. It just never happened. I haven't met anybody else from these boards although I have spoken with - I think - one other poster.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not comparable to air miles or rewards points - which don't exclude others' participation - or have potential effect on the whole. It is elitist, as "elitist" by definition caters to a specific class - in this case a class which certain posters would fall into, and others would be excluded from.

They only exclude people who don't participate in the program. What 'class' are we talking about ? Anything can be a class - but I'm talking about rewarding participation.

[betsy]

Every now and then there's a little pop-up that says "VIP" and wants me to sign up. I just ignore it because I wasn't sure if it's from mapleleaf or not....good thing I ignored it.

Anybody got the same thing popping up?

[Michael Hardner]

No - I don't think that's a MLW thing. Sheesh... this is how rumours start...

[Guest Manny]

Every now and then there's a little pop-up that says "VIP" and wants me to sign up. I just ignore it because I wasn't sure if it's from mapleleaf or not....good thing I ignored it.

Anybody got the same thing popping up?

No. Sounds like your computer has some "malware" installled. You should try to get rid of it!

[cybercoma]

a controlled 'live' debate,

I like the idea of having controlled, heavily-moderated live debates, except without having to post using real names.

[waldo]

No. Sounds like your computer has some "malware" installled. You should try to get rid of it!

or, after a cursory googly... it could be related to the MLW member either visiting adult industry websites offering up VIP access, or... possibly, in particular, a site throwing back a pop-up associated with purchasing/upgrading the Verisign/Symantec 'VIP' program (Validation & ID Protection). Of course, if it's just a pop-up, one wonders why the MLW member doesn't have (her) browser popup capability disabled.

[Shady]

Agreed...it appears we have some member(s) who want to exercise more control over others.

Yep, it's been the case for quite a while now. Almost exclusively coming from members left of centre.

[eyeball]

I like the idea of having controlled, heavily-moderated live debates, except without having to post using real names.

How about occasional live debates via skype, sans the video?

Whether its a skype or text debate a thumbs-up thumbs-down system could pick the best posters in those threads that are picked for debates and participants and or teams thereof would be chosen democratically and anonymously from amongst the best.

[Guest Manny]

I suggested live debate using the chat room somehow. Might be interesting. The transcript could be saved and other members allowed to read and vote on the winner.

[Charles Anthony]

Vote on the winner?

Sigh. I have been hesitant to share my thoughts on this discussion because they only get worse and worse. This last one takes the cake.

Forgive me but I am a bit of a black sheep here on this topic. I think all of these ideas are dumb but I suppose they could conceivably be fun.

[cybercoma]

I think the debates would be fun, but I don't like the idea of a popular vote. Perhaps a panel of judges (3 incl. moderator?) from different sides of the topic's spectrum.

I suspect people would get bored with it quickly though.

[Guest Manny]

I think the debates would be fun, but I don't like the idea of a popular vote. Perhaps a panel of judges (3 incl. moderator?) from different sides of the topic's spectrum.

I suspect people would get bored with it quickly though.

True. But it would be fun to see how debates are run properly, by the elite

[Michael Hardner]

Hmmm... I don't like the idea of any kind of result for this - other than just discussion. Voting, judging...

Ok - how about this: A round-table style online discussion between members chosen from those who want to participate, selected from 1) The top 10 all-time posters AND/OR 2) The top posters for the week AND/OR 3) A poster nominated via poll. "top" denotes number of posts

The topic would be chosen by Greg as a topic of the week... No format other than the usual MLW cage-match rules - discuss until it's done or you can't discuss any more. And may God have mercy on our souls.