Rules VS Censorship

[TheNewTeddy]

There seems to be an attitude from certain members who are unwilling to follow the rules, that following the rules - or worse, being asked by someone else to follow the rules - is censorship and therefore a "bad thing".

I'm curious what the rules themselves say about that? As frankly, from where I sit, anyone constantly pushing that position is saying "I refuse the follow the rules" and should be asked to leave.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is what was said about the "rules" in 1984:

[waldo]

There seems to be an attitude from certain members who are unwilling to follow the rules, that following the rules - or worse, being asked by someone else to follow the rules - is censorship and therefore a "bad thing".

I'm curious what the rules themselves say about that? As frankly, from where I sit, anyone constantly pushing that position is saying "I refuse the follow the rules" and should be asked to leave.

yes! Clearly, aside from the attempts being made to trivialize other MLW members calls for more active/forceful enforcement of the MLW rule against trolling, we have the main offender equating (his brand of) trolling to "engagement and pressing discourse. And, as you state, we have him pulling the censorship card...while playing the victim "under attack".

.

a simple request for clarification - why would you take such exception? Apparently:

- to you, trolling equates to, 'engagement and pressing discourse'!!!

- to you, a request for clarification is "censorship"!

- to you, active challenging trolling "engagement and pressing discourse", is a personal attack intended to silence contravening views!

.

[Bonam]

I have a hard time understanding why, if certain members are so distressed by another member's alleged trolling, they do not simply place said user on ignore, rather than spamming the forum with a multitude of threads on this topic. This is what the 4th or 5th now?

[waldo]

I have a hard time understanding why, if certain members are so distressed by another member's alleged trolling, they do not simply place said user on ignore, rather than spamming the forum with a multitude of threads on this topic. This is what the 4th or 5th now?

I can appreciate why you feel year-upon-year derailing, distracting and disrupting threads through incessant trolling is no biggee! That you'd similarly move to trivialize calls for clarification/improvement as... "spamming". As I now read it, collectively, at least 5 members have now come forward in your declared "spam threads" to reinforce the trolling problem exists (and has existed for a lengthy period of time), and/or to confirm the main offending troll... what you declare as "alleged".

[Bonam]

I can appreciate why you feel year-upon-year derailing, distracting and disrupting threads through incessant trolling is no biggee! That you'd similarly move to trivialize calls for clarification/improvement as... "spamming". As I now read it, collectively, at least 5 members have now come forward in your declared "spam threads" to reinforce the trolling problem exists (and has existed for a lengthy period of time), and/or to confirm the main offending troll... what you declare as "alleged".

So if this alleged trolling behavior is so prolonged and so many members are offended by it, I'm sure it has therefore been reported many times, and the mods have made their decision. Whining about it won't help, therefore that leaves the ignore feature, which I suggested that members annoyed by said "troll" should use.

Honestly, I feel your debating style in the climate change threads is often more trollish than BC_2004's behavior, but that's just my opinion. If everyone on this forum that someone else thought was a troll was banned, we'd be left with no members pretty quick.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Bonam

[waldo]

So if this alleged trolling behavior is so prolonged and so many members are offended by it, I'm sure it has therefore been reported many times, and the mods have made their decision. Whining about it won't help, therefore that leaves the ignore feature, which I suggested that members annoyed by said "troll" should use.

oh... "you're sure"! Now you call it "whining". Given constraints, I infer through board admin comment, that a degree of self-management to improve should be emphasized more. Is this you self-managing improvement?

on edit - responding to your edited post:

Honestly, I feel your debating style in the climate change threads is often more trollish than BC_2004's behavior, but that's just my opinion. If everyone on this forum that someone else thought was a troll was banned, we'd be left with no members pretty quick.

we've had this same discussion several times now. I typically respond in the same manner as presented. If the same ole gang is simply recycling their same unsubstantiated claims from the past, the same claims that have been debunked in the past (debunked often many times in the past), I will not hesitate to respond accordingly... and I'll typically resurrect past posts in doing so. If someone purposely brings forward snarc/derogatory comment intended to purposely diminish the impact/affect of GW/CC, I will respond in kind. If someone with a long-standing denier position (not a legitimate skeptical position) brings forward known denier crap, I will respond in kind. On the other hand, if someone with a recognized 'newness' to the board/debate comes forward with obvious naivete, I will generally cut them slack and attempt to comment positively... I just checked the latest running thread and can confirm I did exactly this with 2 members... I'll give you the post numbers if you'd like. Edited March 19, 2013 by waldo

[Bonam]

oh... "you're sure"!

Yes, I am. I have on many occasions seen various other members boldly proclaim "Reported!" in relation to said individual. So plainly it has been brought to the mods attention.

Now you call it "whining". Given constraints, I infer through board

admin comment, that a degree of self-management to improve should be

emphasized more. Is this you self-managing improvement?

Sure, why not. I suggest improvement by not having multiple threads all devoted to "clarifications of the rules" about a certain member's posting when it is obvious that said member's posts have been seen by the mods over many years and have not in general been deemed to be against the rules.

[waldo]

Yes, I am. I have on many occasions seen various other members boldly proclaim "Reported!" in relation to said individual. So plainly it has been brought to the mods attention.

and I can say I've never seen the bold proclamations... in relation to said individual, that you speak to. I can also advise I've thrown the Reported switch (with a bold proclamation) against a long departed (banned) member... while never actually doing so. But rest in your certainty.

Sure, why not. I suggest improvement by not having multiple threads all devoted to "clarifications of the rules" about a certain member's posting when it is obvious that said member's posts have been seen by the mods over many years and have not in general been deemed to be against the rules.

there are now 2 threads specifically targeting at trolling... this second one has but a few posts in it - but why let that get in the way of your exaggeration! Each thread started out generalized and only became pointed when the 'main offender' entered into the breach! My impression of the board moderation is that it is very limited and simply reflects upon basic constraints (time & resources)... you're reaching big-time to suggest there is any semblance of detailed review of any member.

[betsy]

Accusations of "trolling" is usually thrown at someone with strong opposing views, or who's created a topic that the accuser does not approve of.

But in my view, the actual trolls are those who voluntarily enter a topic and attempt to disrupt the discussion and wilfully attempt to take the thread off-topic - even after they were asked by the OP to stay within topic.

Since the aim is to stop the flow of on-topic discussion, such tactic is a form of censorship. It is destructive to the board since it attempts to stifle discussion - which ironically, is what a forum is all about!

Imho, the so-called "trolls" who create topics for discussions are not the ones admin should worry about - since we can all exercise our free will whether to engage or ignore such topics.

Admin should clamp down really hard on the ones who enter and willfully, and repeatedly disrupt and trash discussions! I don't advocate banning, but perhaps a little time-out should be dispensed just so to make the point that the offense is a serious matter.

This will also help limited moderation - once the repeat offenders understand that their destructive behaviours will not be tolerated, chances are they'll adhere to the rules.

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Admin should clamp down on the ones who willfully disrupt and trash discussions!

I agree. Like the poster who doesn't bother to debate anyone and instead just spams the board with videos, pretending that's an actual rebuttal.

[betsy]

I agree. Like the poster who doesn't bother to debate anyone and instead just spams the board with videos, pretending that's an actual rebuttal.

I think I know who you mean. Then don't enter that said poster's topic. You do know her handle, don't you? It's not like as if you're being duped into entering her thread.

Curiousity killed the cat they say - therefore, exercise your self-control to not be curious enough to enter.

She can ignore you at will - unless she decides to throw you a little response from time to time. Do the same. Ignore her. Not being able to ignore shows a weakness - especially when one whines about it.

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Rather than having to ignore them, posters could also just respect the rules of the forum:

"All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted"

[betsy]

Rather than having to ignore them, posters could also just respect the rules of the forum:

"All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted"[/size]

But that could be simply your own interpretation - that a said topic doesn't offer any argument(s) or any attempt to stimulate discussion. Perhaps you're looking from a different angle. Or you're on the wrong page. Or you're not focusing on what is being said. Or you fail to recognize the poster's purpose for the thread - just because urls are posted.

So why should the whole board - not to mention the silent readers from the sidelines - be dictated by your perception?

Just ignore them. You know their style. You know their leanings. You have the choice.

You are the one in control of your finger. Just don't click the enter button.

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

How is "simply posting to an outside source" a matter of interpretation? Either it's just a post to an outside source or it isn't.

(I suppose I should add this sentence so that I have three, and therefore am within the minimum.)

[betsy]

How is "simply posting to an outside source" a matter of interpretation? Either it's just a post to an outside source or it isn't.

Thus my point. That's how you percieve it.

What was the opening post? Did that said topic have any response at all that made an attempt at discussion?

Of course it depends too on what the topic is all about. If it deals with subjects that heavily involve science as an example - of course it will heavily rely on outside sources that has credible knowledge of it!

What, should we all posture as scientists here?

That would be laughable considering there are dead give-aways that some hardly even understand simple explanations or simple, plain reason.

Unless we're just shooting the breeze here....I don't think this board is like chat. Or tweet. If you want to tweet, go tweet. If you want chat, there is chat.

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

The rules do not discourage citing outside sources. But they explicitly condemn spamming the board with links to videos without any attempt at summarizing the debate presented therein. But you can choose to ignore the rules and I can choose to ignore you. In that, you are correct.

[Shady]

oh... "you're sure"! Now you call it "whining". Given constraints, I infer through board admin comment, that a degree of self-management to improve should be emphasized more. Is this you self-managing improvement?on edit - responding to your edited post:we've had this same discussion several times now. I typically respond in the same manner as presented. If the same ole gang is simply recycling their same unsubstantiated claims from the past, the same claims that have been debunked in the past (debunked often many times in the past), I will not hesitate to respond accordingly... and I'll typically resurrect past posts in doing so. If someone purposely brings forward snarc/derogatory comment intended to purposely diminish the impact/affect of GW/CC, I will respond in kind. If someone with a long-standing denier position (not a legitimate skeptical position) brings forward known denier crap, I will respond in kind. On the other hand, if someone with a recognized 'newness' to the board/debate comes forward with obvious naivete, I will generally cut them slack and attempt to comment positively... I just checked the latest running thread and can confirm I did exactly this with 2 members... I'll give you the post numbers if you'd like.

If you respond in the same manner, than you're part of the problem, and no better than those you complain about.

[GostHacked]

If you respond in the same manner, than you're part of the problem, and no better than those you complain about.

Complete nonsense.

[TheNewTeddy]

There seems to be an attitude from certain members who are unwilling to follow the rules, that following the rules - or worse, being asked by someone else to follow the rules - is censorship and therefore a "bad thing".

I'm curious what the rules themselves say about that? As frankly, from where I sit, anyone constantly pushing that position is saying "I refuse the follow the rules" and should be asked to leave.

Just a reminder of the original post.

[PIK]

Some of the warning posts I received were a total joke. I used the word coms instead of consevative, and I get a warning. Everybody has used that, did everyone get a warning. This charles dudes has no sense of humour and goes over board.

[bush_cheney2004]

Some of the warning posts I received were a total joke. I used the word coms instead of consevative, and I get a warning. Everybody has used that, did everyone get a warning. This charles dudes has no sense of humour and goes over board.

Yes, I have received such a warning, as the forum owner and mods definitely enforce this rule so as to prevent a complete downward spiral in name calling, insults, slurs, etc. I think I used the common term for Liberals that adds an extra "i" and got called on it.

Frankly, while this is a subtle decorum rule, it is amazingly effective at preventing the trash talk seen on other sites. It keeps things much much classier !!

[Greg]

Ok, I've had enough of the bitching and complaining -- I've let it go on long enough.

I've close this thread, if you want to whine, do it over email, PM or in the chatroom.