Just a suggestion....

[jbg]

There's nothing more annoying than someone who thinks they're being funny when they aren't at all. I agree that people with lame senses of humour should be banned.

Amen brother bubber.

Not to mention that tactful way of trying to be humourous has been done to death by the same poster. One would think the first time it doesnt garner any laughs to quit....but no, lets keep trying it a couple dozen times, then they will get the humour !

Pk maybe not banned, flogged would be fine.

I am being sarcastic, not funny.

I find very little funny about Hugo Chavez.

Edited May 11, 2013 by jbg

[Guest Peeves]

Perhaps maple leaf should re-think about the impracticality of giving one-month suspensions.

There is a very good reason why suspensions are carefully doled out by busy boards issuing one-day, two-day, one-week, 2-weeks, etc., length of suspensions....fitting the punishment with the "crime."

A month is a very long stretch for both sides - suspendee, and the board. Anything can happen in that one month.

A suspension in reality punishes the board/members, not the poster. When suspended 'we' lose the input of a participant, and with none too many posting generally, that's a major loss unless the fault is clearly blatant and flagrant. Offensive should not be cause. Some are all too quick to take offense over contentious matters. Some all too quick to take sides and assign punitive measures.

I have found that suspensions and points are VERY subjectively given here. I question the objectivity of any that may judge without understanding the posters reasoning or intent. Arbitrary officious and subjective excersize of authority to an end that in reality punishes all here through loss of a fellow. A possible misconstruing of any posters position..idea..or subject is senseless. Far better a fellow journeyman/poster might take issue or debate the 'questionable' post or statement.

Let "US" judge by response or lack thereof, unless their is a DEFINITE blatant and flagrant affront or violation of the rules.

Taken the action of assigning a (subljectively needed ) suspension as a penalty is unproductive, self defeating, and denys the right of a poster to freely express a view that might be misconstrued, poorly stated and misunderstood.

Even worse, misguided or an over reaction can be percieved as dictarorial and cause members to leave over perhaps an innocently or poorly stated position or a vaguely misconstrued subject. Remember a few? Like Wild Bill...Me?

A post that is noxious or otherwise hurtful or offensive, may not be cause for any action by an overseer or censor. It may result in debate. It may be ignored. Deeming it worthy of punitive action is a knee jerk response unworthy of an adult forum.

Better perhaps to ask for an explanation or more detail???

Removing someone here under suspension arbitrarilly stiffles debate.

Surely we are adults here, as such we require little from 'keepers', as we may simply ignore or participate as we will. THEN should intervention NEED take place, it would be perhaps more acceptable. Acting on one members complaint...aka report, is jejune since an offense is not necessarily a justification for reaction. I may be offended, ---by the truth! Is that cause for reporting???

Warnings or points over misonceptions or picayune matters we members are equipped to deal with and seldom need involve others simply because they can.

[The_Squid]

Removing someone here under suspension arbitrarilly [sic] stiffles [sic] debate.

No, it often improves debate as the poster who gets suspended is generally creating a very negative atmosphere for discussion. Trolling, flaming, etc. do not add to debate. It is good to get rid of those posters, at least for some period of time.

It's not arbitrary.... the rules are quite clear.

Edited June 6, 2013 by The_Squid

[Guest Peeves]

The rules are well stated, not uniformly administered.

Censorship should be very carefully applied since censorship can be so subjective.

I avoid any post I don't like. You may do the same. That is adult behavior.

Time outs are for children.

[betsy]

No, it often improves debate as the poster who gets suspended is generally creating a very negative atmosphere for discussion. Trolling, flaming, etc. do not add to debate. It is good to get rid of those posters, at least for some period of time.

It's not arbitrary.... the rules are quite clear.

"Trolling" can be cited for anything! Anyone who doesn't like the title/subject can cite "trolling!" Anyone who cannot refute, or are stumped, or are tired of the issue can cite "trolling!" AND anyone who deliberately goes in and participates in a thread by deliberately posting irrelevant statements - whether to demean, denigrate and ridicule the subject or the author of the thread - is a troll!

So if the author is punished for creating a topic or responding, yes it is a stiflement! Those that harass such topics/authors are usually not punished at all. Therefore, the board does reflect some bias when meting out punishments! It may not be the intention of the moderator to be biased.....but that's the impression the board gives!

I hardly post anymore. I feebly tried to do so a couple of times, to help make the board look busy!

If you hadn't noticed....the board is stale!

Some of you say the board is much quieter now that the "noise-makers" are gone.

Yes some of you may like it that the dissenting views are gone or hardly posting anymore, however dissenting views are what makes the board lively, too. If nothing is done to address the situation, you're looking at a dying board.

I'm just stating the obvious.

I look at the guest numbers at the bottom - I don't know if they're accurate - but the numbers are really way down!

We have our own reasons for spending considerable time composing and participating in forums. I go for the guest count....I want viewers. And seeing it that low.... For me, it's no longer worth the time and effort.

What is wrong about explaining to the poster why her post/title got deleted, or citing the post that got him/her suspended?

I created a topic titled, EARTH: A COCKAMAMIE STORY, and it got taken out. The OP explained why that title was given.

I was wondering what could be the reason? For a while I thought it could be the way my title was worded - that it might be seen as "trolling." But I scrolled down old titles and I see that a title such as this one was okay:

MORE RELIGIOUS NUTJOBBERY. Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining about that title. I don't have anything against that title.....but the thing is, if it's not the way my title was worded, then I'm wondering what happened to my topic???

Why can't we be given any explanation as to why? We don't even have to make an appeal....but at least, give an explanation as to why!

Isn't it only practical to know what particular offense got you in trouble so as to avoid making that "mistake" again? Is that too much to ask for?

Will this post earn me a banning?

Edited June 10, 2013 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Why can't we be given any explanation as to why? We don't even have to make an appeal....but at least, give an explanation as to why!

Isn't it only practical to know what particular offense got you in trouble so as to avoid making that "mistake" again? Is that too much to ask for?

I do agree with this part of your post.

On the other hand, most people have no issues with bannings or deleted topics. Most people already know what kind of posts are considered trolling or flaming or what would constitute breaking the rules. Perhaps the repeat offenders should look m ore at their own posts and carefully read the rules. Maybe it is not a moderator issue...

[GostHacked]

I do agree with this part of your post.

On the other hand, most people have no issues with bannings or deleted topics. Most people already know what kind of posts are considered trolling or flaming or what would constitute breaking the rules. Perhaps the repeat offenders should look m ore at their own posts and carefully read the rules. Maybe it is not a moderator issue...

It's only a moderator issue if the rules are not evenly applied across the board. One person gets banned for something really insignificant while the real offending parties continue to flog the rules. But it seems that there has been a clean up of some kind and yes there is reduced postings, but there is also a lot less 'noise'.

[GostHacked]

"Trolling" can be cited for anything! Anyone who doesn't like the title/subject can cite "trolling!" Anyone who cannot refute, or are stumped, or are tired of the issue can cite "trolling!" AND anyone who deliberately goes in and participates in a thread by deliberately posting irrelevant statements - whether to demean, denigrate and ridicule the subject or the author of the thread - is a troll!

I would say creating several threads on the same topic would be akin to trolling.

Some of you say the board is much quieter now that the "noise-makers" are gone.

Yes some of you may like it that the dissenting views are gone or hardly posting anymore, however dissenting views are what makes the board lively, too. If nothing is done to address the situation, you're looking at a dying board.

I'm just stating the obvious.

It is not dissenting views I have a problem with. And I doubt anyone here really has a problem with dissenting views. The problem is in how those views are put forth and the level of maturity we come to expect from adults. As an example, a reply of 'go hug a suicide bomber' does not represent a dissenting view. You all know who I am talking about.

What is wrong about explaining to the poster why her post/title got deleted, or citing the post that got him/her suspended?

I do agree a poster should be notified of the reason and shown the post of their offense.

I created a topic titled, EARTH: A COCKAMAMIE STORY, and it got taken out. The OP explained why that title was given.

Which to me was just another thread on the creationism/evolution debate. Which we had many that you started. So it was more of the same and just more round and around. I am probably guilty of that as well.

Will this post earn me a banning?

I should hope not.

[betsy]

I would say creating several threads on the same topic would be akin to trolling.

It is not dissenting views I have a problem with. And I doubt anyone here really has a problem with dissenting views. The problem is in how those views are put forth and the level of maturity we come to expect from adults. As an example, a reply of 'go hug a suicide bomber' does not represent a dissenting view. You all know who I am talking about.

I do agree a poster should be notified of the reason and shown the post of their offense.

Which to me was just another thread on the creationism/evolution debate. Which we had many that you started. So it was more of the same and just more round and around. I am probably guilty of that as well.

I should hope not.

For Pete's sake...will you read your reply again, especially the boldened part!

That's exactly what I've been saying! Just because someone thinks a topic is just another thread on creationism/evolution, someone reports it to the moderator....and the mod deletes it! Is that what happened to my deleted topic?

Maturity is to know enough when to ignore and walk away from a topic you don't want.....instead of entering and trolling it ....or running and whining to the moderator how someone had posted another creation topic! What do you expect to see anyway in a section that says RELIGION?

How many religious people do we have actively participating in that section anyway? I could count them in one hand!

And you want to "control" the amount of creation-related thread? Why don't you suggest that Religion section be scrapped altogether?

Let me check the forum rules to see if there's any limit as to how many threads we can create on any given subject!

I wish we have Buddhists, Muslims, Baha'ists participating on this board. But I don't think that's gonna happen - for obvious reason!

Will you scroll down the length of Religion section and see what titles have the most numbers of views!

Whether you like it or not, creationism/evolution/id or anything that relates to those are hot topics!

Why should we, and guests on this forum, be limited and dictated to by someone's personal preference?

Edited June 10, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

I do agree with this part of your post.

On the other hand, most people have no issues with bannings or deleted topics. Most people already know what kind of posts are considered trolling or flaming or what would constitute breaking the rules. Perhaps the repeat offenders should look m ore at their own posts and carefully read the rules. Maybe it is not a moderator issue...

Yes, perhaps it's me that has the problem. I get that.

[betsy]

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this. I've no appetite to get in an on-going "debate" about this issue.....I just prefer to drop in every now then, and just read what there is that might interest me. I've no more inclination to waste time and effort composing a post or creating any thread, only to end up getting scrapped for who knows why!

Cheers.

[kimmy]

I created a topic titled, EARTH: A COCKAMAMIE STORY, and it got taken out. The OP explained why that title was given.

I was wondering what could be the reason?

I saw the post before it was deleted, and it was a link to a couple of Youtube videos, with little attempt to encourage discussion. It was probably deleted for the same reason that links to newspaper articles with little attempt to encourage discussion get deleted.

-k

[betsy]

I saw the post before it was deleted, and it was a link to a couple of Youtube videos, with little attempt to encourage discussion.

Two youtube DOCUMENTARIES, one shown on discovery channel.

To you perhaps....but that's your opinion. Anyway, I can understand why you see the thread as having, "little attempt to encourage discussion," when you're faced with that evidence. How on earth can you try to rebutt your way to the point of that thread? I would've loved to see how you'd work your way out of that one....

Of course we won't get the chance to see for ourselves, won't we....since by the looks of it, it's been "reviewed" and deemed necessary perhaps by people like you to make the decision for all the rest of us to say what threads would offer and encourage discussion!

-------------------------------------------

For those who didn't get the chance to see that deleted thread, here is the title:

EARTH: A COCKAMAMIE STORY

(and here's the OP, may not be verbatim)

Here's the documentary from EARTH: MAKING OF A PLANET

Set the time to begin at 14:57, and turn the caption option on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L129f9MVZ70

"It's impossible to know how or when, but somehow these chemicals come together to create ...........life."

Let's run that again: It is IMPOSSIBLE to know how or when. But somehow these chemicals came together to create life.

In other words, they're saying, it's impossible to know how....but we're saying this is how it happened anyway.

(The next post featured a segment from another documentary about beginning of life, and it echoed basically the same thing by saying, "Whatever it is (that caused it)....")

It was probably deleted for the same reason that links to newspaper articles with little attempt to encourage discussion get deleted.

-k

Speak for yourself!

What mature and intellectual board would see links to newspapers or other sources as to having no part to encourage discussion? Unless you're in a juvenile board!

Anyway, the explanation should come from the one who made the decision to delete it. Not you.

Bye-bye.

Edited June 11, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

It did occur to me though that the topic may've been moved and lumped in another thread....I didn't find it.

[Michael Hardner]

I think the mods have been pretty clear in saying that posts must advance the discussion. I don't know about your case in particular but I do see plenty of people getting warned for this type of thing.

[betsy]

I think the mods have been pretty clear in saying that posts must advance the discussion. I don't know about your case in particular but I do see plenty of people getting warned for this type of thing.

Yes, I know.

The OP was clear in stating its case. It provided a documentary that's been flouted around in a science channel.

If that type of OP is seen as something that doesn't "advance discussion" - whatever that might mean depending from what/which angle one looks at it - then, I'm totally lost!

Anyway, I'm just explaining what I'm been perplexed and whining about. Makes no difference to me anymore, anyhow.... whatever.

Edited June 11, 2013 by betsy

[Charles Anthony]

Anyway, the explanation should come from the one who made the decision to delete it. Not you.

That thread was taken down for the reasons expressed already. However, you were not suspended for posting that thread.

You were suspended for a different reason. Please read your inbox because the explanation is there. I have sent it to you again.

----

Anyway, back to the OP question. The idea of debates came up nearly a decade ago but nothing came of it. I can not imagine how to choose who would qualify for participating. Any suggestions?

Ch. A.

[betsy]

That thread was taken down for many of the reasons expressed already. However, you were not suspended for posting that thread.

What reasons? The ones expressed by Gosthacked and Kimmy?

Too many creation-related threads already in the Religion section? That said video along with the OP explanation will not "advance" the discussion?

Perhaps it will be good to add another section to this forum - a TOPIC SCREENING section.

All topics and OP will have to be submitted to a specially-created committee - I nominate Gosthacked and Kimmy since they're already good at it - and the said submitted topics will have to be assessed and pre-approved by this committee before they can actually appear as titles/threads.

You were suspended for a different reason. Please read your inbox because the explanation is there. I have sent it to you again.

I know. This has nothing to do with my suspension. I was asking why that topic was deleted.

Anyway, thank you for pointing that out at last!... which particular post got me suspended. I thought I've trimmed that 100 things evolutionists hate - each of those enumerated reasons had written explanations (which I've eliminated). Obviously, it was not enough. See? I thought wrong.

Anyway, it doesn't matter anymore. Bye-bye.

Edited June 11, 2013 by betsy

[Guest Peeves]

"Trolling" can be cited for anything! Anyone who doesn't like the title/subject can cite "trolling!" Anyone who cannot refute, or are stumped, or are tired of the issue can cite "trolling!" AND anyone who deliberately goes in and participates in a thread by deliberately posting irrelevant statements - whether to demean, denigrate and ridicule the subject or the author of the thread - is a troll!

So if the author is punished for creating a topic or responding, yes it is a stiflement! Those that harass such topics/authors are usually not punished at all. Therefore, the board does reflect some bias when meting out punishments! It may not be the intention of the moderator to be biased.....but that's the impression the board gives!

I hardly post anymore. I feebly tried to do so a couple of times, to help make the board look busy!

If you hadn't noticed....the board is stale!

TRUNCATED FOR BREVITY. ENTIRE POST IS OF COURSE AVAILABLE ABOVE.

Why can't we be given any explanation as to why? We don't even have to make an appeal....but at least, give an explanation as to why!

Isn't it only practical to know what particular offense got you in trouble so as to avoid making that "mistake" again? Is that too much to ask for?

Will this post earn me a banning?

Well said. It needs saying. I've been very disillsioned by the administration here of censorship,subjective rulings and warnings that are totally un necessary since members will or will not respond to any nonsensical subject without the need of overseers.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Peeves

[betsy]

Anyway, back to the OP question. The idea of debates came up nearly a decade ago but nothing came of it. I can not imagine how to choose who would qualify for participating. Any suggestions?

Ch. A.

You don't choose.

The other forum has a "classified ad" thread - strictly to post an interest to debate on a particular topic, and anyone can answer to the challenge. I was just talking to the guy who started it in the other forum....you need mods to make it run properly, or a new system. They've got a mod assigned to each formal debate.

Edited June 13, 2013 by betsy