|
|
|
Wag
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, November 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,520
|
|
Oh - to be clear, I wasn't flagging up the statements as personal attacks to demand admin involvement/end of discussion/alteration of how people express themselves - I'm not bothered either way, so I'm happy to ignore/interpret them as 'friendly banter'. Although I do think it undermines people's arguments, I'm happy to tolerate swearing if they'll tolerate my questions/refusal to see the world as they do - but in the context of that post it was necessary to flag it up as questionable behaviour in order to defend the suggestion that my behaviour was unacceptable rude.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:26 AM
Posts: 1,227,
Visits: 10,379
|
|
ah now here is an idea.......Is it possible with the forum software to allow Admins and or Original Posters to ban/block certain members from seeing and or posting on a subject? As can be seen from this thread one member can thoroughly destroy any integrity to a discussion. So instead of making parts of the forum 'members only', making it 'certain members banned'.
_____________________________________________________
RL: Mr Sofar
Curved core weaponry and bespoke stuff.
ShelfordFX
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:05 AM
Posts: 368,
Visits: 1,047
|
|
| Apart from any other arguments, I think something like that would cause more trouble than it would avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:26 AM
Posts: 1,227,
Visits: 10,379
|
|
I would of thought the only trouble would be from those that get blocked out which would be those that can't behave themselves?
_____________________________________________________
RL: Mr Sofar
Curved core weaponry and bespoke stuff.
ShelfordFX
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:04 AM
Posts: 204,
Visits: 834
|
|
Shelford (8/15/2007)
ah now here is an idea.......Is it possible with the forum software to allow Admins and or Original Posters to ban/block certain members from seeing and or posting on a subject? As can be seen from this thread one member can thoroughly destroy any integrity to a discussion. So instead of making parts of the forum 'members only', making it 'certain members banned'.It's an idea, but who would you ban, though? I can't see a situation in which that would work. - It's hard to tell by someone's log in name if they're queer or not, and anyway Will's already said he's happy for non-queers to post in his forum if he gets it.
- If anyone posts something so offensive in any part of a forum that they should be banned from that part, surely they should be banned from the whole board? If's someone's breaking the board rules they should be banned: if they're not, they shouldn't.
- Banning someone from part of the forum because you don't like their style/what they're saying/how they argue it isn't condusive to an open spirit of debate, and I'd be against that. People should be able to post in the knowledge that so long as they are following the board guidelines they are able to debate a topic without fear of being banned for having an unpopular opinion. In the current example, Marios' posts don't seem to be being mindlessly abusive or anti-queer, but rather explaining (admittedly in his own inimicable, dramatic style) why he thinks what is being said is being narrow-minded against anti-queers. Likewise Will, Coffmeister and a few others are arguing clearly back their positon as to why they don't think it's narrow-minded to dislike everyone of a particular opinion because that opinion is hurtful, backed up on occasion by personal experience of the upset this opinion has caused them. So I can't think of anyone who's "destroying the integrity" of this thread, certainly not to the extent that I think the topic would be improved by banning them from it.
- ---------------------
- LT - Captain Iolanthe Swan
- Riftworld - Jenna Neraid, Clan Sceptre
- Brighton Below - Drizzle
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, November 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,520
|
|
Shelford (8/15/2007)
As can be seen from this thread one member can thoroughly destroy any integrity to a discussion.
Again, without drawing down the censorious ire of the admins, can I point out that this is clearly a personal attack (leveled at someone)? If you want to make a 'subtle' personal attack you have to make a ritualistic "It's not you or your opinions I hate ... it's the mean width of your paragraphs/indentation style which I feel is disconducive to goodminded debate".
I don't have a problem with personal attacks so long as we're not pretending that they are 'neutral observations' - but it seems a bit weird to include one in a paragraph where you're advocating that someone else ought to be banned (from one sub-forum) by the admins whose rules don't permit personal attacks. I suppose this is lateral thinking in action - if you believe that personal attacks are bad, you could can ban people who make them - or you could decide that the people who receive abuse do so because they are inherently abuseworthy and thus personal attacks can be reduced by banning members who attract them (it would be interesting to compare similar forums running alternate methods).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:26 AM
Posts: 1,227,
Visits: 10,379
|
|
‘censorious ire of the admins’, wonderful, a true classic. I’m not going to argue the toss with you because it’s pointless. My proposed selective banning from forums idea wouldn’t run on posting guidelines that the likes of you could bend, it’s based as I said on a moderator usually the OP who decides if someone is spoiling the party and then blocks their access.
_____________________________________________________
RL: Mr Sofar
Curved core weaponry and bespoke stuff.
ShelfordFX
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, November 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,520
|
|
Marianne (8/15/2007)
- Banning someone from part of the forum because you don't like their style/what they're saying/how they argue it isn't condusive to an open spirit of debate, and I'd be against that. People should be able to post in the knowledge that so long as they are following the board guidelines they are able to debate a topic without fear of being banned for having an unpopular opinion.
In a discussion forum, yes - but not a support group (in the manner laid out by Nesciomancer, Will Power and Chalicier). The point of a support group is that it contains people with a limited range of opinions. Note that support groups are not about _what_ you are (essence) but your opinions - it's your opinions which are tested for compliance with the social contract - some groups make a point of absolutely excluding people who fail some specific test, but in my experience you could join a group even if you don't self-identify, just so long as you are very, very careful about what opinions you express. However, if you do self-identify, but your opinions diverge strongly from others (let's say you're a Catholic homosexual - you absolutely self-identify as a homosexual, but you also believe it would be totally wrong to ever give in to those temptations - I think you can reasonably expect to get booted from most homosexual support groups).
There's a more recent example - the Thinspiration anorexic support groups which reject anorexics who are trying to put on weight on the grounds that they undermine the commitment of members (presumably by continuously arguing that it's a disease rather than a life-choice).
Marianne (8/15/2007)
In the current example, Marios' posts don't seem to be being mindlessly abusive or anti-queer, but rather explaining (admittedly in his own inimicable, dramaticstyle) why he thinks what is being said is being narrow-minded against anti-queers.
If you can make those same points clearly (and do it before I post/starting writing a post) then I won't post redundantly (lack of ability to delete own posts is irksome!) if I think you've covered it all.
Marianne (8/15/2007)
Likewise Will, Coffmeister and a few others are arguing clearly back their positon as to why they don't think it's narrow-minded to dislike everyone of a particular opinion because that opinion is hurtful, backed up on occasion by personal experience of the upset this opinion has caused them.
As a point of interest, does it seem to you that this might theoretically be something that the people who differ with them might also sincerely believe? The Freedom Fighter/Terrorist analogy has been so overworked recently that I'm surprised to see the "Hmm, yes, but they fired first" argument coming up without being criticised.
Marios
|
|
|
|
 Posted Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:33 PM |
| | | |