|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Personalisms, flames and trolling.
#10250328 - 04/28/09 03:59 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The recent discussion over the name changes and personalisms grew from several sources. The most recent was a statement I made:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
My interest here is the same as it always has been with reference to the forum: a place to discuss philosophical and spiritual ideas without flames or being flamed. It is publicly known that I have two accounts under the same name ignored. If I suspect another member has me in their sights and continues with personal remarks I will report them until they either change their behavior or are banned.
It's really quite simple. This isn't OTD nor was it meant to be.
deCypher's response was:
Quote:
deCypher said: Honestly I think they should rearrange the forums into Philosophy & Debate and Mysticism and Spirituality. The former would be dedicated to any kind of topic you want to argue; except without any censorship. No holds barred; I don't believe in any kind of system that prevents free speech. Let trolls work themselves out of the memetic idea pool naturally. On the other hand, you would have M&S, which would have strict rules against trolling and be more oriented towards discussion as opposed to debate a la M&P.
As I explained in the official thread, the name Philosophy and Debate is redundant unless you want to make the rule that anyone participating in the forum was required to debate. That's asinine. No forum should constrict itself that way. All forums/conversations on the Internet contain an element of debate, even the members of the Hunting forum debate the identity of a mushroom.
This issue of flames/personalisms would have been settled long ago with a few, selective, well-placed bans. We all know who the trolls are and their intent. Middleman, as a mod, didn't want the personalism rule, neither does, it seems, deCypher. Fine. If you don't want to enforce the rules of the forum when you were made mod, quit. Don't change the rules or attempt to change the rules to make your job easier.
Tell me, how many warnings should a member receive when they already have 12 points? If fairness and integrity rule, I would think none. Yet, we have a repeat offender (responsible for numerous changes in policy to satisfy them) who seems to get away with murder merely because they're clever.
The rule against flaming is board-wide with the exception of OTD and M&P. Let's not create such a drastic rule merely so a certain member that excels in flames can have their way. No single member should have that much latitude. To suggest such a thing is simply unbelieveable.
Second: Why do the mods need anyone's approval before changing the rules? Can't they just change them? deCypher created a thread to explicate this every issue. Why couldn't he, or the mods as a group, change the rules and allow flaming?
Third: The biggest reason not to change the rules is because of bias. If you allow some flaming but not others, you have placed lines without creating rules for the membership to follow. That's asking us to post in the dark without ever knowing we're past a line until after we're passed it.
Here's a simple solution to the personalism rule: Ban the trolls.
Either you can't or won't. What gives?
--------------------
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10250374 - 04/28/09 04:06 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The problem is, what you think trolling is, I may believe to be good philosophy.
Ignore the trolls.
You can do it with a push of a button, and it accomplishes the same thing, without censorship.
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: daytripper23]
#10250407 - 04/28/09 04:12 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: If you don't want to enforce the rules of the forum when you were made mod, quit. Don't change the rules or attempt to change the rules to make your job easier.
My motivation in arguing for allowing personalisms was not to make my own job easier, but rather because I believe in the principle of free speech and would like to have this forum reflect that ideology.
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: Why do the mods need anyone's approval before changing the rules? Can't they just change them? deCypher created a thread to explicate this every issue. Why couldn't he, or the mods as a group, change the rules and allow flaming?
You don't think asking the opinion of the members of a forum before making a drastic rule change is warranted?
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: The biggest reason not to change the rules is because of bias. If you allow some flaming but not others, you have placed lines without creating rules for the membership to follow. That's asking us to post in the dark without ever knowing we're past a line until after we're passed it.
So long as it's on topic, I'd say anything would be fair game.
Quote:
daytripper23 said: Ignore the trolls.
You can do it with a push of a button, and it accomplishes the same thing, without censorship.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10250409 - 04/28/09 04:12 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: Fine. If you don't want to enforce the rules of the forum when you were made mod, quit. Don't change the rules or attempt to change the rules to make your job easier.
Why do you think the discussion regarding making the change is rooted in that? From what I've observed, there has been a lot of dissatisfaction with the rule, and from that results I'm seeing so far in the stickied thread, the vast majority of those who have participated in it thusfar are quite interested in making a change.
Quote:
Let's not create such a drastic rule merely so a certain member that excels in flames can have their way. No single member should have that much latitude. To suggest such a thing is simply unbelieveable.
Why do you think that some certain member actually has that much latitude, or that this has anything to do with that certain member at all? All the talk that I have seen regarding ditching the rule has come from posters like daytripper and Lakefingers.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: fireworks_god]
#10250673 - 04/28/09 04:46 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yeh, I have to say i don't like the no personalisms rule and it isn't just deCypher as a mod who doesn't like it. Saying he wants it changed because he's lazy seems pretty silly really.
-------------------- Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. "Chat your fraff Chat your fraff Just chat your fraff Chat your fraff"
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: deCypher]
#10250748 - 04/28/09 04:58 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: If you don't want to enforce the rules of the forum when you were made mod, quit. Don't change the rules or attempt to change the rules to make your job easier.
My motivation in arguing for allowing personalisms was not to make my own job easier, but rather because I believe in the principle of free speech and would like to have this forum reflect that ideology.
There is no such thing as free speech on a message board that needs money to exist. Someone is paying the bills. They get to decide what is said or cannot be said. Whatever your motivation is the simple fact is that given my statement, your job would be easier.
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: Why do the mods need anyone's approval before changing the rules? Can't they just change them? deCypher created a thread to explicate this every issue. Why couldn't he, or the mods as a group, change the rules and allow flaming?
You don't think asking the opinion of the members of a forum before making a drastic rule change is warranted?
No, I do not believe in democracy. Remember our discussion over the philosopher king? I want someone with wisdom to make the rules, not the current membership of the forum (rabble).
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: The biggest reason not to change the rules is because of bias. If you allow some flaming but not others, you have placed lines without creating rules for the membership to follow. That's asking us to post in the dark without ever knowing we're past a line until after we're passed it.
So long as it's on topic, I'd say anything would be fair game.
Like what, for example? Rules promote fairness and that is the main reason for creating them. I would need specifics before I would consent to any rule.
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
daytripper23 said: Ignore the trolls.
You can do it with a push of a button, and it accomplishes the same thing, without censorship.
Nope, and that's bullshit under the current system. You've seen how well that has worked with a member I ignored. It started this whole mess. He was able to incite another member against me and here is where we are.
Another alternative was suggested by KingofTheThing. An ignored member wouldn't see you either. It would be as if neither of you existed for the other. It's a beautiful system in many ways. Ythan poo-pooed it as too much work.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: daytripper23]
#10250760 - 04/28/09 05:00 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
daytripper23 said: The problem is, what you think trolling is, I may believe to be good philosophy.
Ignore the trolls.
You can do it with a push of a button, and it accomplishes the same thing, without censorship.
Even idiots know what a troll is. See my comments to deCypher on ignoring.
--------------------
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10250794 - 04/28/09 05:05 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, so if our philosopher king is deCypher then would you allow it or do you suddenly want democracy back? Sounds to me like as long as this philosopher king agrees with you then he's gravy, otherwise it's a no no.
-------------------- Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. "Chat your fraff Chat your fraff Just chat your fraff Chat your fraff"
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Grapefruit]
#10250824 - 04/28/09 05:10 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Grapefruit said: Ok, so if our philosopher king is deCypher then would you allow it or do you suddenly want democracy back? Sounds to me like as long as this philosopher king agrees with you then he's gravy, otherwise it's a no no.
Are you reading what I am writing? I said in the Question for MM thread today that deCypher is:
A new member A new Mod
What I want, and have wanted since I joined in '02, is simple rules fairly applied. We haven't had that yet. If you want no personalisms I can only conclude you want to flame people. Is that true?
--------------------
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10250856 - 04/28/09 05:15 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If you want no personalisms I can only conclude you want to flame people. Is that true?
Quote:
Are you reading what I am writing? I said in the Question for MM thread today that deCypher is:
A new member A new Mod
My question was hypothetical. Why isn't there any room for change? Why keep a system that doesn't work? There are still plenty of veiled personalisms.
-------------------- Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. "Chat your fraff Chat your fraff Just chat your fraff Chat your fraff"
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10250857 - 04/28/09 05:16 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You've seen how well that has worked with a member I ignored. It started this whole mess.
And was completely unrelated to a certain member's viscious attacks on a beloved mod.
Quote:
He was able to incite another member against me and here is where we are.
Our members here are mere sheep with no eyes of their own to see what is going on? Me no think so.
--------------------
|
Sapa Inca
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 48
Loc: end of the rainbow
|
|
What are you talking about?
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Sapa Inca]
#10250893 - 04/28/09 05:21 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sapa Inca said: What are you talking about?
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10250898 - 04/28/09 05:22 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If you want no personalisms I can only conclude you want to flame people. Is that true?
It appears that the main reason you want a certain member banned is because he/she posted quotes of you flaming others.
Pot meet kettle.
--------------------
|
Sapa Inca
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 48
Loc: end of the rainbow
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10250912 - 04/28/09 05:23 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
Sapa Inca said: What are you talking about?
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Grapefruit]
#10250914 - 04/28/09 05:24 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Grapefruit said:
Quote:
If you want no personalisms I can only conclude you want to flame people. Is that true?
Quote:
Are you reading what I am writing? I said in the Question for MM thread today that deCypher is:
A new member A new Mod
My question was hypothetical. Why isn't there any room for change? Why keep a system that doesn't work? There are still plenty of veiled personalisms.
Um, rules against flaming are site-wide. Why do you want the exception if not to flame? The system doesn't work because it hasn't been applied.
Here's a rule the staff as been violating:
12+ and you're out.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
If you want no personalisms I can only conclude you want to flame people. Is that true?
It appears that the main reason you want a certain member banned is because he/she posted quotes of you flaming others.
Pot meet kettle.
No, I want the trolls banned. Surprisingly, a simple concept that most cannot understand.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
If you want no personalisms I can only conclude you want to flame people. Is that true?
It appears that the main reason you want a certain member banned is because he/she posted quotes of you flaming others.
Pot meet kettle.
Quoting yourself?
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10250939 - 04/28/09 05:29 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
MM, you are being insincere again.
You already made clear that you don't want it publicly explained. Seems you are not a fan of the aphorism, "And the Truth shall set you free."
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Personalisms, flames and trolling. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10250940 - 04/28/09 05:30 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: Um, rules against flaming are site-wide. Why do you want the exception if not to flame? The system doesn't work because it hasn't been applied.
Isn't it better if people avoid malevolent behavior because they want to, rather than because they are forced to?
I usually don't think that rules are the best way to teach people. Getting people to behave benevolently of their own free will is much better. Sometimes people learn best from their mistakes, but then they must also be allowed to make mistakes.
|
|