 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: Website Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5  Previous Next
|
|
"Open Discussion" Forum |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote:
I don't see why what some people call "serious discussions" should lead to a lack of simple common decency. On these forums, all too often it does. Now that's what I would call "lack of maturity". Problem is, "simple common decency" isn't simple, much less common. | | | | Last edited: by Dr. Killpatient |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ah Doc, you remind me beauty is always is in the eye of the beholder. Just as no two people would completely agree relative to common sense, the same holds for "common decency". One man's joke is another man's insult.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
Quoting dee1959jay:
Quote:
I don't see why what some people call "serious discussions" should lead to a lack of simple common decency. On these forums, all too often it does. Now that's what I would call "lack of maturity".
Problem is, "simple common decency" isn't simple, much less common. This is the part that bothers me. Our society has come to accept poor behavior. Or, even if it isn't accepted, we tolerate it. I hope that with some moderation we will all come to see that we can still express our ideas without nastiness. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Astrakan: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
If the area is opt-in, then why does there need to be moderation?
I answered that question in the passage you quoted. "In order for personal attacks to be kept at a minimum."
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
If you want moderated discussion ("OK, children, everybody make nice and get along now, hear?") stay out. If you aren't adult enough to handle a serious discussion you shouldn't be there in the first place.
If by "serious discussion" you include personal attacks, then I guess we differ in how we think about serious discussions. I also don't think a person's willingness to indulge in or endure personal attacks has anything to do with their level of maturity level.
I very much enjoy serious disucssion, I just don't see why it has to come with a side of verbal assault.
KM Did I say *anything* at all about attacking someone? No, I didn't. Serious discussion is just that, serious. Serious discussion often entails advancing or defending strong opinions, and sometimes people get offended by those strong opinions. We're all supposed to be grown-up boys and girls here, right? Why can't you deal with that? One of the other factors is that people here are from all over the world and from different cultures, so at times they don't necessarily understand those strong opinions, and that can lead to hurt feelings, etc. As far as moderation goes, I have been in forums/groups/echoes as a user and even as moderator myself at times for 25 years, and in that time the moderation has ranged everywhere from tyrannically oppressive to completely incompetent. Very few times have I seen moderation act in what I would call a moderate, fair, even-handed way. Generally, where you find that kind of moderation, you don't need a moderator. Personally, I don't think I could pick someone here that could be a fair and even handed moderator without their ego getting in the way, or have the necessary toughness to control some of the people who post here without turning into a tyrant -- at least not someone who would be acceptable to everybody. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
I don't think I could pick someone here that could be a fair and even handed moderator without their ego getting in the way, or have the necessary toughness to control some of the people who post here without turning into a tyrant That's why the moderators aren't posters here. BTW, the political discussions are gone and this is a good riddance. Not that I can't discuss it since this my university formation, but I've never seen any interesting political discussion on any forum (a good discussion on those topics need to be face to face and not anonymous). The second part of my post had nothing to do with your post, I've just used it to wrote my oppinion on the main topic. | | | | Last edited: by Jimmy S |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think too much is being read into ruineddaaydreams' comment...
It does not say that peope who want to discuss political or religious issues are not welcome here.
There has never been many discussions related to politics or religion on this board, but from what I remember the few I have seen almost always derailed and some of that bad blood (naturally) spilled to the other forums.
While the comment did sound harsh it was just to point out that people who leave a forum which they joined for its dedication to a piece of collectors' software because the forum owner decided (for before mentioned reasons) to ban political or religious discussions may not have set their priorities right in this situation. They are, of course, still welcome to any other discussion.
Just my opinion and understanding. | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) | | | | Last edited: by nuoyaxin |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ya_shin: Quote:
I think too much is being read into ruineddaaydreams' comment...
It does not say that peope who want to discuss political or religious issues are not welcome here.
There has never been many discussions related to politics or religion on this board, but from what I remember the few I have seen almost always derailed and some of that bad blood (naturally) spilled to the other forums.
While the comment did sound harsh it was just to point out that people who leave a forum which they joined for its dedication to a piece of collectors' software because the forum owner decided (for before mentioned reasons) to ban political or religious discussions may not have set their priorities right in this situation. They are, of course, still welcome to any other discussion.
Just my opinion and understanding. Here, here! That's exactly how I interpreted his statement too. Everyone has a choice on whether they participate in forum discussions. |
| | Registered: March 28, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Did I say *anything* at all about attacking someone? No you didn't, and since it was such a vital part of the section you quoted yet you didn't single it out, I suspected that you simply included it in your definition of "serious discussion." Apparently my suspicion was incorrect. I'm glad you cleared that up. Quote:
Serious discussion is just that, serious. Serious discussion often entails advancing or defending strong opinions, and sometimes people get offended by those strong opinions. I'm not concerned about people being offended by strong opinions. In fact, I couldn't care less if someone gets offended by another person's opinion. As long as that opinion is stated without personal attacks of any kind. Unfortunately we've proven time and again that we can't have serious discussions (and sometimes not so serious discussion) without constantly delving into personal attacks. This is why I'm advocating moderation, to put a stop to the personal attacks. As for picking moderators, that's already been taken care of by Ken. He enrolled his screener staff. KM | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. | | | | Last edited: by Astrakan |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ya Shin: Quote:
I think too much is being read into ruineddaaydreams' comment...
It does not say that peope who want to discuss political or religious issues are not welcome here.
There has never been many discussions related to politics or religion on this board, but from what I remember the few I have seen almost always derailed and some of that bad blood (naturally) spilled to the other forums.
While the comment did sound harsh it was just to point out that people who leave a forum which they joined for its dedication to a piece of collectors' software because the forum owner decided (for before mentioned reasons) to ban political or religious discussions may not have set their priorities right in this situation. They are, of course, still welcome to any other discussion.
Just my opinion and understanding. Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Here, here!
That's exactly how I interpreted his statement too.
Everyone has a choice on whether they participate in forum discussions. While ruineddaydreams comment doesn't say certain users are not welcome IT does say these users are not NEEDED here. I am certain from my experience here that were Skip were to have said this or something like it he would have been beaten senseless with people condemning the remark. But when its someone people have decided they like then it's all excuses and explanations as to what the person actually "meant". I made it clear in my post that in my ideal world I would not complain (or whine if you prefer) to Ken or the moderators I would simply fire back. Like I said I'm a big boy and if ruineddaydreams wants to express himself this way then he will get that kind of attituide back from me. I don't want everyone walking around on eggshells afraid to state their feelings or afraid to discuss a subject they are interested in. However many here that prefer a heavy handed moderation to police "politeness" or "civility" can't seem to recognize its a two way street. In other words if you want to walk around without being offended by muzzling people you don't like then you have to recognize you will be muzzled in much the same way. Telling me I'm not needed and that my priorities are off-base aren't nice things to say (to be honest they fairly blunt and mean) and if you are going to police me I'm going to police you. I agree with Pantheon that everyone has a choice as to whether to participate in forum discussions but he seems quite content to have everything in the forums the way he prefers and wants to put all of the burden of choice on me -- I am "welcome" (thanks for that) to participate in the proposed new lobotomized forums but only if I accept the restrictions on topics and the one-sided sensitivity rules. Pantheon/Ya Shin -- Here's a counter proposal -- How about you accept that some people want to have freedom to discuss political & religious topics (or LOLcats) in the general discussion forum and if you prefer not to participate in those you can simply stay away. You have not provided an answer as to why my desire to communicate on a wide variety of topics is something that must be denied. There is no requirement that you read and participate any particular thread. If you don't like the opinions expressed stay out of it and stick to the numerous other threads and forums. I also don't like being talked down to about "my priorities being straight". I want to be able to CONTINUE to discuss things here like I have in the past. In my view curtailing my options to discuss what I want --- is to me at least a major strike against my participation here (as it appears hal9g, skip, lord of the sith, rifter and others feel the same). Why aren't you thinking -- hey this issue really seems to matter to some very prominent and successful long time users (to the point where they are threatening to leave) so maybe I can let those that are interested have these discussions because its important to them and I just won't participate.In fact your selling point for this agressive forum moderation is in part based on the notion that users you are fond of are leaving (surfeur for example) b/c of all the meaness on the forums but when the shoe is on the other foot you make excuses for the original nasty comment and add one of two of your own. It seems to me that you want to have it both ways. For my part I want to see a balance struck that hopefully can satisfy both sides - whatever that may be. I'm not happy to see anyone feel the need to leave the forums but I do think that those want to ban political/relgious discussions completely are showing a disregard for the honest and sincere feelings of others (like me) who feel as a matter of principal that we should have a true open dicussion forum. If your answer to my concerns is to tell me essentially good riddance and/or your priorities are wrong -- how am I supposed to respond to that. At this point it seems you are the ones being offensive and impolite --- do we really want to interact in this way? Brian | | | | Last edited: by bbursiek |
| | Registered: December 13, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting Astrakan:
Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
If the area is opt-in, then why does there need to be moderation?
I answered that question in the passage you quoted. "In order for personal attacks to be kept at a minimum."
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
If you want moderated discussion ("OK, children, everybody make nice and get along now, hear?") stay out. If you aren't adult enough to handle a serious discussion you shouldn't be there in the first place.
If by "serious discussion" you include personal attacks, then I guess we differ in how we think about serious discussions. I also don't think a person's willingness to indulge in or endure personal attacks has anything to do with their level of maturity level.
I very much enjoy serious disucssion, I just don't see why it has to come with a side of verbal assault.
KM
Did I say *anything* at all about attacking someone? No, I didn't. Serious discussion is just that, serious. Serious discussion often entails advancing or defending strong opinions, and sometimes people get offended by those strong opinions. We're all supposed to be grown-up boys and girls here, right? Why can't you deal with that? One of the other factors is that people here are from all over the world and from different cultures, so at times they don't necessarily understand those strong opinions, and that can lead to hurt feelings, etc.
As far as moderation goes, I have been in forums/groups/echoes as a user and even as moderator myself at times for 25 years, and in that time the moderation has ranged everywhere from tyrannically oppressive to completely incompetent. Very few times have I seen moderation act in what I would call a moderate, fair, even-handed way. Generally, where you find that kind of moderation, you don't need a moderator. Personally, I don't think I could pick someone here that could be a fair and even handed moderator without their ego getting in the way, or have the necessary toughness to control some of the people who post here without turning into a tyrant -- at least not someone who would be acceptable to everybody. I don't think people get so much offended by strong opinions as by the way they're sometimes voiced. You could for example just disagree with someone, OR you could be totally arrogant about it and imply that they're childish for having a different view on the matter. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbursiek: Quote:
Pantheon/Ya Shin -- Here's a counter proposal -- How about you accept that some people want to have freedom to discuss political & religious topics (or LOLcats) in the general discussion forum and if you prefer not to participate in those you can simply stay away. You have not provided an answer as to why my desire to communicate on a wide variety of topics is something that must be denied. There is no requirement that you read and participate any particular thread. If you don't like the opinions expressed stay out of it and stick to the numerous other threads and forums. You know, I'd actually be cool with that, always have been. I usually open those threads and once they reach page 4 or higher I mostly avoid them like cholera. But, some poeple added that they want to discuss those issues and do so unmoderated. That simply hasn't worked on this forum (and intervocative.com), ever. Herein, btw, lies the reason why the right to discuss just about anything is currently being denied (I am not saying it must be denied, because for me it's fine). Quote:
I also don't like being talked down to about "my priorities being straight". Sorry about that, that was a bad "translation" on my part and the words probably too casual for my purpose. I apologize. | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) | | | | Last edited: by nuoyaxin |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ya Shin,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate the clarification of your individual position. I should clarify that I am not opposed to any moderation of the forums and therefore of the general discussion forum as well. Certainly (as I have said before) policing the use of foul language, racial/religious/ethnic slurs, making moderator posts to redirect or tone down discussions, and in substantial cases locking threads regarding any topic that have gotten out of hand can be reasonable if done with a light touch.
I am primarily opposed to some people (apparently not you) that are in favor of banning select topics from the GENERAL discussion forum b/c they don't like the discussions and apparently can't seem to voluntarily avoid discussions they don't like.
I think it is a bad idea to accomodate requests for heavy handed censorship because it will not stop there -- people who get what they want by constant complaining are encouraged by their success and will do so again in the future - a line should be drawn against banning certain topics entirely. What is the exact limit of the general term "politics" anyway - its possible for any discussion of current events to be considered political - do we want to go that far?
There are lots of topics, threads, and issues that I don't care to participate in - some of which I find annoying and occasionally offensive - but I don't have the desire to ban those topics just because I don't like them.
Thanks again for the reply,
Brian |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | Over the years I've been visiting these forums, I can't say that I've seen much if any political or religious discussion here. Maybe I just didn't notice it. Has there been much discussion along these lines here? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbursiek: Quote:
Ya Shin,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate the clarification of your individual position. I should clarify that I am not opposed to any moderation of the forums and therefore of the general discussion forum as well. Certainly (as I have said before) policing the use of foul language, racial/religious/ethnic slurs, making moderator posts to redirect or tone down discussions, and in substantial cases locking threads regarding any topic that have gotten out of hand can be reasonable if done with a light touch.
I am primarily opposed to some people (apparently not you) that are in favor of banning select topics from the GENERAL discussion forum b/c they don't like the discussions and apparently can't seem to voluntarily avoid discussions they don't like.
I think it is a bad idea to accomodate requests for heavy handed censorship because it will not stop there -- people who get what they want by constant complaining are encouraged by their success and will do so again in the future - a line should be drawn against banning certain topics entirely. What is the exact limit of the general term "politics" anyway - its possible for any discussion of current events to be considered political - do we want to go that far?
There are lots of topics, threads, and issues that I don't care to participate in - some of which I find annoying and occasionally offensive - but I don't have the desire to ban those topics just because I don't like them.
Thanks again for the reply,
Brian Have to agree with you. I've run into similar problems at work. Somebody makes a comment about something in the paper, pro or con, and somebody gets their feathers all in a snit and goes running to the boss saying "So and so made this comment and I'm offended" or something similar. Then the boss has to start calling people into the office to find out what happened, and ends up putting some heavy-handed memo in everyone's mailbox to cease and desist this or that. It's a real pain in the ass. As I've said before, this is an international forum. As such, people perceive what is said according to their understanding of the language used, and often they get it wrong and take umbrage where none was intended. That's more often than not how the fights start. Instead of asking what the poster meant they go off the deep end and want a moderator. I submit that since the moderators are in all liklihood here in the States (after all, that's where Ken lives and works on the program from) they won't necessarily be able to interpret what some people said any better than any of us do. When that happens, the harshness of the moderation will go up. Seen it happen many, many times over the years. The best idea is STILL make General Discussion an OPT-IN ONLY forum, and let those who do take care of policing it. If you (the collective 'you') opt-in and get offended, whose fault is it? Nobody twisted anybody's arm to be there. My grandmother used to say "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!" Good advice then, and good advice for now. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting jgilligan: Quote:
Over the years I've been visiting these forums, I can't say that I've seen much if any political or religious discussion here. Maybe I just didn't notice it. Has there been much discussion along these lines here? Not that much, in truth. Since most of the users are from the US, when there are such discussions, they tend to be about US politics. Of course, everybody has to throw in their 2 cents worth, whether they have a stake in what happens or not, and that is what often leads to arguments. Everybody has an opinion on how the US should do this or that, but all too often they don't stop to consider that unless you live here and experience the day to day of US politics, what you think you know is usually wrong to some degree or another. Now, I can sit and talk politics with anybody all day long as long they are reasonable and willing to have a fair exchange of ideas, etc. But I get my back up just like anybody else when they start making judgements about it with nothing in their experience to back that opinion up. That's when the fights can get started if you let it get to you. Not everybody can keep that lid on tight all the time, myself included at times. So, if you can't, you shouldn't enter into the conversation to start with. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting jgilligan: Quote:
Over the years I've been visiting these forums, I can't say that I've seen much if any political or religious discussion here. Maybe I just didn't notice it. Has there been much discussion along these lines here? There really wasn't any until the '08 elections. That is when things got a little out of control. I personally have never seen a message board where political and religious topics were allowed and they DIDN'T get out of hand. Emotions get heated and even on-topic conversations often find themselves dragged back into the muck because posters can't separate the two. The reason is that when posters are discussing these issues, they feel like their core beliefs are being attacked, no matter how civil the conversation is. These boards often create a separate political forum, or an "anything-goes" section and it never stays there. Posters start to quote their opponents in their signatures to make them look foolish, or you will get a "Of course you would say that, look at the idiotic things you write in the political forum." I don't see how such a section would strengthen this community, since we have enough problems with on-topic conversations remaining civil. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: Website Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |