But, after the new rules, will you be allowed to post? or will you want to?
I would expect that all opinions would be allowed a voice ,one can either agree or disagree with what is posted but I see no indication that one side of the story is all that will be told. As far as wanting to , I'll always want to have a voice it is another of those wonderful rights that we enjoy here in the good ole USA. I'll always speak up to protect those rights that so many have given their lives for.
I'm not sure that deciding "what kind of site this is going to be" is an issue at all...THAT was decided at the inception of the GSC...as it was with Waydale before that. The mission is clearly stated...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to this line of reasoning, nothing can ever change? If that were the case, women wouldn't have the right to vote, etc. What I was trying to get at is, Paw may have to reevaluate his 'mission', priorities.
don't know. if it gets to "we all think the same way" i'll be so sad.
I dont think it has to go that way if it were possible that people could remain respectful within their differences--but they dont and that imo is where the messes always start
(isnt that Already covered in the rules?).
I would expect that no matter what the rules turn out to be or even they remain the same that the hardest part is going to be enforcement.
Pawtucket's a nice guy, not exactly a Tony Soprano type enforcer and for the most part bends over backwards not to disrupt things around here.
Whatever the rules turn out to be--Enforce them precisely and sharply--a strike is a strike and three strikes and your out.
Thats not unfair at all--dems rules.
IMO It would elevate the quality of the topics, the noise would be weeded out and it would reflect much better on greasespot as a whole
either that or if its going to go the way it has been have a separate fight forum (The Cage Match?)some place protected where two can spit,kick, bite scratch and disembowel each to their hearts content away from the forums
Groucho's "boot the Wierwille apologists" thread annoyed me. And your (Paw) comments towards Rhino annoyed me. Hence, I'm just sayin'.
and what you are insinuating annoys me! Hence I am just saying.........
I doubt if "the rules" will include a guarantee against not being annoyed, nor should or could they. Your protection against getting annoyed is your ABSOLUTE right to not read here, but what fun would THAT be?
I am extremely glad that it appears our host is getting help in all the fascinating arenas that make up his life.
Groucho's "boot the Wierwille apologists" thread annoyed me. And your (Paw) comments towards Rhino annoyed me. Hence, I'm just sayin'.
We're people. People annoy other people on occasion.
Beyond that, your insinuations about the rules changing so that some are NOT welcome is a bit insulting to everyone at GSC. Paw made it quite clear that the rules were being fleshed out and clarified- not changed.
I've been wanting to update the rules for quite some time. To clarify some areas. Honestly, I tried a number of times but couldn't come up with any viable changes.
I realized that I needed to give it to someone else. So what I did was pick 5 people from GS and tried to get varying viewpoints.
They are hard at work and I like the way they are going through the process.
There is no deadline at this point, but I anticipate that the rules will have much more clarity
Also in the next few weeks, we will be adding some new features to the forums, more to follow.
I think you're assuming too much.
Why not wait until they are posted before starting to complain?
Rules. Sadly, it seems they are needed. Some folks don't have the common decency to stay out of a thread (where someone is pouring their heart out), without interjecting snide comments about *Oh -- do you have proof/ dates/ time of day* sort of thing. Who the F*** needs to ask crap like that, except the self righteous, smug So*'s who feel like they have God-On-A-Stick?? Folks like that need moderating.
I'm a BIG fan of freedom, but if there is an element that is eroding that freedom of speech/ telling it like it was,
and derailing threads with the snippy comments I've seen --- put solid rules in place ---
And ban their @$$ for good if the line is crossed.
This is an informational site, yes.
Some parts of this informational site are NOT up for *rebuttal*.
Rules. Sadly, it seems they are needed. Some folks don't have the common decency to stay out of a thread (where someone is pouring their heart out), without interjecting snide comments about *Oh -- do you have proof/ dates/ time of day* sort of thing. Who the F*** needs to ask crap like that, except the self righteous, smug So*'s who feel like they have God-On-A-Stick?? Folks like that need moderating.
Seems to me that is already technically covered in the rules (be courteous, be respectful..etc) and to me those attack posts say much more about continued dysfunction of those posters than those that they attack.
The rules might need a little tweaking (like you said --common decency should be enough but it seems some people are lacking.) I think they are simple now but thorough enough, just need some real enforcement
Those types of attack posts would do well to just be completely deleted immediately no questions asked, no warnings imo before the thread devolves, if they try it gain or argue about it then strike two, if they lose thier minds,respect for the site and other posters and persist all over the forums --then see ya
Three strikes would work for me before a suspension -- occasionally people say things inadvertantly or are having a cranky day. Anyone should be able to get it by the second time around.
Three strikes is being incredibly gracious. I belong to another site that has a waiting list to join (sometimes several years) , a very strict probationary period and then you can get bounced at anytime if you screw up..
One reason that site is so good and in demand is that the moderators are not afraid to come down like a hammer immediately if necessary.
I dont really care what the new rules here are, just enforce them, quickly, swiftly and with no apologies
Rules. Sadly, it seems they are needed. Some folks don't have the common decency to stay out of a thread (where someone is pouring their heart out), without interjecting snide comments about *Oh -- do you have proof/ dates/ time of day* sort of thing. Who the F*** needs to ask crap like that, except the self righteous, smug So*'s who feel like they have God-On-A-Stick?? Folks like that need moderating.
I'm a BIG fan of freedom, but if there is an element that is eroding that freedom of speech/ telling it like it was,
and derailing threads with the snippy comments I've seen --- put solid rules in place ---
And ban their @$$ for good if the line is crossed.
This is an informational site, yes.
Some parts of this informational site are NOT up for *rebuttal*.
Sadly --- some folks don't get that.
First of all David the thread you speak of was about a book promotion. Clearly they were offering a book for sale and a story, as such I don't recall that book reviews were a protected thread if that becomes the case that's fine as well. Second I never said Oh do you have proof? What I said was that when deciding which information to believe in the vast amount here, one usually utilizes certain factors to help in determining what if any information is true, part true or untrue. And in the absence of hard evidence ie: facts, tangible things what one is left with is a story, a personal testimony which in and of itself is not documentable. As such I ,ME Myself will not blindly accept such information as true. In short I don't believe everything someone chooses to say as truth. By the same standard that does not make the information false or a lie either just undocumentable. That leaves the hearer with basically a flip of the coin heads or tails do I accept it or not.
By the way that same method is used toward posters who pour their heart out posting stories of favorable Way experiences. People question them immediately . The truth is if you post here or any other board for that matter ,you should expect that people are going to discuss what you said. If you are that sensitive to discussion one probably should think about providing such information on a discussion board. Perhaps you don't consider such factors in accepting words on the internet but I do. It is a well tried method in life, the law enforcement officers do the same take statements and weigh them against hard evidence , just because someone pours their heart out does not mean that what comes out is truth. Questions, consideration, motives all help in getting to the truth.. There are all sort of things that influence that in life and on the internet not limited to agendas, money, revenge, and time factors, and just some people that like to stir the pot. Also in those situation the police have the ability to view and consider other factors that are not available on the computer such as body language, and influences of drugs or alcohol and mental health The fact that things get corrected here at times speaks to the fact that everything posted is not always correct. Each can feel free to use whatever standards they wish from a coin toss to documentation in deciding what if any information they accept as truth.
PS As far as snippy comments I'll just point out as others have attested to that the snippy comments that started the derail were not posted by me. I've said before it's dishonest to punch someone in the nose and make them out to be the bad guy when they defend themselves.
and mstar definitely food for thought -- it has to be applied to offensive/insulting people -- not to points of view, right ? You know what I mean?
Is it difficult to define "personal attacks"? It shouldn't be I'm thinking.
It shouldnt be hard to define personal attacks at all just watch for them and enforce them in my book. Who needs to 'define' them? We're old, if we cant spot one by now theres not that much hope we ever will no matter how much effort goes into defining it.
Just about Any point of view can be presented if its written in a respectful and civil way.
If someones point of view is based on calling into question someone elses integrity, demeaning other posters(say by saying something meant to be obnoxious like--they carry their God on a stick..) then that is a personal attack --strike one --delete the post. No questions , No BS.
If they bitch about it strike two etc
Let them figure out how to present their POV without being so friggin lazy about it that they have to resort to being 7 year olds.
Enoughs enough
I said in an earlier post that I think it would raise the quality of the posting around here, if people were forced to actually make cogent arguments. Too many posters seem to fall into the low raod as a pattern out of habit. Theres no need for it
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
11
11
11
Popular Days
Aug 2
13
Aug 9
12
Aug 4
8
Jul 29
8
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 14 posts
WhiteDove 11 posts
doojable 11 posts
anotherDan 11 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2008
13 posts
Aug 9 2008
12 posts
Aug 4 2008
8 posts
Jul 29 2008
8 posts
WhiteDove
Good point waysider I would guess that would include discussions on feeding instructions for alleged trolls as well in the meta-discussions.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
But, after the new rules, will you be allowed to post? or will you want to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I would expect that all opinions would be allowed a voice ,one can either agree or disagree with what is posted but I see no indication that one side of the story is all that will be told. As far as wanting to , I'll always want to have a voice it is another of those wonderful rights that we enjoy here in the good ole USA. I'll always speak up to protect those rights that so many have given their lives for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to this line of reasoning, nothing can ever change? If that were the case, women wouldn't have the right to vote, etc. What I was trying to get at is, Paw may have to reevaluate his 'mission', priorities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I dont think it has to go that way if it were possible that people could remain respectful within their differences--but they dont and that imo is where the messes always start
(isnt that Already covered in the rules?).
I would expect that no matter what the rules turn out to be or even they remain the same that the hardest part is going to be enforcement.
Pawtucket's a nice guy, not exactly a Tony Soprano type enforcer and for the most part bends over backwards not to disrupt things around here.
Whatever the rules turn out to be--Enforce them precisely and sharply--a strike is a strike and three strikes and your out.
Thats not unfair at all--dems rules.
IMO It would elevate the quality of the topics, the noise would be weeded out and it would reflect much better on greasespot as a whole
either that or if its going to go the way it has been have a separate fight forum (The Cage Match?)some place protected where two can spit,kick, bite scratch and disembowel each to their hearts content away from the forums
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
You know, Dan, it is a statement like that blows everything out of proportion. Very sad to hear. The rules are basically being clarified, that is all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I'm just sayin'
Groucho's "boot the Wierwille apologists" thread annoyed me. And your (Paw) comments towards Rhino annoyed me. Hence, I'm just sayin'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
that's kind of how i've been feeling
there are things that seem to get blown out of proportion but others seem acceptable depending on your point of view
that's all i'm sayin'
and it is sad
ps. mstar, i did see your post, and thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
and what you are insinuating annoys me! Hence I am just saying.........
I doubt if "the rules" will include a guarantee against not being annoyed, nor should or could they. Your protection against getting annoyed is your ABSOLUTE right to not read here, but what fun would THAT be?
I am extremely glad that it appears our host is getting help in all the fascinating arenas that make up his life.
heart,
HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
We're people. People annoy other people on occasion.
Beyond that, your insinuations about the rules changing so that some are NOT welcome is a bit insulting to everyone at GSC. Paw made it quite clear that the rules were being fleshed out and clarified- not changed.
I think you're assuming too much.
Why not wait until they are posted before starting to complain?
Suppose you're pleasantly surprised?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
so who are those five people ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Maybe you care who they are, but I don't. And really I don't want to know.
peace and heart,
~HAP
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Hap: fair enough
Dooj: yup. You're right
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Dan, just be patient. :) (I hear it's a virtue!)
In the meantime. I'm busy being stumped as to who the authors you post are. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Rules. Sadly, it seems they are needed. Some folks don't have the common decency to stay out of a thread (where someone is pouring their heart out), without interjecting snide comments about *Oh -- do you have proof/ dates/ time of day* sort of thing. Who the F*** needs to ask crap like that, except the self righteous, smug So*'s who feel like they have God-On-A-Stick?? Folks like that need moderating.
I'm a BIG fan of freedom, but if there is an element that is eroding that freedom of speech/ telling it like it was,
and derailing threads with the snippy comments I've seen --- put solid rules in place ---
And ban their @$$ for good if the line is crossed.
This is an informational site, yes.
Some parts of this informational site are NOT up for *rebuttal*.
Sadly --- some folks don't get that.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Seems to me that is already technically covered in the rules (be courteous, be respectful..etc) and to me those attack posts say much more about continued dysfunction of those posters than those that they attack.
The rules might need a little tweaking (like you said --common decency should be enough but it seems some people are lacking.) I think they are simple now but thorough enough, just need some real enforcement
Those types of attack posts would do well to just be completely deleted immediately no questions asked, no warnings imo before the thread devolves, if they try it gain or argue about it then strike two, if they lose thier minds,respect for the site and other posters and persist all over the forums --then see ya
Three strikes would work for me before a suspension -- occasionally people say things inadvertantly or are having a cranky day. Anyone should be able to get it by the second time around.
Three strikes is being incredibly gracious. I belong to another site that has a waiting list to join (sometimes several years) , a very strict probationary period and then you can get bounced at anytime if you screw up..
One reason that site is so good and in demand is that the moderators are not afraid to come down like a hammer immediately if necessary.
I dont really care what the new rules here are, just enforce them, quickly, swiftly and with no apologies
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
First of all David the thread you speak of was about a book promotion. Clearly they were offering a book for sale and a story, as such I don't recall that book reviews were a protected thread if that becomes the case that's fine as well. Second I never said Oh do you have proof? What I said was that when deciding which information to believe in the vast amount here, one usually utilizes certain factors to help in determining what if any information is true, part true or untrue. And in the absence of hard evidence ie: facts, tangible things what one is left with is a story, a personal testimony which in and of itself is not documentable. As such I ,ME Myself will not blindly accept such information as true. In short I don't believe everything someone chooses to say as truth. By the same standard that does not make the information false or a lie either just undocumentable. That leaves the hearer with basically a flip of the coin heads or tails do I accept it or not.
By the way that same method is used toward posters who pour their heart out posting stories of favorable Way experiences. People question them immediately . The truth is if you post here or any other board for that matter ,you should expect that people are going to discuss what you said. If you are that sensitive to discussion one probably should think about providing such information on a discussion board. Perhaps you don't consider such factors in accepting words on the internet but I do. It is a well tried method in life, the law enforcement officers do the same take statements and weigh them against hard evidence , just because someone pours their heart out does not mean that what comes out is truth. Questions, consideration, motives all help in getting to the truth.. There are all sort of things that influence that in life and on the internet not limited to agendas, money, revenge, and time factors, and just some people that like to stir the pot. Also in those situation the police have the ability to view and consider other factors that are not available on the computer such as body language, and influences of drugs or alcohol and mental health The fact that things get corrected here at times speaks to the fact that everything posted is not always correct. Each can feel free to use whatever standards they wish from a coin toss to documentation in deciding what if any information they accept as truth.
PS As far as snippy comments I'll just point out as others have attested to that the snippy comments that started the derail were not posted by me. I've said before it's dishonest to punch someone in the nose and make them out to be the bad guy when they defend themselves.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Doojie, you're a good cook
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Doojie? :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well maybe but apparently from the tone some people missed the first beating.
So for those with God on a Stick a refresher course was in order.
Disclaimer:
No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well i was just being a jerk
and mstar definitely food for thought -- it has to be applied to offensive/insulting people -- not to points of view, right ? You know what I mean?
Is it difficult to define "personal attacks"? It shouldn't be I'm thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
We have a winner! Thats probably the best simple definition so far
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
It shouldnt be hard to define personal attacks at all just watch for them and enforce them in my book. Who needs to 'define' them? We're old, if we cant spot one by now theres not that much hope we ever will no matter how much effort goes into defining it.
Just about Any point of view can be presented if its written in a respectful and civil way.
If someones point of view is based on calling into question someone elses integrity, demeaning other posters(say by saying something meant to be obnoxious like--they carry their God on a stick..) then that is a personal attack --strike one --delete the post. No questions , No BS.
If they bitch about it strike two etc
Let them figure out how to present their POV without being so friggin lazy about it that they have to resort to being 7 year olds.
Enoughs enough
I said in an earlier post that I think it would raise the quality of the posting around here, if people were forced to actually make cogent arguments. Too many posters seem to fall into the low raod as a pattern out of habit. Theres no need for it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.