Freedom of Speech and Fighting

[jimnyc]

Let's see how the community as a whole feels about the status of things. As you all know, feuds have been front and center for awhile. I've done my best to reel them in. There were FAR too many complaints from people about threads being ruined, left and right. I tried the peaceful way, but it just wasn't going to happen. I didn't want to ban people from the board - so I did what I thought would kind of make everyone happy - which is to move the fighting posts to the cage, and thread ban the offending members from the "good thread", in the hopes they would see the light and perhaps ignore one another. Not a single thing was being forbidden or censored from being allowed to be posted here, all we did was kind of force the fights in one direction while keeping the good discussions in another.

Now I'm told this is heavy handed, too much moderating, too much asking people to "tone it down" and my desire for "freedom of speech" was laughed at.

I'll let the community as a whole decide. Do you guys want good discussion and fights all in one? Would you like things somewhat moderated, like I'm doing now, which is moving the feuds to the cage?

This is YOUR community people, and I'm being told I am steering you guys in the wrong direction. Other than those involved in the daily feuds, and you know who you are, I'd like a feel from the community as to what "it" wants and how "it" would like the feuding handled, or just left be?

[ConHog]

Jim you are not bound to provide is freedom of speech on this board bud. Thats the bottom line.

My child understands that freedomnof speech pertains to the government not a message board.

Make your rules and tell anyone who doesnt like it to hit the road

[aboutime]

Bye bye. Thanks for what was a good place to come.

Maybe one day. You'll find out what really took place here.

[hjmick]

Well, Jim, to be honest I'm a less is more kind of guy. Sadly, that doesn't always work out so well. It's that anonymity lends itself to a loss of manners and maturity. Personally, I tend ignore the bullshit pettiness that so often rears it's childish, ugly head on message boards. That being said...

It's your board, brother, moderate it as you see fit and quit worrying so much.


The rest of you, grow the fuck up. If you wouldn't say it to your mother, for fuck's sake don't say it here.


And yes, I use that word in front of my mother.

[Missileman]

Let's see how the community as a whole feels about the status of things. As you all know, feuds have been front and center for awhile. I've done my best to reel them in. There were FAR too many complaints from people about threads being ruined, left and right. I tried the peaceful way, but it just wasn't going to happen. I didn't want to ban people from the board - so I did what I thought would kind of make everyone happy - which is to move the fighting posts to the cage, and thread ban the offending members from the "good thread", in the hopes they would see the light and perhaps ignore one another. Not a single thing was being forbidden or censored from being allowed to be posted here, all we did was kind of force the fights in one direction while keeping the good discussions in another.

Now I'm told this is heavy handed, too much moderating, too much asking people to "tone it down" and my desire for "freedom of speech" was laughed at.

I'll let the community as a whole decide. Do you guys want good discussion and fights all in one? Would you like things somewhat moderated, like I'm doing now, which is moving the feuds to the cage?

This is YOUR community people, and I'm being told I am steering you guys in the wrong direction. Other than those involved in the daily feuds, and you know who you are, I'd like a feel from the community as to what "it" wants and how "it" would like the feuding handled, or just left be?

If someone wants to participate in the debates, I see no reason to not expect them to engage in a little self-moderation. If one feels the need to go off on someone, there are dozens of threads already in existence in the cage where they can go sling more shit.

[jimnyc]

Bye bye. Thanks for what was a good place to come.

Maybe one day. You'll find out what really took place here.

You had the option of taking the upper road. You had the option of utilizing the ignore feature. You had the option of discussing in certain threads, and taking your feud to another location. It would appear that you are choosing to leave because, because you choose not to use these very easy options. Don't blame me. Not a single person has been banned in a long time. The moderation here, when all is said and done, is next to nothing. I can count it ALL in the admin panel if you would like me to? We moved a couple of threads outright. We moved a fair amount of fighting from otherwise good threads. 9 thread bans have been given - and that's ALL users combined since Conhog has returned to the board. How many have you personally been banned from? That's right - 2. Two threads in which you CHOSE to fight, you were removed from the discussion.

So is that what it's all about? The fact that a handful of your posts were moved? That you can't participate in 2 threads? Or is it because you were asked to tone it down, or to stop fighting, an endless amount of times? See, I don't think asking someone to stop fucking up threads as "moderation". In reality, THE FACTS - 9 thread bans in total was the only moderation, outside of ASKING people to take their fights to the appropriate forum - which is really no different than asking someone to post their music in the music forum.

But I suppose it's easier to blame Jim than just ignore the person is problematic to you.

[jimnyc]

Jim you are not bound to provide is freedom of speech on this board bud. Thats the bottom line.

My child understands that freedomnof speech pertains to the government not a message board.

Make your rules and tell anyone who doesnt like it to hit the road

I know what real FOS is, but I've always been a bit fond of claiming we allow more of it here than any other comparable places. I also like to employ just that, allowing as much FOS as humanly possible. But I then get annoyed when someone shoves it back into my face and tells me that it's some sort of farce.

[ConHog]

I know what real FOS is, but I've always been a bit fond of claiming we allow more of it here than any other comparable places. I also like to employ just that, allowing as much FOS as humanly possible. But I then get annoyed when someone shoves it back into my face and tells me that it's some sort of farce.

I was really saying that others think youre obligated to give us free speech. Theyre wrong

[Drummond]

Bye bye. Thanks for what was a good place to come.

Maybe one day. You'll find out what really took place here.

Aboutime, I hope you reconsider. You have a valuable contribution to make on this forum, as you've proved to me on a great many occasions. If you say goodbye ... those who constitute your opposition win out.

Does it deserve to ?

So I hope you'll stick with the forum.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Aboutime, I hope you reconsider. You have a valuable contribution to make on this forum, as you've proved to me on a great many occasions. If you say goodbye ... those who constitute your opposition win out.

Does it deserve to ?

So I hope you'll stick with the forum.

I would like to second that request. Jim does his best and yes often its not appreciated as it should be.
We are all human and tempers flare. Political discourse is not a timid and gentle action and never will be .
Politics and religions are known to be the two leading subjects that will start fights, even wars..
Everybody chill, is my suggestion. No reason for anybody to leave IMHO.-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Aboutime, I hope you reconsider. You have a valuable contribution to make on this forum, as you've proved to me on a great many occasions. If you say goodbye ... those who constitute your opposition win out.

Does it deserve to ?

So I hope you'll stick with the forum.

I'm not convinced it ever needs to be a battle, or that one or the other should win out. Rather than people leaving places they enjoy, and others enjoy having them around (hint hint) - ignoring the other person and being done with it would be much easier. aboutime leaves, or says he is. Most of the time he enjoyed posting here, and has told me as much. I know of many, myself included, who enjoy having him here, and his knowledge he shares with us. But leaving? That's spiting ones self and makes no sense, unless the ultimate goal was to leave anyway. Because if not, just rid the screen of what you don't want to see, and move on amongst those you choose to interact with.

Sometimes feuds are so filled with hatred that there really is no repair possible. At that point, it's either place that person on ignore, or at least keep the "fighting" posts where asked to. Does that sound reasonable? Just like legal discussion, keep it in the legal forum. Want to talk sports, go to the sports section. Want to talk smack, go to the steel cage. But is it too much to ask those that wish to fight, to please think of others when they do so and try and keep the "topic" in the right places? I hope I wrote that correctly, anyway.

I ask you as a new member, and what certainly comes off to me as a man of honor. If this is what the board requests - do you think it's too much of us to ask members to keep the overt fighting in one section?

There's got to be reasoning and some compromise here. Some want the freedom to fight, some want to be able to read threads without them being derailed. We offer a place to fight and a place to have discussions without being derailed by fights. We prefer members do it voluntarily.

[aboutime]

I'm not convinced it ever needs to be a battle, or that one or the other should win out. Rather than people leaving places they enjoy, and others enjoy having them around (hint hint) - ignoring the other person and being done with it would be much easier. aboutime leaves, or says he is. Most of the time he enjoyed posting here, and has told me as much. I know of many, myself included, who enjoy having him here, and his knowledge he shares with us. But leaving? That's spiting ones self and makes no sense, unless the ultimate goal was to leave anyway. Because if not, just rid the screen of what you don't want to see, and move on amongst those you choose to interact with.

Sometimes feuds are so filled with hatred that there really is no repair possible. At that point, it's either place that person on ignore, or at least keep the "fighting" posts where asked to. Does that sound reasonable? Just like legal discussion, keep it in the legal forum. Want to talk sports, go to the sports section. Want to talk smack, go to the steel cage. But is it too much to ask those that wish to fight, to please think of others when they do so and try and keep the "topic" in the right places? I hope I wrote that correctly, anyway.

I ask you as a new member, and what certainly comes off to me as a man of honor. If this is what the board requests - do you think it's too much of us to ask members to keep the overt fighting in one section?

There's got to be reasoning and some compromise here. Some want the freedom to fight, some want to be able to read threads without them being derailed. We offer a place to fight and a place to have discussions without being derailed by fights. We prefer members do it voluntarily.


Jim. I DID EXACTLY AS YOU ASKED. Nothing more needs to be said.

[darin]

This is what I'm seeing:

People bitching that Jim does not protect them from themselves. It's like people blaming GOVERNMENT because the people keep eating Fatening foods. "You should Make a LAW banning fatty foods because WE KEEP EATING IT!"

Look, bitches - you know who you are - you WANT your cake (to do whatever you want) and you want to eat your cake too (Have Jim 'protect you'). But if you eat your cake, you no longer have it. But if you have it, you can no longer eat it.

Grow up - be an adult. Take your bitchy ego-centric attitudes and throw them on the ground. Do not be a part of that system.

[taft2012]

Do you guys want good discussion and fights all in one?

Yeah, personally I like this.

But I'll respect whatever decision you reach. I've been on numerous political forums over the years and I find your moderating style quite acceptable and not an overcompensation for the real-life failures in some other moderators' lives, which would include; living with the disappointment of having a micro-penis, living in mom's basement, and working for minimum wage with a leaf-blower.

[ConHog]

Yeah, personally I like this.

But I'll respect whatever decision you reach. I've been on numerous political forums over the years and I find your moderating style quite acceptable and not an overcompensation for the real-life failures in some other moderators' lives, which would include; living with the disappointment of having a micro-penis, living in mom's basement, and working for minimum wage with a leaf-blower.

I agree. Jim is very good about not letting his micro penis affect his moderating.

:laugh2::laugh2:

[Drummond]

I'm not convinced it ever needs to be a battle, or that one or the other should win out. Rather than people leaving places they enjoy, and others enjoy having them around (hint hint) - ignoring the other person and being done with it would be much easier. aboutime leaves, or says he is. Most of the time he enjoyed posting here, and has told me as much. I know of many, myself included, who enjoy having him here, and his knowledge he shares with us. But leaving? That's spiting ones self and makes no sense, unless the ultimate goal was to leave anyway. Because if not, just rid the screen of what you don't want to see, and move on amongst those you choose to interact with.

Sometimes feuds are so filled with hatred that there really is no repair possible. At that point, it's either place that person on ignore, or at least keep the "fighting" posts where asked to. Does that sound reasonable? Just like legal discussion, keep it in the legal forum. Want to talk sports, go to the sports section. Want to talk smack, go to the steel cage. But is it too much to ask those that wish to fight, to please think of others when they do so and try and keep the "topic" in the right places? I hope I wrote that correctly, anyway.

I ask you as a new member, and what certainly comes off to me as a man of honor. If this is what the board requests - do you think it's too much of us to ask members to keep the overt fighting in one section?

There's got to be reasoning and some compromise here. Some want the freedom to fight, some want to be able to read threads without them being derailed. We offer a place to fight and a place to have discussions without being derailed by fights. We prefer members do it voluntarily.
I agree with much of what you say here ... and by the way, I liked Tyr's 'everybody cool it' post ... good one, Tyr ! :clap:

I've a comments or 2 to offer, though.

There WILL be thread subjects - or conversations taking a certain direction - which reach the point of discussion about a subject so emotive, or so grounded in 'right v wrong', that strong feelings will be nearly unavoidable for those committed to decent standards. Off the top of my head .. I can imagine being involved in debate with someone finding a way of pushing the line that terrorism is meritorious, defendable, deserving of 'success'. Now, Jim, I ask you .. how many contributors here wouldn't expect to 'win' such a debate, and to push until they had ? And, what contention is BOUND to come from such a dialogue ??

Now, if you consign this to the Steel Cage, you're consigning it to an area many will regard as a mere dumping ground for posts not meeting a minimal standard. BUT, would the issue under discussion, REGARDLESS of its pitch, really deserve such a 'dumping' action ?

You might argue that one contributor should 'ignore' the other. Placing on 'ignore' would become obvious over time, though (I've never done it, so I don't know what happens if you do that .. does the 'ignored' one become notified of the fact ?). And this then invites the 'ignored' party to claim that the ignorer was 'running scared', and to claim a form of propagandist victory .. undeservedly so.

I've a compromise solution to offer. Why not create a form of 'interim' classification ? Instead of just dumping to the Steel Cage, or going in for punishment measures such as thread bans ... why not create an 'interim' classification for posts, where legitimate, important debate where a winner could be expected, can go to, BEFORE there's the possibility of 'Steel Cage' banishment ? I propose a 'Winners v Losers' forum ... where such 'gladiatorial contests' can continue. Such threads don't have the 'this argument is going too far and has become a slagging-off fest' tag applied to them ... BUT those contributors seeing threads going there would be aware that Steel Cage action is likely IF things go beyond a certain pitch and will continue to.

What do you think ?

[mundame]

The question for me is, is this forum simply a battleground where everyone hopes to destroy me and my ideas as well as anyone else who differs at all from their wonderful, important Selves?

Well, obviously the answer is yes.

What I'm looking for is a friendlier forum that has civil discussion.

I have said it before and I'll say it again --- I'd like a forum for civil discussion only. It would have to be moderated up one side and down the other, no insults, no exceptions. Thread bannings-R-us.

I don't think the two male moderators could do this, since they both like throwing out insults themselves.

The problem is that people who come to discussion forums have at least two different goals. Some want intellectual, knowledgable discussion as in a salon, to work out what the world is about. Others want a bloody battlefield with corpses strewn about and them triumphantly beating their chests and bellowing to the sky like a gorilla. These are not the same kind of people.

Restrict one forum for polite discussion; have the Middle Way for most forums as Drummond suggests, and then you already have the Steel Cage for fights -- I've seen that called the Parking Lot, also a good name.

The problem is that MOST people here would not be able to handle the Civil Discourse forum at all, not for a minute. That's because there is a Bell Curve and most people are average or below average, after all, and those are the people who can't do civility. They just aren't able. So if you are not prepared or able to provide the kind of moderation that such a forum would require, don't even start it. Better not to do it at all than do it badly.

[darin]

The question for me is, is this forum simply a battleground where everyone hopes to destroy me and my ideas as well as anyone else who differs at all from their wonderful, important Selves?

Well, obviously the answer is yes.

What I'm looking for is a friendlier forum that has civil discussion.

I have said it before and I'll say it again --- I'd like a forum for civil discussion only. It would have to be moderated up one side and down the other, no insults, no exceptions. Thread bannings-R-us.

I don't think the two male moderators could do this, since they both like throwing out insults themselves.

The problem is that people who come to discussion forums have at least two different goals. Some want intellectual, knowledgable discussion as in a salon, to work out what the world is about. Others want a bloody battlefield with corpses strewn about and them triumphantly beating their chests and bellowing to the sky like a gorilla. These are not the same kind of people.

Restrict one forum for polite discussion; have the Middle Way for most forums as Drummond suggests, and then you already have the Steel Cage for fights -- I've seen that called the Parking Lot, also a good name.

The problem is that MOST people here would not be able to handle the Civil Discourse forum at all, not for a minute. That's because there is a Bell Curve and most people are average or below average, after all, and those are the people who can't do civility. They just aren't able. So if you are not prepared or able to provide the kind of moderation that such a forum would require, don't even start it. Better not to do it at all than do it badly.

No - the Problem is YOU cannot really debate anybody about anything. Time and again I try to help you - I gave you a link to check your arguments for logcal fallacy, and yet you continue to use them in an effort to prove your points. You get mad or upset when called-out for your very serious lapses in logic - and you don't do the courtesy of even CONSIDERING the other point of view.

How is it you, with your head in the sand, can bitch about unfair? You choose to be unable to consider ANYONE fair - if they disagree with you. Your comments above, to ME, you're labelling yourself a passive-agressive misandrist, and a shit-stirrer.

[mundame]

No - the Problem is YOU cannot really debate anybody about anything. Time and again I try to help you - I gave you a link to check your arguments for logcal fallacy, and yet you continue to use them in an effort to prove your points. You get mad or upset when called-out for your very serious lapses in logic - and you don't do the courtesy of even CONSIDERING the other point of view.

How is it you, with your head in the sand, can bitch about unfair? You choose to be unable to consider ANYONE fair - if they disagree with you. Your comments above, to ME, you're labelling yourself a passive-agressive misandrist, and a shit-stirrer.


As I said, dmp at least would not be capable of moderating in a civil discourse forum, as is obvious from the above. So consider whether mods here have the capacity for such an insult-free zone. If the mods themselves are addicted to insult, it couldn't work, of course. May as well stick to Fight Club until everyone goes away.

[darin]

As I said, dmp at least would not be capable of moderating in a civil discourse forum, as is obvious from the above. So consider whether mods here have the capacity for such an insult-free zone. If the mods themselves are addicted to insult, it couldn't work, of course. May as well stick to Fight Club until everyone goes away.

There's more of your bullshit - what makes your arguments invalid. You insult and 'swipe' at people, and when it's returned you play the victim.

I am NOT a moderator - I am an administrator, fwiw. Moderators - we don't have any I think? - moderate participation. Administrators run the mechanics of the board. Because Jim is good like that, I generally spend my time Administering Knowledge and perspective among a few people like you who refuse those things due to their blind ideology.

I cannot recall having taken ANY moderation against your dribble - thus you have no basis for your claims other than wild conjecture and speculation. You have no evidence of Fair moderation - and you cannot even lay out what fair would LOOK Like.

Fair is this: Do the best thing for the sake of the board. (note the period)

Again - because your MO is to sit back and hurl passive-agression towards members who absolutely DESTROY your weak arguments, you might feel butt-hurt.

Wanna stop feeling butt-hurt? Apply even a TOKEN of reason to your ideas. Just a modicum of logic will get you a long way towards respect.

[Abbey Marie]

I like the "Parking Lot" name. The concept of saying, "Hey, you two, take it outside". The rest of the people in the bar can continue to have fun. Perfect symbolism.

Moderation is such a tricky thing. We have people who, when asked to cool it, will respond with, "Sure, no problem". Then we have folks who hold a mean grudge forever because you moved a couple of their post to the Cage. Then we have folks who actually leave if they don't get their way 100% of the time. My point being, you can treat 10 people the same way, and you will get 10 different responses to it.

I think Jim has an impossible job trying to keep the board flowing and people mostly happy at the same time. I hope if nothing else, people can see that we are trying to do the right thing by everyone. But as above, no two people see an action as the right thing. Ergo, impossible task.

[jimnyc]

There WILL be thread subjects - or conversations taking a certain direction - which reach the point of discussion about a subject so emotive, or so grounded in 'right v wrong', that strong feelings will be nearly unavoidable for those committed to decent standards. Off the top of my head .. I can imagine being involved in debate with someone finding a way of pushing the line that terrorism is meritorious, defendable, deserving of 'success'. Now, Jim, I ask you .. how many contributors here wouldn't expect to 'win' such a debate, and to push until they had ? And, what contention is BOUND to come from such a dialogue ??

Now, if you consign this to the Steel Cage, you're consigning it to an area many will regard as a mere dumping ground for posts not meeting a minimal standard. BUT, would the issue under discussion, REGARDLESS of its pitch, really deserve such a 'dumping' action ?

Excellent reply, Sir Drummond, but let me address just this one portion...

The scenario put forward wouldn't find posts relegated to the cage area. Your typical 'fighting' back in forth over a heated subject is, and always was allowed. But the fighting I am talking about is a different animal. I'm speaking of where members don't like one another to the point that it infects any and all threads they enter, from terrorism to animals, from music to current events. Ruining thread after thread and making the board a place where no one wants to post.

We don't want to stop people from being themselves, from being grumpy, from speaking their minds and from being passionate. I assure you, one can be that way without having to get into a long drawn out brawl with their "opponent". Look at the posts in the cage area now, read a few threads. Then go to the terrorism section and read a few of the arguments in the 'torture' thread.

[jimnyc]

I hate doing line by line replies, but I think there is a decent chunk of info here and it might be best if I do so in that manner.


The question for me is, is this forum simply a battleground where everyone hopes to destroy me and my ideas as well as anyone else who differs at all from their wonderful, important Selves?

Well, obviously the answer is yes.

"everyone" "destroy me" - You're exaggerating a tad, but I get your point. Fact is, only a handful of members will react as such, and it depends on the topic. I think we have some more hardcore members who are abrasive, and then we have members like yourself who pretty much 'never' want to be a party to the angry political retorts. But the question is, is the FORUM a battleground, as you say? I say no. We have MANY members who don't flame and fight. We have MANY members who don't want to see the endless fighting. And we have some members who want total freedom of speech to speak their minds, so long as it's without threats and such. Like America, we're simply made up of all kinds.


What I'm looking for is a friendlier forum that has civil discussion.

I have said it before and I'll say it again --- I'd like a forum for civil discussion only. It would have to be moderated up one side and down the other, no insults, no exceptions. Thread bannings-R-us.

I'm sorry, and I mean that genuinely, but that won't happen here. I don't like to censor people and a forum in which you describe would take a LOT of work to moderate.


I don't think the two male moderators could do this, since they both like throwing out insults themselves.

Yes, admittedly, I like to be a member like everyone else here! And admittedly, at times I get passionate and/or angry over heated topics. I can be a wise ass! Thing is though, I DO NOT moderate with my feelings over such things, never have. I could very easily moderate a forum which you describe, I just don't think it's a good idea.


The problem is that people who come to discussion forums have at least two different goals. Some want intellectual, knowledgable discussion as in a salon, to work out what the world is about. Others want a bloody battlefield with corpses strewn about and them triumphantly beating their chests and bellowing to the sky like a gorilla. These are not the same kind of people.

I will agree with this. And here's how it works: The intellectuals will have to understand that this is a free speech zone, and that some of the members may get a little testy at times. But the intellectuals can place them on ignore if it gets too much. The gorillas are free to get in the mud and be passionate about their posting, but they CANNOT bloody the battlefield. That is what I'm trying to do now, move that battlefield to the cage. Rough debate may still exist in other threads, but if it's a UFC octagon match, it needs to get moved to the cage so as not to ruin the fun for others.


Restrict one forum for polite discussion; have the Middle Way for most forums as Drummond suggests, and then you already have the Steel Cage for fights -- I've seen that called the Parking Lot, also a good name.

Again, I really do see where you're coming from, but TRUST ME, this would never work. It would work for about 6-8 hours before members started with little indirect hidden jabs and snipes. Then not long after some members will say "who cares, let them thread ban me" and they will just revert to them old selves in such sections. Then we'll need 9 or 10 moderators in order to monitor each and every thread, each and every post. Then of course, you'll have some members complaining that something was "out of line", that another member doesn't think it was.


The problem is that MOST people here would not be able to handle the Civil Discourse forum at all, not for a minute. That's because there is a Bell Curve and most people are average or below average, after all, and those are the people who can't do civility. They just aren't able. So if you are not prepared or able to provide the kind of moderation that such a forum would require, don't even start it. Better not to do it at all than do it badly.

I almost agree with that. In theory you are right, but it's got nothing to do with a curve. I submit, that even those involved in the worst of fighting, are still very intelligent folks. Then we have members like yourself, and Karlmarx and Avatar4321 who never get into the mud (almost), who are also very intelligent.

I think the board is just fine as-is, so long as we can stop the eternal feuds, or at least keep them out of the good threads.

[Robert A Whit]

For Jim to keep working the forum, there must be something in it to benefit him.

So, since HE benefits, does he want ill will on the board or not?

I say he does not want ill will.

So what does he want?

I think he wants a spot to obtain his benefits that keeps as many happy as possible.

If he finds a poster makes life so miserable he will lose most of the posters, he takes action.

Those who are acted against won't be happy.

I have my goals.

Jim has his goals.

My goal is to try to not cause people such anger they want to attack me.

I find that I have but one steady attacker against me.

Do I want her to leave? No way.

Can I be a friend to her? She refuses. But I can easily be friendly in tone to her.

All she need to is set herself up to end her bias. She hangs on to her prejudice as if she was half pitt bull.

I won't put her name down but hope and pray she relents in her bias.

What Jim is trying to do in my opinion is to be fair.

Can't ask for more than that.

[jimnyc]

For Jim to keep working the forum, there must be something in it to benefit him.

So, since HE benefits, does he want ill will on the board or not?

I say he does not want ill will.

So what does he want?

I think he wants a spot to obtain his benefits that keeps as many happy as possible.

If he finds a poster makes life so miserable he will lose most of the posters, he takes action.

Those who are acted against won't be happy.

I have my goals.

Jim has his goals.

My goal is to try to not cause people such anger they want to attack me.

I find that I have but one steady attacker against me.

Do I want her to leave? No way.

Can I be a friend to her? She refuses. But I can easily be friendly in tone to her.

All she need to is set herself up to end her bias. She hangs on to her prejudice as if she was half pitt bull.

I won't put her name down but hope and pray she relents in her bias.

What Jim is trying to do in my opinion is to be fair.

Can't ask for more than that.

The only benefit I would want is to see the board grow and be successful. I want a place where adults can come and debate/discuss whatever they want. Notice I said "adult", which means people can speak freely, but an "adult" would also not push certain issues. Have fun and debate, and then have fun and talk about things on the bottom half. That simple!

[gabosaurus]

As always, I believe this forum should follow the Golden Rule -- Whoever spends the gold to keep this forum running makes the rules.
You don't like it, you go somewhere else.

I have come to believe that internet forums are sort of like religion. A lot of people think they are God. But the true followers know there is only one God.
Who is "God" here? Well let me give you a clue. He begot this forum after a previous forum had gone to Hell. Not sure if this forum arose three days later, but it arose nonetheless.

Like our country, the internet has freedom of religion. Everyone has the right to start their own religion and proclaim themselves as "God." Where you are free to issue your own commandments and excommunicate anyone you wish.

I sort of like this forum myself. Even though I have been excommunicated more than a few times. :p But eventually I was always absolved of my cyber sins and welcomed back into the flock. Where I remain, offering liberal apples to all on a fairly regular basis.

The lesson to take from this is: Say what you want, but don't piss off any of the Holy Ones. They might have to smite thine with their Holy Ban Button.

[jimnyc]

As always, I believe this forum should follow the Golden Rule -- Whoever spends the gold to keep this forum running makes the rules.
You don't like it, you go somewhere else.

I have come to believe that internet forums are sort of like religion. A lot of people think they are God. But the true followers know there is only one God.
Who is "God" here? Well let me give you a clue. He begot this forum after a previous forum had gone to Hell. Not sure if this forum arose three days later, but it arose nonetheless.

Like our country, the internet has freedom of religion. Everyone has the right to start their own religion and proclaim themselves as "God." Where you are free to issue your own commandments and excommunicate anyone you wish.

I sort of like this forum myself. Even though I have been excommunicated more than a few times. :p But eventually I was always absolved of my cyber sins and welcomed back into the flock. Where I remain, offering liberal apples to all on a fairly regular basis.

The lesson to take from this is: Say what you want, but don't piss off any of the Holy Ones. They might have to smite thine with their Holy Ban Button.

Hitting a bong while reading the Bible, perhaps? :420:

While I like your description, I am not the big man. I simply pay the bills and deal with more grief than anyone else, Darin and Abbey a close 2nd. While I do have ban power, no one can deny that it is very, very rarely used.

Now may I see a snapshot of the Heavenly Boobies? :lol:

[gabosaurus]

I sense a snake in the grass here... :p

[mundame]

Okay, Jim, I see that you totally understood me, which feels great, and that you simply don't want to do the civil discourse forum. Given that it would indeed be a lot of work, I can certainly see that. I thought I'd ask, and I did, so that's that.

[jimnyc]

Okay, Jim, I see that you totally understood me, which feels great, and that you simply don't want to do the civil discourse forum. Given that it would indeed be a lot of work, I can certainly see that. I thought I'd ask, and I did, so that's that.

FWIW - at least understand that my attempts to keep the bloody battles in the cage area - is somewhat of an attempt to make the politics a civil discourse area. I don't want to take away members ability to tell another just how they really feel - but at the same time I would hope members would use that privilege responsibly. Sometimes not very nice things are said, it happens. When it becomes an issue, those people need to air it out somewhere else, in the cage or in private, so as not to ruin things for other members.

It's hard, because it's a delicate balance, but one I think needs to be there to make ALL of the community happy.

[gabosaurus]

By their very nature, political discussions are rarely civil discourse. Too many heated passions become involved.
Due primarily to the fact that Republicans are stupid doodyheads. :slap:

[Abbey Marie]

By their very nature, political discussions are rarely civil discourse. Too many heated passions become involved.
Due primarily to the fact that Republicans are stupid doodyheads. :slap:

See why I love this girl? :laugh:

[aboutime]

By their very nature, political discussions are rarely civil discourse. Too many heated passions become involved.
Due primarily to the fact that Republicans are stupid doodyheads. :slap:



​Right you are Gabby. And the Republicans are very thankful to Liberal, Democrats for teaching them how to be such stupid doodyheads. And you think we never give you any credit?????

[jimnyc]

See why I love this girl? :laugh:

Because you enjoy talking to someone who's missing a few marbles? :dunno:

[Kathianne]

See why I love this girl? :laugh:

I love her too, though there are times, like the above that I'd love to throttle her! :slap:--> me-Gabby!