| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2005 12:49:54 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by mk:
I agree. And I don't think the SC should be held to any sort of standards in Rant either. I have some things to say. |
I agree, but only if the rant was UNmoderated. As long as it has a moderator, that mod should not be able to jump in and tell one user or another why they are wrong. It's bad for business.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:50:47 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The rant forum should be unmoderated. |
I agree, why call it the rant forum if you can't truly rant. |
You still can't violate the site TOS. That's really about all I try and limit people to ... |
bingo x 2
James |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:52:17 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
you can rant all you want on a site YOU own. |
Ezboard got wiped out awhile ago but we used to do "rant" here:
//p068.ezboard.com/bmakesmewonder
Frisca and I moderate(d) and 'own' that forum. Go to town folks. Do not insult each other personally and I don't care. If you call so and so a thus and such, I will not bother "moderating" - I will simply ban you. ;) But feel free to discuss ideas and call each other's ideas thus and such all day.
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 01:16:51.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:55:01 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Go to town folks. Do not insult each other personally and I don't care. If you call so and so a thus and such, I will not bother "moderating" - I will simply ban you. ;) But feel free to discuss ideas and call each other's ideas thus and such all day. |
so how does that differ from the rant forum here? i'm sorry, but i fail to see what the fuss is about. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:14:35 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I didn't lock the thread, but rather pointed out that someone had made a remark which traditionally signals the end of the discussion, giving them the opportunity to revise/retract their remarks or attempt to justfy them. |
I think it's funny, because that argument is very popular in the liberal view. But the truth of the matter is the NAZI's happened. They're not the only time such thought has happened.
I have long disagreed with the logic on the NAZI rule, because, I have long disagreed with the argument that "slippery slope" is a fallacy. In life, I have seen the slippery slope more often than not become the reality.
The fact of the matter is, that most liberal debaters want to avoid the NAZI socialist party and ignore/dismiss the fact that their philosophies lead down that road.
Were they the extreme....yes, but as tends to be the historicaly record...mankind falls to the extreme. Roe vs. Wade "will never become abortion on demand" *cough cough*
News article on new gene found in men that leads to increased IQ. (Genetic/evolutionary advancement). But if find it funny that liberals will argue so strongly for evolution and deny the potential pitfalls of the issue for mere political correctness.
The NAZI rule, is merely a means for someone to dismiss a logic argument so that they don't have to put a logical defense together.
And in honestly, I think your actions GeneralE, were as equally if not more so at risk of running afoul of the TOS. Now mind you, i'm not bothered by it. We're in a lively debate of very differing opinions. With both sides essentially viewing the other's as hypocrites.
But yeah, I do take offense when you come and post "Puh-lease don't make me have to lock this thread."
I think that was an over-step, especially as heated as you were in prior reactions. *shrug*
Buy hey, we're only human.
IMHO, I think SC should be able to fully participate, but if a SC becomes deeply involved and heated in the discussion. I do not think they should bring about the close of a thread. (Perhaps if 2 or 3 SC review it and believe it's gotten out of line. Then close it.) But if you're a SC and deeply involved in a RANT DEBATE. I think you should be able to address "toning it down" if personal attacks, or such are being made.
But if it is just heated argument and debate. Then no I don't think such is grounds for closing a rant thread. In fact, I am impressed that for as heated as the Tookie thread is. We've done a better than average (for a Rant thread that is) job of keeping it impersonal. And toward the arguments and not toward individuals. Few gray periods. My retort to Godwin's law probably being one - but i take great issue with the application of Godwin's Law as a dismissal of issue.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:16:19 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
so how does that differ from the rant forum here? i'm sorry, but i fail to see what the fuss is about. |
Pretty soon we are going to have talked about it all, I suppose. And then there will be nothing to post about.
1) Don't post that cool new link you got cuz someone posted it first and mk will kill you.
2) Don't ever under any circumstances post in the website suggestions forum - we don't really want suggestions - we just want to have one of those cute little 'idea boxes' so people think we listen.
3) As long as everything goes exactly the way it went yesterday, this site will last forever.
How does it differ?
TOS says you will not post "generally offensive or in bad taste" and the language is a lot more lax. It's quite different to be able to express yourself using whatever colorful adjectives you can muster. :)
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:16:21 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
you can rant all you want on a site YOU own. |
Ummm, woah. Maybe this thread should itself be moved to the rant forum? ;-)
If I personally owned a site such as DPC with a rant forum, I would make it opt-outable (as it is here), and allow all SC to participate, but only as an "equal". That is, using a separate login without the mighty Individualized Multi-Colored User Icon of Power. A level battlefield, as it were. Where everybody is an equal, everybody has the same say as everybody else, and no moderation. I would further add the ability for users to opt-out of individual threads in the rant forum if they (the threads) start to head in a direction that they're uncomfortable with.
Nordlys |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:16:47 AM · #33 |
While this is a valid complaint Daniel, it would have some interesting consequences if put into force.
What if, for example, we were to take it so far as to say SC may not participate in challenges, since after all they are the ones "policing" them or rather enforcing the challenge rules. One may argue that if a SC member's entry was up for review on possible grounds for DQ, the voting of the remaining SC members wouldn't be entirely impartial. Again, I'm not saying that is MY view but certainly it's a valid view that some may hold.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:18:10 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
General: your posting merits a response but this is not the place. Perhaps it would best if a list of the taboo triggers were identified so that a person unwinding an argument will know which ideas are not allowed. Ideas to me are ideas and however you formulate yours and express them I can certainly deal with them and return a proper response. I do not freak out with controversial nonsense and there is much nonsense expressed in the echange of ideas. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First: I am just a member whose voice is only a cry in the dark. I have no authority to order. I am simply making an observation.
I have respect for all s/c members and many I know are heavyweights in intellectual prowes and I would like to converse with them.
However, once you become a S/C you are vested with a certain authority and this authority even intimidates resposes. Can you not see this. The Rant Forum is where ideas are debated and such encounters produces sore losers. This has many implications.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:24:30 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
And in honestly, I think your actions GeneralE, were as equally if not more so at risk of running afoul of the TOS. |
How? I didn't insult anyone, or compare their opinions to you-kno-who's ...
Originally posted by theSaj:
But yeah, I do take offense when you come and post "Puh-lease don't make me have to lock this thread." |
Why? I'm not allowed to be offended by what people write, or warn them if I feel they may -- IMO -- be near to a TOS violation? |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:27:27 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
While this is a valid complaint Daniel, it would have some interesting consequences if put into force.
What if, for example, we were to take it so far as to say SC may not participate in challenges, since after all they are the ones "policing" them or rather enforcing the challenge rules. One may argue that if a SC member's entry was up for review on possible grounds for DQ, the voting of the remaining SC members wouldn't be entirely impartial. Again, I'm not saying that is MY view but certainly it's a valid view that some may hold.
Thoughts? |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see your sentiment here, however, challenges are equal ground because of the anonymity factor. In the forum you may be forced to bite your tongue for fear that your next thoughts may trigger a sore spot. P.S. you have a great port for a young man.
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 01:30:52. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:28:57 AM · #37 |
| Next time I'll say "Please don't make me go get someone to lock this thread" -- OK? Or I'll just report the post ... I really was just trying to keep that thread open, and to prevent its diversion into unrelated topics or a degeneration into name-calling. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:30:47 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
While this is a valid complaint Daniel, it would have some interesting consequences if put into force.
What if, for example, we were to take it so far as to say SC may not participate in challenges, since after all they are the ones "policing" them or rather enforcing the challenge rules. One may argue that if a SC member's entry was up for review on possible grounds for DQ, the voting of the remaining SC members wouldn't be entirely impartial. Again, I'm not saying that is MY view but certainly it's a valid view that some may hold.
Thoughts? |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see your sentiment here, however, challenges are equal ground because of the anonymity factor. In the forum you may be forced to bite your tongue for fear that your next thoughts may trigger a sore spot. |
I'm referring specifically to if a SC's photo was up for validation.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:31:11 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
The thread was started to discuss the propriety and efficacy of capital punishment in a supposedly enlightened society. Mr. Hitler's views on eugenics or the search for truth have little bearing on the topic, but seem to me to serve purely an inflammatory purpose. |
That is an opinion, in fact, to many the aspect of history, particular as it occurred during the 1930/1940 era are of particular relevancy to the topic at hand. It really comes down to whether you want to dismiss history or address history.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
traditionally signals the end of the discussion |
Perhaps to some, but I find that the only reason it signals the end of discussion is cause someone decides to lock the thread. For whatever reason, someone decided that the discussion of certain historical examples is an invalid argument. It is my humble opinion, that this arose merely because the evidence often is over-whelmingly damning to a particular group of a particular philosophical persuasion. However the fact is one can draw conclusions from obersvations of that historical period. And many others.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
To inform someone that they are at risk of running afoul of the site TOS doesn't seem like "lording it over" anyone but rather offering helpful advice to avoid a big stink and creating an unnecessary diversion. |
It can seem a bit ambiguous after said individual has made heated posts which include such comments as: "WTF: .... Goddam that makes me sick."
Not that I fault you GeneralE for said comments, it's a heated and passionate discussion. There are times we'll be borderline and over-reactive.
It's just the combination seemed suspect.
Lastly, and most importantly...
GeneralE, you are a SC member, and I believe ALL members of the site should respect and show respect for that position. So it is my hope that although there may be some ruffled feathers that respect will be maintained.
I am in no way offended or really even bothered. In fact, although I am perhaps one of the most heated and energized posters on the RANT threads. I really seperate arguments from the individuals. And as soon as I am in the "Photo" threads. All gloves are off. Me and Legalbeagle go at it like dog & cat. (Him dog, me Cat). ;)
And sometimes we ruffle each others feathers I suppose. But even as much as we go at it, once outside of those threads. I've got nothing against the guy. Hey, I even give him credit for being quite the passioned zealot (and I mean that in a good way). I'd much rather have a 100 Legalbeagles *shudders* arguing against me (did I just say that) then a bunch of apathetic people don't even give a darn one way or the other.
It is my hope that when all the feathers are done being ruffled...that we'll all flock together in our common love of photograpy. It is my hope that in the midst of our differences we will embrace our commonality in order to achieve communion and coming together.
- Saj |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:35:48 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
While this is a valid complaint Daniel, it would have some interesting consequences if put into force.
What if, for example, we were to take it so far as to say SC may not participate in challenges, since after all they are the ones "policing" them or rather enforcing the challenge rules. One may argue that if a SC member's entry was up for review on possible grounds for DQ, the voting of the remaining SC members wouldn't be entirely impartial. Again, I'm not saying that is MY view but certainly it's a valid view that some may hold.
Thoughts? |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see your sentiment here, however, challenges are equal ground because of the anonymity factor. In the forum you may be forced to bite your tongue for fear that your next thoughts may trigger a sore spot. |
I'm referring specifically to if a SC's photo was up for validation. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Never. I have full confidence that S/C will do the right thing because other s/c members will have to join and believe me, I see the S/C as very upright otherwise they would not last.
Please do not get the feeling that I hate the S/C. I hold them all in high esteem. These are ideas being discussed. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:36:57 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
It is my hope that when all the feathers are done being ruffled...that we'll all flock together in our common love of photograpy. It is my hope that in the midst of our differences we will embrace our commonality in order to achieve communion and coming together.
- Saj |
Sounds like a good plan. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:40:48 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Go to town folks. Do not insult each other personally and I don't care. If you call so and so a thus and such, I will not bother "moderating" - I will simply ban you. ;) But feel free to discuss ideas and call each other's ideas thus and such all day. |
so how does that differ from the rant forum here? i'm sorry, but i fail to see what the fuss is about. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the S/C interfered as stated above this thread would be non-existent. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:42:51 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
While this is a valid complaint Daniel, it would have some interesting consequences if put into force.
What if, for example, we were to take it so far as to say SC may not participate in challenges, since after all they are the ones "policing" them or rather enforcing the challenge rules. One may argue that if a SC member's entry was up for review on possible grounds for DQ, the voting of the remaining SC members wouldn't be entirely impartial. Again, I'm not saying that is MY view but certainly it's a valid view that some may hold.
Thoughts? |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see your sentiment here, however, challenges are equal ground because of the anonymity factor. In the forum you may be forced to bite your tongue for fear that your next thoughts may trigger a sore spot. |
I'm referring specifically to if a SC's photo was up for validation. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Never. I have full confidence that S/C will do the right thing because other s/c members will have to join and believe me, I see the S/C as very upright otherwise they would not last.
Please do not get the feeling that I hate the S/C. I hold them all in high esteem. These are ideas being discussed. |
I don't have the feeling that you hate the SC at all, I was simply presenting a possible flaw in the philosophy of SC not being able to participate in that which they "police." I'm just discussing your idea, to put it in your words.
I'm not trying to "ruffle any feathers," just merely trying to contribute to a healthy discussion.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:50:33 AM · #44 |
| The SC are volunteers. Yes they are hand chosen, but they are still volunteers. They are not paid lackies of D/L. They have their own opinions and belief structures. They are simply members who have chosen to go above and beyond to maintain the high standards of this site. If they were paid by D/L to police the site I would consider this to be an issue. However as things stand I do not understand why we are even discussing this issue. This comes from a member who does not wish to view the rant section. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:53:50 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
"WTF: .... Goddam that makes me sick." |
I receive the above in response to my statement of essentially "I am glad the innoncents were set free but I had some questionable doubt as to if all 164 were in deed innoncent who were released."
But I shrugged it off as heated debate and the liveliness that ensues from such.
However,I was bothered by the statement (don't want to use the word threat but can't think of a milder term at the moment) to close the thread. Why? Because an argument posed or how it was made rubbed you the wrong way. Well, if that was the case...then let's close the RANT forums. We can't handle them.
But I think you'd expressed strong reaction (which I think you have every right to do regardless of being or not being a SC member) but then to suggest that you might bring it to a close, made some of the users feel like there was a dichotomy. We will have to accept your response whether it rubs the wrong way or not. But if our response rubs the wrong way - down with the thread.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
degeneration into name-calling. |
The thread had run for a while and quite heated at that, but with very little name calling. I actually thought it was going pretty well in that regard.
I think, a much better approach in the future would simply be to say. "Hey all, this is a very heated topic. Passions are hot on both sides. We've all been very zealous in our views (myself included), and that's fine. Let's just be mindful of being civil to one another, and respectful in our responses to each other.
( I think such a post, a periodic reminder when things are hot is probably enough in most cases to tone it done, bring it to mind, etc. If it continues to heat up and get rude and degrade to name calling then yeah....end it. But it was like being hit with the nuclear option, and those who were on the disagreeing side as the SC member felt a little at odds.)
(((((((((((((((((((((((((HUGS AROUND......SAY CHEESE!!! [Please, no DNMC comments thank you.]))))))))))))))))))))) |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:56:14 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
While this is a valid complaint Daniel, it would have some interesting consequences if put into force.
What if, for example, we were to take it so far as to say SC may not participate in challenges, since after all they are the ones "policing" them or rather enforcing the challenge rules. One may argue that if a SC member's entry was up for review on possible grounds for DQ, the voting of the remaining SC members wouldn't be entirely impartial. Again, I'm not saying that is MY view but certainly it's a valid view that some may hold.
Thoughts? |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see your sentiment here, however, challenges are equal ground because of the anonymity factor. In the forum you may be forced to bite your tongue for fear that your next thoughts may trigger a sore spot. |
I'm referring specifically to if a SC's photo was up for validation. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Never. I have full confidence that S/C will do the right thing because other s/c members will have to join and believe me, I see the S/C as very upright otherwise they would not last.
Please do not get the feeling that I hate the S/C. I hold them all in high esteem. These are ideas being discussed. |
I don't have the feeling that you hate the SC at all, I was simply presenting a possible flaw in the philosophy of SC not being able to participate in that which they "police." I'm just discussing your idea, to put it in your words.
I'm not trying to "ruffle any feathers," just merely trying to contribute to a healthy discussion. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My full apologies. I made that statement in the event that a reader may misconstrue my meaning and think that I am expressing a grudge.
To me, a Rant Forum dealing with topics of Religion, Ethics and Religion create such sharp divisions where the contestants reveal more than they want of themselves. It reveals one's personal philosophy and belief system as well as their educational and ethical principles. It is a place that is hard to leave unscathed. Many have seen and have been victims of S/C cencorship not because it breaks TOS, but rather because it offends them. They then figure that if it offends them it must offend others who share the same philosophy.
Like I said, there is nothing anything can say that will offend me. I will simply with their lofty or trashy idea in the proper manner, but never rude and hardly ever with emotional steam. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:56:56 AM · #47 |
To Saj... This is one of the problems of typed communication. I look at what GE said and see sarcasm. I don't see it as a threat. I read it and see him rolling his eyes. You can not convey this through non verbal communication.
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 01:58:06. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:59:07 AM · #48 |
| There we have,....we need EMOTICONS, as currently we seem to be suffering from text DECEPTICONS and not to mention those typos cause by those AUTOBOT self-correct word processor programs. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 02:03:52 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Like I said, there is nothing anything can say that will offend me. |
That sounds like some sort of challenge. ;-P <<-- **sticking tongue out and winking while chuckling villainously** |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 02:05:24 AM · #50 |
| Believe me. Rant Forums are superior on typed format. One does not base an immediate response from a sentence. If you rant and you allow your emotions to rule you lose. If you make stupid statements, you lose. They are not for the short tempered or for the sloppy thinker. |
|
