Who Are You Voting For (II)?
- Thread starter HansK
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
... said natob2, in a confrontational manner...
Seriously, we do moderate the board (but rarely intervene, just encourage people to "behave"), we like to avoid confrontation on the board, and so far, from most users reports, this is one of their favorite boards to visit and one of the best-run and most valuable.
We don't intend to change the formula any time soon!
... said natob2, in a confrontational manner...
Seriously, we do moderate the board (but rarely intervene, just encourage people to "behave"), we like to avoid confrontation on the board, and so far, from most users reports, this is one of their favorite boards to visit and one of the best-run and most valuable.
We don't intend to change the formula any time soon!
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
I vote to MODERATE "natob2" exclusively.
I vote to MODERATE "natob2" exclusively.
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
It is a good board. Agreed. I have used it for a long time as a guest and find it a useful resource.
It just says "Yap about what ever you want" in the Cafe description. Furthermore, the Cafe falls under the category "OFF TOPIC".
There was no foul language, racist remarks, or any character attacks whatsoever in the previous voting thread. Those I believe are grounds for moderator intervention. I think when threads are shut down it feels like censorship, or probably more accurately, an individual's power trip.
I think if topics like these are blocked in the Cafe then the moderators should rewrite the Cafe's description. Yes, politics may seem totally off topic on a camera site, but this is not just a message board, it's a community, right? A community should feel free to discuss whatever in a forum labeled "Yack about whatever you want".
I applaud a message board that offers what the Cafe's description decribes. I think the moderators should decide to be true to the Cafe's label or change it...and only "moderate" it when the discussion becomes truly abusive or offensive.
It is a good board. Agreed. I have used it for a long time as a guest and find it a useful resource.
It just says "Yap about what ever you want" in the Cafe description. Furthermore, the Cafe falls under the category "OFF TOPIC".
There was no foul language, racist remarks, or any character attacks whatsoever in the previous voting thread. Those I believe are grounds for moderator intervention. I think when threads are shut down it feels like censorship, or probably more accurately, an individual's power trip.
I think if topics like these are blocked in the Cafe then the moderators should rewrite the Cafe's description. Yes, politics may seem totally off topic on a camera site, but this is not just a message board, it's a community, right? A community should feel free to discuss whatever in a forum labeled "Yack about whatever you want".
I applaud a message board that offers what the Cafe's description decribes. I think the moderators should decide to be true to the Cafe's label or change it...and only "moderate" it when the discussion becomes truly abusive or offensive.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
Well, when you reach 20 Posts we'll think about that.
This site allows some mad freedom of speech but at times we have to 'do our jobs' and Moderate. There have been some insanely wild discussions in the past. What led to the last post being closed I do not know as I never had a chance to jump in a join the 'fisticuffs' and do I love a debate. I do know that the orginal started of the thread requested it be closed and the wish was granted.
If you think this site is to 'restrictive' in nature perhaps rottentomatoes or imdb is a better place to be; oh wait, they have no moderation whatsoever.
Anyway, we'll wait patiently for 20.
Well, when you reach 20 Posts we'll think about that.
This site allows some mad freedom of speech but at times we have to 'do our jobs' and Moderate. There have been some insanely wild discussions in the past. What led to the last post being closed I do not know as I never had a chance to jump in a join the 'fisticuffs' and do I love a debate. I do know that the orginal started of the thread requested it be closed and the wish was granted.
If you think this site is to 'restrictive' in nature perhaps rottentomatoes or imdb is a better place to be; oh wait, they have no moderation whatsoever.
Anyway, we'll wait patiently for 20.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
Some good points there. However, the pattern I have seen is what starts in one thread and turns ugly more often than not finds its way into another thread. ONe second there is a fight in the Cafe and then it spills into the Audio section cause these (2) yahoos run into each other and someone usally cant let it go.
We cant just have a free-for-all. We cant just have people calling each other names; this isnt a daycare but its also not a bar.
I am all for having political discussions (or anything considered lively) but I tell you what, if someone cant conduct themselves in an adult manner then get the flock out of here. If we were sitting in a bar and having the same discussion and someone called another dude out by a name call or any belittlement or disrespect they'd have to answer to that. Problem with the internet is people dont have to answer to it. Its like flipping someone off while driving by at 50 miles per hour "Oooohhhhh. Big man."
We have to have some decorum.
Some good points there. However, the pattern I have seen is what starts in one thread and turns ugly more often than not finds its way into another thread. ONe second there is a fight in the Cafe and then it spills into the Audio section cause these (2) yahoos run into each other and someone usally cant let it go.
We cant just have a free-for-all. We cant just have people calling each other names; this isnt a daycare but its also not a bar.
I am all for having political discussions (or anything considered lively) but I tell you what, if someone cant conduct themselves in an adult manner then get the flock out of here. If we were sitting in a bar and having the same discussion and someone called another dude out by a name call or any belittlement or disrespect they'd have to answer to that. Problem with the internet is people dont have to answer to it. Its like flipping someone off while driving by at 50 miles per hour "Oooohhhhh. Big man."
We have to have some decorum.
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
It's really difficult for people to talk politics and not have it turn personal. You're not going to change peoples political affiliations with a few posts. If you want to see what it leads to check out the cafe at 2-pop. Ninety percent of the posts flowing there are political. It's not a bad thing, but the posts over there seem to quickly skirt over the line and become personal.
It's really difficult for people to talk politics and not have it turn personal. You're not going to change peoples political affiliations with a few posts. If you want to see what it leads to check out the cafe at 2-pop. Ninety percent of the posts flowing there are political. It's not a bad thing, but the posts over there seem to quickly skirt over the line and become personal.
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
Oh yeah, and Barbie skirted her service over thirty years ago. She was 4FFF. Her chest was too big for service. Sorry. Bad joke.
Oh yeah, and Barbie skirted her service over thirty years ago. She was 4FFF. Her chest was too big for service. Sorry. Bad joke.
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
Natob2
I think John's point is that, at fewer than 20 posts, you haven't been on the board long enough to have the same perspective as some of us that have been around for awhile. We've tried things both ways--virtually unmoderated and using some judicious moderation--and the vast majority of forum members prefer the board with some moderation. You're right about the Cafe subheading though, it should be changed because Jarred's intent is that it be used for film-related discussions and allow for some shooting the breeze stuff. I feel the exact same way as Barry G and John. We don't have anything against political discussion as such, but we had problems with it spilling into other forums, and creating general bad feeling on the board. And this was to the extent that some valuable longtime contributors were getting ready to throw in the towel and leave the board. So political discussions are no longer welcome. As John mentioned, in this case, the the thread originator requested that the thread be locked, so we were actually being pretty tolerant and letting it run until Dan's request.
Natob2
I think John's point is that, at fewer than 20 posts, you haven't been on the board long enough to have the same perspective as some of us that have been around for awhile. We've tried things both ways--virtually unmoderated and using some judicious moderation--and the vast majority of forum members prefer the board with some moderation. You're right about the Cafe subheading though, it should be changed because Jarred's intent is that it be used for film-related discussions and allow for some shooting the breeze stuff. I feel the exact same way as Barry G and John. We don't have anything against political discussion as such, but we had problems with it spilling into other forums, and creating general bad feeling on the board. And this was to the extent that some valuable longtime contributors were getting ready to throw in the towel and leave the board. So political discussions are no longer welcome. As John mentioned, in this case, the the thread originator requested that the thread be locked, so we were actually being pretty tolerant and letting it run until Dan's request.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
natob2
Yeah, I was joking. Sort of. Thats what the smiley face was for
And Barry S pretty much nailed the discussion on his take.
natob2
Yeah, I was joking. Sort of. Thats what the smiley face was for
And Barry S pretty much nailed the discussion on his take.
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
[quote author=HansK link=board=Offtopic;num=1094805987;start=0#0 date=09/10/04 at 01:46:27]
Oh, and I threw in a woman as a candidate just to balance things out. And yes, there are actual military versions of barbie.[/quote]
There are a number of women on the GI Joe team . . .
[quote author=HansK link=board=Offtopic;num=1094805987;start=0#0 date=09/10/04 at 01:46:27]
Oh, and I threw in a woman as a candidate just to balance things out. And yes, there are actual military versions of barbie.[/quote]
There are a number of women on the GI Joe team . . .
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
And Scarlett. And a few more, as I recall.
And Scarlett. And a few more, as I recall.
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
Why do you guys think the first reply from me on the first "Who are you voting for?" thread was a sarcastic, non-constructive remark? Because political issues cannot be discussed on the internet, period. Talk about politics all you want, you'll just become torn apart in separate groups without resolving anything. It's inevitable. Lets talk about something else... like cameras!!!
T-1000
Why do you guys think the first reply from me on the first "Who are you voting for?" thread was a sarcastic, non-constructive remark? Because political issues cannot be discussed on the internet, period. Talk about politics all you want, you'll just become torn apart in separate groups without resolving anything. It's inevitable. Lets talk about something else... like cameras!!!
T-1000
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Who Are You Voting For (II)?
I know what you mean. Once people realize that I should just be King there wont be any problems.
I know what you mean. Once people realize that I should just be King there wont be any problems.