Orson

In thread http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=110198 I think that Javajive was treated a little harshly by the mod. Whilst a disagreed with his opinion, I felt it was just that - an opinion. I personally didn't see a personal attack here. The discussion may have been passionate, but all the most interesting discussions are. I get the suspicious (and disturbing) feeling that anyone expressing a non-PC opinion vs a liberal/PC opinion is far more likely to get Banned/Suspended.

That would be a sad state of affairs.

FREEJG

I agree to the point that the suspension seems a little harsh. I had to re-read the post trying to see where he crossed the line. I didn't see it. I guess this is just one of those incidents where a mod's point of view differed from the point of view of some members of the forum. I'm pretty sure this won't be the last time it happens.

Orson

I was also disappointed that the thread was closed.
There was a lot of mileage left in the debate.
After all, the 'offending' poster was suspended. So what was the point of closing a healthy and active thread?

sfsdfd

I actually had a response to <b>LurkerWilson</b> (of whom my impression is far above the level of "troll") ready and tried to post it, but <b>Bushdog</b> slammed down the iron gate of <b>locked</b> on us.

<b>Javajive</b> obviously hadn't even read anything but my last post, since he thought I was talking about welfare. After I pointed that out to him (and didn't respond further) he categorized my response as ludicrous and ridiculous. Needless to say, I wasn't going to respond again - I've little taste for troll bait, especially for one who won't even read what I've written.

That said - the suspension surprised me, too. Sure, he didn't belong in the thread if he was just lashing out against an opposing opinion without even reading anything. But suspension? I thought at most a mod would step in and say, "OK let's leave the flamethrowers at home kiddies," but I guess Glenn Kleinman's "zero tolerance" policy kicked in.

I did a search for his username and scanned through about eight of his most recent replies. They seemed all well within bounds. So unless I'm not reading the right threads (always a possibility since I'm not here much these days), this doesn't seem like a "straw that broke the camel's back" sorta deal, either.

- David Stein

Orson

Seems to me, someone's got an itchy trigger finger, now they've inherited the *-power.

(Orson ducks, fearful he may be next to feel the wrath of a supermod.)

Gallant Pig

Bushdog's no-nonsense treatment of the Other Forum is a fresh and welcome breeze. He's the Rudy Gullioni of DVDTalk. (I mean that in a good way, btw)

Unnecessary and unwarrented? Hardly.

Gallant Pig

Geoff and Company wouldn't allow someone to rant on about their <i>opinion</i> that minorities are inferior... So just because something is an opinion, doesn't make it valid.

foxdvd

I read it and I am still scratching my head?

Original Desmond

Put me down for another who thinks a warning was more in order than a suspension

Original Desmond

there is something called Free Speech, yes i know dvdtalk operates under Geoffspeech.

just because someone doesn't think a certain way doesn't make their opinion invalid! that opinion may be not politically correct, it may even disgust you and me but it is still a valid opinion even if we all do disagree with it.

IT's how you put your opinion accross without attacking others which is the key.

Opinions shouldn't get you suspended or banned. personal attacks and trolling should

I think this thread was a bit of a borderline case.

you know there was so much whinging about wanting more serious threads. Well the fact is that serious threads bring out stronger more emotional feelings and increase the chances of differing opinions and some 'flame like' activity. If the mods are gonna crack down like a fly on sh*t on things like this, then what's the point in having good solid maybe somewhat controversial serious threads ?

I started a thread on Suicide a while back. Upset a few people so i've decided to stay away from more serious topics. Serious topics have the potential to upset some people and i'm not here to upset anyone, i'm here to have fun !

RandyC

Des, good points.

Just one comment. Your suicide thread was not a bad thread. It was in fact a good point of discussion. Those that complained, were referring to the wording of the title.

Orson, I don't share your suspicions, but I do have my own perception of what happened here and will take it to private mail with Bushdog as perhaps I don't have all the facts, or I might have missed something.

Randyc

Bushdog

Thanks for your feedback guys. Your all entitled to your opinions. I generally prefer to keep these things private between the invovled parties. In any event, it looks like I'll explain my position.

Javajive wrote
That was it. How is that not a personal attack? His posts were increasingly heated and hostile towards another member, not just the subject matter. Was I quick to suspend? Damned right. Any time a person is attacked, I am going to throw down administrative action. Attack the ideas all you want, but leave the name calling out of it. I just will not tolerate it.

Apologies to Javajive in advance for having to drag this into 'public' but apparently that is how things work.

Hardly. With the possible exception of Heather, I am the most liberal mod we have here and I am a libertarian. We're fair to everyone's opinions. As for the content of what was written, I have no opinion. I didn't read that thread. Nothing against our verbose friends, but that was just a bit too much to be bothered with on a topic that frankly doesn't intreest me one way or another.

I'm going to chat with Randy about this, as it seems he is interested in discussing this further.

Bushdog

Really, an ithcy trigger finger? Shall we outline all of my bannings and suspensions that you deemed too harsh?

Oh, and to take the edge off of my post --

Bushdog

I agree he is no troll, and I am also sure you had a response, I know you well enough. I closed it because it was getting out of hand. I learned the hard way in the past (the Soup Nazi suspension comes ot mind) that leaving a thread open too long can lead to things being said that people will regret.

sfsdfd

The thread lock was timely and justified, imho - the conversation was headed southward (and, admittedly, my reply was pretty sarcastic and wouldn't have helped bring things back to center. ) A warning probably would also have done the trick, but you're a mod and you have the discretion to do what you see fit, of course.

Thanks for being a great mod* to date, Bushy.

- David Stein

jfoobar

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bushdog
Javajive wrote

Quote:

Oh I read your posts, I just cannot understand the ludicrous thought process. . .

There is a big difference between attacking someone personally and attacking their opinion. I think the prior should result in a suspension. I think the latter should be allowed or, perhaps, result in a warning if it is too heated.

Usually, it is rather easy to tell the difference between the two. The above is one of those rare examples where it wasn't quite so easy to tell them apart. I personally feel that a warning might have solved the problem but Bushdog is almost certainly correct in the assertion that it was only going to get worse. It was a tough call, he made it.



[Edited by JustinS on 05-22-01 at 07:13 AM]

classicman2

I don't see the need for the suspension or the closing of the thread!

Bushdog

Don't you dislike poll threads?

I'll accept criticism about the suspension, it is a borderline case. As for criticism for closing the thread? Come on! It really was going downhill fast. I'm 100% sure I was right on that part of the decision.

foxdvd

I think he was one or two post away from a real harsh post for sure, but the things we all did to each other in the past, it just seems so tame what he said.

Bushdog

I'm listening to you guys and I am giving this thought. And I am consulting with other mods on this as well. I understand the argument everyone is making (except classicman, of course). Generally I allow for more room to vent and attack in political discussions. The manner he was going after sfsdfd just struck me as too much.

We'll see how this all stands later.

classicman2

David is going to be called a hell of a lot worse things than on the closed thread. After all - he's a lawyer.

sfsdfd

Thankfully, I have a thick skin.

Had <b>Javajive</b> called <i>me</i> ludicrous or ridiculous, I would have emailed a mod about it. But he was calling <i>this particular thought process</i> ludicrous and ridiculous, which seemed... well, strongly worded, but not just a personal attack. Certainly it's a weak debating skill to dismiss another's view as absurd, but at least it's still kinda sorta related to the debate...?

Look at it this way: I took a bit more offense at a comment to me a few weeks ago that called lawyers "the granddaddy of parasites." No suspension there, iirc...

But I really <b>don't</b> want to turn this into a review of Bushy's actions. Not only have the admins repeatedly asked us not to do this, but this "mod-action critique" makes the mods' job here even harder and more stressful. We all respect Bushdog, and unless something on the order of the dispute between Kenwood and skippy arises, I think we owe him and the rest of the mods a healthy dose of deference.

- David Stein

Josh H

I don't see anything wrong with attacking someones opinion, which is what happened here. I agree that he was likely to resort to an attack a few posts down the line though. Perhaps you should have warned him that he was getting close to crossing the line, then suspended him if he continued?

foxdvd

I for one love it when people fight...As long as both sides join in, and it is not just one person attacking another. The boxing board I go to, secondsout.com, has a special forum for flames. A place that when people REALLY go at each other, they can do so and not get banned. If you go in there, you agree to be open to attack, but of course even they have their limits. In the past the other forum was sort of that place here, but we have really backed up on that. Not sure if it is because Geoff thought we were loosing members becasue of it, but I guess that would be the main reason.

foxdvd

Someone said above that they were afraid that the board was going to ban people because they hold a certain political view. While it is no secret to older members here where the political alliance of the owner of the place lies, I would say that the reason it seems that far right-conservative views seem to be banned or censored more is not because of the political climate of the people in control but more so the aggressiveness of those extreme conservatives. In the past it always seems like people with these views are the ones to get the most angry about debates, and thus they are more likely to get banned. While it is painfully obvious that those on the other side of the political spectrum are setting up these conservatives as quietly as possible to get them to open their mouths and get banned, it is still the person themselves that ultimately attacks.