After dozens of warnings regarding posts, open wars of words with moderators, closed threads, and multiple suspensions, it has become increasingly clear that I desire a style--a raw, unfiltered openness--of communication that is wholly unwelcome by the powers-that-be here at DVDTalk. This has proved to be almost unbearably irritating to me (almost, I say, because I also believe in the credo "never say die"), and I've struggled for years now to find and retain my place here in the DVDTalk community. It is a place I value, one to which I've been a steadfast contributor, and one I've called "home" since the 1990's. But it is also a place that seems more supportive of milquetoast, mutual-admiration-society-type discussions than truly raw, honest and meaningful ones where grown adults with backbones can really hash out and debate subjects without getting hung up on, IMO, infantile issues of hurt feelings. It certainly seems to me that a site liberal enough to dedicate an entire subforum to the open discussion of pornography can find a place for the subsection of us here at DVDTalk that don't like to (nay, don't know how to) pull our conversational punches. So, I submit for your consideration the creation of a "no holds barred" subforum, one either with no moderation, or with a much more laissez-faire standard thereof than the other forums observe, with fair guidelines and warnings for those more interested in "vanilla", surface-level dialogues to avoid the forum, so that those of us with a more raw communication style can spread our proverbial wings and still enjoy a welcome position as part of the larger DVDTalk family. Thank you for your consideration...

You're proposing that DVD Talk add an alt.flamewar.flame forum. I don't think that's a good idea. I like hanging around here (and seeing the advertisements) because of the civil tone that Geoff and the moderators maintain. There are a lot of online boards where bad manners is the rule, but I don't visit them, and don't bring them any income.

I don't think that you can segregate rough behavior so easily by putting it in its own forum. I've seen how, when one of the forums that I don't even read gets out of hand, bad feelings and angry posts are evident in the forums I do read. Suspensions result.

Anyway, I don't understand what benefit you expect from such a forum. To me, it seems like it would be a lot of threads like this:

"I like Se7en. I like the contrast between the older literate detective and the younger, shallower detective. "
"Se7en sucked ass."
"Fuck you, asshole, and the horse you came in on!"

And so on.

Agreed. There's plenty of places on the net to flame. DVDTalk is full of passionate, fair, non-ad-hominem, discussions. I don't see a need for this.
And though I don't specifically recall any of your posts, so this is not aimed at you, if someone's contribution to a discussion is like Nick's example, s/he's not really contributing much, and we're not missing anything by not allowing it.
One can share deeply held, impassioned beliefs without being an jerk. [Again, not saying you are, just in general.]
I guess if your username is indicative, you make your own films? ie, you don't work in an office or long-term with a group of other people? If you do, do you 'pull your conversational punches' with them?

Nick Danger, if you'll forgive me, you're being much too hyperbolic about what I'm seeking, but you do make a compelling case that a more laissez-faire form of moderation might be more constructive than none at all. What I am seeking is a forum for deep, meaningful discussions about not only films (in fact, not even primarily about films) but about the more vital aspects to our lives--politics, religion, philosophy, etc. in a way that allows us to air our true thoughts and perspectives with a primary regard for truthfulness, rather than the primary regard being "eggshell" tactics to help assuage people's feelings. I mean, my God, if one can't truly be who they are on a faceless internet forum, what's the real point? I very much do not want or seek a flame-war subforum, just a single area where the conversational emphasis can be placed on the content of what is being said, instead of the construction of how it is said.

dtcarson, you say "One can share deeply held, impassioned beliefs without being an jerk" and I couldn't agree more--the problem lies with the (in my case) tremendous subjective gulf between what some DVDTalkers think is being a jerk vs. what the moderators think. I recently had a thread locked (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=481308) for mearly expressing my truth, my reality, my perceptions, in the hopes of opening an authentic dialogue between those who side with me and those who don't. This is certainly not meant to call out the moderator who made the decision--he very accurately pegged that I had not fully read the rules of the Politics subforum, and I had proceeded with my dialogue from a faulty assumption of what that subforum was designed to accomplish. My mistake, and I take ownership of it, but it illustrated yet again that there is no avenue for authentic discussion of tough material here, and I think that's a shame. I was derided for being vitriolic (which, if I may, shows a gross lack of understanding regarding that term--vitriol makes no case or desire for open communication, as I did and do), when I just want people to be able to tell it like it is, give as good as they get. Even if I concede, for the sake of argument, that I was being vitriolic (which I maintain I was not whatsoever, but for the sake of argument...), what should be the forum's greater purpose? To allow people to posit their own views in return and perhaps inform, shift, alter, outright change my views in so doing, or to just stifle my expression (and others interested in the same dialogue) is the interests of protecting feelings? God and Mary, too, you just don't know how sick I am of all this concentrated effort to protect people's feelings above all otehr factors. This isn't f-in' third grade here--we're adults. Don't you want to be treated like one? Am I the only one desperate to be acknowledged as such? I'm not asking for anything different than the sort of "Meet the Press"/"Crossfire" etc. programming people watch on any given news channel any given evening. Can't we just be real for a change? I'm not asking for a fundamental shift in how DVDTalk practices its moderation style; I'm just looking for a subforum where the noose is loosened for those of us more comfortable communicating in more "call a spade a spade" style. If it doesn't work for some people's sensibilities, they'll still have every other damn subforum at DVDTalk to enjoy as normal. Am I getting across a more clear sense here what I'm looking for, and what I'm not? In the end, I assure you I've every bit as interested in maintaining DVDTalk's level of substance in this subforum as all others. I don't want vitriol, either--I want meat and potatoes.

P.S.: Yes, dtcarson, the way I speak here is identical to how I am in the "real world"; it's made me plenty of enemies, as well as some die-hard friends. I don't think I've ever met someone who's had a middle-ground opinion of me, but love me or hate me, everyone benefits from knowing exactly where I stand on anything and everything. Even my enemies will never accuse me of being a liar or disingenuous. It never fails to amaze me, not just at DVDTalk, but everywhere, how many people put so much more effort on how something is being said than what is actually being said. Style over substance--sometimes you can pull it off in film, but in dialogue with one's fellow human community, it's a frightening, and wholly unproductive, consideration.

That's the way people are, and always have been. How you say something is at least as important as what you say, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

There certainly are avenues for 'tough discussion'. Some of the threads in Poli and even Other do get very heated, but not 'offensive' or aggressive.

If I'm reading it correctly, the post you linked to got closed not because it was 'real world', but because posts like that [massive generalizations] are off topic in that subforum. And yes, as a conservative, if I were hypersensitive , I could certainly interpret that post as trolling or flamebait, while disagreeing wholeheartedly with portions of it, due to those same generalizations.

So the issue wasn't with the content of your post; had you had specific examples, or said "I as a liberal think I'm artistic because of this", that would have started out fine, I think. It also doesn't look like your post was much of a jumping ground for discussion; I got a soapbox feel for it, so the very nature of how you phrased it, limited discussion.
I won't say 'If you can't say something nice, don't say it', but I do believe whatever is being said, can and should be said respectfully.

Be real, don't use ad hominem attacks or gratuitous language, and stay within the [rather loose] forum/subforum rules, and I don't see a problem. And of course the fact that DVDTalk is a privilege, not a right; our presence here is dependent on the whims of the owners, and as such we made an agreement to play in his playground the way he wants us to. And to an extent it's a 'public playground', so there are certain standards of behavior that should be complied with. Maybe that's a conservative ideal; if I'm a guest at someone's house, and they feed me something that was horrible, I wouldn't say "This tastes putrid" which would definitely be in-your-face and real, I'd 'try not to offend' and say 'Wow, how unique' or whatever.
I don't think I would have called your post vitriolic; I do agree that it didn't comply with the subforum's rules, and the moderator's note that since it seemed like a 'driveby' it could be thought of as flaming, though I don't think you meant it that way.

That's funny, I always thought real adults are generally capable of having real conversations about real subjects w/o resorting to tactics that lead to hurt feelings. It seems to me most of the time when someone's feelings are hurt by a discussion it's because people have reduce said "discssion" to ad hominem type attacks that are meant not to promote a point or position but belittle an opposing point or position. Typically it's also done in a fashion that is w/o real merit and/or there's little that can be said to counter it; "I believe X,Y and Z and there's nothing you can say that'll make me change my mind".

As to the idea of a "No Holds Barred" forum on DVDtalk the ultimate decision is up to Geoff, personally I think it's a bad idea because 1) there are plenty of places for that level of discussion out there on the I'net why do we need one more? 2) I'd be very surprised if it remained contained in one forum, grudges that'll start there will spill over to the other forums 3) real communication of ideas is possible within the context of the rules we have established... we've had some great conversations in the Political Forum about a range of ideas. In the past though several threads devolved into the type of rhetoric and attacks I was talking about above so the rules were put into place to PROMOTE a better exchange of ideas (as in making sure the threads don't break down into attacking each other back and forth and thereby end up being locked), NOT DETRACT from them.

I'm sorry you feel like you can't communicate your thoughts appropriately within this context. I know there are some others who have some problems w/ the rules as well, but that hasn't stopped them from making their points, or attacking other points in a well thought-out way. One of my favorite quotes as someone once said, "diplomacy is the ability to tell a man to go to hell such that he looks forward to the trip" Well reasoned conversation is what we are trying to promote, in the Political Forum and DVDtalk in general. Personally I don't think that's too much to ask for and it's something that makes DVDtalk unique as compared to most places on the I'net. If you don't think your personality can fit into this, maybe this really isn't a place for you. I hope you don't decide that and I would like to see you participate more in the Political Forum as well, it's always good to have fresh ideas/new perspectives (even though it sounds like I'm not going to agree w/ much of what you say ).



As the mod who locked the thread...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vitriol
3. something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism.
...
2: subject to bitter verbal abuse

From the locked thread...
Seems to me to be an apt use of the word by your own admission. The connotation of vitriol as a means to suppress debate is not one I'm familiar w/ so it wasn't meant in that manner, it speaks only to the level of rhetoric used.

Terrible idea.

All that will do is lead to bad feeling between members that will carry over to other forums.

The solution is to just suspend/ban those that can't discuss things like civil adults.

DVD Talk is great for just that reason, they mods run a tight ship and weed out the trolls. This is the only message board I frequent for just that reason.

Their are plenty of flame filled, unmoderated boards out there for the trolls that can't play by the rules here.

I think we should just take the Feedback Forum and convert it into a "No Holds Barred" forum.

Opinions, you shallow-minded no-talent blowhards?

Whatever. DVD Talk is filled with honest, intense, meaningful debate. All we are expected to do in return in not act like childish jerkoffs, which is essentially the expected level of behavior in any adult organization.

As to the question at hand, it appears to me that you're using this "idea" to launch a public discussion about recent moderation, not some subforum. I'm not convinced you actually think it's a good idea, and if I'm mistaken and you somehow do, you must know there's no way in Hell it would ever happen ... ever.

das

P.S. Note how I expressed myself honestly and bluntly in this post without violating forum rules.

Hear, hear. If you are incapable of communicating in that manner the fault lies with you, not the moderation of these fora. DVD Talk is an oasis of civility compared to the bulk of the fora on the Net, and I, for one, wouldn't want it any other way.

I am astonished to discover that "fora" is a word.

I just want to second those who have mentioned how this forum differs from others around the net. We're all passionate about different topics, but we can discuss them civilly without resorting to no-holds bared flaming of each other. As someone who leans more to the left than the right, I could probably find more self affirming websites to post on (in my opinion, this site leans more to the right, especially in fiscal matters), but I love this place because we have intense discussions about a wide range of topics and even though I disagree with those on the right a decent amount of time, I think of them as my friends and a lot of that has to do with the fact that we don't treat each other like animals. There are a number of no-holds bared sites out there; this is not one of them. I don't recommend changing that.

A no-holds-barred forum? After reading this thread I'm really surprised that Filmmaker wants one:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....7&page=3&pp=25

I'm not trying to rehash old ground by posting the link but to illustrate that even someone who's interested in adult discussions where they don't have to worry about hurting someone's feelings can get their feelings hurt even with the moderation that we have now. Image how that thread would have gone if people on both sides of the argument weren't trying to be civil.

I'm totally against the idea.

Plebeian.

Videophile: "A no-holds-barred forum? After reading this thread I'm really surprised that Filmmaker wants one:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread...27&page=3&pp=25

I'm not trying to rehash old ground by posting the link but to illustrate that even someone who's interested in adult discussions where they don't have to worry about hurting someone's feelings can get their feelings hurt even with the moderation that we have now. Image how that thread would have gone if people on both sides of the argument weren't trying to be civil."

Careful, you might hurt his feelings again. As an active participant of the former thread, I seem to recall how he couldn't take the heat of having his own words used against him; never mind a "no holds barred" forum where he'd be beaten senseless by the masses.

"After dozens of warnings regarding posts, open wars of words with moderators, closed threads, and multiple suspensions, it has become increasingly clear that I desire a style--a raw, unfiltered openness--of communication that is wholly unwelcome by the powers-that-be here at DVDTalk."

Well there you go. The so-called "powers that be here at DVD Talk" have spoken. If you'd like some suggestions of forums more suited to your "desire" (which, by the way, I think you'd soon find to be just as poorly thought out as the majority of people in this thread currently believe), by all means just ask.

Wow. How sad, how disappointing and yet how reaffirming that those who wish to make the case that DVDTalk can and does conduct meaningful dialogues without turning into flame wars can't provide feedback without resorting immediately to the exact kind of insults and hostile tone they profess to be against. Most of your collective posts have done little more than reinforce the need for just such a no holds barred forum. How sad and disappointing that those that enjoy the exact experience they seek from DVDTalk must work to deprive those who don't of what they'd like to see added to the site--it's not enough to simply avoid such a subforum for you, you must push to prevent it from ever seeing the light of day for anyone and everyone else. Not only will you not have to suffer by knowing it exists, but you can sleep easier knowing that those who might get use and enjoyment from such a subforum will never get the privilege; after all, it might "infect" DVDTalk as a whole, right? How embarrassing. Going forward, I will constrain my comments, observations and questions for nemein and VinVega, who are the only moderators (so far) involved in the discussion, and my original post was clearly intended for them, since none of the rest of you have any say either way on what's added to DVDTalk*.

VinVega, just to be clear, I'm not seeking any fundamental changes to any currently-existing subforum here at DVDTalk--they are free to continue with the exact same rules and structure with which they currently operate. I seek only an addition of a new, single subforum where the rules are looser; think of it along the lines as a companion piece to the DVDTalk Adult subforum, a specialized place for people who enjoy a different, even unpopular, type of discussion.

nemein, since it is abundantly clear (par for my consistent course here at DVDTalk) that my recommendation has been summarily dismissed without real consideration (and I make that accusation because you traded no give-and-take with me, just shot me down flat), allow me to discuss with you a finer point of an earlier post of yours so as to at least help facilitate improved communications from me in the Politics subforum going forward. You have accused my post regarding conservatives and creativity of being an ad hominem attack and that I should only proceed "w/o all the rhetoric about 'virtually every conservative position is based on fear' and 'there is an inherent distrust, distaste and dislike of human endeavors and humanity itself in Christianity' [because] we just don't need/want that level of vitriol here." Though I stringently resist the accusation that my words were an attack, let's set those semantics aside for a moment--my real issue is, in the context of political/philosophical issues, why are ad hominem observations and criticisms unwelcome? Nay, how can they be? Most of us in modern society (myself definitely included) share a knee-jerk repulsion of ad hominem attacks because they tend to combine two unlike and unproven factors, such as "all black people are shiftless and lazy", "all white people are interested in is money and controlling the world", "all women are bitches", and the like. They are repugnant because they try to connect an uncontrollable and inert factor, such as skin color, gender, sexual preference with behavior/attitudes/beliefs and there is very seldom supportable grounds for such a link, or if one is found, it belongs to such a miniscule minority of the larger group that it is erroneous and unfair reasoning to lump the entire group under the same finding/assertion. However, when one broaches the subject of belief systems, encapsulating political and religious beliefs, the label we assign one another (liberal, conservative, libertarian, Christian, Muslim, atheist, humanist, etc.) is given because each group shares enough similar beliefs with others to earn the label. One can make the case that, for instance, not all Democrats/liberals are alike, which is certainly true--I'm quite liberal, proudly Democrat, but I support certain aspects of the Iraq war (a very unpopular position for me amongst my Democrat brethren) and I support the death penalty. However, I share a majority of beliefs with the Democratic party, so the label "liberal" applies to me. If one has no majority of beliefs either conservative or liberal, then neither label applies to them. For those who do fall into a "belief camp", they share enough commonalities of thought with those in the same "belief camp" that ad hominem observations/criticisms become not unfortunate or unfair but necessary and appropriate. What is the crime in stating that, as a liberal trying to observe/deconstruct/make sense of the conservative ethos, "virtually every conservative position appears to be based on fear", or as a secular humanist trying to observe/deconstruct/make sense of the theist ethos, "there is an inherent distrust, distaste and dislike of human endeavors and humanity itself in Christianity". One is labeled, one becomes part of a larger group, because they concur with its belief system; therefore, to criticise or make observations regarding the belief system, yes, you are by default criticising or making observations regarding those that comprise the group espousing that belief system. I still maintain that there is a distinct difference between simple vitriol, which might take the tone of something like "Christians are a bunch of living-in-the-Dark-Ages freaks of nature" or "liberals are a bunch of closet **** that wear their mommas' pantyhose" (which, as you rightfully point out, "are meant not to promote a point or position but belittle an opposing point or position. Typically it's also done in a fashion that is w/o real merit and/or there's little that can be said to counter it; "I believe X,Y and Z and there's nothing you can say that'll make me change my mind") and truthful observation/criticism/opinionation. I'll never try to make the case that my observations regarding theism and convervatism are not harsh, but to assert that they are designed to squash dialogue rather than encourage it is disingenuous and insulting both to myself and to those of different thinking who should be afforded the opportunity to respond to, and perhaps educate, me. So I ask you, how does one make observations about groups, and those who belong to such groups based on thoughts, beliefs and behaviors, without it, by nature being ad hominem?

* = If you'll afford me the courtesy, DVDTalkers, I'll make one exception and inquire as to your suggestions where I may find such a forum specific to religion and politics (I get what I need for lighter subjects, such as films, DVDs and music here)? Thanks to anyone more interested in assisting than assholing.

So now you're only talking to moderators [even though this is an open forum for ALL to discuss the running of the forum, even though as you say the members don't have direct power to change things, simply because we didn't agree with you? Or to rephrase, you're looking for a "milquetoast, mutual-admiration-society-type discussions", and not a debate/discussion, since the general consensus is opposite yours? Well, you may direct your comments only to them, but since you posted in a public forum, we can all respond.

"I seek only an addition of a new, single subforum where the rules are looser; think of it along the lines as a companion piece to the DVDTalk Adult subforum, a specialized place for people who enjoy a different, even unpopular, type of discussion."

There are lots of unpopular discussions on Politics, and the 'tight' rules don't seem to stifle debate that much. It just serves to prevent 'subtle' ad hominem attacks like "Thanks to anyone more interested in assisting than assholing"; imho, you're not helping your case any. The entire vibe I'm getting from your [exceedingly long and difficult to read posts] is "My way is better, and if you don't agree, then I pity you, while still feeling better than you."

If you're looking for a 'no holds barred' forum, try Gamefaqs or CAG or Freeper or DU. All those offer what you seem to want, and the absence of which at DVDtalk, the vast majority of members don't miss.

If you had a problem with the moderation, you should have contacted the mods directly instead of reopening the thread/reposting the post [that's also in those stringent forum rules, I believe].

how about a 50,000 word limit on posts or something?

You've already shut off further debate with folks after they disagreed with you in a form consistent with DVDTalk's rules on civil discourse. I'm honestly having a hard time understanding your claim to desire "raw, unfiltered openness" in your discussions. That's what people are offering (in compliance with the site's current rules) and you want no part of it. The sub-forum you propose would go to much further lengths than this.

The claim that none of us have any say on what's added to DVDTalk is ludicrous, if we don't have any say then neither do you and this thread should never have been posted. Clearly there is a feedback forum to discuss changes to the site, one in which all users have the right to post their opinions. When someone makes a suggestion that I think will hurt my experience on the site I will voice my opposition.

You may believe that it's childish that an argument in one forum results in bad feelings and angry posts in another. In an ideal world, that would be true. But experience has shown that it does happen, and the moderators have to live in the real world. So, rather than trying to raise the maturity level of 20,000 DVD Talkers, they disallow some sorts of posts in all forums.

Since you've been around for a long time, you must be aware that the forum rules were changed in the political forum earlier this year. Up until then, gross generalizations about groups of people were allowed. A lot of people made posts saying, "Liberals hate self sufficiency" or "Conservatives love killing Iraqi civilians." That sort of post doesn't advance any discussion of ideas. And no one but the most thick-skinned (or thick-headed) members bothered with the forum. The political forum was retooled to make it more courteous, more focussed on the discussion of ideas instead of stereotypes, and more popular.

Finally, this is the feedback forum. The forum exists because non-moderators do have an influence here. If you want to discuss something with moderators only, I suggest that you email them your suggestion.

Because it's existence would lower the discourse in other forums by leading to bad feelings between members that spill over into other forums.

This has happened in the past with people that post in Otter getting in fights do to bad feelings from another forum that is no holds barred where many of them also post.

And it's already seen to a lesser extent in the past by members who argue in politics, VG Talk, HD Talk etc. getting into arguments in seeminly innocuous threads in other forums likely due to already disliking each other from arguing in the other forums.

A no holds barred forum would just increase that. I see where you're coming from, but unfortunately the type of posts that would be allowed in a no holds barred forum would have a spill over affect in to other forums, and just go against the positive atmosphere the mods work so hard to maintain here that makes the forum one of the few on the net worth even reading, and the only one I've found worth posting at regularly over the past several years.

If that atmosphere doesn't jive with you, that's fine. And that seems to be the case as you often struggle to state your opinions on something as banal as movies or music without coming across as elitists and bashing the taste of others who disagree.

There are plenty of options out there for less moderated forums. This just might not be the place for you, just like the no holds barred sites weren't/aren't the place for the rest of us.

It's a bit absurd to expect the rules to change for just one person, or to add a no holds barred forum that's 180 degrees opposite of the atmosphere being strived for at this site and would cause further problems for mods with bad feelings spilling over into the regular forum areas.

If you want raw unfiltered opinions, try the Yahoo forums. Its a wretched hive of trolling and flamewars.

Can somebody put filmmaker into "concise" mode, please?