creekdipper

While the initial reaction to this post was , it begs closer examination.

1. "The forum is unusable." Really? How so? The political and religious forum has dozens if not hundreds of threads. "Creekdipper" only inhabits a few on a regular basis and never posts in many of them. Explain how one poster has the power to render an entire forum "unusable." Have you ever be unable to post your own thoughts?

2. "People are abandoning it. largely due to creekdipper's posts...." And how would you know that? I've not seen anyone announcing that in the forum? What do they do...PM or email you to announce their intentions and why? Who has left the forum due to "creekdipper?" And who is Harry Kellerman, btw?

3. "...and the reactions to them." What reactions? Are the reactions so offensive, too, and is "creekdipper" responsible for others not being able to control their own words? And what has provoked them so? Hearing views they don't like? Being cursed at? Having their beliefs (and themselves) mocked on a daily basis? Exactly what are the horrible things that creekdipper has said that are unbearable?

4. "...perhaps the rules need to change." Hmm. So if a forum member is posting within the rules...never mind those who clearly aren't and proudly announce that fact...then by all means, let's create some new rules expressly for one purpose...to exclude members whom we don't like. Can we think of any historical precedents for that approach? What are we going to call these "new rules"..."cleansing?" And will they only apply to a few individuals or to everyone?

I'd love to hear more about these proposed "rules." Exactly what did you have in mind? No scripture quotes? No views which you find offensive? No sticking to convictions (unless they are the "right" convictions)? No posts over three sentences? No posts that disagree with your views or your posts?

Please, tell us more about what you have in mind. Inquiring minds want to know.

creekdipper

And, while we're on the topic, what do you think about forum members pleading with other members not to converse with other members who "don't respect the forum?"

Is that an example of respecting the spirit of the forum? Telling other forum members whom they should and should not be talking to?

What historical precedents does that approach remind you of?

hdnmickey

This sure is a lot of going on about an issue that really all boils down to people finally having enough of the do he says, not as he does attitude.

Take the supposed trigger for all this. Ripley's replies. Have people forgotten often repeated gems like this:

There are far more where that came from, but no doubt there is a 1000 word+ excuse to that makes them different.

Personally I think the mods did the right thing here despite the attempts to rip them a new one because they were not responding the way he wanted to them to respond, and not on the time table he had set. Usually that kind of crap is only directed at only fellow members. If there is anything during all of this that warrants a response, I would think it would be calling out the mods the way he did in the other threads.

creekdipper

And at last we arrive.

No 1,000 word post needed to skewer that pathetic excuse offered above.

Poster #1: "At last we arrive."
"Have you ever considered consulting a dictionary?"

Poster #2: "You're a bigoted, invisible-man fluffing, cowardly, piece of shit dick prick, and where did you work and what is your church? Because I think it would be cool to forward your DVDTalk posts to your congregation. Icky poo choo choo" (repeat dozens of times in the same thread over a 24-hour period up to four times in a row).

Hmmm. Do those posts seem to be totally equal in tone and content?

Of course not.

The first poster is the heckler for trying to defend other forum members from attacks, and the poor second poster is the innocent victim.

That's Donald Trump logic at its best.

Point that out...you're fired!

Thanks, Trump!

And I'm sure that if a member had children and another member asked where they go to school and said how "cool" it would be to forward Daddy's posts to their email accounts, that would be welcomed warmly as normal human behavior.

Personally, if I saw that creepy idea being floated (and encouraging other members to paticipate), I'd report that behavior as quickly as possible and expect fast action, especially since the offender had been exiled for far less in the past. In fact, I'd consider any hints about contacting family or employers to be taken as a serious threat and the final nail in that member's coffin.

Zero tolerance for any threats made against other members, anonymous or named.

Then again, I may have a different view of family from others and how privacy of other members should be respected. I can't think of anything more chilling to a discussion board than the suggestion that it would be a good idea if "we" were to interfere with the private lives of other members. Anyone who thinks that is normal and acceptable behavior needs to have his/her head examined.

creekdipper

Here's a more direct approach since hdnmickey says he doesn't like long responses.

Hdnmickey:

You indicated that you thought that closing the thread was the appropriate response and that "if any action was warranted," it ought to be taken against the poster criticizing the moderator response...meaning that no action should be taken against the other poster who broke every rule posted in the sticky (which was the moderator response, according to Lt. Ripley. And we know Lt. Ripley is an honest person, so no moderator contacted him/her).

Here are two simple questions. Using the Ripley approach, they have to be answered either yes or no.

Do you feel that there is nothing wrong with a forum member making implied threats to contact a member's family with information posted on the board...with the stated purpose of damaging the member's reputation?

If someone made an implied threat to contact family members to hurt your reputation with them, would you still feel that that the forum member did nothing wrong and that no action should be taken?

Supermallet

Oh my god, what a fucking baby. Creek, go outside, get some fresh air, go see Guardians of the Galaxy 2, feed some ducks, just stop obsessing about this forum.

creekdipper

Circle those wagons!

mspmms

Obsessing?

If he was posting at a thread at Religion, Politics and World Events would that be OK?

I've seen unending postings there for days at a time

creekdipper

Supermallet:

Your latest post in the "Attacks Upon Minorities" thread...

well, it speaks for itself as to your intentions.

That's all that needs saying.

Supermallet

He's been posting about these perceived sleights all weekend over multiple threads. Lots of people get overly upset about things that happen online and getting offline for a while is a healthy thing to do.

My intentions in pointing out that many conservative talking points are designed to obfuscate and deflect from the systemic inequities that are currently plaguing our society? That's not something I'm hiding.

TomOpus

I think the Politics forum has developed a leak...into Feedback. Maybe it should leak into Book Talk to create some activity there

dave-o

Wow...well I think the mods probably have all they need from this thread now (as if they needed it). I do not envy them. At least, it seems, I have not been missing much but more of the same.

creekdipper

TRIGGER WARNING: MULTI-QUOTE ALERT!!!


Physician, heed thy own prescription.

creekdipper

You got that right.

Well, with one tiny exception....

VinVega

The mods have made our decision on this matter. Suspensions have been handed out for behavior that has gotten way out of control on both sides. Those of you enjoying pushing buttons should take heed as well. Closing thread.