Self Policing Militia Summons

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by BigV

Some cherry picking trying to confine my observations to Redux and some quotes about and to him.


I disagree.


More of the exact behavior described as the problem, what hypocrisy. His "shit" isn't all over the board. Your complaint is that he's so monomaniacal about politics--it just doesn't go all over. You're wrong on the facts. "Professional dingleberry"? Real mature. Way to set an example. Way to be the change you want to see.


more shouting... *yawn*


now self esteem is bannable? etc, etc.


I, too, am not one of the all you proclaim are tired of his shit. You don't speak for me.


You're seriously misreading his posts. Completely so.


I agree. It's not.


*point 1*
Redux **is** a member of this community. He is highly unwelcome by some especially vocal members. Many are neutral, and some of us, like me, appreciate his posts for their content.

*point 2*
I hope you're kidding when you make this point. I ask all the time for help, for clarification of other people's points and ideas. It is flatly wrong to say that anything that starts with "please tell me how" is useless bickering. Your whole point here just sounds cranky, which is way out of character for you Clodfobble.

*point 3*
I agree with this point. There's a limit to the validity to "he started it" as an excuse for one's actions as an adult. That limit is greater than zero, and it can be a good starting point for an explanation as to why things started to go off the rails, but only if someone cares. Apparently you don't, so it has little value to you. Fair enough.

The nothing wolf is talking about is bannable behavior. I know you don't like Redux's ideas and his posts. You've said so clearly and repeatedly. I do like Redux's ideas and posts. Even you say the role of the moderator is not to ban unpopular members and I strongly agree with that statement. Redux is unpopular with some and popular with others. Redux is **NOT** willfully ruining our environment any more than you are or I am.

Heh. Remember, you actually have the power, yourself, to "stop it". Don't listen to it.


and



and


These two pairs of posts elicit a rueful laugh from me.

OF COURSE Redux is a REAL PERSON. Are you kidding me? Redux, I caution you to dispense details of your personal life with the knowledge that they will never be private again. They will be known widely or less widely, but they'll be public forever. And even if you gave all of us here all of your details, how could we say even then that we "knew" you? monster imagined in a different thread recently how she'd characterized someone as "most likely to become a serial killer". I believe she said it in jest and in private, but when she found out later that the circumstances in this person's life were dramatically different from what she'd previously and incorrectly understood, she understood her assessment was unfair.

I doubt your situation is different. We know little about you but you're a real person to me. For those who demand more "proof" about your reality, I say keep your cake and let them keep their ignorance.

I respect the fact you have the chutzpah to point out the obvious.
Quite a few good points.
Especially the last about sharing information. I don't usually feel especially 'more real' after sharing mine. It just means I am being trusting enough to put some of it up for scrutiny. Not everyone is going to be flying the 'they're a real person now banner' Why would red want to take that step of trust as there is so much animosity.

Red, I still want to hear about the new restaurant though. I won't scrutinize the menu too much.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by BigV

Some cherry picking to create drama where there is none and prove what an insane impression of the world I have.

Fixed


that

for

ya

[lumberjim]

assuming he is a he, and not a she

[TheMercenary]

I will fully accept a temp ban until after the Nov elections if Redux is also banned for the same period of time.

It is June 19th. If you all want to be rid of me, make it equal. And ban us both until Jan 1. 2011

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I will fully accept a temp ban until after the Nov elections if Redux is also banned for the same period of time.

It is June 19th. If you all want to be rid of me, make it equal. And ban us both until Jan 1. 2011

This made me think. I started this thread as a way of resolving a conflict.

So, what do I want the outcome to be? specifically, and generally.

Generally first:

1. I want the cellar to have a politics forum that facilitates the rational and respectful discussion of 'How humans control the powers that control them'

2. I want a Current Events forum that allows us all to 'Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it'

3. I want to be proud of my friends.

and then, Specifically:

1. I don't want to ban anyone....not even temporarily. I think that the ban hammer is a failure of the community to enfold and encourage the acceptance of all of our unique and individual brothers and sisters to this family.

2. I want TheMercenary, Redux, Classic, Spex, UG, Radar, UT, Shawnee, jinx, griff, Pie, and all y'all sisterfuckers to be more careful to respect each other's political beliefs. Treat it like a religion if it helps you to keep it in context. If you think about it, politics and religion are quite similar. As religions fall away, and Gods lose their power, they are incrementally replaced by political parties, and idealogies. So show the same respect you would if you were discussing religion with a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, etc.

3. (someone take it from here....I've got to get to bed....

[Pie]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

2. I want TheMercenary, Redux, Classic, Spex, UG, Radar, UT, Shawnee, jinx, griff, Pie, and all y'all sisterfuckers to be more careful to respect each other's political beliefs.

Interesting. I didn't realize I was part of the problem. I will try to keep that in mind.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The converse of your example was suggested before in the "Let's Get Rid of the Politics Forum" thread.. There were no takers among either the general membership or the administration. That's why we're back here with this issue now; unless, the issue was never about effective communication in the first place and was actually about control by some people over behaviors by others [in the name of the general welfare]. "Patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel."

If someone's going to create a separate gloves off forum here, why limit it to politics? If it's worth while doing, it's worth while doing well and you've been given an option that would make it so.

i knew very well that the politics forum would not be removed, sexo. That thread was a dramady.

Originally Posted by Pie

Interesting. I didn't realize I was part of the problem. I will try to keep that in mind.

that is a list of people that are oft involved in the politics forum. I didn't want to keep harping on the same 3 or 4 people.

[Cicero]

I support this ban if we still get to kick Shawnee's butt when she pops her head into any of the political threads.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I support this ban if we still get to kick Shawnee's butt when she pops her head into any of the political threads.

OK fine...but can I pick "spanking" instead?

[limey]

I withdraw my suggestion that name-calling type posts be reported to, and deleted by mods.
There seems to be a consensus that name calling is childish. Can you all bear this in mind, and
a) refrain from doing it, and/or
b) refrain from reacting if someone does it to you?

[wolf]

I participate on another board (that one with the horrifying avatar and signature problem) that has two politics forae. One regular one, and one where people don't have to pretend to be civil in their discussions. You have to request an admin to invite you to the gloves-off politics forum.

[Nirvana]

Originally Posted by wolf

I participate on another board (that one with the horrifying avatar and signature problem) that has two politics forae. One regular one, and one where people don't have to pretend to be civil in their discussions. You have to request an admin to invite you to the gloves-off politics forum.

Excellent suggestion!! > probably because I wanted to post this idea too. I don't think it has to be invitation only though, I think people should understand if they go there the gloves are definitely off!

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by wolf

I participate on another board (that one with the horrifying avatar and signature problem) that has two politics forae. One regular one, and one where people don't have to pretend to be civil in their discussions. You have to request an admin to invite you to the gloves-off politics forum.

The converse of your example was suggested before in the "Let's Get Rid of the Politics Forum" thread.. There were no takers among either the general membership or the administration. That's why we're back here with this issue now; unless, the issue was never about effective communication in the first place and was actually about control by some people over behaviors by others [in the name of the general welfare]. "Patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel."

If someone's going to create a separate gloves off forum here, why limit it to politics? If it's worth while doing, it's worth while doing well and you've been given an option that would make it so.

[DanaC]

I suggest we now let this issue lie for a while. Let's see if having aired the problem and discussed it as a group, the main protagonists change their behaviour.

[sexobon]

That's what we did last time: it lasted less than four months. History has already repeated itself with your approach. Lead, follow; or, get out of the way.