ANNOUNCEMENT: Posting in basher/gusher threads is a bannable offense

Or when those of us who liked the movie are told that we only liked it because we are delusional or "can't accept the truth".

 

The wording of the title and the first post in a thread sets the tone for how the debate will unfold. When a debate begins with absolutes and a hostile attitude, flaming is never far behind.

This is my point exactly!

Hawk, if you look at the logo at the top of the screen, it says "Jedi Council Discussion Forums." If your whole point is to state your opinion then maybe you need to host your own website and have a link to "hawk's rantings and ravings." If you start a thread stating something that you feel is a forgone conclussion then why bother posting it on a discussion forum if there's no room in your mind for discussion? (And please note, this applies to the gusher-licious positive threads, too. "TPM Rocks!" leaves as little room for meaningful discussion as "TPM Sucks!")

For instance, discussion starts by saying, "I love John Williams but I don't think the music in TPM is up to par, and here's why..." and then you list your relevant points. You've stated your opinion, backed it up with relevant arguments, but also leave room for people to offer a counter point without being forced to outright disagree with you. A blanket statement like "The music in TPM sucks because Lucas is a hoser," while getting high marks on the "Opinion" scale scores very poorly on the "Room For Meaningful Discussion" scale.

So I guess the bottom line is, if your purpose is to discuss a topic then go ahead and post. If you just want to air your dirty laundry then the moderators will be happy to take you to the cleaners.

(Damn, that was too clever even for my own good!)

 

Well, usually, I'm all for freedom of speech and expression, but in this case, I'd say some totalitarianism is a good thing.

 

Well I would like a clarification of a few things, and I know I risk taking this off on a tangent not desired by the admins and possibly delving into areas that belong on the communication forum, but what the heck.

Do people starting the topic, especially if they enumerate some the conditions under which they wish to start a discussion, have any control/responsiblity of the discussion therein?

Does a discussion necessarely have to be a debate?

What is the difference between a debate and a discussion?

In other words, seeing as how things such as style, taste, artistic quality or totally subjective and unquantifiable is it advisable for debate to exist at all regarding such things?

I noticed some have a tendancy including myself to view some of the discussion in an adverseral manner, which I am begin to see as a mistake. I for 1 have a growing notion that debating things such as those that involve totally subjective material is very problematic and should be avoid in order to insure sanity.

 

CBJedi, then how about something a little more substantial to go on? Define "troll" in the sense that you personally consider a poster to be a troll.

"I don't give a rip if you like TPM or not. If you flame or troll I'll come down on you. That is all."

This isn't much in the way of clarification...

 

Clear as mud, CB... as easily and eagerly as some people take offense around here, there's gonna be bans flying like dry leaves if that's your standard.

Sounds to me like trolls are whoever the mods decide they don't like.

And if discussions are not allowed to have any sort of life of their own due to the meddling of topic cops, then that also really defeats a lot of what makes a message board a community and not just a formalized online Q&A session.

No offense, but it sounds an awful lot like meddling for the sake of meddling.

 

CB, if you're talking about obvious "You suck!" "No, YOU suck!" "No, YOU suck MORE!!!" exchanges, then I'm right with you.

I guess what concerns me is the fact that there are some people who cannot hear the slightest negative opinion on TPM without getting all offended and making a stink of some kind. I just don't want every post to have to be run past a bunch of lawyers to make sure it passes "non-bannable" muster. (A little goofy hyperbole there, but you see what I'm getting at, eh?)

 

I'd say that the biggest problem isn't outright flaming, or name calling, but instead veiled insults. Members here can effortlessly continue discussing a thread's topic while also crafting their posts to get as much on the nerves of the other side as possible without it looking like they're out to start a fight. After enough of these quasi-insults build up either people quit the actual discussion, or more obvious flames break out.
So overall, the key here would be respect. If you keep respect in mind, you'll hopefully refrain from the little degrading jabs in your posts, and make this place much nicer to post in.

 

There is, of course, a difference between veiled insults and harmless sarcasm. I hope that the mods realize this and don't come in here with itchy triggerfingers.

 

A couple days ago I wrote: "Nathan, I honestly don't understand what is now a bannable offense. I've never been banned in my year as a member here, and I would like to keep it that way. Until I feel more sure about what I can or can't get banned for, I will restrict my posts on this board to the Basher's Sanctuary. I hate to do this, but at this point I don't know what else to do."

Thanks to the good work of cbjedi, I am once again confident about posting in this board. The Golden Rule is a wonderful rule.

A distinction between debating and flaming that I find helpful is this: Debating discusses issues, while flaming discusses fellow fans. I make it a point to never insult a fellow fan. I will disagree with a fellow fan, and strenuously attack his arguments; but I will never insult his person.

 

For instance, discussion starts by saying, "I love John Williams but I don't think the music in TPM is up to par, and here's why..." and then you list your relevant points. You've stated your opinion, backed it up with relevant arguments, but also leave room for people to offer a counter point without being forced to outright disagree with you.

I agree with MM on this (darn, he beat me to it, so did Binary).

I took a class in debate many, many moons ago. When you engage in a debate, you have a clearly defined, well stated stance, which you then back up with an argument composed of facts. Your opponent then produces evidence to counter your argument, and may also ask questions to try and find a hole within the argument. This is done in a civiled and intellectual manner. And I see no reason why we cannot do the same here in the TPM forum.

One problem that often arrises with this, is that when someone takes a stance, for or against a position, and finds themselves unable to defend it, instead of admitted that they were wrong, or just agreeing to disagree, they result to insults or the like. CB's new/old golden rule policy will elimate that element of the forum, thus allow people to engage in civiled debates, and respectfully disagree.

I mean, is that really so hard?


Sounds to me like trolls are whoever the mods decide they don't like.

Why not wait around to see if your fears are justified? I don't you have anything to worry about, frankly.


Grr... I just finished typing out a response but hit the back button on my mouse so now I have to do it all over again.

Not, if you're using IE 5 or better. If you hit back accidently, just hit forward once and your text will still be there.

 

"I'd say that the biggest problem isn't outright flaming, or name calling, but instead veiled insults."

See, and here we get into the realm of dissecting posts looking for motives as opposed to taking care of actual trolls. I've never been banned once in the two or three years I've been posting here, but I imagine if somebody wanted to go through my posts trying to find a "veiled insult" that they could ban me/get me banned for then they'd undoubtedly find something. Hell, Gomer and myself would probably be out of here just for conversing with one another!

"Veiled insults" sounds like somebody is TRYING to find problems to solve rather than simply solving the obvious problems.

 

Actually, PR, veiled insults are a very real problem. That's where a mod just has to use his judgement. One good idea is to have warnings issued in such cases, instead of bans, that way, if the offending party isn't trying to be insulting, they can clarify any mis-read intention and no one gets into trouble. But if they were being insulting, subtly so, then eventually, they'll get spanked.

Hows that sound?

 

I'm using IE 6. I hit the forward button once and it wasn't there anymore.

Really? That sucks. No IE6 for me, then. I always go back and forth during a post. Why does Microsoft always have to screw something up by coming out with a new version of it?

(*ptts*, PR, that would be one of those "veiled" insults -- err, well, not so veiled afterall)

 

Mountain Man,

I don't appreciate you implying I rant and rave.


Anyway to clarify and simplify:

"The Music in TPM rocked!"

A happy member who wishes to exclaim and discuss how much he enjoyed the music.

"The Music wasn't good enough!"

An unhappy member who wishes to exclaim and discuss why he thought the music wasn't good enough.

Honestly, if you have a problem with this sort of thread then maybe you are too sensitive. I am happy for people who loved the film to express their fondness in a thread.

 

Censorship sucks on soooooooooooo many levels.

I mean it is not like we?re killing babies on here. We?re just arguing, and some geeks even start name-calling and getting personal (so what?), the pros and cons of a film.

I say to the Moderators lighten up a bit. It?s all good.

Anyhoo?I?m out of here. Where is the fun in NO debate?

Peace?

 

" I just don't want every post to have to be run past a bunch of lawyers to make sure it passes "non-bannable" muster."


THAT'S an idea!

Can the gusher SUE the basher for dissing Star Wars?

(did I mention, btw, that I really hate this thread?)

 

Is it my imagination, or did this new policy move swiftly from "people who post in threads which contain basher/gusher fights will be immediately banned, and anyone who makes a post that expresses a different viewpoint to that of the thread will also be banned" to "gusher/basher discussions are fine, as long as you don't personally attack the other participants and make sweeping statements without backing them up. Hopefully no-one will be banned."?

 

Don't ask me, I've been confused from the beginning.

 

Can the gusher SUE the basher for dissing Star Wars?

I was going to respond to that, but I'll have to consult with my lawyers, first.


to "gusher/basher discussions are fine, as long as you don't personally attack the other participants and make sweeping statements without backing them up. Hopefully no-one will be banned."?

I noticed that, too. My understanding is that CBJedi is going to use the Golden Rule policy to decide bannable offenses. Some of the confusion is due to the fact that Nathan posted this new ruler as the TPM Moderator, then just two days later a new mod is appointed and ND moves up to a different position. Now, it's CBJedi's discression to inforce policy regarding the gusher/basher contraversy.

I think it all boils down to simply "playing nice." The key thing to remember here is that NathanDahlins is now leader among the moderators. If the gusher/basher wars become a problem again, good money says ND will probably ask (or tell) CBJedi to enforce this new policy in the strictness to which it was worded in ND's initial post. So, best to play it safe and avoid such threads altogether.

(Actually, if I remember correctly, CBJedi did say that he would close gusher/basher threads, but that he would issue bans only for the flaming and trolling that took place there, not just to anyone who stopped by that particular thread).

 

:: Darth23 tries to figure out the Byzantine power structure in place here ::

:: Darth 23's head explodes ::

 

So the long and short of it is that trolling and encouraging a troll are bannable offenses?

Novel.

 

hawk: I don't appreciate you implying I rant and rave.

Grow some thicker skin, my friend. My comment was meant merely in jest with my toungue firmly planted in my cheek.

 

So cbj is the new Sherif? Congrats and let the good times roll.

** RBE starts thinking of new ways to run amok **

 

Mountain Man,

I wasn't offended but since you are the one arguing for members to sugarcoat all their responses, I found it odd that you were not taking the same care.