A New Policy?

Shakone's post accurately represents how I feel about the judicious deletion of lulz threads, especially those in The Foyer.

I'm already short T2W and long e-mail/chat. This isn't an arb either. Watching the fabric of the community spirit being systematically crushed isn't pleasant and I haven't the inclination to get a bag of popcorn and watch it happening either.
 
Shakone's post accurately represents how I feel about the judicious deletion of lulz threads, especially those in The Foyer.

I'm already short T2W and long e-mail/chat. This isn't an arb either. Watching the fabric of the community spirit being systematically crushed isn't pleasant and I haven't the inclination to get a bag of popcorn and watch it happening either.

robs

There's not much community spirit in ganging up on another member however funny the jibes might be, nor is lavatory humour particular pleasant however much kids might snigger at it behind the bike sheds.
 
There's not much community spirit in ganging up on another member however funny the jibes might be.

In principle I agree. However I do think this is a particularly complex case, and cant be judged by normal rules.

The member in question is a vendor, with a particular agenda.

His agenda, coincides with t2w's objective of dumbing down site content, and that's possibly why he's allowed to get away with this behavior. You are probably aware, he doesn't get away with this stuff at forums that have more of a focus on trading related issues. I dont blame him for exploiting this situation, and I dont blame you for allowing it. Its mutually beneficial to both parties, and that's fine.

However, what you are witnessing is a backlash against this situation. You and I both know that inevitably the few traders that exist here will be removed, and you'll be free to pursue your agenda, but not without a whole host of new problems that this approach will bring.

Like rob, I'm short t2w (and I got a great entry right at the top !) but unlike rob I am along for the ride, and I have buckets of popcorn in store.
 
robs

There's not much community spirit in ganging up on another member however funny the jibes might be, nor is lavatory humour particular pleasant however much kids might snigger at it behind the bike sheds.

I'm not referring to the slanging matches Jon - mods are well within their rights and site guidelines to curb stuff once it moves from logical discourse to outright insults. This is not what I am referring to.

Consider this. A bunch of people passing time of day with meandering conversation. That conversation is often lulzy as we enjoy each others company and the content. This is underpinned by the basic tenet of freedom of expression. A good example was the spambot thread we all jumped on in a puerile way. Was this really insulting or lavatory? Really Jon?

I see freedom of expression being curbed - a far more subtle and sinister problem. That is my gripe. Not the specifics of events but the tone of the environment.

This is not an attack at you Jon btw, you know I have a lot of time for you as I do many of the regular posters on these boards for both their witty nature and occasional insights into trading but the environment rather than the forum structure appears to be becoming increasingly oppressive.
 
How old do you have to be to spreadbet,...18 innit? Surely this site should be for 18+ 'adults' only? If someone under 18 is allowed to read this site then there is something very wrong??

Let adults be adults...get ya c*cks out boys!!
 
................. A good example was the spambot thread we all jumped on in a puerile way. Was this really insulting or lavatory? Really Jon?.............

? wot was that one called - d'you remember - and was it in foyer?
 
robs

There's not much community spirit in ganging up on another member however funny the jibes might be, nor is lavatory humour particular pleasant however much kids might snigger at it behind the bike sheds.

If you're referring to Toasty Jon, I don't recall him being ganged up on. That was him and me, mano a sexpat. Most spectators seemed fairly neutral, applauding skill in a non-partisan way, but chiefly concerned that the match should go 15 rounds at least.

He also brought it all on himself, by starting the row and then following me to continue it on a new thread once the original thread was closed. It died down a few times and was quiet for a day or two, then he deliberately re-started it.

As for jibes and lavatory humour and so on, unfortunately not everyone likes to engage in reasoned debate. They will make a post, have it demolished in reply, and refuse to answer or even acknowledge this. They repeatedly post falsehoods that are the complete inversion of the truth, no matter how many times these falsehoods are exposed.

At that stage they have demonstrated that they are barbarians with no regard for the rules of civilised debate. Well, so be it.

So I don't think it is fair to use this case (if that is whom you are referring to). He has a commercial agenda and should stick to that, rather than petulantly pursuing vendettas against other members (unprovoked I might add). I don't mind it particularly if someone does pursue an unprovoked vendetta against me, so long as I am allowed to deal with them. But this shouldn't be categorised as people ganging up on another member. He initiated the situation unprovoked, asked for everything he got, ignored repeated opportunities for it to end, and as a commercial member was extremely lucky that the record of his behaviour was deleted.
 
? wot was that one called - d'you remember - and was it in foyer?

a) you have to realize you just changed the forum structure, and most people wont have a clue where anything should go. That isn't a criticism of the new forum structure, or the memberships intellectual capacity to make sense of those changes, its just a fact. Its entirely possible that a lulzy thread could have been in a "lulz free zone"

b) Moving a thread is a relatively trivial task, probably no more difficult than deleting a thread, and certainly easier than editing and moderating the thread.
 
? wot was that one called - d'you remember - and was it in foyer?

Can't remember, but I did look for it a little while back and I think it has gone. A spam bot took a section of a post by ChocD and posted it as a new thread. The section ended randomly in the middle of a sentence.

The rest of thread was composed of variations upon around 5 original posts, including one about Splitlink's trip to Brighton some years ago, during which he consumed a fish cake (the story still makes me feel better, even now).

I can easily see people saying it was rubbish and should be deleted. But it reminded me (very slightly) of Tommy Cooper and indeed a lot of British humour. It shouldn't have been funny but it was. Very.

There is also surely something good about an online community (so to speak) that reacts in this way. The American expression about lemons and lemonade is a horrible one, but quite apt here I think.
 
If you're referring to Toasty Jon, I don't recall him being ganged up on. That was him and me, mano a sexpat. Most spectators seemed fairly neutral, applauding skill in a non-partisan way, but chiefly concerned that the match should go 15 rounds at least.

He also brought it all on himself, by starting the row and then following me to continue it on a new thread once the original thread was closed. It died down a few times and was quiet for a day or two, then he deliberately re-started it.

As for jibes and lavatory humour and so on, unfortunately not everyone likes to engage in reasoned debate. They will make a post, have it demolished in reply, and refuse to answer or even acknowledge this. They repeatedly post falsehoods that are the complete inversion of the truth, no matter how many times these falsehoods are exposed.

At that stage they have demonstrated that they are barbarians with no regard for the rules of civilised debate. Well, so be it.

So I don't think it is fair to use this case (if that is whom you are referring to). He has a commercial agenda and should stick to that, rather than petulantly pursuing vendettas against other members (unprovoked I might add). I don't mind it particularly if someone does pursue an unprovoked vendetta against me, so long as I am allowed to deal with them. But this shouldn't be categorised as people ganging up on another member. He initiated the situation unprovoked, asked for everything he got, ignored repeated opportunities for it to end, and as a commercial member was extremely lucky that the record of his behaviour was deleted.

I was talking generally, lep, not specifically about DT, although that's an example where I think banter and criticism went over the top even if only for its constancy across the boards wherever he participated.

So far as the boards are concerned an ott insult hurled at anyone does not entitle them to hurl one back, however tempting that might be, and the action is to expunge the original insult. That may not parallel real life, but it must be for the boards to avoid unproductive warfare.
 
My personal view is that it might be better if all could see

This may be possible Jon, I will see if it can be done.

Would it not be possible to have a subsection of the forum - The Sand Pit, or Play Pen

Again possible TL but not sure how it would work so will look into it.
 
What did I miss? Has a lot of stuff been deleted? I haven't followed this too closely as I've been traveling, or as counter_violent calls it, hiding behind a proxy IP.
 
Top