Locked off thread...

[marksman]

l am still having trouble with what has been said
is it about name calling or the way people put up their perspectives (the way they said it)

if we can "discuss virtually anything here"
l do understand you say discuss and we all have to know full well that we may have something said that we dont agree with and we may get offended

if l understand you correctly we can have free speech but not hate speech
a quote from Jordan Peterson
"everyone is offended by something - if we ban things that are offensive, eventually we won't be able to talk at all, and we won't be able to think."

so if my opinion was
"we should not listen to the troubled 17 yo Swedish profit of doom for global policy leadership whose terrifying little kids and preaching panic"
that would be ok, right as long as l dont call her names eg... Gretazilla

l dont like the name calling or the inferring, alluding comments although l am guilty of it myself but that's why there are mods am l right

[Member-Deleted]

I believe having moderators is a must but I cant understand how long it takes them to react to a suspected trouble maker ie ''If'' and there ''was'' name calling on these locked threads then why did the threads get to 30-40 pages ?

I am ''EMBARRASSED'' to say I lowered myself to the level of a person on one of those posts and retaliated to their continual down grading of people that he didn't agree with. At that time I did mention that I may be removed from this forum for doing so but I didn't care as enough was enough .

I think the only way to get through to these people would be 3 strikes your out rather than shut debate down, it has to be 3 because people have to be able to tidy up unintended wrongs .

As far as Gretta's post goes I back everything I posted I stated it as I saw it , If that post was flagged then why wasn't a warning posted from the moderators stating that it would be closed if it wasn't tidied up , this would have saved them having to read the whole post from start to finish rather than shut it and penalise everybody .

It's starting to be too much too late , I understand that the moderators have a mammoth task but they would have known that when opening this forum, rather than ''shut'' this ''close'' that why not select the problem individual rather than punish everyone ,there can't be too many to deal with, you can start with me if you like for the outburst on the post that embarrassed me so there is my first voluntary warning ,but I have learnt from that embarrassment and there won't be a second

[Oldbloke]

Just guessing, but moderators may have been away over xmas and out of internet range. So not really checking.

[Member-Deleted]

Well Scomo had to come home OB

[Blackened]

l am still having trouble with what has been said
is it about name calling or the way people put up their perspectives (the way they said it)

...

so if my opinion was
"we should not listen to the troubled 17 yo Swedish profit of doom for global policy leadership whose terrifying little kids and preaching panic"
that would be ok, right as long as l dont call her names eg... Gretazilla

More or less. The point is, there are ways to express your opinion. Let's assume you're 17, I could say:

"I don't understand why people listen to Marksman, he's clearly inexperienced and hasn't shown any real credentials on this subject. I hope he fades from the limelight soon."

Or I could say:

"Marksman is a ****cking moron. I hope someone punches him in the face".

For reasons that escape me some people insist on using the later.

l dont like the name calling or the inferring, alluding comments although l am guilty of it myself but that's why there are mods am l right

To an extent. We're certainly not here to endlessly clean up after bickering children.

People need to act like adults, otherwise they should not participate. At the end of the day, no one is forced to be here. If people don't like the way this forum is run, they should seek another.

Along those same lines, every member has the ability to report a post they feel is inappropriate. If people don't use the tool that is provided to them to do this then they've got no right to complain when their concerns don't get actioned.

[Blackened]

I believe having moderators is a must but I cant understand how long it takes them to react to a suspected trouble maker ie ''If'' and there ''was'' name calling on these locked threads then why did the threads get to 30-40 pages ?

Again mate, used the report function.

This forum isn't small, and moderators have responsibilities outside of it, as you know.

To quote from that post:

Mods also aren't omnipotent and we can't be everywhere. There are over 180,000 posts on this forum, you shouldn't be shocked to learn I haven't read them all. The same goes for Aster and Monty.

Complaining nothing is being done in a topic we haven't seen obviously won't accomplish anything. If you feel something is inappropriate, use the functionality that is provided to you for that purpose to bring it to our attention. Every report comes direct to the mods and we will see it.

We can easily delete content and remove problem members, but only if we know there is an issue. If you've got the time/inclination to write a post complaining about it, you've got the time to report it instead. It takes 2 clicks.

Mods get notified of every report directly. Report a problem and it will usually get actioned within a few hours.

I think the only way to get through to these people would be 3 strikes your out rather than shut debate down, it has to be 3 because people have to be able to tidy up unintended wrongs .

This is also happening.

I understand that the moderators have a mammoth task but they would have known that when opening this forum, rather than ''shut'' this ''close'' that why not select the problem individual rather than punish everyone ,there can't be too many to deal with, you can start with me if you like for the outburst on the post that embarrassed me so there is my first voluntary warning ,but I have learnt from that embarrassment and there won't be a second

I believe I've addressed that here - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=13093#p221374

[Blackened]

Just guessing, but moderators may have been away over xmas and out of internet range. So not really checking.

As mentioned in the previous reply:

moderators have responsibilities outside of [the forum].

And again... all peoples problems could be easily solved with a click of the report button

[marksman]

l still dont get it you have to be kidding how can this tripe not be seen as offensive word games

"I don't understand why people listen to Marksman, he's clearly inexperienced and hasn't shown any real credentials on this subject. I hope he fades from the limelight soon."

WTF

[Blackened]

l still dont get it you have to be kidding how can this tripe not be seen as offensive word games

Mate, honestly, I think my explanation is pretty clear.

I'll leave the following as food for your thought instead. You said yourself:

if l understand you correctly we can have free speech but not hate speech
a quote from Jordan Peterson
"everyone is offended by something - if we ban things that are offensive, eventually we won't be able to talk at all, and we won't be able to think."

Is there something objectively inappropriate with my example? Or do you find it "offensive"?

If I, as an Australian with no political or governmental experience, started campaigning for President Of the United States, and someone said "Blackened is inexperienced and has no credentials, and I hope his campaigning fades from the media soon" would you consider that "tripe" or "offensive word games"? Or a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold and express?

I'm quite certain you would consider it the latter.

There is clearly a difference between "inexperienced and hasn't shown any real credentials" and "is a ****cking moron", yet the possibility exists for someone to be offended by the first statement.

You can have free speech with the possibility of disagreement and you personally interpreting something as offensive, or you can have every last iota of material someone could find offensive deleted. You can't have both, and you can't be happy for there to be dissent and disagreement except for if it's directed at you. Any discussion to the contrary of either of these points is futile.

At the end of the day, I obviously can't provide a complete list of every single possible phrase and scenario which is, or is not, acceptable. Mods can only action things as they deem appropriate for the forum, based on the individual circumstances.

That's the last I have to say on the matter. Anything else I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[marksman]

l'm very happy to agree to disagree with you Blackened

now that the rules are quite clear there will be some changes, but dont expect to be getting any reports of problems from me, its not me
l have a big bag of cement and a teaspoon