OT: Time out and/or Duke it out thread

[Julie]

Not at all offended (this stuff is maddening... doesn't have the right emojis), and your certainly right about what you said. I'm also glad you said...

"I also believe that atheists can have strong ethical and moral systems that are built on a variety of (nonreligious) sources, either implicitly or explicitly. And many atheists that I know have given a lot of thought to what they believe is ethical or moral behavior towards their fellow human beings and have ways to justify their ethical beliefs and moral that do not rely on the existence of a god that they do not believe in."

because it gets tiring having people think we're amoral, have no integrity, etc.

Anyhow, I think I'm also having a reaction to your election... sorry if I offend here, certainly don't mean to, but I truly feel the 'winner' is one of the scariest people alive (given his position now) and I probably am not making a lot of sense today.

This has all gotten way out of hand and it was so not my intention at all... I obviously am not very good at answering certain types of posts (or ignoring them) and will think about what's certainly my problem and not at all yours. And I do think (Roby Sue) that you write amazing notes here to people - so well thought out!

[robysue]

because it gets tiring having people think we're amoral, have no integrity, etc.

Yep. I'm a former agnostic. And I remember just how tiring it gets when people tell you that you must be amoral or have no integrity, etc. just because you've decided that the idea of a god makes no sense to you.

Anyhow, I think I'm also having a reaction to your election... sorry if I offend here, certainly don't mean to, but I truly feel the 'winner' is one of the scariest people alive (given his position now) and I probably am not making a lot of sense today.

You haven't offended me with your comments about your reaction to our election. Hell I am horrified by what's happened. I have NOT gotten involved in the Donald Trump threads and that's all I'm going to say here about it.

This has all gotten way out of hand and it was so not my intention at all... I obviously am not very good at answering certain types of posts (or ignoring them) and will think about what's certainly my problem and not at all yours. And I do think (Roby Sue) that you write amazing notes here to people - so well thought out!

Thank you for the complement.

[grayghost4]

because the OP was not a troll in the usual sense,

that IS the definition of TROLL

[Julie]

So, what about giving a course on trolldom, how to recognize a REAL one?

[jnk...]

A troll is a poster who thrives on provoking reaction rather than response.

[SleepyEyes21]

Hi Robysue- I'm going to try to reply back without the confusion; I apologize in advance (I'm still trying to learn how to use the Quote & Reply buttons correctly.)

SleepyEyes21,

I believe that you and I disagree on the definition of "Moderation." I'm not sure what your definition is, but it does not appear to be my definition of Moderation. Here's my definition of Moderation:

• (Robysue's working definition of Moderation in an on-line forum) A forum is Moderated if there are a very small group of members who are designated as "Moderators" and the Moderators are charged with enforcing a specific set of published, official rules that all posters and all posts must abide by. Moderators have the right to edit or remove posts that do not conform to the forum's rules. Moderators have the right to move an off topic post to another thread or subforum. Moderators have the duty to warn posters who break the rules that their posts have broken the official rules. Moderators have the right and duty to ban forum members who regularly violate the forum rules. The forum administration has a designated system for choosing Moderators. Should the forum administration decide that it is necessary, the forum may also have a policy where all posts must be read by and approved by an Moderator before the post is publicly available to all members of the forum.

-I agree that we may have and are possibly using different definitions of the word "moderator/ moderation" in our replies to each other. I believe you are solely describing job functions and/ or job roles of a forum moderator in your working definition above, along with a few general pieces of information about how some forum administrators operate in regards to their use of Moderators.
-Here is information that I found to define the word Moderator, as can be used in online or offline groups:
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moderator - one that arbitrates or mediates; one who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate;
2. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/moderator?s=t - a person who presides over a panel discussion on radio or television; a member of an online message board or electronic mailing list with privileges and responsibilities.

(Robysue said) But under my definition of Moderation, Johnny and Carolyn are the only official Moderators for the forum.

I find this statement to be a bit misleading and want to be sure other members understand what you are trying to say here. To be clear, it isn't because of your definition of moderation, Robysue, that there are only two 'official Moderators for the forum, namely Carolyn and Johnny G.' Because the reality is that online and offline groups can have one, two, or a large number of Moderators- it depends on what the group members and administrators/ organizers decide the needs of the group are, as to how many Moderators there will be or not be. It isn't limited to only a "small amount" as you stated in your 'working definition.' The truth is that Johnny and Carolyn G. started this forum long before Robysue or myself and many others were members, and yes- they decided the rules and that they alone would moderate.

(Robysue said) There are two parts of Johnny's moderation philosophy that are worth reiterating:

• Beware the person who wishes to legislate the morality and the behavior of his neighbor.
• There are no rules, no distant moderator, no respected member of the community that can legislate or moderate away our own foul dispositions.

I am keeping these in mind just as you should be

(Robysue said) So when I state that "more Moderation is NOT going to happen", I mean all of the following and only the following:

• The Goodmans are not going to write any additional rules that posters must abide by in order to post to the forum.
• The Goodmans are not going to appoint members of this forum as official Moderators with the power to legislate the behavior of the members of this forum.
• The Goodmans are not going to appoint members of this forum as official Moderators and then give those official Moderators the task of controlling the tone of discourse on the forum by giving them the right and responsibility to "monitor" others' posts for "bad behavior" and then remedy that bad behavior through such means as editing or removing posts, officially warning posters to clean up their bad behavior, and/or banning members from the group.
• The Goodmans are not going to try to control most day-to-day examples of "bullying" by increasing their own (very light) Moderation of the forum.
• The Goodmans retain the right (as the administrator and owner) of the forum to occasionally step in and deal with an excessively bad situation, and Johnny and Carolyn have sole control over what "bad situation" means in any particular instance.
• The Goodmans have the right to handle "bad situations" either in public or in private and they owe no explanation to the members of this forum for their choices in how to deal with a "bad situation."

Thanks for clarifying.

[SleepyEyes21]

I think SleepyEyes was referring to you saying that you yourself had been a dick, here:-

Maybe..big maybe...but I have my doubts.
SleepyEyes seems to feel that we have some sort of misunderstanding going on and I disagree. That I said things in the heat of anger to her/him and need to "come back when I cool off" and clear up things.
If he/she can't understand what I am saying then nothing else I can say will clarify things and since what I said wasn't in the heat of anger...there's no cooling off.
And I feel I have a fairly clear idea what she/he is saying and wanting to do.
So for me...no misunderstanding. So I won't engage. I simply don't want to.

And yeah...I did refer to myself as a dick...it's true...I can be one. Not something I am particularly proud of but I think most people would say that when I have gone down that road that it isn't something that make a habit of.
I don't remember ever calling public calling anyone a "dick"...now privately I probably called them much worse than a dick/jerk/asshole...I tend to stick with jerk or asshole publicly. But privately....that's a whole different story.

Colin is correct, Pugsy (thank you, Colin.) I was referring to the multiple times you have called yourself a d*ck in this thread; there is nothing in my post to Robysue that indicates I implicated you called anyone else but yourself by this term.

You claim 'we don't have a misunderstanding because (you) don't agree we do.' So you're right and I am wrong because we see things from a different perspective? I am trying to clear up what I feel are misunderstandings that you posted about me back when this thread started. Except you "simply don't want to." Now if I had misunderstood you in a public post, wouldn't you want to make clarifications to set the record straight? Wouldn't it be better to try to work things out rather than "assume" you know the other member's 'agenda' and start rumors that divide the group further? What kind of leader are you going to role-model for the rest of us?

(P.S.) There's always a chance to change your mind and your attitude.

[SleepyEyes21]

So, what about giving a course on trolldom, how to recognize a REAL one?

Aren't all trolls fake? How would you recognize a "real -fake troll??"

I wish Guest would put up a picture like mine, so I can see if we might be related

[chronic]

I see you all are still at it, good. I am so pleased that the Trumpster won the election. Let us all help make America great again.!

[SleepyEyes21]

Bumping up to help others find quickly. I am spotting evidence of snarky comments and digs by longtime members in Helping threads toward newbies, with no provocation on the newbies' part. Even if you (longtime member) felt there was justification for negative remark(s), what changed between YOUR seemingly 'saintly' appearance responses in this OT thread last week and beyond, and now out in the 'Helping threads'?

Please explain.

[Lucyhere]

.
I'm not reposting my post in the Election thread or Goofproof's response... I don't want my post anywhere near his.

Goofproof... I've heard through some members that you are a very sick man. I've also heard that your wife isn't well either. I'm truly sorry about that.

That said... you win the prize for being the most disgusting human person I've ever met on an internet forum. God bless you.

[Grace~~~]

.
I'm not reposting my post in the Election thread or Goofproof's response... I don't want my post anywhere near his.


That said... you win the prize for being the most disgusting human person I've ever met on an internet forum. God bless you.

Hi Miss Lucyhere ~~~

(I hope you don't mind Miss? I mean it in the highest and best as I use it with my highest and best friends. Freaked me out the first time I saw that it meant something else to other people? WH A ... 'Miss" is ... bad? But as I say I am not internet mannered? I like foe and booby trapped delete though?)

~~~anyway Lucyhere ~~~

I just really wanted to commend you as I thought your post was one of the first, (if not the 'very first?'), authentic Proof of Concept of Pugsy's suggestion for a compromise between free speech and common sense.

At your suggestion I looked at goofproof's post and I laughed?

I think now that President Elect Trump is about to act as our fiduciary there will be a higher level of comedy in the air(e)?

That seems like a good thing?

[Lucyhere]

.

CHUNKYFROG said:

"Sometimes I like to poke Lucy and watch her go bananas.
Silly Lucy--cannot identify humor, sarcasm."



Ahh... such a well thought out response, Chunkyfrog. However, you don't post to poke at me. You post because you can hide behind a computer screen, and join right in with others who say similar things. It's amusing to watch it play out, time and time again. What you are doing is called intimidation; mean spirited, uncalled for and unnecessary.

[SleepyEyes21]

.

CHUNKYFROG said:

"Sometimes I like to poke Lucy and watch her go bananas.
Silly Lucy--cannot identify humor, sarcasm."



Ahh... such a well thought out response, Chunkyfrog. However, you don't post to poke at me. You post because you can hide behind a computer screen, and join right in with others who say similar things. It's amusing to watch it play out, time and time again. What you are doing is called intimidation; mean spirited, uncalled for and unnecessary.

+ 1

And to clarify- ChunkyFrog was not 'poking at Lucy' in this particular thread; Frog was poking at and insulting the OP originally. See: viewtopic/t114421/OT-British-Teen-Wins- ... erved.html

So Chunky- when you agreed earlier in this thread with Pugsy and Robysue that it is not right to verbally attack another Member in the Helping threads or to post useless information to a Helping thread, were you lying to them (and all of us?) Or are you lying now?

[Guest]

And to clarify- ChunkyFrog was not 'poking at Lucy' in this particular thread; Frog was poking at and insulting the OP originally.

So Chunky- when you agreed earlier in this thread with Pugsy and Robysue that it is not right to verbally attack another Member in the Helping threads or to post useless information to a Helping thread, were you lying to them (and all of us?) Or are you lying now?

I suspect that chunkyfrog is one of many bi-polar posters on this forum.