Texan

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
He left this forum rather disgruntled as a result of a pile on. Remarks about the smallness of his dick, etc. While I tried to get Texan to stay here I did understand why he wanted to leave.

He was invited by Body Odor to join the sewer. That is now the Body Odor and Billy the Skid show with Booby talking other crap there, the same crap he posts on OzPol. Texan must be bored by now.

Meantime, we have moved to the XenForo software and are loving that. It is what Texan is used to and is far superior to YABB and phpBB3.

Texan would like using advanced software and a livelier discussion than the Body Odor and Billy the Skid Show not forgetting Booby.

What do people here think? Like to see Texan back here? Without Trump in the White House no pileup? Seth and Aussie, if you agree could you PM Texan on the yank forum and invite him back here? Not to post here instead in the sewer but in addition to that?
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Monk ... i don't understand why you posted this at ozpol . Ithas nothing to do with ozpol

you know sometimes it's best not to give them ammunition to use against you, right?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
He left this forum rather disgruntled as a result of a pile on. Remarks about the smallness of his dick, etc. While I tried to get Texan to stay here I did understand why he wanted to leave.

He was invited by Body Odor to join the sewer. That is now the Body Odor and Billy the Skid show with Booby talking other crap there, the same crap he posts on OzPol. Texan must be bored by now.

Meantime, we have moved to the XenForo software and are loving that. It is what Texan is used to and is far superior to YABB and phpBB3.

Texan would like using advanced software and a livelier discussion than the Body Odor and Billy the Skid Show not forgetting Booby.

What do people here think? Like to see Texan back here? Without Trump in the White House no pileup? Seth and Aussie, if you agree could you PM Texan on the yank forum and invite him back here? Not to post here instead in the sewer but in addition to that?
I'll ask him. But the loss of Texan is a reason why I think we have to have tighter rules about flaming each other, and about staying on topic. For example, if I were to post something pro-gun ownership, and someone comes on asking why I hate children, that should be tossed. Issues are not about the poster. They are to be debated on the merits of the issue, and we should not be impugning the poster for having a point of view. I don't know if I can get Texan to come back, but it wouldn't hurt to be able to tell him that the rules of the forum have been tightened up.

Today, on the Yank forum, I was having a discussion with another member about Trump. I had told him the same thing I have told you guys many times: that I disliked Trump's personality, but I agreed with his policy positions. Part of his reply to me was: "Your assertion that his policy positions can be differentiated from his personality flaws are questionable, to be kind and within the etiquette this forum requires."

Clearly, he disagreed with me. But he was also recognizing the rules of the forum, and he realized that getting all hostile and insulting was simply not allowed. Our conversation remained on a civil level, and I thought it was a good exchange, and it is still ongoing.

I think this forum ought to be like that.

I'll send a PM to Texan.

Seth
 

Aussie

Ima da Sheriff
Staff member
I'll ask him. But the loss of Texan is a reason why I think we have to have tighter rules about flaming each other, and about staying on topic. For example, if I were to post something pro-gun ownership, and someone comes on asking why I hate children, that should be tossed. Issues are not about the poster. They are to be debated on the merits of the issue, and we should not be impugning the poster for having a point of view. I don't know if I can get Texan to come back, but it wouldn't hurt to be able to tell him that the rules of the forum have been tightened up.

Today, on the Yank forum, I was having a discussion with another member about Trump. I had told him the same thing I have told you guys many times: that I disliked Trump's personality, but I agreed with his policy positions. Part of his reply to me was: "Your assertion that his policy positions can be differentiated from his personality flaws are questionable, to be kind and within the etiquette this forum requires."

Clearly, he disagreed with me. But he was also recognizing the rules of the forum, and he realized that getting all hostile and insulting was simply not allowed. Our conversation remained on a civil level, and I thought it was a good exchange, and it is still ongoing.

I think this forum ought to be like that.

I'll send a PM to Texan.

Seth

Got the link to that discussion Seth? I'd like to add my two cents.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
How would you frame such rules?

A Mod can lock a thread if he thinks it is generating more heat than light. I should have done that and maybe Texan would not have run off. Not an action to take lightly but can be useful.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
How would you frame such rules?

A Mod can lock a thread if he thinks it is generating more heat than light. I should have done that and maybe Texan would not have run off. Not an action to take lightly but can be useful.
Here's how it's done at PF ....

2. PERSONAL ATTACKS AND INSULTS


Personal attacks and insults are not tolerated here. When replying to a post, your own post must be about the post to which you are replying, not the poster themselves. Any personal remark about another poster that - in the judgment of a moderator or administrator - could reasonably be regarded as an intentional insult in the context of that discussion will be subject to infraction. Please also keep in mind that simply saying something that's not very nice is not necessarily an insult, nor does the fact that you are offended necessarily mean that you have been insulted.


The rules regarding personal attacks extend not only to individual posters, but to groups as well. For example, calling all Republicans idiots is the same as calling every Republican on the board an idiot, and will not be tolerated. A certain amount of latitude may be granted in discussing the policies and the practices of a political party or other political organization, but posters should be advised that this is thin ice, and be cautious about making remarks that personally insult the members of such parties or organizations. And again, simply saying, "I hate Republicans" does not constitute an attack or an insult against Republicans. "I hate Republicans because they are corrupt" is an attack, because it is attacking the character of all Republicans.


Attacks against public officials, political figures, celebrities, etc, are allowed, as long as they do not violate the guidelines concerning threats or incitement to violence (see below.)


3. FLAMEBAITING


Posts or images that, in the judgment of a moderator or administrator, are specifically intended to provoke emotional responses or personal attacks from other posters, rather than civil discussion, will be considered flamebaiting.

 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
Rule 3 is OK. Rule 2 is grandma-ish. I want robust debate, insults will necessarily be made in the heat of debate. Up to Mods to keep the level and nature of insults at some acceptable level.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Not allowed to insult somebody ?? for reasonable cause.. ?
Crikey.

Where is the fun in THAT.?

How about..... I hate corrupt Republicans...
Is that OK.? Just curious.. aren't you talking about another site for americans? The land of freedom of speech..?

What if I said that folk who buy kits to build home-made guns are dangerous mongrels.? Is specificity
offensive.?

Weird. You can't pick and choose really, you need people to agree... seems a strange set of rules .. but then, TBH I didn't read the attached.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
Instead of rules—use the Admin/Mods we have.

That is my feeling but willing to be convinced otherwise.

Can someone ask Texan maybe?
 

Lols

Active member
Monk ... i don't understand why you posted this at ozpol . Ithas nothing to do with ozpol

you know sometimes it's best not to give them ammunition to use against you, right?
Oh dear I just had to go look and I totally agree with John.
I know you’r very gutsy to go forth and be upfront Monk, but it’s really not a topic for OzPol.
Okay you may want to invite Texan back here, that’s lovely, and the message will go through to him....but, whatever the outcome is.... we will see.
 

Lols

Active member
I'll ask him. But the loss of Texan is a reason why I think we have to have tighter rules about flaming each other, and about staying on topic. For example, if I were to post something pro-gun ownership, and someone comes on asking why I hate children, that should be tossed. Issues are not about the poster. They are to be debated on the merits of the issue, and we should not be impugning the poster for having a point of view.
So fully agree the issue needing to be addressed, and not by getting personal with the poster.
If a poster wishes to put up personal issues or wants advice, that’s fine, but to use it later against a person to floor or trigger them...just to win some silly debating topic.... I would rather exit than bother to associate.
I like the informative discussions, because it’s good to learn something new at the end of the day, even if it’s for or against a topic and weigh the pros and cons.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Not allowed to insult somebody ?? for reasonable cause.. ?
Crikey.

Where is the fun in THAT.?

How about..... I hate corrupt Republicans...
Is that OK.? Just curious.. aren't you talking about another site for americans? The land of freedom of speech..?

What if I said that folk who buy kits to build home-made guns are dangerous mongrels.? Is specificity
offensive.?

Weird. You can't pick and choose really, you need people to agree... seems a strange set of rules .. but then, TBH I didn't read the attached.
I hate corrupt Republicans too! This, however, is different from saying "I hate YOU corrupt Republicans" or "All Republicans are corrupt."

If I were to say that "All Labor Party members are pedophiles", I would be calling everyone on this site who is a member of the Labor Party a pedophile. I don't think that's acceptable.

The Freedom of Speech in America is aimed at providing for free political speech. But many sorts of non-political speech are regulated in the U.S., and some speech is illegal. And you have the right to regulate the speech of others on property you control - like your house. If they don't comply with your rules, you may order them to leave your house and property. The owner of a website has the same rights, and that doesn't make him or her a fascist. It just means there are rules, just like there are rules in your own house.

Or in work place. There are tons of rules we follow that regulate our speech in the workplace.

I just don't see the attraction of a free-for-all, at least not for people who are looking for respectful debate.

Seth
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
I think we can tighten a couple of rules. We see few four letter words in the Politics boards yet there is no rule against them, we just discouraged them (“If you need lots of four letter words then maybe your argument is not very strong.”) We can discourage personal remarks/abuse with similar reasoning but I think a Mod can keep order and that is better than a huge number of rules.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
I added “personal remarks” to the blurb about 4 letter words in the Political boards.

The flamebaiting I agree, will add it to the Guidelines for Moderation
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I think we can tighten a couple of rules. We see few four letter words in the Politics boards yet there is no rule against them, we just discouraged them (“If you need lots of four letter words then maybe your argument is not very strong.”) We can discourage personal remarks/abuse with similar reasoning but I think a Mod can keep order and that is better than a huge number of rules.
We are a small group, and so I think you're right. We can police ourselves pretty easily with such a small group. If it were to grow large, that might change things, but for now a lot of rules are probably not necessary.
 
Top