About: Most Annoying Member Redux thread

[PatrickHenry]

Well if that's the case, keep in mind that even the patrons shouldn't make messes at discotheques; otherwise, they wouldn't be welcome anymore.

Anyway, sometimes reformists are excessively idealistic, but at least there will be good results. Many of your threads that had good intentions but got closed down ended up not being fun anymore.

And why? Inadequate moderation! They wern't meant to be flame threads, the mods just let them get out of control...

So then they close the thread and the flaming starts elsewhere. You gotta treat the root of the problem, not the symptoms...

[Jason]

I don't typically browse that forum, but you're definitely right. These threads are not good for the site.

[pikatore]

heres a thought.

create a flaming thread with no real rules for people to blow off steam and really go nuts. i think that will release tension that can sometimes surface in more serious discussion.

[Jason]

I think that would create some serious hostilities here. In addition, promoting no rules is not going to be constructive.

[fushigi]

I think everyone should note that this site has become increasingly anti-flame in the past few months, while memberships and post numbers have consistently increased. (Look at last year's top posters counts, September-December if you don't believe me).

Doing a little research, you'll see this movement to a more sophisticated site with greater intellectual integrity has been going on for years now:

September 2005: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/gener...nnoying+thread

As Irene mentioned above, we are erring a little too far on the side of freee speech in that we are allowing too many insults, which violate the rules.

And, btw, this forum wasn't freindly at all until recently - it was hard core only.

I think all these off-topic conversations are helping. I like hard-core debate when I have the time, but not flame wars.

Also, this isn't the first time moderators have had to crack down on massive social cleavages on Volconvo. Check out this thread (also September 2005): http://www.volconvo.com/forums/misce...nnoying+thread

Kyran. http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2821
Or maybe Pooeypants for closing my "most annoying member" topic. heh. He was annoyed with the most annoying member's questions, and in a fit of pique, closed a very humorous thread. That's wrong...

That was under the Sean era. So, I think you all see that this enforcement against personal, public grudge matches is nothing new--it's been going on for a long time, and the same decision's always reached: shut it down.

fushigi

[Setnakt]

Is there an acceptable way to try to communicate issues openly with people who are being disruptive? If not a "you're annoying" type thread, what kind of thread would that be? Is it better to never point out what you see to be a problem, or is it only okay to do it privately?

[Jason]

Such correspondence must be private and non-abusive.

[Scribbler1]

This forum used to have a board called "Flame Fest" which has morphed into the (comparatively) obsessively tame "Miscellaneous" board. And a bit TOO tame, if I'm allowed my two cents. And I'M pretty much known as one of the more civil "old timers".

A few members may like the idea of a forum where the most heated discussions start with "I say, while I will defend your right to take that stance I most strongly disagree..." but when Dick Cheney and John McCain can swear at their fellow legislators, it should be obvious that politics ain't like sunday school and people DO get emotional without the world coming to an end. When that is taken away the fire goes out of political discussion and the whole point is lost.
But I guess PC is becoming the rule almost everywhere these days.

Just my two cents.

[Jason]

It isn't about political correctness. It's about preventing this site from degenerating into immature, emotional, personal squabbles with little attention to arguments and content.

[fushigi]

but when Dick Cheney and John McCain can swear at their fellow legislators, it should be obvious that politics ain't like sunday school

When I start debating like Dick Cheney and John McCain, please ban me.

fushigi

[Scribbler1]

It isn't about political correctness. It's about preventing this site from degenerating into immature, emotional, personal squabbles with little attention to arguments and content.

I agree with that, but when the posts ARE on topic and have good content but get a little heated is what I'm talking about.
I thought I would post this here because I believe this very thread illustrates my point. Instead of just avoiding certain threads if they get upset with the actions of others, they want to keep complaining until they see every thread conform to their unnecessarily bland standards. I think this penalizes the people who still see political discussion as a little rough around the edges. For many posters on these forums, political discussion is mostly born of anger generated by a serious dissatisfaction with what is. In that sense I think it DOES become a matter of PC when people are told to leave their emotions at the door.

You've done a lot of hard work on this site, that's obvious to me, and I've been here since the beginning. I was even a moderator here and remember taking quite a bit of abuse for it from a handful of members, which I believe I took in stride and never let it "get to me".
I just hate the idea of a handful of relentless complainers taking the emotion and, frankly, the fun out of arguing politics. Too MUCH anger is bad, but none at all will end up like discussing politics with your grandmother and I really don't think that's good for this forum either.

[Scribbler1]

When I start debating like Dick Cheney and John McCain, please ban me.

fushigi

I sure hope you were kidding there, as you MUST know that wasn't the point. I never advocated acting like either of those fools nor did I want to see that kind of behavior allowed here. My observation is, like in many situations, there is a danger of the pendulum swinging too far away from the "wrong" behavior so as to negate the good intentions of moving away in the first place.