Should this forum change?

[bannination]

Personal attacks on a forum, that's nothing new right? Does anyone think this should change? Should we draw the line at personal attacks? I don't believe we should censor someone, but I maybe there should be a punishment without censorship... for example if you decide to personally attack another member of the forum, calling them an idiot, or any other number of things instead of attacking the subject matter then perhaps we could institute a 12 hour to 1 day ban but leave the comment intact?

It could be like currency really, if you want to personally attack someone, fine, it won't be censored, but in exchange you'll be evicted for 12 hours to 1 day on each occurrence?

We've lost a few local people that I really enjoyed sparring with... I doubt this would change their mind on posting again, but perhaps it would get everything more "under control"?

Any other ideas? Comments? Suggestions?

Leave it as is? Input requested.

[Stinger]

It doesn't matter to me. Personal attacks don't add anything to the forum.

Some things you should consider:

Some of those who left are the first ones to start the personal attacks. Then they run to mommy when anyone throws it back at them.

If you have a group like Big Ugly, Thorn, Soupy, Partlysane, etc., you're going to have a lot of posts reported to the moderator, so the moderator -- you -- will be busy checking out posts for personal attacks.

[bannination]

It doesn't matter to me. Personal attacks don't add anything to the forum.

Some things you should consider:

Some of those who left are the first ones to start the personal attacks. Then they run to mommy when anyone throws it back at them.

If you have a group like Big Ugly, Thorn, Soupy, Partlysane, etc., you're going to have a lot of posts reported to the moderator, so the moderator -- you -- will be busy checking out posts for personal attacks.

I don't particularly disagree with any of those points. Perhaps we are better off with them gone. That's one way to look at it.

[homerfobe]

If you start banning for name calling, Stinger and Vrede would be the first to go.

Stinger's favorite name for someone is 'dumbas s' and Vrede's is 'idiot.

Some of those who left are the first ones to start the personal attacks. Then they run to mommy when anyone throws it back at them.

You're FOS. You're usually the first to attack someone. Ever hear of the word 'chickchit'? You keep a fresh supply.

[bannination]

homerfobe - can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I don't pretend to know why anyone left and wouldn't necessarily believe the reasons offered by some of them. With or without any name-calling it seems likely that some left because they got proven to be idiots so often and did not have a wet nurse to protect them.

On a practical level, wouldn't new rules be a real pain to enforce given how few of us there are, or even were before the departures? An alternative idea would be to go to regional con sites and lure folks with the promise of being more interesting than their echo chambers.

...... I don't think most conservatives can argue on an open forum. I guess it's a catch-22.

Just getting input from you guys makes me feel better though.

[homerfobe]

for example if you decide to personally attack another member of the forum, calling them an idiot, or any other number of things....

Stinger's favorite name for someone is 'dumbas s' and Vrede's is 'idiot'.

With or without any name-calling it seems likely that some left because they got proven to be idiots so often and did not have a wet nurse to protect them.

Point proven

homerfobe - can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Pardon me, oh Great Moderator. I forgot your most important of positions. You now have three great accomplishments in life that you can be proud of. Healthcare, activism, and forum moderator. I don't need a wet nurse to protect me from the likes of you balloon heads. All the others asked for was a bit of civility when "debating" in this sorry-a s s ed site you call a forum, but you ignorant excuses for humans only stabbed deeper while accusing them of whining and needing a wet nurse. I can take it or leave it, and for right now since I have your feathers ruffled, I'm staying. The petty bullsh-it name-calling you, O Really, rstrong, Stinger, and the other half-a s sed also-rans throw at me don't faze me a bit. I have thick skin and can take or match you word for word. If I want you to get your drawers up around your neck, all I have to do is ridicule your favorite oppressed group of sub-humans; and so far it works pretty damn good. Later.

[bannination]

Banned homerphobe for 30 minutes, just because I can.

[Stinger]

It doesn't matter to me. Personal attacks don't add anything to the forum.

Some things you should consider:

Some of those who left are the first ones to start the personal attacks. Then they run to mommy when anyone throws it back at them.

If you have a group like Big Ugly, Thorn, Soupy, Partlysane, etc., you're going to have a lot of posts reported to the moderator, so the moderator -- you -- will be busy checking out posts for personal attacks.

I don't particularly disagree with any of those points. Perhaps we are better off with them gone. That's one way to look at it.

I didn't say we were better off. I miss the little boogers.

[Stinger]

If you start banning for name calling, Stinger and Vrede would be the first to go.

Stinger's favorite name for someone is 'dumbas s' and Vrede's is 'idiot.

That's not for "someone." It's for "someone" who earns it. I haven't dished out an unmerited "dumbass" since I've been here.

Dumbass.

Some of those who left are the first ones to start the personal attacks. Then they run to mommy when anyone throws it back at them.

You're FOS. You're usually the first to attack someone. Ever hear of the word 'chickchit'? You keep a fresh supply.

Lying POS. I just give it back harder so that you overlook the first salvo. (There have been a couple of instances where I apologized for tossing the first bomb, but it's the exception, by far.) I'm the worst offender, but I don't start it.

[\V/]

No censorship...although utilizing other means, such as time-out seems adequate

[DooHickey]

Personal attacks on a forum, that's nothing new right? Does anyone think this should change? Should we draw the line at personal attacks? I don't believe we should censor someone, but I maybe there should be a punishment without censorship... for example if you decide to personally attack another member of the forum, calling them an idiot, or any other number of things instead of attacking the subject matter then perhaps we could institute a 12 hour to 1 day ban but leave the comment intact?
Go back and take a look at who generally throws the first barbs. Homer attacks a subject and then the ship hits the sand with his slinging it back and y'all get all up in arms. Like Stinger said; mere entertainment.

There's no debate or a forum here. Supsalesmgr, Reality, Colonel Taylor and a few more would comment on topics only to have your circle of jawjackers attack them like rabid pitbulls. Complaints were met with sneers and jeers and crap like "crying to mommy, needing a wet nurse", etc.

It could be like currency really, if you want to personally attack someone, fine, it won't be censored, but in exchange you'll be evicted for 12 hours to 1 day on each occurrence?
Big whoopee-doo.

We've lost a few local people that I really enjoyed sparring with... I doubt this would change their mind on posting again, but perhaps it would get everything more "under control"?
Is what you're spending to support this site really worth it? You've lost what you previously enjoyed, and there's no retrieving that; so you're stuck with your stinking bags of trash that no one else wants. You made your bed, now lie in it.

[DooHickey]

...Homer attacks a subject and then the ship hits the sand with his slinging it back and y'all get all up in arms...

homerfobe's entire purpose in life is to attack whole classes of people and on the rare occasions when Supsalesmgr, Reality, or Colonel Taylor posted a rational opinion or actual facts they were met with reasoned discussion or respectful disagreement. Since they mostly posted sheer wingnuttery it would have been insincere of us to call it anything different.

With a start like that we can discount the rest of what you say as fantasy or dishonesty.

Point proven. You and your cronies are the only ones here who are absolutely correct on all subjects. I really expected a reply as such. Thanks, you proven me correct.

So Banni, are you going to continue wasting your money?

[Boatrocker]

...... I don't think most conservatives can argue on an open forum. I guess it's a catch-22.

Just getting input from you guys makes me feel better though.

There are precious few conservatives to worry about; these are, mostly, RW bombthrowers, not conservatives. How I would welcome some thinking conservatives!
I'm still a newbie, here, but I know some of these folks from other forums. Whatever weight- if any- my opinion carries, I say let it fly. Bring it on. JYIS gets old pretty quick ,even if done well, and once the entertainment is worn off it, it has nothing to offer the conversation. But I don't care to censor even the roughest comments. Too many of these goobers have no real argument to make (definition of real argument to include verifiable facts and figures and stuff) and only come in here for what appear to be masochistic reasons. They don't come here to debate; debate is not born of dogmatic religious brainwashing or Lim-Beck bloviation or some wildass conspiracy nonsense from breitbart, Alex Jones or WingNut Daily. They come here to screech from their tree limbs and fling handfuls of crap.
Let 'em cuss, let 'em call me names, let 'em post pics of nekkid women- I don't care. Or draw a hard line and strictly enforce a code of conduct; I can live with that, too. But since most forums with rigid moderation will eventually devolve into a greek chorus of like-minded folk stroking each other with identical opinions and beliefs, that gets old pretty quick, too. That's why I prefer the Wild West format.

[bannination]

So Banni, are you going to continue wasting your money?

Obama is paying for it, no big deal.

[Boatrocker]

. . . Obama is paying for it, no big deal.

Did you get a free phone, too?

[DooHickey]

So Banni, are you going to continue wasting your money?

Obama is paying for it, no big deal.

I should have known!

[O Really]

I see our main obstacle here to be one of limited exposure to new participants. A forum associated with a newspaper, for example, gets people coming and going largely driven by the articles. An independent forum without an easy entrance driven by something with wide accessibility has difficulty growing. Maybe our regulars could introduce people they know to the forum, or just include links in some emails or on Facebook pages.

As to censoring, I'm not generally in favor, and can put up with most anything personally. However, there is a wide and fuzzy line past which any polite society (or maybe civilized society) shouldn't stand by and accept. And it's not just a matter of foul language itself. "(name of public person) is a f-tard" is not the same as "you're an f-tard" or "all (name a group) are f-tards." But any of those could be OK or not, depending on context.

I don't have an answer, but I think enlarging our participation base (no matter the viewpoint) would take care of most of the problem.

[bannination]

. . . Obama is paying for it, no big deal.

Did you get a free phone, too?

Actually the website is running off the phone.

[Boatrocker]

[JTA]

I say no. If someone chooses to use insults then they're just making themselves look bad and less credible. You can always ignore them.

However, if they start making threats then ban them.