Should Sue related threads get moved to PURE/sue/caca forum?

[Rachael]

Oh my dear lord..... this is just absurd.

When an ideological group of people break their own beliefs and hold others to it, I call them hypocrites. When they are annoyed with something and claim to solve it for righteous purposes I call them self righteous.

I believe Bush's bizarre pattern of circular logic has infected large segments of the American population. To paraphrase, "They are self-righeous because I am calling them self-righteous because they claim to be righteous, even though they didn't, I did."


Bah!

[Anonymous]

But of course we are supposed to believe said moderators are above human emotion, and live on an objective plain us simple emotional folk simply cannot understand. Silly me!

I believe that would be plane, as in plane of existence.  Your emotions must have gotten the better of you.


Moderators = God and you know what a prankster HE is.
 :rofl:

[Anonymous]

Circular logic is posting on a forum that says on it's gate "This is an uncensored, unmoderated forum" at the same time saying you have no problem moderating. Circular logic is allowing theWho to post as much as he wants, and then moderate a virulent anti-program poster and claim you are "helping the cause" in some way by making information easier to find.

[Anonymous]

But of course we are supposed to believe said moderators are above human emotion, and live on an objective plain us simple emotional folk simply cannot understand. Silly me!

I believe that would be plane, as in plane of existence.  Your emotions must have gotten the better of you.


Moderators = God and you know what a prankster HE is.
 :rofl:

Post your address and I will mail you five dollars for the spelling lesson, I don't want your wisdom to go unrewarded.  Prankster? I don't know about that.

[Rachael]

Groupthink:

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action’.

Also, the distortion of reality testing and suspension of critical thinking which can occur in highly cohesive teams.  

Irving Janis (the fellow who coined the term)

----------------------------


So, what the term actually refers to is a situation where the group is so cohesive in terms of it's message that the entire group displays the same opinion while simultaneously refusing to consider other options or use critical thinking.

What we are doing is discussing the options you could also call this critical thinking. It is pretty bloody obvious that we do not have a unanimous voice. And, even if we did all agree, it would not be groupthink unless we also prevented/restricted critical discussion.

This is not groupthink!

This is a process working towards consensus.

[Anonymous]

The reason I brought up the term Group Think was because nobody thought to ask the poster, would you mind not posting so much in this forum or limit it to one thread? Go smoke a jay and have a rest, I'm tired of reading this annoying crap over and over and over (if they were more honest). Instead it is approached as a confrontation. Group vs individual. I think that is reminiscent of a group confrontation, perhaps not group think is the right term to use you are right. Because when a group confronted so many posters here, they did not think they were wrong, but the group did, and forced their will upon them regardless. "For the good of the group"

I do agree fornits does not have a unanimous voice in any way shape or form. However, those with the power to moderate, I believe the group to be very small. They are the people I hope to influence with my rhetoric and arguments, I just think there could of been better ways to go about it than either forcing or coercing a anti-program poster into posting where they obviously don't want to. Why not just ask them nicely instead of changing the entire policy of this forum and descending into hypocrisy?

[psy]

A majority (if not all) posters also thought it was a good idea to ban theWho, why was this not done?

What are the reasons for the moving of someone's posts so far? All I have read for the reason is convenience, clutter, and 'because I think so' arguments.

As far as theWho is concerned I hate that guy but I did see with my own eyes his posts altered in TSW's forum, so that is a moot issue, his posts were altered. Now please ban him since mob rules, it would seem.

The Facilities questions forum IS moderated.  Big difference.

[Anonymous]

I assume posters post information where they want to because they have a damn good reason.  Is this a libertarian forum or not? The users should use the resources as they see fit - because they know what's best for their information and how to distribute it.

The idea that a few empowered individuals are deemed the power to judge whether the placement of said information was correct and/or effective is a slippery slope. Same as coercive taxation, take away from the people, give it to the empowered to spend it as they see fit "for the good of the people" they took it from.

I have to believe the Scheff poster has a reason for posting the way they do, and where they do. I can't make the logical hurdle to consider myself smarter or somehow better able to judge the effectiveness of information they produce, and according to the site owner words  "they own."

[Anonymous]

The Facilities questions forum IS moderated.  Big difference.

What a great example, see how well that forum turned out everyone? What is it, last on the list now? How quickly we forget.

[psy]

Frankly guys, the Who isn't the discussion here, alright, that's over.  

Back to the discussion at hand, you should just move the threads to the appropriate forums .  Why ask anyone?   Just do it.  In fact, Ginger, I think you control the site, right?  If you see new posts pop up in the wrong forums, just move them.  I've seen this done on other BBS sites.  The title remains, but a notation is made that is has been moved to yada yada yada forum.  It's that simple.  And if you have to, make a new disclaimer that posts may be moved to approriate forums as the board deems necessary.  I don't see what the big deal is.  You're never going to make everyone happy, so just make the call.

I have to ask Ginger before making such a call.

[psy]

Frankly guys, the Who isn't the discussion here, alright, that's over.  

Back to the discussion at hand, you should just move the threads to the appropriate forums .  Why ask anyone?   Just do it.  In fact, Ginger, I think you control the site, right?  If you see new posts pop up in the wrong forums, just move them.  I've seen this done on other BBS sites.  The title remains, but a notation is made that is has been moved to yada yada yada forum.  It's that simple.  And if you have to, make a new disclaimer that posts may be moved to approriate forums as the boards deems necessary.  I don't see what the big deal is.

Because fornits has always made ideological claims of being a bastion of freedom of speech, most forum do not make such statements. You don't see the big deal because you haven't seen survivors been bashed and harrassed repeatedly by pro-program people and then the admins to say, sorry I will not ban/change/edit/move these absolutely disgustingly offensive posts, sorry, and then they quote Voltaire and their free speech ideology and all that. I am simply holding them to their own statements. I would of loved this forum to be moderated from day one. Make it a survivor forum. Make it a parent forum. Do whatever. Make the intentions clear. But when the intention is to "clean up the mess", what a subjective statement to make. They are trying to have it both ways, by claiming it's an unmoderated forum, while at the same time moderating. Moderating, by definition, is what they are discussing doing. They are going to moderate what they view to be excessive Scheff posts.

I don't care either way, I am not personally involved in the Scheff matter. But don't claim to be righteous when you are not. This forum will be just like anti-wwasp, cafety and any other moderated forum. The reasons seem well enough, and seem like they will help but as the policy shifts remember this thread, because once they partake in this slippery slope, it ultimately implodes,. Just like last time.

I'm not making any decision here.  I'm simply posing the question and stating my opinion.  Obviously, at least one person is against the idea.  Personally, i think it would be better to have the posts moved to the pure-caca forum for a variety of reasons, but i'm not saying that's the way it has to be.  Moving a thread (leaving a ghost thread linking to the new location) i don't see as censorship.  Moderation?  Technically... But ultimately it's Ginger's decision and not mine.

Slippery slope?  I don't think so.  We aren't talking about one or two sue-related threads, we are talking about many of them, and once they dissappear on this forum (tti) they are damn near impossible to find in the future when you really want to find them.  The pure-caca forum at least is a subject-related organization.

Censorship?  What about threads near the end of this forum that are never heard of again.  I consider the whole issue presented in the Sue threads currently to be very imporant and DON'T want them to get lost.  At the very least, what do people feel about moving the threads to the pure-caca forum once they are off TTI's page 1?  At least then the won't get lost.

[Mummie]

Gottcha there.

[Anonymous]

Moderation? Technically...

So we agree then. I said in one of my first posts, if the policy is changed, then change the quote on the forum saying it's an unmoderated forum. That was the extent of my entire argument. Some of us had disagreed on whether moving threads is moderation, I believe it is - which is why this could quickly turn hypocritical and I hate to see that happen to my favorite forum.

[Anonymous]

The people screaming SUE SCHEFF SUE SCHEFF SUE SCHEFF would be told to gb/2/PURE Bullshit, and all the really obvious programmie trolls making noises about Fornits' moderation would be sent on a free trip to b& l&, if this forum did actually have anything that on other forums would be considered moderation.

This whole topic is about clearing out all the Suespam so we have a forum to talk about other things. The whining isn't working, nobody believes TheWhos's bullshit, and it's just inspiring me to make even more Aspen-themed .info sites.

[psy]

But of course we are supposed to believe said moderators are above human emotion, and live on an objective plain us simple emotional folk simply cannot understand. Silly me!

It's the nature of power to corrupt.  Checks and balances need to be instituted to keep those with power honest.  Adding an edit trail is one check, another is having multiple moderators.  In any case, nobody is making any decision until it goes through Ginger and the, other admins, and the user population is polled.