Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: psy on August 28, 2007, 10:11:39 PM
-
It's getting a bit cluttered in the TTI. What do people think?
-
It would be good for them to all be under one forum. It is easier to keep up with was is going on with.
However, sometimes things like Focal Point get posted in teen help forum because the original poster doesnt' realize when the discussion starts out that they are issues dealing with Sue or any of her croanies are apart of it. As a matter of fact I didn't realize Focal Point forum had anything to due with Scheff until the law suit hit the net.
I just don't want to miss something by assuming everything related to them is always going to be posted under PURE and Caica
-
Well - considering the sum of the posts appears to be that Sue Scheff's daughter is now WORKING in the industry for a program her mother (PURE) apparently refers to, I can think of another forum that might also qualify: The ED CON forum.
2nd, this revelation is sure to expand and spin off into other threads and blogs, so I think it's probably just as well that it started off in TT.
Point is, what do people think of this child working for a program and apparently, promoting her mother's business, book, their combined story, etc. but not disclosing that she works for a program?
And what is Iz's connection to the Scheff family and this school, Harbor Oaks?
How many WWASPS kids have been placed there?
Is there more to this story?
-
One thing that would help is to not have multiple posts on the same issue. Post in the same thread instead of starting a new one.
-
At least change the description that says this is an unmoderated forum then.
-
A little clean up ain't moderation per se, go for it if you think it will aid the discussion... i.e. make it easier to follow and understand. This will also spare Waygookin an aneurysm me thinks...
-
Example: All of these could be in one thread insted of 4- same subject.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=22994 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=22994)
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=22999 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=22999)
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=22993 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=22993)
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=22998 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=22998)
-
Anything that puts her in the limelight works for me. Want to know where she is and what she's doing as much as possible; makes it harder for anyone to sneak.
What does She do? Fish for places that suit her needs and just keep hopping around each time she gets 'flushed'? ::seg::
"...appears to be that Sue Scheff's daughter is now WORKING in the industry for a program her mother (PURE)...". This is 'news' to y'all? Careful w/her. She IS "her mother's daughter".
Could this ALL go under 'PURE Bullshit'? I LOVE that title ::seg::
-
This is unmoderated forurm so who cares?
-
Moving people's threads around is moderation. The moderators artificially create interest in threads with stickies, and hide others by placing them in less-viewed forums or similar threads. If you are going to moderate, just say so. But don't ban the who, and let him back in on some righteous claim that this forum is the mother of free speech forums.
-
Depends on your intent. If it is just housecleaning then moving it to a place where it is all together, like the “pureâ€
-
Moving people's threads around is moderation. The moderators artificially create interest in threads with stickies, and hide others by placing them in less-viewed forums or similar threads. If you are going to moderate, just say so. But don't ban the who, and let him back in on some righteous claim that this forum is the mother of free speech forums.
There aren't very many stickies and that's just to keep the 'meat' of the issue in one place. No one is "artificially creating interest in threads" or "hiding" anything. That's Sue and Izzy's job. Nothing is perfect, but this forum is the closest thing there is to completely free speech.
-
Who decides what is the meat of the issue?
Who decides what is important enough to remain in the TTI forum, and what will be relegated to the internet equivalent of a "free speech zone", a out of the way dark corner people can protest to their heart's content but nobody will see it.
If the forum isn't perfect free speech then why let theWho back in? That was done on purely idealogical grounds so why would you expect people not to hold this forum to the standard from that point on?
This is about people trying to implement control and mold fornits into what they want it to be, it happened before. TSW went sticky and organizational crazy when he was admin, it happens every time someone is given the power and the reorganize according to their own beliefs on priority. That ain't free speech.The who said his posts were altered, now exactly free speech is it? See how ridiculous it is when subscriping to a strict ideology? It's so easy for us to poke holes through it.
-
Who decides what is the meat of the issue?
Who decides what is important enough to remain in the TTI forum, and what will be relegated to the internet equivalent of a "free speech zone", a out of the way dark corner people can protest to their heart's content but nobody will see it.
If the forum isn't perfect free speech then why let theWho back in? That was done on purely idealogical grounds so why would you expect people not to hold this forum to the standard from that point on?
This is about people trying to implement control and mold fornits into what they want it to be, it happened before. TSW went sticky and organizational crazy when he was admin, it happens every time someone is given the power and the reorganize according to their own beliefs on priority. That ain't free speech.The who said his posts were altered, now exactly free speech is it? See how ridiculous it is when subscriping to a strict ideology? It's so easy for us to poke holes through it.
I'm not going crazy at all. I'm just posting a poll to see what the popular opinion would be. Although the vote seems to be unanimously in favor of moving the threads, based on the response, i don't think it's a good idea to move the threads.
As for Priority? have you checked out my sig recently, or my new blog?
::bangin::
-
In my opinion, we are giving Sue Scheff far too much power by concentrating so bloody much on her and PURE and all the rest to the negligence of other issues. I think it is extremely important to keep track of her and what she's doing, but that in no way should that be allowed to get in the way of other equally important things like Hepzibah House and Peninsula Village, etc. I think that the overwhelming number of SS threads on the TTI forum is not productive, and I for one am less likely to pay attention to the other threads when they're blocked by so much SS chatter. However, at the same time, all of the SS threads can't just be condensed so easily. It is important to maintain the distinction about the many facets of the SS problem (Carey Bock, WWASPs trial, etc, etc.). And particularly in light of recent events (the direct attack on fornits), it is important to keep SS at the forefront of our minds. But, I think it does a disservice to all those interested to attempt to keep the thread count down.
As far as I'm concerned, the best possible solution allows us to focus on the myriad of facilities, and all the associated discussions about them as well as maintaining the discussion re: SS in its entirety. That being said, I would like to see SS threads kept in the SS forum. Of course, as someone mentioned, the problem is making sure people looking for information can find it. To encourage that, a sticky could be created directing all SS and PURE issues to the apporpriate forum.
But that's just me.
-
Who decides what is the meat of the issue?
The stickied threads aren't very long. It's not like they get much attention. It's mostly to put source docs on, I think. I don't look at them much unless new information is posted.
Who decides what is important enough to remain in the TTI forum, and what will be relegated to the internet equivalent of a "free speech zone", a out of the way dark corner people can protest to their heart's content but nobody will see it.
The KIDSofJersey example is a poor one. I believe that was moved altogether. To Yahoo or something. There were hardly any participants which is why it was always at the bottom. It wasn't come conspiracy against KIDS.
If the forum isn't perfect free speech then why let theWho back in? That was done on purely idealogical grounds so why would you expect people not to hold this forum to the standard from that point on?
Apples and oranges.
This is about people trying to implement control and mold fornits into what they want it to be, it happened before. TSW went sticky and organizational crazy when he was admin, it happens every time someone is given the power and the reorganize according to their own beliefs on priority. That ain't free speech.The who said his posts were altered, now exactly free speech is it? See how ridiculous it is when subscriping to a strict ideology? It's so easy for us to poke holes through it.
I agree about how things got after TSW got his mod status. That was corrected. The Who lied about his posts being altered. Deb added the icon only, she did not alter what he wrote.
This is stupid. There is already a forum for PURE/Sue. There is already one for EdCons. What more do we need? I don't mind moving threads from TTI to a PURE/CAICA/SUE forum. That's where they belong so they dont' continue to distract from the rest of the TTI.
Just my .02. Do whatever ya please.
-
Anyone else find it EXTREMELY IRONIC that the opening page to FORNITS.COM focuses on Scheff and a thread like this takes place? :rofl:
Opening page has what, about a full page all abou Sue? A statement from Ginger directed at Sue? A link to five websites about Sue?
Like a fat kid with a cookie in his hand asking for more food.
-
Drama, drama everywhere and nary the chance to think!
8/24/07 UPDATE!
[addendum to ^^^: We've been back up for awhile. How slack of me to leave out the all important links to
WWF.Fornits.com & DCHFans.org
I'll write an update on the bum's rush from NetFirms as soon as I can, I promise! Also I'll have the product and keyword ads in place very soon. Also.... oh, dear lord, who am I kidding! What I mean to say is that I shall try my very best to get all of these things done as soon as possible. Meanwhile, lame as this is, if anyone would care to we very much appreciate it.
8/14/07 UPDATE!
Well, here we go again! NetFirms booted us off and won't even tell us who complained or the nature of the complaint, citing privacy concerns of the complainer. How very, very Orwellian! We'll have more info later after our hard workin crew settle the tech issues.
Meanwhile, we here at fornits would like to thank Susan Scheff for giving us the impetus to seek out a hosting provider with whom we share a great deal of common ground with regard to philisophy and ethics.
And here are some links that might be of interest to Fornits readers.
* SueScheffTruth.com
* Lawsuit Hits Romney Money Man
* Ripoff Report.com
* NowPublic.com
* Hugg
* CoRank.com
8/05/07 UPDATE!
Due to pervasive corruption in US tort law, the Fornits have been forced to seek refuge on a server in a free country.
Here's the story as it came to me. Kelly, Fornits' tech admin, recieved This forwarded email from our hosting provider, essentially demanding that she edit some posts that Sue Scheff complained about. The letter was 90% bullshit and we're working on a point by point rebuttal of it. But with the state of things in the Corporate States of America, a company like Godaddy just can't afford the legal fees to mount a defense every time some idiot con woman threatens a slapp suit. And so we were offline for a short time and had to scramble a bit to get fornits.com back online. The forum is up and running, but We have a lot of work to do to get the rest of the site back in order.
It is my sincere belief that Sue Scheff is not the least bit frightened by the content that she cites in her complaint. She knows as well as any of us that these guys are just making fun of her and not actually any real threat to her personal safety at all. Rather, the other content and communication that takes place every day on Fornits.com is an ongoing threat to her livelihood. The trouble is that she can't do anything legally to address that very real problem of hers because all people are doing is telling the truth about what she does. She can't make money off of people in her chosen vocation if they can easily find out the truth. But you can't sue someone for telling the truth, hence the falacious, possibly slanderous complaints, threats and law suits (and there are MANY!).
This was a close call! We are fortunate to have been rescued by some talented and dedicated volunteers; some of the finest people in all of Cyberia.
I want to thank :
* Kelly Matthews, WebDiva extraordinaire, for her tireless effort to rescue the Fornits since the last server disaster and stunning wit and panache to boot.
* Psybourge, who's not only devastatingly cute and charming, but also technically skilled and more adept at diplomacy and organization than anyone I know. (Psst! My daughter's still ssingle!)
* Rachel for answering the call to find and thoroughly research our new server.
* Others who shall be nameless for their generous financial and moral support.
I'm verklempt... Discuss
Or go right to the main forum page. Please let us know how you like the new server.
Gratefully,
Ginger
Drug War POW `80 - `82
P.S.: I think Sue Scheff is a diabolical sociopath, but that's just my opinion.
Who is focusing too much attention on Scheff? Is it the ONE poster who decides to post instead of just browsing the TTI forum, or was it a group effort that now has second thoughts about taking on a cause they don't really care about personally?
-
Anyone else find it EXTREMELY IRONIC that the opening page to FORNITS.COM focuses on Scheff and a thread like this takes place? :rofl:
Opening page has what, about a full page all abou Sue? A statement from Ginger directed at Sue? A link to five websites about Sue?
Like a fat kid with a cookie in his hand asking for more food.
Not quite getting your point. Sue Scheff was responsible for bringing down this site no less than twice in the last couple of weeks creating a huge amount work for everyone involved.... And you are complaining that the front page attempts to explain that?
-
Exactly which is why so many people were pissed at her, and many people that normally do not focused attention on Scheff, and obviously created an increase in the amount of threads related to her. So why the backlash? Instead of making threads that attempt to ontrol other poeple's words, why not write some of your own threads people? We need MORE speech not more controlled or less speech.
-
Who decides what is the meat of the issue?
Just my .02. Do whatever ya please.
Only thing now is we seem to agree w/theWho, @ least about housekeeping :roll:
-
Exactly which is why so many people were pissed at her, and many people that normally do not focused attention on Scheff, and obviously created an increase in the amount of threads related to her. So why the backlash? Instead of making threads that attempt to ontrol other poeple's words, why not write some of your own threads people? We need MORE speech not more controlled or less speech.
Dude we just want the posts moved to the Pure Bullshit forum, no one is editing content. This isn't a backlash, speakout!! You can do that in the Pure forum just as well as you can in the TTI forum. Moving a few of these redundant post won't obstruct the discussion.
But regardless, I just ignore the stuff I don't want to read....
-
So you wouldn't mind if they move all your threads and posts to Joe's Apartment, since in my opinion you having never been in program your posts are more relevant in that forum.
Everyone agreed the Who should be banned. He wasn't. Why? Because of free-speech policy. All I am arguing for is consistent policy. If you don't censor or alter Who's posts, why alter/change/move other people's?
(I know some of you don' see moving posts to dark forums as limiting free speech, just as the lawyer and policy makers feel free speech zones in front of republican conventions does not limit the protesters right to speak)
If fornits is going to subscribe to some sort of ideological policy and not be based on the whims of moderators (I could care less just be honest about it) at least be consistent.
-
Psy
I think it would keep it simple if it were kept in one conveniently handy spot. Specially for those using the information for research, it would definately make it easier to stay in one forum instead of having to jump back and forth.
-
So you wouldn't mind if they move all your threads and posts to Joe's Apartment, since in my opinion you having never been in program your posts are more relevant in that forum.
That's not what anyone is talking about.
Everyone agreed the Who should be banned. He wasn't. Why? Because of free-speech policy. All I am arguing for is consistent policy. If you don't censor or alter Who's posts, why alter/change/move other people's?
There is a difference between altering posts and moving them for ease of the conversation. That's all that's being talked about as far as I can see.
(I know some of you don' see moving posts to dark forums as limiting free speech, just as the lawyer and policy makers feel free speech zones in front of republican conventions does not limit the protesters right to speak)
KIDS and Joe's Apartment were set up for specific reasons. Hanzo's posts wouldn't be appropriate for either one. We're talking about moving the posts regarding Sue to the Sue forum, not some dark, little used one. What's the problem with that?
If fornits is going to subscribe to some sort of ideological policy and not be based on the whims of moderators (I could care less just be honest about it) at least be consistent.
I don't see the inconsistency. Who's posts were not altered in the way he's trying to make everyone believe.
-
No I wasn't in a program but I keep my threads in the most relevant sections. I don't go around starting threads in TTI to slam posters I disagree with like "TheWho" thread, I post relevant shit. Moving post about Pure to the Pure forum is not like moving post on the JRC, or PV to Joe's Apartment.
The only dark forums are the ones no one post in, if interest is in Pure the Pure forum goes to the top(if thats where people post threads). It would be at the top everyday considering all the interest as of late. I would suggest a sticky asking people to post info on Izzy, Sue, Pure and such in that forum as a suggestion to keep the info in one place.
It would just be easier to get info on Pure if one didn't have to wade through all that's covered in the TTI forum. But whatever, people will post where ever they feel something belongs.
-
Moving a few of these redundant post won't obstruct the discussion.
But regardless, I just ignore the stuff I don't want to read....
whatever, people will post where ever they feel something belongs.
.So you wouldn't mind if they move all your threads and posts to Joe's Apartment, since in my opinion you having never been in program your posts are more relevant in that forum.
Everyone agreed the Who should be banned. He wasn't. Why? Because of free-speech policy. All I am arguing for is consistent policy. If you don't censor or alter Who's posts, why alter/change/move other people's?
(I know some of you don' see moving posts to dark forums as limiting free speech, just as the lawyer and policy makers feel free speech zones in front of republican conventions does not limit the protesters right to speak)
If fornits is going to subscribe to some sort of ideological policy and not be based on the whims of moderators (I could care less just be honest about it) at least be consistent
all the rattlesnakes should be in the same pit :exclaim:
-
I don't see the inconsistency. Who's posts were not altered in the way he's trying to make everyone believe.
Look, why keep speculating on whether or not my posts were altered. There is no edit trail. The only two people who know (if or if not) my posts were altered are myself and the one who altered them. The altering posts occured way before the cat-in-the-hat issue. I thought adding the cat was a good idea and encouraged it because I couldnt log in at the time, there was no complaint with that. I used it as a vehicle to show that the posts could be altered without a trail, that is all.
This is not the place for this discussion and as far as I am concerned it is a dead issue. A corrective action plan is being looked at, I was told, so an edit trail is in place for all edits. This should satisfy all concerned with it.
-
OMG, no one edited your post especially not the person you accused. You look like an ass all by yourself. Issue dead now K?
-
Look, why keep speculating on whether or not my posts were altered. There is no edit trail. The only two people who know (if or if not) my posts were altered are myself and the one who altered them. The altering posts occured way before the cat-in-the-hat issue. I thought adding the cat was a good idea and encouraged it because I couldnt log in at the time, there was no complaint with that. I used it as a vehicle to show that the posts could be altered without a trail, that is all.
This is not the place for this discussion and as far as I am concerned it is a dead issue. A corrective action plan is being looked at, I was told, so an edit trail is in place for all edits. This should satisfy all concerned with it.
Well duh!! Of course it's a dead issue with you. You were caught posing as several different people (students, parents, staff) and you don't like it.
Fuck you. I don't give a shit what you think. You can shove it right up your ass. I don't believe for one single second that anything was done to your posts to alter your words (unless it was an anon troll quoting your anon posts. In that case, it was satire, like when people post as Miller Newton).
-
Right. That issue is dead. We are experimenting with moving the forum from phpBB to this one (http://http://www.simplemachines.org/) which will allow easy mods (without hacking the source). That essentially means that it will be easier for us to upgrade to new versions of the forum without having to manually re-apply any customizations to the source.
The only thing I don't like about that software is the license. It's not GPL which means SimpleMachines may just decide one day to start charging for the software. Another alternative is just to deal with phpBB2 until version 3 comes out (with easy mods).
-
Look, why keep speculating on whether or not my posts were altered. There is no edit trail. The only two people who know (if or if not) my posts were altered are myself and the one who altered them. The altering posts occured way before the cat-in-the-hat issue. I thought adding the cat was a good idea and encouraged it because I couldnt log in at the time, there was no complaint with that. I used it as a vehicle to show that the posts could be altered without a trail, that is all.
This is not the place for this discussion and as far as I am concerned it is a dead issue. A corrective action plan is being looked at, I was told, so an edit trail is in place for all edits. This should satisfy all concerned with it.
Well duh!! Of course it's a dead issue with you. You were caught posing as several different people (students, parents, staff) and you don't like it.
Fuck you. I don't give a shit what you think. You can shove it right up your ass. I don't believe for one single second that anything was done to your posts to alter your words (unless it was an anon troll quoting your anon posts. In that case, it was satire, like when people post as Miller Newton).
No. The Who is right (partially, at least). Regardless of who I believe on this issue, like he said, there is no edit trail currently and that issue is being looked into. (see my last post)
-
Didn't Psy start these Scheff postings in Troubled Teen? Maybe more readers here?
-
No. The Who is right (partially, at least). Regardless of who I believe on this issue, like he said, there is no edit trail currently and that issue is being looked into. (see my last post)
He may be 'right' in that there is no edit trail, but I don't believe for a second that the Mods were altering what he said or rewriting his words or burying his posts.
He's a fucking liar, proven over and over again.
-
Didn't Psy start these Scheff postings in Troubled Teen? Maybe more readers here?
Yes, but I was asked (by Ginger, i think) to post them in the PURE / CACA forum in the future. It seems that the majority of posters seem to agree that is a good idea. The PURE / CACA forum is getting a lot of traffic as of recently. Personally, I don't have a problem, however I'm waiting for a more definite response to this poll before I ask Ginger about this (after all, it's her decision ultimately).
Another reason why I would like the posts in the PURE / CACA forum is because we will soon be adding RSS support to this forum, and if all relavant sue-sue information is in there, I can add an RSS feed onto sueschefftruth.com showing all recent postings on the Fornits.com pure-caca forum. (similar to what Carey's blog (http://http://www.careybock.com) is now doing with sueschefftruth.com).
If important suesue information isn't in that forum, it won't show up in the feed, and Google will have a harder problem finding it.
-
No. The Who is right (partially, at least). Regardless of who I believe on this issue, like he said, there is no edit trail currently and that issue is being looked into. (see my last post)
He may be 'right' in that there is no edit trail, but I don't believe for a second that the Mods were altering what he said or rewriting his words or burying his posts.
He's a fucking liar, proven over and over again.
Word
-
How do people feel about moving suesue threads to the pure/caca forum AFTER they drop off page 1 of the TTI forum (which means, essentially, they won't exist).
I can still leave a "ghost copy" on the tti forum, which will redirect people to that thread on the PURE / CACA forum. Ginger has done this with a number of my Benchmark threads.
-
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.
-
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.
To make the conversations easier to follow. To keep PURE and SUE stuff in the PURE and SUE forum. Why is that so bad?
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.
If that really happened it's obviously wrong. TSW did get his mod privileges yanked so maybe it was due to that, which would mean that the problem was recognized and fixed. I do not believe, even for a minute that Deb was editing or altering his posts. TSW, maybe ya got me there but if that's so, it's not a problem now.
-
The Who:
He's a fucking liar, proven over and over again.
Just cause he's here doesn't mean y'all have to acknowledge him.
What's wrong w/having a PURE/Sue forum for PURE/SUE stuff?
:idea: You could call it 'PURE Bullshit'?
And finally: No. I would not mind having my posts together - under my screenname. Make it alot easier to find, eh?!
-
This is the definition of Group think. When the group thinks they know better than the individual, and "corrects" their actions for them based on their "noble" reasons. A sad day for fornits, indeed.
-
To make the conversations easier to follow. To keep PURE and SUE stuff in the PURE and SUE forum. Why is that so bad?
Nobody is asking you to limit your straight Inc experience and testimony to the Straight Inc. forum, so why ask someone effected by Sue Scheff for whatever reason to do the same? Why not get rid of the TTI forum altogether and make 1000 small forums for each individuals program? As well as the fact that PURE "bullshit" in the very title suggests that it isn't important. If Straight Inc was called Survivor Bullshit, would you want to post in there?
I don't think it's "bad", I think it's hypocritical in a supposed free speech forum. Those who don't like the person who posts a lot on Sue Scheff claim noble causes and organizational issues as to why they want these posts gone when in fact they just want their own posts to be more visible because they think what they have to say is more important. Instead of bumping threads they think are important they complain to the admin and attempt to change the rules. That's not 'bad' but it suggests a shift in fornits policy if the admins enact changes based on certain people's opinions and ignore others.
-
This is the definition of Group think. When the group thinks they know better than the individual, and "corrects" their actions for them based on their "noble" reasons. A sad day for fornits, indeed.
Are you suggesting my programming is showing?! (sarcasm)
-
This is the definition of Group think. When the group thinks they know better than the individual, and "corrects" their actions for them based on their "noble" reasons. A sad day for fornits, indeed.
Bullshit, it's not the same thing at all.
-
Perhaps I'm wrong- don't know who's complaining or how this issue came about. It's not an issue of free speech or censorship, imo. I don't consider the issue to be if Sue threads are posted in TTI, sometimes it's appropriate to have them in both places.
There have been days though, where almost the whole first page is related to Sue/Pure/Izzy. One would think it was the S/P/I forum. Many of those threads could've been combined. Just as the examples I gave earlier in this thread. So someone wants to read about her daughter working for a program. They can't go to one thread and read all the relevant information, because it will be scattered out in multiple threads.
I used to link related threads. There's too much these days. I can't keep up.
Everyone could look before they post. If there's already a thread on a specific topic, add your post to it rather than start a new one.
For instance, if a year ago someone was arrested and charged for abuse, why not post updates in that same thread? It does make for easier reading and searching.
Programs/Topics get their own forum when they generate enough interest to warrant it. If more posts are made for that program in the TTI, what's the purpose of having its own forum? I don't expect people to come to TTI to find info on HLA. It's going to overlap, its the nature of the beast, but another option is to post the relevant info in the appropriate forum then link to it in other forums. The redundancy isn't necessary.
-
Nobody is asking you to limit your straight Inc experience and testimony to the Straight Inc. forum, so why ask someone effected by Sue Scheff for whatever reason to do the same? Why not get rid of the TTI forum altogether and make 1000 small forums for each individuals program? As well as the fact that PURE "bullshit" in the very title suggests that it isn't important. If Straight Inc was called Survivor Bullshit, would you want to post in there?
I don't think it's "bad", I think it's hypocritical in a supposed free speech forum. Those who don't like the person who posts a lot on Sue Scheff claim noble causes and organizational issues as to why they want these posts gone when in fact they just want their own posts to be more visible because they think what they have to say is more important. Instead of bumping threads they think are important they complain to the admin and attempt to change the rules. That's not 'bad' but it suggests a shift in fornits policy if the admins enact changes based on certain people's opinions and ignore others.
Then we're just not understanding each other. I don't want every single mention of Sue or PURE in the PURE forum because they do all relate. But when the entire thread is about PURE or Sue, I don't have a problem moving it there. You do. OK, now Psy has at least two opinions on the matter. I wasn't advocating burying, altering, deleting posts or anything like it. Psy asked for opinions and I gave mine.
You seem to keep inferring some sinister motive behind the wish to separate the issues. It just ain't there. I could give a shit. Sue will get what's due to her by her own actions. Who is just a program shill.
Your opinion might carry some more weight if you signed in, btw.
:wink:
-
This is the definition of Group think. When the group thinks they know better than the individual, and "corrects" their actions for them based on their "noble" reasons. A sad day for fornits, indeed.
Bullshit, it's not the same thing at all.
It's exactly the same thing.
-
You seem to keep inferring some sinister motive behind the wish to separate the issues. It just ain't there. I could give a shit. Sue will get what's due to her by her own actions. Who is just a program shill.
If this forum's policy is based on ideology, which it is, then these things matter. The programs that abuse so many kids do not have sinister motives either, they think they are helping kids out.
Your opinion might carry some more weight if you signed in, btw.
:wink:
Why is that?
-
I can still leave a "ghost copy" on the tti forum, which will redirect people to that thread on the PURE / CACA forum. Ginger has done this with a number of my Benchmark threads.
that sounds like it'll answer both issues, no?
-
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.
-
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.
Neither do I.
-
If this forum's policy is based on ideology, which it is, then these things matter. The programs that abuse so many kids do not have sinister motives either, they think they are helping kids out.
I disagree.
Your opinion might carry some more weight if you signed in, btw.
:wink:
Why is that?
Well, I was half joking but you'll figure it out.
-
This is the definition of Group think. When the group thinks they know better than the individual, and "corrects" their actions for them based on their "noble" reasons. A sad day for fornits, indeed.
Bullshit, it's not the same thing at all.
It's exactly the same thing.
I don't see everyone agreeing on the subject at hand, do you? Or saying that Psy is right, he's god, whatever he says goes. Do you?
-
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.
-
This is the definition of Group think. When the group thinks they know better than the individual, and "corrects" their actions for them based on their "noble" reasons. A sad day for fornits, indeed.
Bullshit, it's not the same thing at all.
It's exactly the same thing.
At least with the "sign ins' it seems to be!
Should Sue related threads get moved to PURE/sue/caca forum?
Yes
100%
100% [ 7 ]
No
0%
0% [ 0 ]
-
Because fornits has always made ideological claims of being a bastion of freedom of speech, most forum do not make such statements.
No, what we've said is that this is about as close to unmoderated and free as you can get. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than anything else I've seen.
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've been harassed, threatened and slammed over the years. We all have. So what?
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.
No, they are wanting to put them where it's easier to follow.
I don't care either way,
You sure do or you wouldn't continue this.
I am not personally involved in the Scheff matter. But don't claim to be righteous when you are not.
That's YOUR term, not ours.
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.
We'll see.
-
At least with the "sign ins' it seems to be!
Should Sue related threads get moved to PURE/sue/caca forum?
Yes
100%
100% [ 7 ]
No
0%
0% [ 0 ]
I haven't voted.
-
Y'all have at it. I gotta get some work done and get the hell outta here.
:wave: :silly:
-
At least with the "sign ins' it seems to be!
Should Sue related threads get moved to PURE/sue/caca forum?
Yes
100%
100% [ 7 ]
No
0%
0% [ 0 ]
I haven't voted.
go vote
-
I was made an admin a while back to specifically relocate the Sue Scheff crud to the appropriate venue. The plan didn't work then and it won't work now. I prefer a voluntary compliance (for the lack of a better phrase) at this point. It would be nice to have the Sue Scheff threads in the PURE boolshit forum. On the other hand I'm not going to hold my breath that everyone is going to be willing post and start threads about el rancido crotcho grande in the PUre Boolshit forum.
For better or for worst, as I agree whole heartedly with Racheal that Sue is soaking up far to much effort, we all post on an interest driven site. Sue is the subject of interest at this time therefore threads about her will be started and responded to.
Such is the nature of the beast. Unless Ginger is willing to change the policy here on fornits the threads should stay put.
My vote is no.
-
go vote
Nah, I really don't care one way or the other. Psy asked for opinions, I said I didn't care, wouldn't mind or whatever. I don't care or mind either way.
-
No, what we've said is that this is about as close to unmoderated and free as you can get. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than anything else I've seen.
No that's not what the forum says, it says this:
The Troubled Teen Industry
Compliance is not character. Weakness is not strength. Regression is not growth. "Tough love" leads to tough hate. Time for some straight talk about the Troubled Parent Industry.
This is an uncensored, unmoderated forum where all viewpoints are both welcome and fair game for debate. It's a snap-shot of the Teen Help industry, and there's nothing inspiring or heart-warming about it. It's pretty damned ugly. Enter at your own risk.
Moving posts=moderating by definition
I've been harassed, threatened and slammed over the years. We all have. So what?
The hypocrisy of defending free speech of attackers and not that of people just posting information on what they deem relevant to the TTI. It's a double standard, a very gross one IMO.
No, they are wanting to put them where it's easier to follow.
"Easier to follow" says who? Is this forum populated by a bunch of fifth graders, are that many people really "lost" in the small amount of posting that occurs on this forum? Have you ever seen what a real forum is like and how busy they are? I don't buy this excuse, it's a noble reason and I suspect other reasons, such as , people just don't like it. They are annoyed. Instead of saying that, they play the righteous card.
You sure do or you wouldn't continue this.
About Scheff. Damn straight I care about the ethics of free speech and exposing hypocrisy, even if it's on the "side I agree with".
That's YOUR term, not ours.
Yep. The self righteousness in the idea of this particular example of moderation is ridiculous, be honest people.
We'll see.
We already did, several time. But hey, it makes good entertainment so why not?
-
I don't have any problem with the folks posting about Sue, I'm glad for the information. But the TTI gets flooded with the Sue post that often contain the same content. I'm not against having Sue stuff in the TTI forum, thats a catch all for the industry. Moving a few over to Pure Bullshit(Which means Pure's bullshit, not that the issue is bullshit) will keep TTI from being drowned in Sue.
TTI is not a one issue/program forum, when you folks bury it with Sue, when you got a forum for that, it's a problem. If Straight or wwasps threads did the same then it would be no different, but that doesn't happen like it does with Sue threads... So...
I glad you Anons are keeping us informed but my God!! Don't squash other important issues when you have all the space in the Pure forum.
-
No that's not what the forum says, it says this:
The Troubled Teen Industry
Compliance is not character. Weakness is not strength. Regression is not growth. "Tough love" leads to tough hate. Time for some straight talk about the Troubled Parent Industry.
This is an uncensored, unmoderated forum where all viewpoints are both welcome and fair game for debate. It's a snap-shot of the Teen Help industry, and there's nothing inspiring or heart-warming about it. It's pretty damned ugly. Enter at your own risk.
Moving posts=moderating by definition[/u]
I disagree.
I've been harassed, threatened and slammed over the years. We all have. So what?
The hypocrisy of defending free speech of attackers and not that of people just posting information on what they deem relevant to the TTI. It's a double standard, a very gross one IMO.
I don't see anyone NOT defending people posting information. What the hell are you talking about?
No, they are wanting to put them where it's easier to follow.
"Easier to follow" says who? Is this forum populated by a bunch of fifth graders, are that many people really "lost" in the small amount of posting that occurs on this forum?
Yes, that many postings, that many people, it gets confusing.
Have you ever seen what a real forum is like and how busy they are? I don't buy this excuse, it's a noble reason and I suspect other reasons, such as , people just don't like it. They are annoyed. Instead of saying that, they play the righteous card.
What 'real' forums are you talking about? You keep using that word 'righteous'. I do not think it means what you think it means.
::bwahaha::
Yep. The self righteousness in the idea of this particular example of moderation is ridiculous, be honest people.
We already did, several time. But hey, it makes good entertainment so why not?
Mmmm hmm. OK.
-
Inmoderated means that. Leave posters alone.
-
I disagree.
Then I suggest you get a new dictionary.
I don't see anyone NOT defending people posting information. What the hell are you talking about?
:rofl:
Yes, that many postings, that many people, it gets confusing.
To you.
What 'real' forums are you talking about? You keep using that word 'righteous'. I do not think it means what you think it means.
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.
Not sure why you keep taking such an interest in defending hypocrisy?
-
Inmoderated means that.
I don't believe that moving threads equals moderating. You do.
Leave posters alone.
Alright, we've got your vote now. K?
-
I disagree.
Then I suggest you get a new dictionary.
I don't see anyone NOT defending people posting information. What the hell are you talking about?
:rofl:
Yes, that many postings, that many people, it gets confusing.
To you.
What 'real' forums are you talking about? You keep using that word 'righteous'. I do not think it means what you think it means.
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.
Not sure why you keep taking such an interest in defending hypocrisy?
::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao::
-
Do you laugh at people in person when you disagree with them and have nothing left to say? It's rude.
-
Do you laugh at people in person when you disagree with them and have nothing left to say? It's rude.
Why yes. Yes I do. So you can just write me off as rude now. Feel free to ignore anything else I have to say.
::seg::
-
Do you laugh at people in person when you disagree with them and have nothing left to say? It's rude.
You are kidding, aren't you?
-
Yes I was as I had just put a laughing icon in my own statement.
I was satirizing by pretending to take issue with this posters rudeness when in fact I just disagree with what they say. Luckily I don't have the power to move their posts, or they would be stuck posting at the bottom of the stack. Why? Because I am human and I get pissed off and I do not subscribe to ideologies that cannot possibly be followed as layed out , opening the possibility to the only inevitable conclusion, hypocrisy.
-
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!
-
Yes I was as I had just put a laughing icon in my own statement.
I was satirizing by pretending to take issue with this posters rudeness when in fact I just disagree with what they say. Luckily I don't have the power to move their posts, or they would be stuck posting at the bottom of the stack. Why? Because I am human and I get pissed off and I do not subscribe to ideologies that cannot possibly be followed as layed out , opening the possibility to the only inevitable conclusion, hypocrisy.
...and this was sooo useful...how?
-
Yes I was as I had just put a laughing icon in my own statement.
I was satirizing by pretending to take issue with this posters rudeness when in fact I just disagree with what they say. Luckily I don't have the power to move their posts, or they would be stuck posting at the bottom of the stack. Why? Because I am human and I get pissed off and I do not subscribe to ideologies that cannot possibly be followed as layed out , opening the possibility to the only inevitable conclusion, hypocrisy.
...and this was sooo useful...how?
This is a discussion forum, and I discuss instead of just sitting around reading.
Now you have deemed my post non-useful. Good for you. Lucky you don't have the power to dump my post in the non-useful bin.
Get it?
-
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!
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Gottcha there.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I assume posters post information where they want to because they have a damn good reason.
Why would you assume that? There are so many Sue threads in so many different forums that the poster might not be aware that the virtually identical discussion is going on somewhere else on the board.
-
I assume posters post information where they want to because they have a damn good reason.
Why would you assume that? There are so many Sue threads in so many different forums that the poster might not be aware that the virtually identical discussion is going on somewhere else on the board.
Because I believe in freedom, and that those who produce information know how to use it best, as it is their right.
I also assume that if the admins or moderators believed the Sue threads were spam they would be deleted and the poster banned for flooding.
-
I count 5 threads on the first page about Sue Scheff, and they generate discussion. I don't see the big deal.
-
Anyone else find it EXTREMELY IRONIC that the opening page to FORNITS.COM focuses on Scheff and a thread like this takes place? :rofl:
Opening page has what, about a full page all abou Sue? A statement from Ginger directed at Sue? A link to five websites about Sue?
Like a fat kid with a cookie in his hand asking for more food.
Sorry, haven't had time to properly redo my front page. Sue did initiate all the gus mus by contacting our hosting provider and using lies and threats, even a laughable attempt at bribery of a form, to have the site booted. Pretty fuckin hard to ignore, don't ya think? Ask eb and psy about that. They've put in probably hundreds of hours working for free to repair the damage Sue has done.
She does deserve some attention for it. And, strategically, I always try and make it backfire when bullies try to shut us up or force censorship. Ask Betty Sembler, Calvina Fay or any of the other notable complainers mentioned at http://dchfans.org/ (http://dchfans.org/)
As to the question, though, I don't even have time to read 10 more pages of this discussion. I'm all for letting this die off at a natural pace. I'll update the front page when I'm good and darned well ready and not a minute sooner, so there!
-
How do people feel about moving suesue threads to the pure/caca forum AFTER they drop off page 1 of the TTI forum (which means, essentially, they won't exist).
I can still leave a "ghost copy" on the tti forum, which will redirect people to that thread on the PURE / CACA forum. Ginger has done this with a number of my Benchmark threads.
Come to think of it, that would solve the problem. But will it port to SMF?
-
Good idea in my opinion. I don't see moving it as moderating. Moderating would be choosing to change the context of the text written. All that is being posed here is to move the threads to the proper forum. It has nothing to do with anyone's freedom of speech, it changes nothing submitted, only the place where it will best be suited, easily obtainable, and stop hindering search time having to jump back and forth. However, if people posted in the proper Forum to begin with, this subject would be moot.
-
I don't see moving it as moderating. Moderating would be choosing to change the context of the text written. All that is being posed here is to move the threads to the proper forum.
I believe by definition moderation occurs because the action is to remove the judged excessive sue posts. This is what moderation is, to remove excess or shortfall and create a moderate middle. In this sense, the "moderate" amount of relevant sue postings. How many is that going to be exactly? My argument is to play a fair game everyone must know the rules, if a referee can make up rules, or they are subjective in any way, how does one know when they are going out of bounds?
It has nothing to do with anyone's freedom of speech, it changes nothing submitted, only the place where it will best be suited, easily obtainable, and stop hindering search time having to jump back and forth.
Perhaps a more appropriate title would be to remove the word bullshit which suggests it's almost a trash bin of a forum, a place to dump the unwanted posts of the more important TTI forum. This is, in reality, how it comes across, in my opinion.
However, if people posted in the proper Forum to begin with, this subject would be moot.
I couldn't agree more! Which begs the obvious question why they don't. Do we assume they are retarded or incapable of understanding their decisions? If not, then should we not assume they have a good reason, and what obligation do they have to explain it to anyone? We are usurping the role of the smarter individual based on assumptions and essentially hijacking their work and placing in what we deem a more appropriate venue. They obviously see the venue as less than ideal, otherwise they would post there, or so I would assume.
-
Pure Bullshit, some things don't come across well on the net... But c'mon!!!
A trash bin? please....
-
Yah, exactly, I don't know where the trashcan mantality came in, but you can take it out with the trash :rofl: It's not being done to take it anywhere to hide it, sweep it under a rug, or combine it with any other posts. I don't get why simply moving it to the proper Forum is such a big deal. They should be posted there in the first place. The only reason I can see why you might be up against this is because you may be posting it in the wrong forums just for shits and giggles. I am not saying you are doing that, but that's the only thing I can think of. This is getting beyond silly. I feel the only person this is really going to hurt is Izzy or Sue, because they won't be seeing their names plastered all over every Forum. Just my opinion, you can take it or leave it.
-
Trashcan mentality came from the creation of that very forum, I am looking at this issue from a longer term perspective I guess. Don't you remember how it all started.
I was made an admin a while back to specifically relocate the Sue Scheff crud to the appropriate venue. The plan didn't work then and it won't work now. I prefer a voluntary compliance (for the lack of a better phrase) at this point. It would be nice to have the Sue Scheff threads in the PURE boolshit forum.
Read the byline closely:
'Fixated on PURE Bullshit and CAICA? Ok then! By popular demand, here's a forum just for you!"
Not exactly a compliment, sounds more like a peace treaty. Well that's what it was, in a way, at the time, an attempt to ebb the flow of Sue related threads by enticing and forcibly moving threads there.
I'm just saying, it's been done before. You can't tame fornits. If you somehow do, it will cease to exist.
-
Moderation entails, among other things
*fixing quote tags
*deleting duplicate posts- frequent lately when the server was slow to post
*delete annoying spam- been hit with a load of that twice recently
*splitting threads when appropriate- so the second discussion can continue without detracting from the first
*moving threads to appropriate forums- it does happen that someone will post in the wrong forum and ask for it to be moved
TTI isn't technically moderated, but those things are done in the TTI forum to make the forum more pleasant to read. The last two happen rarely, but the first three happen frequently.
All the HLA threads in TTI were moved when that forum was created, same with other forums. There's a forum for S/P/I, no need to have everything duplicated in TTI. It's a waste of space- as I suggested, post the info in S/P/I and put a link to it in TTI. Same goes for any program/topic that has its own forum.
The truth is- there's never been a clear definition for Moderation or Flooding. I think that's being worked on.
-
Fornits has 4,491 Registered members; and only 9 have voted on this issue. So, who seems to really bothered one way or the other?
-
The point isn't to "moderate excessive suesue posts". The person who suggested this (psy) posts plenty about Sue Scheff et al, and certainly doesn't think that this posting is unwarranted. If anyone has reason to be royally pissed at Sue Scheff, it's psy. All he is proposing is collecting all the posts in one place so that the information can be easily accessed by those who want to find it - parents thinking of doing business with her for example. The idea is that this would do two things: free up the TTI forum for discussion of things other than SueSue, but most importantly, making it far easier to find information about Sue Scheff, Pure, etc. when we (or others) are looking for it. It is not supposed to be a dumping ground. The SS information is very important, so it needs to be easily accessible. It deserves it's own forum, so as not to get lost in the muck of the TTI. As psy said, as soon as something drops off the first page, it's almost impossible to bring back. Most people researching it will not know to look back there for it. However, in a forum dedicated to it, they will be able to look at all the posts about the subject in one place.
Psy is directing this question towards everyone who posts. This includes the person(s) posting all the SS information. In fact, he probably wants to hear from them the most. Is it ok with you all if the official place for SS posts is the SS forum? Speak!
And if you have an issue w/ the title of the forum, let it be known. You have a voice! I took it to be a play on words - CAICA is a lot like CACA, hence the bullshit reference, not intending to say anything about the posts, but rather Sue's bullshit.
-
And if you have an issue w/ the title of the forum, let it be known. You have a voice! I took it to be a play on words - CAICA is a lot like CACA, hence the bullshit reference, not intending to say anything about the posts, but rather Sue's bullshit.
That is precisely how I meant it, too.
And you're right, Rachael, the only opinions that really matter are those of the people doing the posting. And I expect they will differ significantly. So how about this. Instead of deciding whether or not the admins should move a bunch of posts, with or without leaving a ghost, how about the authors of said material let us know if they agree with the idea and want their own posts moved?
So if you want the threads moved, please contact the op's and ask them to ask us to move them.
-
Alright, I am done preaching to the masses. Deb has clearly re-stated what's been being said over and over again, enough said.
-
ELEVEN goddam pages debating whether or not to move the Sue threads??
What the f u c k???
Is it really that difficult to reach a decision???? :rofl:
-
I'm with FROD - WTF?
Move the threads to the PURE/CAICA Bullshit Forum. Organize that forum into sub-categories and assign a moderator just to file the daily threads/posts into the appropriate folder. Ok, I'm kidding about that but maybe there is someone willing to take on the task? It's only going to get more intense with the Bock Appeal and the Green Trial, both of which are related to Scheff/PURE too. CAICA appears to be laying low but I suspect there too, things may start a'hoppin!!
The info is important enough to be organized into some sort of format, otherwise it's PURE CHAOS!
I vote move 'em outta here.
One sticky thread on TT that's about PURE - no posting allowed - just telling folks to go to the PURE/CAICA forum.
-
ELEVEN goddam pages debating whether or not to move the Sue threads??
What the f u c k???
Is it really that difficult to reach a decision???? :rofl:
Well yeah, sort of. It did take a long time, some experimentation and discussion to figure out what the policy should be. I don't mind discussing it again if anybody's got new ideas. And, after reading it all, it seems that the people invoking the mighty awesome power of admin are pretty new to fornits. Really I'm thinking about making this thread a sticky over in Web Forum Hosting and link to it in the FAQ. Far as I know, there have been no admin requests for threads to be moved yet. Now I guess I should go and check to make sure it's pretty easy for a new friend to find admin contact info.....
God, but I am a slacker sometimes!
-
How do people feel about moving suesue threads to the pure/caca forum AFTER they drop off page 1 of the TTI forum (which means, essentially, they won't exist).
I can still leave a "ghost copy" on the tti forum, which will redirect people to that thread on the PURE / CACA forum. Ginger has done this with a number of my Benchmark threads.
Come to think of it, that would solve the problem. But will it port to SMF?
Can't imagine not. As it is there are several ghosts lying around that I know of. We'll have to read up on supported features of SMF.
-
ELEVEN goddam pages debating whether or not to move the Sue threads??
What the f u c k???
Is it really that difficult to reach a decision???? :rofl:
It may seem like a small issue but it has wide ramifications and if it is important enough to the posters that the posts need to stay in TTI or if they need to be cleaned up and moved to a more appropriate forum then now is the time to discuss it. After decisions like this are made they typically become boilerplate and future decisions to move or not move posts may not be discussed, they may use the results of this pole in the interest to save time. You may be setting a precedence here.
So let your voice be heard. Ginger is allowing you to be part of the future of this forum and part of the decision process on how it is to be run, take advantage, its an important issue.
-
I for one accept our new overlord TheWho.... :rofl:
-
ELEVEN goddam pages debating whether or not to move the Sue threads??
What the f u c k???
Is it really that difficult to reach a decision???? :rofl:
It may seem like a small issue but it has wide ramifications and if it is important enough to the posters that the posts need to stay in TTI or if they need to be cleaned up and moved to a more appropriate forum then now is the time to discuss it. After decisions like this are made they typically become boilerplate and future decisions to move or not move posts may not be discussed, they may use the results of this pole in the interest to save time. You may be setting a precedence here.
So let your voice be heard. Ginger is allowing you to be part of the future of this forum and part of the decision process on how it is to be run, take advantage, its an important issue.
After much consideration I have to say that I agree, Who...in fact, I think this should be discussed for at least 20... nay, 30 more pages before we even think about deciding whether to move them or not... God forbid we make any hasty action concerning this because once it's done, there's no turning back!! :scared:
-
I for one accept our new overlord TheWho.... :rofl:
You Farkin' Farker!!!! :flame:
::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: :wave:
-
I think this ended up a duplicate due to my intoxication.
Thanks.
::seg:: ::bandit:: ::cheers::
-
Fornits has 4,491 Registered members; and only 9 have voted on this issue. So, who seems to really bothered one way or the other?
Just looking at some quick numbers, typically, on average, only 45% of the total people who bother to get user names post one or more times. So out of 4,491 user names logged here on fornits 2,021 of them posted one or more times (the rest never even bothered to post under their user names). People come and go and you can expect that inside of a 12 month window, if you took a snap shot, you will see 10% of those people will be active, which is 202 posters. Of these 202 posters 2-3 % of them would be considered frequent posters, or better defined as posters who would log in often enough to be able to even see the poll, which has only been up and active for 1 day. So we can expect to see 40 - 60 registered posters post here within a 2 week to 30 day period. So if we take the mean and say 50 posters are exposed to this poll, assuming evey poster stops in to TTI.
If the poll were to run its course of 30 days max (2 weeks min), a good on-line poll response rate for college campuses, to site an example, is around 50 – 80%. So to be in the ball park we should end up expecting 25 – 40 votes if the poll were opened for 30 days. So it seems the poll is getting enormous visibility and a good response seeing the count is 12 people in the first 24 hours.
Note : This doesn’t include guest posters, which is a whole different population study and is difficult to predict accurately.
I know this is probably boring to some but I thought I would address the issue and put it in perspective for those who were wondering why it seemed not many were voting.
-
my esteemed colleague
:rofl: ::bwahaha:: :rofl:
-
my esteemed colleague :rofl: ::bwahaha:: :rofl:
Aww, ya got me before I could polish it.
Upon further review and consideration, and copious amounts of TBPITW, I must concur with my esteemed colleague in this most important matter.
Thank you Counselor, for your much needed interjection. I remain
Sincerely,
Anne Mutha-Fucking-Bonney
/edited.
-
Fornits has 4,491 Registered members; and only 9 have voted on this issue. So, who seems to really bothered one way or the other?
Just looking at some quick numbers, typically, on average, only 45% of the total people who bother to get user names post one or more times. So out of 4,491 user names logged here on fornits 2,021 of them posted one or more times (the rest never even bothered to post under their user names). People come and go and you can expect that inside of a 12 month window, if you took a snap shot, you will see 10% of those people will be active, which is 202 posters. Of these 202 posters 2-3 % of them would be considered frequent posters, or better defined as posters who would log in often enough to be able to even see the poll, which has only been up and active for 1 day. So we can expect to see 40 - 60 registered posters post here within a 2 week to 30 day period. So if we take the mean and say 50 posters are exposed to this poll, assuming evey poster stops in to TTI.
If the poll were to run its course of 30 days max (2 weeks min), a good on-line poll response rate for college campuses, to site an example, is around 50 – 80%. So to be in the ball park we should end up expecting 25 – 40 votes if the poll were opened for 30 days. So it seems the poll is getting enormous visibility and a good response seeing the count is 12 people in the first 24 hours.
Assuming the vote/time curve is linear, yes... However I would expect the vote-rate to drop off as it usually does. I suspect that regular voters are a lot more likely to have an opinion on the matter than those who are new to the forum, who would probably be unlikely to vote on an issue they are not familiar with.
Note : This doesn’t include guest posters, which is a whole different population study and is difficult to predict accurately.
I know this is probably boring to some but I thought I would address the issue and put it in perspective for those who were wondering why it seemed not many were voting.
Ok. Riddle me this: Why do more people vote on American Idol than on the presidential elections? In my opinion: apathy. Some may not really care one way or the other and decide to abstain. What it tells me is that (among other things) Americans in general mostly feel that the difference between presidential candidates, and the effect on their lives, is less than that of a TV program.
In any case, Ginger has decided the issue (contact the OP and ask). However, If we decide to move to phpBB3 and not SMF, threads can get "tagged" with keywords, and threads can be in multiple categories(forums) at once.
-
However, If we decide to move to phpBB3 and not SMF, threads can get "tagged" with keywords, and threads can be in multiple categories(forums) at once.
SMF won't do that? :-(
-
Assuming the vote/time curve is linear, yes... However I would expect the vote-rate to drop off as it usually does. I suspect that regular voters are a lot more likely to have an opinion on the matter than those who are new to the forum, who would probably be unlikely to vote on an issue they are not familiar with.
True, guess I overlooked that and didn’t factor that in. At 12 votes per day (360 votes/ month) it would exceed the population. I didn’t consider the interest/disinterest of new comers to the topic.
Ok. Riddle me this: Why do more people vote on American Idol than on the presidential elections? In my opinion: apathy. Some may not really care one way or the other and decide to abstain. What it tells me is that (among other things) Americans in general mostly feel that the difference between presidential candidates, and the effect on their lives, is less than that of a TV program.
Not sure about American idol, but I believe it is because people (mostly young) want to be part of anything that is controversial and will have an immediate result or will affect them personally. Some of the more successful College campus surveys (on-line intranet) experience 80 – 90% response rates, which is huge. Mail-out paper surveys are lucky to get 35 – 45 %. Presidential elections experience 50 – 60% turn out. If you look at all the surveys the college campus ones have better marketing towards their target audience with questions like “Do you think condoms should be distributed free on campus?â€
-
Fornits has 4,491 Registered members; and only 9 have voted on this issue. So, who seems to really bothered one way or the other?
I vote "no."
-
I know I am new to this site, however, I am on other sites where posts can be moved, a notation is made in the old Forum, the title remains, it just says it's been moved, and no one has a problem with that.
I have a problem when someone comes in and starts to "moderate" the body of my posts, removing words or phrases, or re-phrasing what I have typed, which REALLY pisses me off. Frankly, I could thank them many times for moving threads from the wrong forms. It just keeps it simple to follow, and easy access for all.
If I post a new thread that would much better reside in another Forum, I have given Psy my expressed consent to move anything of mine to the appropriate Forum. No biggy. This could be something that might be impletemented when new people sign onto Fornits. A box at the bottom accepting those terms that, althought that particular site is not moderated, threads may be moved for purposes of convenience or content. Just trying to come up with some alternative ideas so as not to offend.
-
I voted Yes, because I am sure that the admin. are not doing any editing ect. The admin here care about right and wrong, and free speech. That is my opinion, and I have thought for some time about the dropping off of good information that a new person such as myself, have no Idea and start posting thinking it is new information. It is extremely hard to be a newbie, and not make a ass of yourself, when you think you are being helpful. Speaking for my self (_!_) made many mistakes.
-
I vote somebody make a decision and everybody agree to live with it.
The important revelations are getting LOST IN THE SAUCE.
PURE and CAICA have a forum.
Use it.
Special alerts, breaking news, etc. related to Scheff or Zehnder could be a STICKY on the TT forum .... that's the simple solution -- so as not to divert attention away from other programs and issues.
I would like to see GREEN v SCHEFF a sticky thread on TT
And BOCK v. SCHEFF too.