Author Topic: This forum, Now and then (Read 130197 times)

GregFL · « **Reply #75 on:** July 30, 2009, 03:59:08 PM »

Let me try to convey this to you again Psy. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. This forum was NEVER moderated in that manner. If someone said "all program parents were evil" that would be a topic of conversation. If someone said "I am going to cut off your father's head and skull f*ck it", that would be moderated.

Tricky? yes. Perfect? No.

Better than this? By a country mile.

In my subjective opinion.

psy · « **Reply #76 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:01:33 PM »

Quote from: "GregFL"

You seem to imply purity of conversation exists when no rules of engagement are established. You ignore the totality of human nature when you do so.

No. I just have faith that people can make those sorts of decisions for themselves. I have faith that those who are angry will eventually calm down, those who are industry trolls will eventually absorb some of the information, that forum regulars can learn to ignore the chaff on the forum, and that by learning all these things they'll be better, stronger, and wiser for it.

Anonymous · « **Reply #77 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:07:27 PM »

just sick of hearing Cunt ,people fucking animals that they train & killing people by way of cutting off their heads ect
or people jerking off behind desks. Most of us are in our 40's and 50's it gets a little old and sickining. It's not even in a humorous way. It's just plain white trash talk, no matter how you look at it.

Anonymous · « **Reply #78 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:10:53 PM »

It was trash at 13 too, so suck up to it.

psy · « **Reply #79 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:12:02 PM »

Quote from: "GregFL"

Where the majority can rule by bullying tactics?

"Rule" in this case would be deleting or modifying a person's words. What you're referring to is simply the majority being louder, which is natural. As I wrote in my longer post above, nothing at all prevents a minority opinion from becoming popular. It seems as if you want to artificially balance the forum and interfere with the open commerce of ideas. Sort of like socialist economics applied to a discussion...

Quote

Does an objective conversation flow from a moderated forum where rules of conduct are established and applied evenly to everyone?

The answer is no, not in either case. Subjectivity always creeps in. The question then is which system allows for a greater likelyhood of a (mostly) fair conversation?

Again, that depends on your definition of fair. Is it artificially induced "play nice" "fair" or an adult version where people are free to make up their own minds as to whether they choose to continue in a discussion or not. If they choose not to stick it out, their opinion will always remain minority. That is their choice. You seem to rather prop them up (by censoring others) and shield them from verbal "harm" when they choose not to help themselves. You put the responsibility of protecting individual posters from verbal offense on the moderator. I believe that adults should be able to decide for themselves what is pertaninant and skip past what they find offensive. That, to me, is fair.

Quote

This is a matter of opinion that Ginger and I have disagreed over for years. As a former ADMIN of fornits (the guy who used to do the thankless job you do now) I know first hand how hard it is to just control spam, let alone moderate a conversation. For you to claim the unmoderated fornits site yields objectively fair conversations is beyond subjective, it is naive and would only be an opinion of someone filtering these conversations thru their own bais.

And that is natural as this is an emotional issue. Why take the risk of choosing a human leader that can be contaminated with bias when you can leave the decision up to the individual. That's liberty. I had enough of people telling me what was ok to say and what was ok to read in program. As it is there are no subjectively made decisions by any authority over who can say what.

Quote

Fornits has always been populated by a group of somewhat angry people placed in abusive programs that pile on and personally attack anyone who comes in with a contrary viewpoint. Understandable or not, that undermines immediately any hope of an objective conversation unless someone institutes rules to stop it and applies them across the board. This is extremely difficult as I will attest to.

It seems as if you want to have a private discussion where we can invite the staff in for a nice little tea party. After everything so many survivors have been through, do you really find it appropriate to tell them one more time they have to be polite to their tormentors? I have to say I find that notion a tad bit offensive in itself. They dished it out in program and if they can't take it back... fuck em. Then that's their choice not to participate (and at least they have it... at least they can turn off the fucking screen which is not exactly an option in program).

Anonymous · « **Reply #80 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:16:29 PM »

Susan Stone is that the way you talk to your grandkid also? And do you live in a single or double wide?
?

GregFL · « **Reply #81 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:17:51 PM »

Quote from: "psy"

It seems as if you want to have a private discussion where we can invite the staff in for a nice little tea party. After everything so many survivors have been through, do you really find it appropriate to tell them one more time they have to be polite to their tormentors? I have to say I find that notion a tad bit offensive in itself. They dished it out in program and if they can't take it back... fuck em. Then that's their choice not to participate (and at least they have it... at least they can turn off the fucking screen which is not exactly an option in program).

This is where we get a peek at your bais and why you really want an unmoderated forum. There is no wish for a fair conversation just a format where you can stick it to your perceived tormentors.

That is fine Psy, just state your intentions and stop pretending this format yields an objective fair discussion. My intention was never a tea party but rather an environment where people could discuss the topic in a manner they felt safe and provide as fair a conversation as I could. I already knew what the unmoderated forum yielded. Most of us left respecting each other, including people who spent their entire lives at the inner core of the cult and those felt most abused by the seed. This has been a very good conversation by most accounts.

BTW, again, THIS FORUM WAS NEVER MODERATED FOR POLITENESS. . No one was allowed to threaten harm against others or post obscene material, rant obscenities and sling repeated insults at others. There were many conversations that were anything but polite. Gottake a peek in the archives.

My request still respecfully stands to seperate the prior forum from the unmoderated one. Please discuss this with Ginger and let me know. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Anonymous · « **Reply #82 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:21:40 PM »

he said no idiot :fuckoff:

Anonymous · « **Reply #83 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:27:53 PM »

Stack come way from computer I need to pay my rent at house and buffalo is sick needs operation. You bad boy stack. Show me money I give some honey. No stack you no more pay by inch or by minute I really need money. Hey you wanted sexy teen asian wife now pay me or I find farang more handsum you.

psy · « **Reply #84 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:36:46 PM »

Quote from: "GregFL"

BTW, again, THIS FORUM WAS NEVER MODERATED FOR POLITENESS. . No one was allowed to threaten harm against others or post obscene material, rant obscenities and sling repeated insults at others.

You have an odd definition of what is not politeness. Those two sentence just made me scratch my head all over.

GregFL · « **Reply #85 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:45:45 PM »

Maybe hanging around this verbal sewer for so long is skewering your definitions and making you obfuscate the difference between polite and attack.

Maybe this will help

po·lite (p-lt) KEY

ADJECTIVE:
po·lit·er , po·lit·est
Marked by or showing consideration for others, tact, and observance of accepted social usage.

at·tack (-tk) KEY

VERB:
at·tacked , at·tack·ing , at·tacks
VERB:
tr.

To set upon with violent force.
To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.

The forum had a strong threshold for definition of attack. Someone could criticise strongly, for example, but not so much in a hostile manner. Politeness was never required but many offered it anyway.

Again...perfect? No

Better than the rest of fornits in my subjective opinion? By a country mile.

As Ginger is fond of saying, your mileage may vary.

psy · « **Reply #86 on:** July 30, 2009, 05:04:39 PM »

Quote from: "GregFL"

Quote from: "psy"

It seems as if you want to have a private discussion where we can invite the staff in for a nice little tea party. After everything so many survivors have been through, do you really find it appropriate to tell them one more time they have to be polite to their tormentors? I have to say I find that notion a tad bit offensive in itself. They dished it out in program and if they can't take it back... fuck em. Then that's their choice not to participate (and at least they have it... at least they can turn off the fucking screen which is not exactly an option in program).

This is where we get a peek at your bais and why you really want an unmoderated forum. There is no wish for a fair conversation just a format where you can stick it to your perceived tormentors.

No. It happens just as often in the other direction. You're hardly pro program and yet you are attacked. I've been personally attacked with all sorts of things on Fornits and elsewhere. So has Ginger, but we don't take it down. Sometimes the weak get attacked and when that happens I see that happen try and stick up for them at the very least to keep the discussion going. Just recently I convinced a program director to come on here and state his case.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27962

I explained how Fornits was, what to expect, and so forth. He understood Ginger's policies and their basis well, actually and although he found it stressful, it stuck through it, stated his case, and answered a lot of looming questions. All in all I think it turned out well and a lot of questions were answered. People can learn to adapt to an unmoderated environment.

Look. If you knew me better you'd know that there is no secret motivation behind my opinions on these policies. I'd actually like it if more staff came on here, roughed it out, and stated their case, but it's not worth the cost of telling others they can't say something. Survivors are verbally attacked severely sometimes and myself and Antigen will get PMs begging us to take something down and we have to say no. It's the only way to be fair. It's not an issue of picking sides. Some leave, some stick around, some I talk to on chat and recommend a private survivor group or something. Again you don't know me well enough of you're saying something like that. I understand that most staff are recruited from within and indoctrinated and so forth... but they were still in a position of power over others and intentionally or not they did victimize others. I think it does a disservice to those victims to tell them what they can or cannot say to their tormentors. You can't force forgiveness. It's too much like a program and once again puts the victims in a position where in a sense their tormentors have power over them, even if by proxy. Sometimes the most healing thing, I think, is to be able to say whatever the hell you choose to those who once had power over you and get away with it... to not be silenced.

Quote

That is fine Psy, just state your intentions and stop pretending this format yields an objective fair discussion. My intention was never a tea party but rather an environment where people could discuss the topic in a manner they felt safe and provide as fair a conversation as I could. I already knew what the unmoderated forum yielded. Most of us left respecting each other, including people who spent their entire lives at the inner core of the cult and those felt most abused by the seed.

Yes, but in a way that respect was artificially engineered. Sometimes there has to be fighting words first to get the anger out or it will always be there.

Quote

My request still respecfully stands to seperate the prior forum from the unmoderated one. Please discuss this with Ginger and let me know. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

I'll discuss it with her, but I can't say it'll be likely that your request will be granted.

GregFL · « **Reply #87 on:** July 30, 2009, 06:08:03 PM »

Quote from: "psy"

Yes, but in a way that respect was artificially engineered.

Not, it was earned by the particpants and the understanding that flowed from these pages. You see, that forum had a way of weeding out the trolls. The unmoderated forum has a way of weeding out people with no tolerance for trolls. The end result is two different groups of people, with of course some overlap.

Quote

My request still respecfully stands to seperate the prior forum from the unmoderated one. Please discuss this with Ginger and let me know. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

I'll discuss it with her, but I can't say it'll be likely that your request will be granted.[/quote]

Thanks, I appreciate the effort and the conversation.

Anonymous · « **Reply #88 on:** July 30, 2009, 06:50:56 PM »

Greg SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, no one cares what you post....sigh..... :bump: :flip: :flip: :rose:

FemanonFatal2.0 · « **Reply #89 on:** August 02, 2009, 02:52:52 AM »

Fornits is a clusterfuck.

I honestly can barely make any sense of it right now.

its a love hate relationship.

Fornits
Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry