Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Seed Discussion Forum
This forum, Now and then
GregFL:
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:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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:
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:
It was trash at 13 too, so suck up to it.
psy:
--- Quote from: "GregFL" ---Where the majority can rule by bullying tactics?
--- End quote ---
"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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version