Fornits

General Interest => Open Free for All => Topic started by: psy on September 07, 2010, 06:17:46 PM

Title: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 07, 2010, 06:17:46 PM
Considering the mess this entire board has become, Ginger and I are for the first time seriously considering full moderation.  It's not the topics discussed that's the problem, it's the lack of organization and the constant derailing of threads.  For example, there do not need to be so many threads on the same topic, regardless of what it is.  You might not like it, but right now nobody new is showing up which is not the way the forum used to be.  It's become a funny farm. A total disaster area.  If we decide on full moderation, rules might be:

1. If a thread already exists on a topic, use it.
2. Don't derail threads by changing the topic. Start a new topic.
4. Post your topics in the appropriate forum.
3. No outing of personal identifying information of parents, or teens in programs.
5. Multiple usernames are disallowed if you use them for sockpuppetry (anonymity purposes are fine, for example, if you are going to post in the "I Just" thread).  Sockpuppets will be outed and may result in a ban.
6. No attacking other posters with insults (this includes driving parents off). You can make your point with civility.
7. One unmoderated forum will remain (open free for all) however it will be opt-in, similar to the drama box.

Punishments for violations would not be retroactive.

Something like this:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=30541#p363935 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=30541#p363935)

This isn't a democracy.  You're on private property.  If we decide to do this, you'll just have to deal with it.  Just to make it clear, these rules would not ban Whooter, Max, Danny, or whoever for disagreeing with the majority.  They'd apply to everybody equally, regardless of personal views.  Hopefully, if the forum is better organized, more traffic will return.

Yes, we are aware this is a total compromise of the ideals intended originally for the forum.  However the experiment failed, and now something needs to be done.  Reactions?  Rules you think are good?  Rules you think are crap?
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: RobertBruce on September 07, 2010, 06:29:02 PM
I personally would be a fan of this. People like Whooter, Suck It and Danny are going to be the only ones upset by this because they're the only ones playing games. Moderate away, it will prevent the good information from getting lost in the fray.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Botched Programming on September 07, 2010, 06:32:10 PM
All in favor of moderation here as well... It may stop alot of the drama !!!
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 07, 2010, 06:50:37 PM
Quote from: "RobertBruce"
I personally would be a fan of this. People like Whooter, Suck It and Danny are going to be the only ones upset by this because they're the only ones playing games. Moderate away, it will prevent the good information from getting lost in the fray.

Obviously you did not read the post, Robert. This is what Psy is talking about, the constant derailment. This is not just about me, it is about folks and there petty vendettas, derailing threads.
Now would be the time to stop with all the negative bashing and let it go.

Psy and Ginger, I personally have no problem with organization so we can attract membership. I will say this Psy, you can say all you want this is not a democracy and Sekto can do what ever he wants on his forum. One problem though, folks don't have a tendency to go to forums that are totally controlled, look at the traffic over the last few years. So if this is the way you want to go, good luck. You may be liberal in your moderation here but so is facebook, myspace, twitter, and other various sites that deal with specific programs.
Organization could look like folks staying on topic in their rightful forum. I do believe AA should have its own forum and have it moderated so it remains civil, so we can possibly debate the merits of the Orange Papers, Vailiant, Bill Wilson and Ebby. Cult issues, Thought Reform, MKP Warrior Training, James Ray Sweat Lodges, AA/NA could all go into this forum.
I do agree the Open Free for All Forum, should be structured the same way the Drama Box is. I think I am changing my mind on this. Then it would not be "distracting" as you said. This forum does have a tendency of dominating the discussion board with topics that are not helpful to others in their nature.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Botched Programming on September 07, 2010, 06:57:28 PM
Quote from: "DannyB II"
Quote from: "RobertBruce"
I personally would be a fan of this. People like Whooter, Suck It and Danny are going to be the only ones upset by this because they're the only ones playing games. Moderate away, it will prevent the good information from getting lost in the fray.

Obviously you did not read the post, Robert. This is what Psy is talking about, the constant derailment. This is not about me only it is about everyone and there petty vendettas derailing threads.
Now would be the time to stop with all the negative bashing and let it go.

Robert was not derailing the topic, He made a statement that said the good information now will not get lost in the fray of petty bull crap name calling and derailing that has been going on, so now everybody has to be on good behavior Danny or they will get consequences.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 07, 2010, 07:15:03 PM
Quote from: "Botched Programming"
Robert was not derailing the topic, He made a statement that said the good information now will not get lost in the fray of petty bull crap name calling and derailing that has been going on, so now everybody has to be on good behavior Danny or they will get consequences.

But what you missed in Psy’s post, Botched , and what I think you struggle with is that people like yourself and Bruce would not be allowed to just jump in the middle of a discussion and start name calling or insulting people because of their view on the particular topic.  Its okay that you spend your time placing fliers on peoples windshields but you have to respect the fact that there are many people who don't find this to be a productive use of someones time.

People need to stay on topic, respect the fact that there are many opposing points of view and  allow them to express their opinions and not attack the other person.  From reading I know that this is a challenge for you, Botched and for Bruce… (as well as many others).

I am all for a moderated forum if it means increasing the traffic.  2 years a go we had spikes of 461 visitors a day, we dont see near that level now.  so I agree that a change is in order.  Forums need to be fluid and it never means it is forever.  Lets try something different!!



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Hedge on September 07, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
I really like this idea.

As a noob around here, I can relate to the idea that some users might be getting lost in all the "I think So-and-so is a douchebag!" posts and not coming back again.

More traffic and more credibility with the same freedom of speech? Sounds good to me.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Botched Programming on September 07, 2010, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Botched Programming"
Robert was not derailing the topic, He made a statement that said the good information now will not get lost in the fray of petty bull crap name calling and derailing that has been going on, so now everybody has to be on good behavior Danny or they will get consequences.

But what you missed in Psy’s post, Botched , and what I think you struggle with is that people like yourself and Bruce would not be allowed to just jump in the middle of a discussion and start name calling or insulting people because of their view on the particular topic.  Its okay that you spend your time placing fliers on peoples windshields but you have to respect the fact that there are many people who don't find this to be a productive use of someones time.

People need to stay on topic, respect the fact that there are many opposing points of view and  allow them to express their opinions and not attack the other person.  From reading I know that this is a challenge for you, Botched and for Bruce… (as well as many others).

I am all for a moderated forum if it means increasing the traffic.  2 years a go we had spikes of 461 visitors a day, we dont see near that level now.  so I agree that a change is in order.  Forums need to be fluid and it never means it is forever.  Lets try something different!!


...



Who ... here go already pointing fingers at other people and not looking at your own actions. Above you are singling mostly Bruce and myself out and not looking at how you treat others and derail subjects and jump in the middle of conversations that you have no knowledge of expressing what you think not what you know..If you look when I was talking ton Danny I had nothing to say about you, however you felt so compelled to jump into a conversation that was Danny and myself. You were not included, and you have a very bad habit of doing this. I have told you on more than one occasion that you were not invited to discuss on the topic however you still do which is a form of disrespect.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: SEKTO on September 07, 2010, 08:09:33 PM
Quote from: "psy"
Considering the mess this entire board has become, Ginger and I are for the first time seriously considering full moderation.  It's not the topics discussed that's the problem, it's the lack of organization and the constant derailing of threads.  For example, there do not need to be so many threads on the same topic, regardless of what it is.  You might not like it, but right now nobody new is showing up which is not the way the forum used to be.  It's become a funny farm. A total disaster area.  If we decide on full moderation, rules might be:

1. If a thread already exists on a topic, use it.
2. Don't derail threads by changing the topic. Start a new topic.
4. Post your topics in the appropriate forum.
3. No outing of personal identifying information of parents, or teens in programs.
5. Multiple usernames are disallowed if you use them for sockpuppetry (anonymity purposes are fine, for example, if you are going to post in the "I Just" thread).  Sockpuppets will be outed and may result in a ban.
6. No attacking other posters with insults (this includes driving parents off).  You can make your point with civility.
7. One unmoderated forum will remain (open free for all) however it will be opt-in, similar to the drama box.

Punishments for violations would not be retroactive.

Something like this:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=30541#p363935 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=30541#p363935)

This isn't a democracy.  You're on private property.  If we decide to do this, you'll just have to deal with it.  Just to make it clear, these rules would not ban Whooter, Max, Danny, or whoever for disagreeing with the majority.  They'd apply to everybody equally, regardless of personal views.  Hopefully, if the forum is better organized, more traffic will return.

Yes, we are aware this is a total compromise of the ideals intended originally for the forum.  However the experiment failed, and now something needs to be done.  Reactions?  Rules you think are good?  Rules you think are crap?

Agreed.  I'm all for better and more professional moderation, always have been.

IMO a policy of the use of one username only per registrant should be applied as well.  No more multiple usernames, period.

Other than that, no further suggestions.

SEKTO
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: none-ya on September 07, 2010, 08:18:09 PM
So I guess we can stick a fork in the i just.... thread. I have a username that I've only used there. How dod I delete it and not the good one?
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 07, 2010, 08:58:07 PM
Quote from: "Botched Programming"



Who ... here go already pointing fingers at other people and not looking at your own actions. Above you are singling mostly Bruce and myself out and not looking at how you treat others and derail subjects and jump in the middle of conversations that you have no knowledge of expressing what you think not what you know..If you look when I was talking ton Danny I had nothing to say about you, however you felt so compelled to jump into a conversation that was Danny and myself. You were not included, and you have a very bad habit of doing this. I have told you on more than one occasion that you were not invited to discuss on the topic however you still do which is a form of disrespect.

I posted in that thread to express my opinion.  I was open, and up front, about the fact that I was not up to speed on the subject.  I noticed Anne Bonney and a few others posted in that thread also and they were not invited either, but you singled me out because I wasn’t agreeing with your thinking from the start.  Do you really think that when I am posting in a thread that I go out of my way to invite RobertBruce or yourself over or do you think you and he just decides to do this on his own (uninvited)?

Maybe you could talk to psy about having an “invite only” thread or firm  up the rules so that people can have private conversations.

Once this conversion occurs I can almost guarantee that posters like Bruce and Dysfunction junction will never participate (or will fade out slowly)  because they are only here to disrupt the flow of the conversation and try to make it difficult for opposing views to be heard.  But only time will tell.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 07, 2010, 09:05:34 PM
Quote from: "none-ya"
So I guess we can stick a fork in the i just.... thread. I have a username that I've only used there. How dod I delete it and not the good one?
Like I said.  Multiple usernames would be fine for the purposes of anonymity...  just not for sockpuppetry.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 07, 2010, 09:09:32 PM
I would like to see folks have only one username myself, but how in heck do you enforce this rule, with proxies out there.
T-rex has been my only other name and I primarily considered making this my new name because I screwed up and let way to many folks posts from my account. I am still considering before this new rule goes into effect. DannyB II may have to much negative fibes attached to it. I am not skirting around my responsibility for the crap that came out of this name, I said a good deal myself.
Thinking of new beginnings.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Maximilian on September 07, 2010, 09:23:42 PM
If this were a democracy, I'd vote no on moderation. But this is a dictatorship so my opinion doesn't matter much I'm sure. I think fornits was better when people didn't have to sign in and that is why more people posted back then, it was easier and more anonymous.

Quote from: "psy"
However the experiment failed, and now something needs to be done.  Reactions?  Rules you think are good?  Rules you think are crap?

That's a pretty big statement right there.

I predict that 99% of the discussion is now going to take place in the last unmoderated open free for all forum.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Botched Programming on September 07, 2010, 09:34:11 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Botched Programming"



Who ... here go already pointing fingers at other people and not looking at your own actions. Above you are singling mostly Bruce and myself out and not looking at how you treat others and derail subjects and jump in the middle of conversations that you have no knowledge of expressing what you think not what you know..If you look when I was talking ton Danny I had nothing to say about you, however you felt so compelled to jump into a conversation that was Danny and myself. You were not included, and you have a very bad habit of doing this. I have told you on more than one occasion that you were not invited to discuss on the topic however you still do which is a form of disrespect.

I posted in that thread to express my opinion.  I was open, and up front, about the fact that I was not up to speed on the subject.  I noticed Anne Bonney and a few others posted in that thread also and they were not invited either, but you singled me out because I wasn’t agreeing with your thinking from the start.  Do you really think that when I am posting in a thread that I go out of my way to invite RobertBruce or yourself over or do you think you and he just decides to do this on his own (uninvited)?

Maybe you could talk to psy about having an “invite only” thread or firm  up the rules so that people can have private conversations.

Once this conversion occurs I can almost guarantee that posters like Bruce and Dysfunction junction will never participate (or will fade out slowly)  because they are only here to disrupt the flow of the conversation and try to make it difficult for opposing views to be heard.  But only time will tell.



...

Who first off pretty much everyone who was posting in that topic had experience in having gone to AA and reading AA literature with the exception of you, I gave you links to where you could read the literature and advised you to go to some meetings firsthand. I advised you that we the people who had experience were discussing the topic... For the most part I have started leaving you alone with the exception of when I cracked on you about the seceret meeting that Fornits admin and select members had in a closed down burnt out gulag regarding how long of a stay it takes to acquire survivor status... Which in all sincerety had me rolling in the floor... best joke I heard that day..


Peace
 :peace:
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 07, 2010, 09:54:21 PM
Quote from: "Maximilian"
If this were a democracy, I'd vote no on moderation. But this is a dictatorship so my opinion doesn't matter much I'm sure. I think fornits was better when people didn't have to sign in and that is why more people posted back then, it was easier and more anonymous.

Which worked well until people started to abuse it.  No moderation worked well for a while and might end for the same reasons.

Quote
Quote from: "psy"
However the experiment failed, and now something needs to be done.  Reactions?  Rules you think are good?  Rules you think are crap?

That's a pretty big statement right there.

I predict that 99% of the discussion is now going to take place in the last unmoderated open free for all forum.

You may very well be right, but at least it won't interfere with those who want a constructive discussion without derailing and constant craziness.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Maximilian on September 07, 2010, 10:12:01 PM
The moderated forums on fornits are a lot slower than the two unmoderated TTI and Open Free For All forums, I think there is a reason for that. I think that is also a preview of what the entire forum will look like eventually, traffic wise if the full moderation plan is implemented. The idea that people need to be protected at the cost of freedoms is an old argument, and never produces the intended results.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: RobertBruce on September 07, 2010, 10:32:48 PM
Back in the days when fornits really started to get off the ground, long before people like Whooter John Reuben showed up, discussions went on unmoderated and there were none of the games that are now so commonplace thanks to John and his friends. I think restricting people to a single username, and deleting the kinds of spam and incessant repeat threads that some users like to toss up would help a lot.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Che Gookin on September 07, 2010, 10:40:52 PM
I'm not opposed to the idea so long as there remain one unmoderated forum. People still need a place to let their craziness run wild, that's have the fun of fornits.  Perhaps you could put it in a password locked forum like the drama box and just walk away from it.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Pile of Dead Kids on September 08, 2010, 09:24:35 AM
Hahahahahaha... oh fuck, babies and bathwater. You're shitting us, right, Psy? You've got to be shitting us. Please tell me you are shitting us.

Quote from: "psy"
Hopefully, if the forum is better organized, more traffic will return.

:rofl:

Hot shit you're fucking clueless.

Place will turn into an absolute ghost town within a week, with nothing but SUCK IT (or whatever the fuck he's calling himself now)/Whooter spam threads. Watch.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Pile of Dead Kids on September 08, 2010, 10:06:03 AM
All right, I need to explain (but can't believe that I need to). This is about the dumbest fucking thing you can do. I've seen boards moderated like this. It's not pretty.

You're going to ban people for civility, but not opinions? Hmm, what could possibly go wrong there?

Oh! I know! Someone can come on and post a three-page essay about how Aryans are the superior race and how everyone else deserves a heaping helping of Zyklon-B, all calm and civil-like and sometimes with lots of fake statistics (Whooter's/SUCK IT's posts are actually quite similar to this in terms of bullshit and offensiveness), and whoever says "Fuck off, nazi scum" is the one who gets banned. And if he's been here for a while, you can't post how he's already been discredited multiple times- whoops, that's still attacking the poster!

Do you really think that trying to force posters to pretend to be civil towards one another is going to make them hate each other any less? It's a recipe for passive-aggressiveness and people trying to bait each other into getting banned.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 08, 2010, 10:07:09 AM
Quote from: "psy"
Considering the mess this entire board has become, Ginger and I are for the first time seriously considering full moderation.  It's not the topics discussed that's the problem, it's the lack of organization and the constant derailing of threads.  For example, there do not need to be so many threads on the same topic, regardless of what it is.  You might not like it, but right now nobody new is showing up which is not the way the forum used to be.  It's become a funny farm. A total disaster area.  If we decide on full moderation, rules might be:

1. If a thread already exists on a topic, use it.
2. Don't derail threads by changing the topic. Start a new topic.
4. Post your topics in the appropriate forum.
3. No outing of personal identifying information of parents, or teens in programs.
5. Multiple usernames are disallowed if you use them for sockpuppetry (anonymity purposes are fine, for example, if you are going to post in the "I Just" thread).  Sockpuppets will be outed and may result in a ban.
6. No attacking other posters with insults (this includes driving parents off).  You can make your point with civility.
7. One unmoderated forum will remain (open free for all) however it will be opt-in, similar to the drama box.


Punishments for violations would not be retroactive.

Something like this:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=30541#p363935 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=30541#p363935)

This isn't a democracy.  You're on private property.  If we decide to do this, you'll just have to deal with it.  Just to make it clear, these rules would not ban Whooter, Max, Danny, or whoever for disagreeing with the majority.  They'd apply to everybody equally, regardless of personal views.  Hopefully, if the forum is better organized, more traffic will return.

Yes, we are aware this is a total compromise of the ideals intended originally for the forum.  However the experiment failed, and now something needs to be done.  Reactions?  Rules you think are good?  Rules you think are crap?


Works for me.  Especially the disallowing of the fake program vets and parents, i.e. sockpuppets!
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 08, 2010, 10:50:57 AM
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
All right, I need to explain (but can't believe that I need to). This is about the dumbest fucking thing you can do. I've seen boards moderated like this. It's not pretty.

You're going to ban people for civility, but not opinions? Hmm, what could possibly go wrong there?

Oh! I know! Someone can come on and post a three-page essay about how Aryans are the superior race and how everyone else deserves a heaping helping of Zyklon-B, all calm and civil-like and sometimes with lots of fake statistics (Whooter's/SUCK IT's posts are actually quite similar to this in terms of bullshit and offensiveness), and whoever says "Fuck off, nazi scum" is the one who gets banned. And if he's been here for a while, you can't post how he's already been discredited multiple times- whoops, that's still attacking the poster!

Do you really think that trying to force posters to pretend to be civil towards one another is going to make them hate each other any less? It's a recipe for passive-aggressiveness and people trying to bait each other into getting banned.

Your post shows that you are threatened by this change.  It will be interesting to see if you can actually have a conversation and share your point of view without attacking or trying to discredit people.

You can take some comfort in the fact that you will be still free to attacking children and their families off this forum, PODKS, driving the wedge further dividing the family resulting in more breakdowns in communication and the local options being taken off the table as you did with Morgan.  Your past actions have only proven to place more kids into programs which is where Morgan is as we speak.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Pile of Dead Kids on September 08, 2010, 10:57:23 AM
Well that didn't take long at all.

Whooter, nothing works on me. Not even that.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 01:26:22 PM
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
Hahahahahaha... oh fuck, babies and bathwater. You're shitting us, right, Psy? You've got to be shitting us. Please tell me you are shitting us.

No.  I'm not.  Ginger and I made the final decision last night.  I'll be drafting up a new constitution for the forum tonight.  I'll post it publicly for comment, and then ratify it once it meets the group's majority approval.  Outing parents in the way you did before, resulting in a kid being sent to a program, is not going to happen again.  You think parents are likely to listen to anybody on the anti-program side after you out them?  You made us all look like lunatics.  It's unpleasant sometimes but parents ultimately hold the kid's fate in their hands and if it's necessary to hold your tongue and be diplomatic to prevent the kids being sent to programs, it's worth it.  In this one case, Whooter is absolutely right.  You have a good deal of responsibility to bear for Morgan being sent to a program.  Driving off parents for kicks won't be tolerated anymore on this forum.  You weren't even in a program.  What do you care, other than for the drama you feed off of.  As far as I can tell you're pretty much the only person objecting to this.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Watchful Yeoman on September 08, 2010, 02:00:18 PM
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
Hahahahahaha... oh fuck, babies and bathwater. You're shitting us, right, Psy? You've got to be shitting us. Please tell me you are shitting us.

Quote from: "psy"
Hopefully, if the forum is better organized, more traffic will return.

:rofl:

Hot shit you're fucking clueless.

Place will turn into an absolute ghost town within a week, with nothing but SUCK IT (or whatever the fuck he's calling himself now)/Whooter spam threads. Watch.

Agreed.  This will give fuller control to the diverters and disruptors.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: SEKTO on September 08, 2010, 02:05:47 PM
Thank you, psy and Antigen.  You have made the right decision.

Fornits has turned into a bunch of bullshit because nobody ever does anything about the trolls and drama whores.  It's long past time to go to better moderation of the forums.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Eliscu2 on September 08, 2010, 02:07:51 PM
:seg2:
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: AuntieEm2 on September 08, 2010, 02:10:43 PM
Psy, I trust you and Ginger.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Watchful Yeoman on September 08, 2010, 02:14:13 PM
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Fornits has turned into a bunch of bullshit because nobody ever does anything about the trolls and drama whores.

Good point, SEKTO, but the same people who failed to do anything about the trolls before will now also be doing the "moderation" of the forums.  

Fornits has policies in place to deal with the trolls but those policies have been strictly uninforced by the site admin despite many complaints about spamming, flooding, derailing, etc.  Making new policies that won't be properly enforced isn't going to solve the problem.  The problem is lack of enforcement, not lack of policy.

Look at some of the biggest offenders and observe the admin's complete inaction regarding them.  Even after being banned, they are somehow "unbanned" and again turned loose to continue to destroy what this forum once was.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 08, 2010, 02:20:05 PM
Quote from: "Maximilian"
The moderated forums on fornits are a lot slower than the two unmoderated TTI and Open Free For All forums, I think there is a reason for that. I think that is also a preview of what the entire forum will look like eventually, traffic wise if the full moderation plan is implemented. The idea that people need to be protected at the cost of freedoms is an old argument, and never produces the intended results.


It seems that it's because there were a lot of you guys posing as program vets or program parents in an attempt to counter what the real survivors and parents were saying.   Y'all were caught, plain and simple and now you're whining because you won't be able to do it anymore.

I've always been one who has not wanted a moderated forum, but this has gotten ridiculous and it was never a problem until you guys showed up and started your bullshit propaganda game.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Maximilian on September 08, 2010, 02:20:36 PM
:bs:
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 08, 2010, 02:21:34 PM
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Even after being banned, they are somehow "unbanned" and again turned loose to continue to destroy what this forum once was.

It's damn near impossible to actually ban someone.  They just get around it with proxies etc.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Maximilian on September 08, 2010, 02:23:13 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
It seems that it's because there were a lot of you guys posing as program vets or program parents in an attempt to counter what the real survivors and parents were saying.   Y'all were caught, plain and simple and now you're whining because you won't be able to do it anymore.

I've always been one who has not wanted a moderated forum, but this has gotten ridiculous and it was never a problem until you guys showed up and started your bullshit propaganda game.

Well I went to a program that has it's own subforum here, I'm not fake. But if enough people accuse me of this, will I be burned at the digital stake and banned for life? How many people must agree, for me to be deemed fake? Will I be required to offer up proof somehow, perhaps with a picture of myself in the program and a copy of my drivers license? These are questions that will have to be answered in the new moderated forum. Taking power away from people to make their own decision has all sorts of mess consequences, we are about to see them displayed on this forum.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 08, 2010, 02:28:04 PM
Quote from: "Maximilian"
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
It seems that it's because there were a lot of you guys posing as program vets or program parents in an attempt to counter what the real survivors and parents were saying.   Y'all were caught, plain and simple and now you're whining because you won't be able to do it anymore.

I've always been one who has not wanted a moderated forum, but this has gotten ridiculous and it was never a problem until you guys showed up and started your bullshit propaganda game.

Well I went to a program that has it's own subforum here, I'm not fake.

Which one was that?

Quote
But if enough people accuse me of this, will I be burned at the digital stake and banned for life? How many people must agree, for me to be deemed fake? Will I be required to offer up proof somehow, perhaps with a picture of myself in the program and a copy of my drivers license? These are questions that will have to be answered in the new moderated forum. Taking power away from people to make their own decision has all sorts of mess consequences, we are about to see them displayed on this forum.

I'm not accusing you of being fake, if you truly did go to a WWASP program, fine.  Which one was it, btw?   I am accusing you of starting a bogus blackmail scheme intended to discredit Fornits.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Watchful Yeoman on September 08, 2010, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Maximilian"
The moderated forums on fornits are a lot slower than the two unmoderated TTI and Open Free For All forums, I think there is a reason for that. I think that is also a preview of what the entire forum will look like eventually, traffic wise if the full moderation plan is implemented. The idea that people need to be protected at the cost of freedoms is an old argument, and never produces the intended results.


It seems that it's because there were a lot of you guys posing as program vets or program parents in an attempt to counter what the real survivors and parents were saying.   Y'all were caught, plain and simple and now you're whining because you won't be able to do it anymore.

I've always been one who has not wanted a moderated forum, but this has gotten ridiculous and it was never a problem until you guys showed up and started your bullshit propaganda game.

Those people are still going to continue doing just that, Anne, only now if you call them on it and "out" them, you'll be "disciplined" and not they.  I can see the future.  And it's a Fornits dominated by "pro-program special interests" fighting a proxy war using the moderators as their footsoldiers against the victims of the parent-choice treatment industry.

This move will give the fakes/phonys apparent legitimacy and suppress dissent/pushback against their proseltyzing for programs.

Let's be honest, shall we?  The moderators failed in their duties continuously in regard to enforcing what little policy Fornits does currently have.  What leads you to believe they'll do better with a few more rules or a new "constitution"?  Unless they change their own visceral constitution, all will remain the same.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 08, 2010, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Maximilian"
The moderated forums on fornits are a lot slower than the two unmoderated TTI and Open Free For All forums, I think there is a reason for that. I think that is also a preview of what the entire forum will look like eventually, traffic wise if the full moderation plan is implemented. The idea that people need to be protected at the cost of freedoms is an old argument, and never produces the intended results.


It seems that it's because there were a lot of you guys posing as program vets or program parents in an attempt to counter what the real survivors and parents were saying.   Y'all were caught, plain and simple and now you're whining because you won't be able to do it anymore.

I've always been one who has not wanted a moderated forum, but this has gotten ridiculous and it was never a problem until you guys showed up and started your bullshit propaganda game.

Those people are still going to continue doing just that, Anne, only now if you call them on it and "out" them, you'll be "disciplined" and not they.  I can see the future.  And it's a Fornits dominated by "pro-program special interests" fighting a proxy war using the moderators as their footsoldiers against the victims of the parent-choice treatment industry.

This move will give the fakes/phonys apparent legitimacy and suppress dissent/pushback against their proseltyzing for programs.

Let's be honest, shall we?  The moderators failed in their duties continuously in regard to enforcing what little policy Fornits does currently have.  What leads you to believe they'll do better with a few more rules or a new "constitution"?  Unless they change their own visceral constitution, all will remain the same.


You could be right....I honestly don't know.  But I'm willing to at least give this a try (not that it's up to me).  If it doesn't work and ends up as you're saying, we can always go back to unmoderated, no?
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: SEKTO on September 08, 2010, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Fornits has turned into a bunch of bullshit because nobody ever does anything about the trolls and drama whores.

Good point, SEKTO, but the same people who failed to do anything about the trolls before will now also be doing the "moderation" of the forums.  

Fornits has policies in place to deal with the trolls but those policies have been strictly uninforced by the site admin despite many complaints about spamming, flooding, derailing, etc.  Making new policies that won't be properly enforced isn't going to solve the problem.  The problem is lack of enforcement, not lack of policy.

Look at some of the biggest offenders and observe the admin's complete inaction regarding them.  Even after being banned, they are somehow "unbanned" and again turned loose to continue to destroy what this forum once was.

Then I will volunteer to help do the moderating, myself.

And I'll help to strictly enforce the rules and policies, too.  

Somebody being stupid will get a couple of warnings, and if they still want to fool around, then they get banned permanently by IP.  Period.  Very simple.

I can think of a couple of people who I'd ban right right this moment, if it were up to me.

And all the crap, off-topic postings will get deleted immediately, too.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: shaggys on September 08, 2010, 02:53:47 PM
I hope I am wrong but this move seems destined to fail if the goal is to increase posters here. Although there is always room for improvement I just dont see whats so broken here. Oftentimes the "petty vendettas" and "sockpuppetry" is quite humorous. Those that might get turned off by it probably would find something else to get offended about anyway. My 2 cents.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 08, 2010, 02:58:43 PM
Quote from: "shaggys"
I hope I am wrong but this move seems destined to fail if the goal is to increase posters here. Although there is always room for improvement I just dont see whats so broken here. Oftentimes the "petty vendettas" and "sockpuppetry" is quite humorous. Those that might get turned off by it probably would find something else to get offended about anyway. My 2 cents.


I quite enjoy the humorous 'sockpuppets', always have - but the fake program vets & parents are what get to me.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Watchful Yeoman on September 08, 2010, 03:00:33 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Maximilian"
The moderated forums on fornits are a lot slower than the two unmoderated TTI and Open Free For All forums, I think there is a reason for that. I think that is also a preview of what the entire forum will look like eventually, traffic wise if the full moderation plan is implemented. The idea that people need to be protected at the cost of freedoms is an old argument, and never produces the intended results.


It seems that it's because there were a lot of you guys posing as program vets or program parents in an attempt to counter what the real survivors and parents were saying.   Y'all were caught, plain and simple and now you're whining because you won't be able to do it anymore.

I've always been one who has not wanted a moderated forum, but this has gotten ridiculous and it was never a problem until you guys showed up and started your bullshit propaganda game.

Those people are still going to continue doing just that, Anne, only now if you call them on it and "out" them, you'll be "disciplined" and not they.  I can see the future.  And it's a Fornits dominated by "pro-program special interests" fighting a proxy war using the moderators as their footsoldiers against the victims of the parent-choice treatment industry.

This move will give the fakes/phonys apparent legitimacy and suppress dissent/pushback against their proseltyzing for programs.

Let's be honest, shall we?  The moderators failed in their duties continuously in regard to enforcing what little policy Fornits does currently have.  What leads you to believe they'll do better with a few more rules or a new "constitution"?  Unless they change their own visceral constitution, all will remain the same.


You could be right....I honestly don't know.  But I'm willing to at least give this a try (not that it's up to me).  If it doesn't work and ends up as you're saying, we can always go back to unmoderated, no?

I suppose we could, yes.  However, the entire problem could be solved by simply banning, right now, the biggest offenders adept at derailing, spamming, flooding, sockpuppetry.  I think you know who they are, no?
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 08, 2010, 03:02:54 PM
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"

I suppose we could, yes.  However, the entire problem could be solved by simply banning, right now, the biggest offenders adept at derailing, spamming, flooding, sockpuppetry.  I think you know who they are, no?


How?  I've been told (I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff) that it's pretty near impossible.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 03:08:09 PM
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
The problem is lack of enforcement, not lack of policy.
I disagree.  Before there was no policy to enforce.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Watchful Yeoman on September 08, 2010, 03:11:40 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
How? I've been told (I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff) that it's pretty near impossible.

I'm guessing that the way the mods would choose to do this is by banning a particular IP address.  Yes, that will allow these reporobates to continue to post via proxy.  However, once they are detected, they are re-banned and all of their posts are removed.  This is a process, not an event.  But, think about it, if you had to go through all of the trouble to create a new username and post by proxy and each time you were detected all of your posts were removed, how long would you keep at it before you decided not to waste your time anymore?

This could be easily done for the few persistent trolls we now have here and it should be done straight away.  Simply banning one troll who posts here continuously would rid the forum of some 50 or more aliases.  Let's enforce the current rules properly, re-evaluate and then decide if we actually need more rules.  My bet is that if current policy is doggedly enforced, the trolling problem will be diminished.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: shaggys on September 08, 2010, 03:13:24 PM
The fake program vets and parents can be exposed by asking specific questions and persistence. Maximillian/SUCK IT being a great example. His refusal to identify which program he attended casts doubt on every other claim he makes here. I just dont know how this is going to be implememnted but it sounds like a recipe for complete boredom. Like it or not, limiting discussions to civil, calm, dispassionate posts will not attract new people. Still hoping I am wrong.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Froderik on September 08, 2010, 03:14:21 PM
:twofinger:  :notworthy: :rofl: :rocker:  :jamin:  :jamin:  :clown:  :tup:  :tup: :sue:  :roflmao:  :spam:  :blabla:  :jerry:  ::evil::  :lala:  ::unhappy::
Title: Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Post by: Joel on September 08, 2010, 03:19:56 PM
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 03:32:54 PM
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
How? I've been told (I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff) that it's pretty near impossible.

I'm guessing that the way the mods would choose to do this is by banning a particular IP address.  Yes, that will allow these reporobates to continue to post via proxy.  However, once they are detected, they are re-banned and all of their posts are removed.  This is a process, not an event.  But, think about it, if you had to go through all of the trouble to create a new username and post by proxy and each time you were detected all of your posts were removed, how long would you keep at it before you decided not to waste your time anymore?

Believe it or not, it can go on for months.  I agree with you that that's the proper procedure, however.

Quote
This could be easily done for the few persistent trolls we now have here and it should be done straight away.  Simply banning one troll who posts here continuously would rid the forum of some 50 or more aliases.  Let's enforce the current rules properly, re-evaluate and then decide if we actually need more rules.  My bet is that if current policy is doggedly enforced, the trolling problem will be diminished.

There are no current rules against multiple accounts or sockpuppetry.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: iamartsy on September 08, 2010, 04:11:15 PM
Psy,
Are you deleting my posts? I don't understand why. iamartsy
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 04:23:29 PM
Quote from: "iamartsy"
Psy,
Are you deleting my posts?
Nope.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: iamartsy on September 08, 2010, 04:30:27 PM
Thank you. I am rusty at posting here and don't want to break the rules. I feel overall they are good, but of course you know, I hate bans. I am unclear when one would be banned. That part confused me. Please clarify. IAmArtsy
Title: Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Post by: Joel on September 08, 2010, 04:41:35 PM
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Evil WWASP on September 08, 2010, 05:03:11 PM
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
Hahahahahaha... oh fuck, babies and bathwater. You're shitting us, right, Psy? You've got to be shitting us. Please tell me you are shitting us.

No.  I'm not.  Ginger and I made the final decision last night.  I'll be drafting up a new constitution for the forum tonight.  I'll post it publicly for comment, and then ratify it once it meets the group's majority approval.  Outing parents in the way you did before, resulting in a kid being sent to a program, is not going to happen again.  You think parents are likely to listen to anybody on the anti-program side after you out them?  You made us all look like lunatics.  It's unpleasant sometimes but parents ultimately hold the kid's fate in their hands and if it's necessary to hold your tongue and be diplomatic to prevent the kids being sent to programs, it's worth it.  In this one case, Whooter is absolutely right.  You have a good deal of responsibility to bear for Morgan being sent to a program.  Driving off parents for kicks won't be tolerated anymore on this forum.  You weren't even in a program.  What do you care, other than for the drama you feed off of.  As far as I can tell you're pretty much the only person objecting to this.

I'm glad for moderation. Even its not perfect, it's an improvement.
But it would be a bad move to ban people for "outing" victims and predators. There are clearly some cases where peoples' names have been posted for no good reason, that shouldnt be allowed, but there are other times where people are merely recounting thier time in program and naming thier fellow prisoners, of starting "free so and so" style campains and movements. It's not fair to ask victims or anyone to "keep secrets."  
 
In the morgan case, regarding banning pile, you'd be banning him for what he did on other forums. Is that really you guys' place? Youre going to moderate and punish people for what they do in their private time? Not good.

Speaking of "seeming sane," please don't put up a forum solely dedicated to AA. Reading your (you and Antigen's) thoughts on AA, it's clear you have some "far out" opinions on the matter..and if you put up a forum, that would move your thoughts on AA from your opinion realm to official fornits position-(one that the majority of cult victim/program survivors /fornits goers don;t appear to share.) And how do you think that will make the claims on this forum appear regarding brainwashing and cults? Its also insulting to victims to equate wwasp or CEDU with AA, which is what you'd be doing, kinda, if you set up its own forum. That's hardly fair.
Why not just ask the people who post non stop about AA to contain it to one thread? Maybe in an "opt in" way so that it doesn't appear on the new post list...maybe make all general forums "opt in"

Really, there are only two prolific trolls Suckit and Whooter, just ban them and get it over it. And when they reappear, ban them again. Other moderation will just be iciing on the cake
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Froderik on September 08, 2010, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: "Evil WWASP"
Why not just ask the people who post non stop about AA to contain it to one thread? Maybe in an "opt in" way so that it doesn't appear on the new post list...maybe make all posts other than troubled teen related forums "opt in"

There are only two prolific trolls Suckit and Whooter, just ban them and get it over it. And when they reappear, ban them again. That's pretty much the only moderation you need.

Two good ideas.

As far as the AA thing, maybe it could have a whole forum (instead of just one thread).
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 05:16:22 PM
Quote from: "Joel"
Quote
3. No outing of personal identifying information of parents, or teens in programs.

Psy why wouldn't former/current staffers who are fornits members be afforded the same courtesy?
Because it would make telling a story about what went on in program very difficult or even impossible.  You couldn't tell a meaningful story or ask questions like "who was your seminar facilitator".  How would one survivor know whether he had the same facilitator as another.  People who choose to work in programs to some degree put themselves in the public eye.  They're in a position of authority and should be held accountable.  The kids are the victims, as are the parents in many cases.

Perhaps a decent compromise is this: no posting of *current* personal contact information or addresses for anybody without consent.  That's fair to everybody and still allows kids to provide staff names.
Title: Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Post by: Joel on September 08, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 05:25:00 PM
Quote from: "Evil WWASP"
I'm glad for moderation. Even its not perfect, it's an improvement.
But it would be a bad move to ban people for "outing" victims and predators. There are clearly some cases where peoples' names have been posted for no good reason, that shouldnt be allowed, but there are other times where people are merely recounting thier time in program and naming thier fellow prisoners, of starting "free so and so" style campains and movements. It's not fair to ask victims or anyone to "keep secrets."

I totally agree.  See my last post.

Quote
In the morgan case, regarding banning pile, you'd be banning him for what he did on other forums. Is that really you guys' place? Youre going to moderate and punish people for what they do in their private time? Not good.

Oh. He won't be punished retroactively for that or be banned.  If he does it again after the rules are put in place, that's a different story.  We're not going to punish people for what they post off the forum but if they link to personal identifying information from this forum i'll consider that the same as posting it on the forum itself.

[/quote]Speaking of "seeming sane," please don't put up a forum solely dedicated to AA. Reading your (you and Antigen's) thoughts on AA, it's clear you have some "far out" opinions on the matter..and if you put up a forum, that would move your thoughts on AA from your opinion realm to official fornits position-(one that the majority of cult victim/program survivors /fornits goers don;t appear to share.)[/quote]

I was considering a "drug treatment philosophies" forum instead of one naming AA specifically.  It could be a forum for AA, RR, SOS, SMART and discussion of the relative benefits and downsides.  It would also be opt-in.

Quote
And how do you think that will make the claims on this forum appear regarding brainwashing and cults? Its also insulting to victims to equate wwasp or CEDU with AA, which is what you'd be doing, kinda, if you set up its own forum.

Right, but even defenders of AA such as Danny argue that AA and the 12 step philosophy has influenced this industry.  It's going to be discussed no matter what and it would be great to have a dedicated place for it.

Quote
That's hardly fair.
Why not just ask the people who post non stop about AA to contain it to one thread? Maybe in an "opt in" way so that it doesn't appear on the new post list...maybe make all general forums "opt in"

Really, there are only two prolific trolls Suckit and Whooter, just ban them and get it over it. And when they reappear, ban them again. Other moderation will just be iciing on the cake

Only if they break the rules, and it's impossible to define trolling.  Neither will be banned if they stay within the rules.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 05:27:15 PM
Quote from: "Joel"
No addresses period without consent including phone numbers.  You damn well know why.

Unless it's a place of business.  It would be difficult to document the location of programs otherwise.  Sound like a good compromise?
Title: Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Post by: Joel on September 08, 2010, 05:32:31 PM
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Froderik on September 08, 2010, 05:52:04 PM
Quote from: "psy"
Neither will be banned if they stay within the rules.

Yeah I figured this would be the verdict. I'm not sure I'd want them banned anyway, it can be kinda fun to get 'em going sometimes..lol...sort of like pulling the string on a ventriloquist's dummy.. :D
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: "Joel"
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "Joel"
No addresses period without consent including phone numbers.  You damn well know why.

Unless it's a place of business.  It would be difficult to document the location of programs otherwise.  Sound like a good compromise?

There are staffers where their positions require them to live on program property [and some may live there full time if it's an apartment complex].  Therefor their residence would be at the program.  Hence they should be afforded the same privacy.  Then it would be fair to give the programs main HQ address.

Very true.  I'll draft something tonight taking in these considerations.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: SEKTO on September 08, 2010, 06:20:17 PM
No disclosure of anybody's personal details, name, contact information, etc. should be disclosed without that individual's  explicit permission.  Violators should be banned without warning.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 08, 2010, 06:20:54 PM
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
Hahahahahaha... oh fuck, babies and bathwater. You're shitting us, right, Psy? You've got to be shitting us. Please tell me you are shitting us.

No.  I'm not.  Ginger and I made the final decision last night.  I'll be drafting up a new constitution for the forum tonight.  I'll post it publicly for comment, and then ratify it once it meets the group's majority approval.  Outing parents in the way you did before, resulting in a kid being sent to a program, is not going to happen again.  You think parents are likely to listen to anybody on the anti-program side after you out them?  You made us all look like lunatics.  It's unpleasant sometimes but parents ultimately hold the kid's fate in their hands and if it's necessary to hold your tongue and be diplomatic to prevent the kids being sent to programs, it's worth it.  In this one case, Whooter is absolutely right.  You have a good deal of responsibility to bear for Morgan being sent to a program.  Driving off parents for kicks won't be tolerated anymore on this forum.  You weren't even in a program.  What do you care, other than for the drama you feed off of.  As far as I can tell you're pretty much the only person objecting to this.

Bravo, Bravo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Parents,Moms, Dads and kids will come back. Makes my heart sing and I mean this. I have never really got along with grown ups. Love helping children.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 08, 2010, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Fornits has turned into a bunch of bullshit because nobody ever does anything about the trolls and drama whores.

Good point, SEKTO, but the same people who failed to do anything about the trolls before will now also be doing the "moderation" of the forums.  

Fornits has policies in place to deal with the trolls but those policies have been strictly uninforced by the site admin despite many complaints about spamming, flooding, derailing, etc.  Making new policies that won't be properly enforced isn't going to solve the problem.  The problem is lack of enforcement, not lack of policy.

Look at some of the biggest offenders and observe the admin's complete inaction regarding them.  Even after being banned, they are somehow "unbanned" and again turned loose to continue to destroy what this forum once was.

Then I will volunteer to help do the moderating, myself.

And I'll help to strictly enforce the rules and policies, too.  

Somebody being stupid will get a couple of warnings, and if they still want to fool around, then they get banned permanently by IP.  Period.  Very simple.

I can think of a couple of people who I'd ban right right this moment, if it were up to me.

And all the crap, off-topic postings will get deleted immediately, too.


Sekto, your exactly what is wrong with this Site, your sanctimonious statements from the "other" side don't help here at all. It has been kind of nice not to have to hear your righteous arrogance for a while. If everyone would just worry about themselves and what they would like to post, I believe moderation would be simple. It is only when crusaders feel anointed to slay dragons "they" feel are threatening.
Also know this, you may post a topic and set the agenda but if others do not believe in your opinions they will say so or what are they supposed to do, not comment. What kind of debate id this, people not every judgment you have of someone is accurate.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Samara on September 08, 2010, 06:34:34 PM
The rules sound great, but why not ban Whooter?The reason is not because of his stance on programs but because he is a saboteur, a gifted one. I think the loss of traffic and the decline of Fornits is partially due to in-fighting and crazy ass personal dynamics. It seems that what used to be confined to the Elan forum - which was all about flamewars - spilled out into other threads.  Then, around 2006, personal info was leaked and administrators lost credibility (sorry, but true). That diminished the site. The lack of anonymity could be a factor, as well. No guest posting.  But I think also, the Who is a derailer. Who wants to visit their favorite threads when the Whooter derails persistently, gleefully, pervasively, repeatedly, tirelessly, enduringly, and deceptively.  This is different than posting your views or just being an asshole.  

When someone asked about Fornits being a support site... it was sad. This place was a community prior to 2006. Now, there are the old loyalists but it's just basically devolved into flamewars and derailed tracks. Maybe me wishing for the old Fornits is like Cheech and Chong nostlagic for '69 but, it would be great if it were more of the community it used to be.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 08, 2010, 06:35:44 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "shaggys"
I hope I am wrong but this move seems destined to fail if the goal is to increase posters here. Although there is always room for improvement I just dont see whats so broken here. Oftentimes the "petty vendettas" and "sockpuppetry" is quite humorous. Those that might get turned off by it probably would find something else to get offended about anyway. My 2 cents.


I quite enjoy the humorous 'sockpuppets', always have - but the fake program vets & parents are what get to me.

Anne, I do agree with you on this. It is disgusting.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: SEKTO on September 08, 2010, 06:37:13 PM
Quote from: "DannyB II"
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Fornits has turned into a bunch of bullshit because nobody ever does anything about the trolls and drama whores.

Good point, SEKTO, but the same people who failed to do anything about the trolls before will now also be doing the "moderation" of the forums.  

Fornits has policies in place to deal with the trolls but those policies have been strictly uninforced by the site admin despite many complaints about spamming, flooding, derailing, etc.  Making new policies that won't be properly enforced isn't going to solve the problem.  The problem is lack of enforcement, not lack of policy.

Look at some of the biggest offenders and observe the admin's complete inaction regarding them.  Even after being banned, they are somehow "unbanned" and again turned loose to continue to destroy what this forum once was.

Then I will volunteer to help do the moderating, myself.

And I'll help to strictly enforce the rules and policies, too.  

Somebody being stupid will get a couple of warnings, and if they still want to fool around, then they get banned permanently by IP.  Period.  Very simple.

I can think of a couple of people who I'd ban right right this moment, if it were up to me.

And all the crap, off-topic postings will get deleted immediately, too.


Sekto, your exactly what is wrong with this Site, your sanctimonious statements from the "other" side don't help here at all. It has been kind of nice not to have to hear your righteous arrogance for a while. If everyone would just worry about themselves and what they would like to post, I believe moderation would be simple. It is only when crusaders feel anointed to slay dragons "they" feel are threatening.
Also know this, you may post a topic and set the agenda but if others do not believe in your opinions they will say so or what are they supposed to do, not comment. What kind of debate id this, people not every judgment you have of someone is accurate.

Please stay on topic and do not personally attack or attempt to intimidate participating members of this message board.

First warning.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Pile of Dead Kids on September 08, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
Quote from: "DannyB II"
I have never really got along with grown ups. Love helping children.

That's because you're a pedophile.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: SEKTO on September 08, 2010, 06:39:24 PM
Quote from: "Samara"
The rules sound great, but why not ban Whooter?The reason is not because of his stance on programs but because he is a saboteur, a gifted one. I think the loss of traffic and the decline of Fornits is partially due to in-fighting and crazy ass personal dynamics. It seems that what used to be confined to the Elan forum - which was all about flamewars - spilled out into other threads.  Then, around 2006, personal info was leaked and administrators lost credibility (sorry, but true). That diminished the site. The lack of anonymity could be a factor, as well. No guest posting.  But I think also, the Who is a derailer. Who wants to visit their favorite threads when the Whooter derails persistently, gleefully, pervasively, repeatedly, tirelessly, enduringly, and deceptively.  This is different than posting your views or just being an asshole.  

When someone asked about Fornits being a support site... it was sad. This place was a community prior to 2006. Now, there are the old loyalists but it's just basically devolved into flamewars and derailed tracks. Maybe me wishing for the old Fornits is like Cheech and Chong nostlagic for '69 but, it would be great if it were more of the community it used to be.

If I'd have known what most of the rest of fornits was really like when I started posting to the DAYTOP forum from Meadow Haven in 2008, then I'd have never gotten involved at all.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 08, 2010, 06:44:04 PM
Quote from: "Evil WWASP"
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
Hahahahahaha... oh fuck, babies and bathwater. You're shitting us, right, Psy? You've got to be shitting us. Please tell me you are shitting us.

No.  I'm not.  Ginger and I made the final decision last night.  I'll be drafting up a new constitution for the forum tonight.  I'll post it publicly for comment, and then ratify it once it meets the group's majority approval.  Outing parents in the way you did before, resulting in a kid being sent to a program, is not going to happen again.  You think parents are likely to listen to anybody on the anti-program side after you out them?  You made us all look like lunatics.  It's unpleasant sometimes but parents ultimately hold the kid's fate in their hands and if it's necessary to hold your tongue and be diplomatic to prevent the kids being sent to programs, it's worth it.  In this one case, Whooter is absolutely right.  You have a good deal of responsibility to bear for Morgan being sent to a program.  Driving off parents for kicks won't be tolerated anymore on this forum.  You weren't even in a program.  What do you care, other than for the drama you feed off of.  As far as I can tell you're pretty much the only person objecting to this.

I'm glad for moderation. Even its not perfect, it's an improvement.
But it would be a bad move to ban people for "outing" victims and predators. There are clearly some cases where peoples' names have been posted for no good reason, that shouldnt be allowed, but there are other times where people are merely recounting thier time in program and naming thier fellow prisoners, of starting "free so and so" style campains and movements. It's not fair to ask victims or anyone to "keep secrets."  
 
In the morgan case, regarding banning pile, you'd be banning him for what he did on other forums. Is that really you guys' place? Youre going to moderate and punish people for what they do in their private time? Not good.

Speaking of "seeming sane," please don't put up a forum solely dedicated to AA. Reading your (you and Antigen's) thoughts on AA, it's clear you have some "far out" opinions on the matter..and if you put up a forum, that would move your thoughts on AA from your opinion realm to official fornits position-(one that the majority of cult victim/program survivors /fornits goers don;t appear to share.) And how do you think that will make the claims on this forum appear regarding brainwashing and cults? Its also insulting to victims to equate wwasp or CEDU with AA, which is what you'd be doing, kinda, if you set up its own forum. That's hardly fair.
Why not just ask the people who post non stop about AA to contain it to one thread? Maybe in an "opt in" way so that it doesn't appear on the new post list...maybe make all general forums "opt in"

Really, there are only two prolific trolls Suckit and Whooter, just ban them and get it over it. And when they reappear, ban them again. Other moderation will just be iciing on the cake

Evil, that is like saying if you start a forum for "Elan" it means you are validating Elan for everything it represents, this is just not true.
AA, is a big part of the TTI and should get it's own forum not because I want to push an agenda of AA but to clearly "out" AA, so to speak.
Title: Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Post by: Joel on September 08, 2010, 06:52:01 PM
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 08, 2010, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Quote from: "DannyB II"
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Fornits has turned into a bunch of bullshit because nobody ever does anything about the trolls and drama whores.

Good point, SEKTO, but the same people who failed to do anything about the trolls before will now also be doing the "moderation" of the forums.  

Fornits has policies in place to deal with the trolls but those policies have been strictly uninforced by the site admin despite many complaints about spamming, flooding, derailing, etc.  Making new policies that won't be properly enforced isn't going to solve the problem.  The problem is lack of enforcement, not lack of policy.

Look at some of the biggest offenders and observe the admin's complete inaction regarding them.  Even after being banned, they are somehow "unbanned" and again turned loose to continue to destroy what this forum once was.

Then I will volunteer to help do the moderating, myself.

And I'll help to strictly enforce the rules and policies, too.  

Somebody being stupid will get a couple of warnings, and if they still want to fool around, then they get banned permanently by IP.  Period.  Very simple.

I can think of a couple of people who I'd ban right right this moment, if it were up to me.

And all the crap, off-topic postings will get deleted immediately, too.


Sekto, your exactly what is wrong with this Site, your sanctimonious statements from the "other" side don't help here at all. It has been kind of nice not to have to hear your righteous arrogance for a while. If everyone would just worry about themselves and what they would like to post, I believe moderation would be simple. It is only when crusaders feel anointed to slay dragons "they" feel are threatening.
Also know this, you may post a topic and set the agenda but if others do not believe in your opinions they will say so or what are they supposed to do, not comment. What kind of debate id this, people not every judgment you have of someone is accurate.

Please stay on topic and do not personally attack or attempt to intimidate participating members of this message board.

First warning.

What did you just say, who are you talking to, I hope you don't think I will respect this. This is your problem Sekto. I am not on your forum and you will not speak to me this way. This is what I am talking about, I will not honor your warning now or at anytime. If you want me banned and you have Psy and Gingers blessing then do it now, forget the warnings.  
I will not put up with your bullshit at all anywhere on this site, please get this through your head.

You made a comment about trolling and drama and I lumped you in with the bunch, it is exactly what I witnessed from you months ago. I thought it was nice not to hear from you.
Title: Re: AA can go here
Post by: Che Gookin on September 08, 2010, 07:02:07 PM
Quote from: "Joel"
AA could go here > viewforum.php?f=59 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=59)  This would be fine .

No.. put AA way down at the bottom of the forum please. Make Ursus the moderator as well.
Title: Re: AA can go here
Post by: Froderik on September 08, 2010, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: "Che Gookin"
Quote from: "Joel"
AA could go here > http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=59 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=59)  This would be fine .

No.. put AA way down at the bottom of the forum please. Make Ursus the moderator as well.

 :tup:  :tup:
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 07:15:12 PM
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Please stay on topic and do not personally attack or attempt to intimidate participating members of this message board.

First warning.

Hold up now.  The rules aren't in place yet and i'm not sure who I'll be selecting as moderators.
Title: Re: AA can go here
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 07:16:52 PM
Quote from: "Che Gookin"
Quote from: "Joel"
AA could go here > viewforum.php?f=59 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=59)  This would be fine .

No.. put AA way down at the bottom of the forum please. Make Ursus the moderator as well.
Haven't seen Ursus around in a while.  When Ursus comes back we'll discuss it.  It's likely we'll have global moderators, though (for all forums).
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Inculcated on September 08, 2010, 07:18:57 PM
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Please stay on topic and do not personally attack or attempt to intimidate participating members of this message board.

First warning.

Hold up now.  The rules aren't in place yet and i'm not sure who I'll be selecting as moderators.
IDK, but I think SEKTO's sense of levity might not have translated in text w/ that…but I thought it was funny.
Title: Re: AA can go here
Post by: Che Gookin on September 08, 2010, 07:28:25 PM
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "Che Gookin"
Quote from: "Joel"
AA could go here > viewforum.php?f=59 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=59)  This would be fine .

No.. put AA way down at the bottom of the forum please. Make Ursus the moderator as well.
Haven't seen Ursus around in a while.  When Ursus comes back we'll discuss it.  It's likely we'll have global moderators, though (for all forums).

Hmm, interesting.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: SEKTO on September 08, 2010, 07:30:40 PM
Quote from: "Inculcated"
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "SEKTO"
Please stay on topic and do not personally attack or attempt to intimidate participating members of this message board.

First warning.

Hold up now.  The rules aren't in place yet and i'm not sure who I'll be selecting as moderators.
IDK, but I think SEKTO's sense of levity might not have translated in text w/ that…but I thought it was funny.

Yes, that was pointed sarcasm.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 08, 2010, 07:30:55 PM
here's a draft consitution:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=31104 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=31104)
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 08, 2010, 07:37:44 PM
Listen if you folks want AA, so far down it is below the cellar, so your contempt can subside. I would be more then happy to swill around in the leach field moderating the forum.
No, not to push AA's agenda but to finally acknowledge AA's influence in the TTI. Straight was built on AA's 12 steps, well I see a forum for Straight, (well you don't have Straight w/o AA). We also have the Orange Papers, Vailiants opinions, the cult argument, thought reform, other AA inspired TC's still operating.
Guys whether we like it or not AA is here to stay. It is a vital piece of the TTI.
I have said this before and I will say it again. I am no longer a member of AA officially, meaning, I don't go to meetings with a definite purpose and/or participate in AA. I have not for several years. I found no more need for AA on a continuousness bases. If any one would like to know more feel free to ask on the forum.
Title: Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Post by: Joel on September 08, 2010, 07:41:19 PM
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 08, 2010, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: "Samara"
The rules sound great, but why not ban Whooter?The reason is not because of his stance on programs but because he is a saboteur, a gifted one. I think the loss of traffic and the decline of Fornits is partially due to in-fighting and crazy ass personal dynamics. It seems that what used to be confined to the Elan forum - which was all about flamewars - spilled out into other threads.  Then, around 2006, personal info was leaked and administrators lost credibility (sorry, but true). That diminished the site. The lack of anonymity could be a factor, as well. No guest posting.  But I think also, the Who is a derailer. Who wants to visit their favorite threads when the Whooter derails persistently, gleefully, pervasively, repeatedly, tirelessly, enduringly, and deceptively.  This is different than posting your views or just being an asshole.  

When someone asked about Fornits being a support site... it was sad. This place was a community prior to 2006. Now, there are the old loyalists but it's just basically devolved into flamewars and derailed tracks. Maybe me wishing for the old Fornits is like Cheech and Chong nostlagic for '69 but, it would be great if it were more of the community it used to be.


The rules sound great, but why not ban Samara? The reason is not because of her stance on programs but because she is a silent participant in the destruction of this forum.   I think the loss of traffic and the decline of Fornits is partially due to her apathy towards posters who spend their time hurting others and exposing their personal information rather than supporting those posters who contributed in a positive and constructive manner….. That diminished the site in my opinion.. But I think also, that Samara is an instigator. Samara is the “Grand Dragon”, she likes to wear the hood and carry a torch, but since she isn’t the one who kicks the horse, she feels she had nothing to do with the hanging and therefore feels justified in not taking responsibility….. “Who me?  I didn’t do anything wrong?”

She wants  me banned because she knows I know who she is and the type of person she has become.  Fornits was great in its earlier years and was eroded away slowly due to intolerance and closed mindedness like samara represents.  Fornits can again gain the traffic back if people can just accept each other’s opinions without being threatened and feel the need to attack rather than discuss.

It would be great if people could just learn to get along more and learn from each others experiences and points of view instead of being threatened by them and trying to change them.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Evil WWASP on September 08, 2010, 08:56:11 PM
Thanks for responding.

Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "Evil WWASP"
I'm glad for moderation. Even its not perfect, it's an improvement.
But it would be a bad move to ban people for "outing" victims and predators. There are clearly some cases where peoples' names have been posted for no good reason, that shouldnt be allowed, but there are other times where people are merely recounting thier time in program and naming thier fellow prisoners, of starting "free so and so" style campains and movements. It's not fair to ask victims or anyone to "keep secrets."

I totally agree.  See my last post.

Quote
In the morgan case, regarding banning pile, you'd be banning him for what he did on other forums. Is that really you guys' place? Youre going to moderate and punish people for what they do in their private time? Not good.

Oh. He won't be punished retroactively for that or be banned.  If he does it again after the rules are put in place, that's a different story.  We're not going to punish people for what they post off the forum but if they link to personal identifying information from this forum i'll consider that the same as posting it on the forum itself.


 I see your points. The problem I see there is then we couldn't link to "free so and so campaigns" and such. We couldn't even post names of teens who commit suicide post incarceration or in program. Should fornits administrators really demand posters to be "secret keepers," not able to even link to identities’ intricate in this abomination and bury their terrible secret knowledge? I appreciate that it is embarrassing to be exposed as a child abuser for former staff(Joel), I appreciate it is embarrassing for program parents to be exposed as criminals, I appreciate that, in the pile case, that maybe everyone involved wanted what was transpiring to be done secretly. But I don't see why that's fornits posters' burden of secrets to carry...at least not to the point they can't even link to another site about it

Yes, there is no place for outing people when it is done because one fornits participant or a cult member is annoyed by purely by the speech of another or a "heretic," (the most obvious example of that being what goes on in the Elan forum. )Sure, to a certain extent the difference subjective call but to make things objective, don't throw out the baby with bathwater. Am I making sense?

Quote from: "guest"
Speaking of "seeming sane," please don't put up a forum solely dedicated to AA. Reading your (you and Antigen's) thoughts on AA, it's clear you have some "far out" opinions on the matter..and if you put up a forum, that would move your thoughts on AA from your opinion realm to official fornits position-(one that the majority of cult victim/program survivors /fornits goers don;t appear to share.)

Quote
I was considering a "drug treatment philosophies" forum instead of one naming AA specifically.  It could be a forum for AA, RR, SOS, SMART and discussion of the relative benefits and downsides.  It would also be opt-in.

Quote
And how do you think that will make the claims on this forum appear regarding brainwashing and cults? Its also insulting to victims to equate wwasp or CEDU with AA, which is what you'd be doing, kinda, if you set up its own forum.

Right, but even defenders of AA such as Danny argue that AA and the 12 step philosophy has influenced this industry.  It's going to be discussed no matter what and it would be great to have a dedicated place for it.


Well, to digress, I dont think AA has been much of an influence on the industry, I think that's just the outwardly acceptable veneer some cult prisons use to hide behind, or the particular "pet ideas" they use to abuse or force on captive teens. (Kinda like WWASP and Mormonism. Do you follow me?) It's more about what they do then what they call it. But, yes, you are right, obviously people are going to talk about it.

Your idea about a general non-committal "drug treatment philosophies" would be a great way to partition A.A. from the rendition cults, or majority age oriented "treatment cults" aimed at coercing young vulnerable people into institutionalization (Benchmark), and treatment cults in general. Perfect. No one would write fornits of as a conspiracy kook forum that way, which is my fear, because, without taking a position here, not titling the forum carefully could be like having a Mormonism forum..the implication being Mormonism is a cult or a "teen program."


Quote from: "guest"
Really, there are only two prolific trolls Suckit and Whooter, just ban them and get it over it. And when they reappear, ban them again. Other moderation will just be iciing on the cake

Quote from: "psy"
Only if they break the rules, and it's impossible to define trolling.  Neither will be banned if they stay within the rules.

I see. Sure thing.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Samara on September 08, 2010, 09:15:49 PM
Whoo - yeah, vote to ban me. That would be sort of dumb though. I'll never be the insincere shell of a human that you are. You stick around with your repeated lies against me and others, your Machiavellian tactics, and your derailment patterns, not to mention your consensus building puppet posts (responding to yourself.) I have not resorted to these tactics. I have also not practiced apathy. You already know that, though, you have even apologized for accusing me of apathy regarding Morgan when the opposite was true.  Maybe you have Alzheimer's? Whatever, you subsequently and predictably went back to lying.

It's funny you would compare me to the Grand Master when I have never physically or psychologically abused anyone in my life. And yet you advocate sticking every wayward youth in your emotional rape compounds. And you certainly wear your hood around here.

Am I apathetic? Toward you? No, I detest you, and I don't care what people say to you unless they endangered your family or physical well-being. But other than that, I'd take a hot headed asshole any day over someone as cold hearted as you have proven to be over the years.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 08, 2010, 09:43:28 PM
Quote from: "Samara"
Whoo - yeah, vote to ban me. That would be sort of dumb though. I'll never be the insincere shell of a human that you are. You stick around with your repeated lies against me and others, your Machiavellian tactics, and your derailment patterns, not to mention your consensus building puppet posts (responding to yourself.) I have not resorted to these tactics. I have also not practiced apathy. You already know that, though, you have even apologized for accusing me of apathy regarding Morgan when the opposite was true.  Maybe you have Alzheimer's? Whatever, you subsequently and predictably went back to lying.

It's funny you would compare me to the Grand Master when I have never physically or psychologically abused anyone in my life. And yet you advocate sticking every wayward youth in your emotional rape compounds. And you certainly wear your hood around here.

Am I apathetic? Toward you? No, I detest you, and I don't care what people say to you unless they endangered your family or physical well-being. But other than that, I'd take a hot headed asshole any day over someone as cold hearted as you have proven to be over the years.

You have made my point.  You come on here and start personal attacks and then accuse me of derailment patterns.  If you read back I never brought your name up until you singled me out to be banned and started name calling.  You stood by silently while DJ posted anothers name address and phone number on the forum.  I pointed this out to you and you accept this behavior, yet you detest other people because they disagree with you.  Like I said you secretly like seeing people get hurt but you want to make sure you dont get soiled yourself and stay in the shadows while cheering them on.

None of us know for sure how many names you have posted under.  DJ claimed for years he never posted a single guest post and it turned out he had several aliases and posted 3,500 guest posts.  So until you have your posts exposed you shouldnt point fingers.
I dont like people like you, Samara, because you feel the rules dont apply to you, you are two faced and closed minded and feel there are no limits as long as it furthers your cause and you dont care how many people get hurt in the process.  You want people banned but claim immunity for the same behavior because you feel you are part of the majority and claim exemption status.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Awake on September 08, 2010, 09:57:44 PM
Ok, I am in favor of trying to improve things and the intent of the rules sound good, but I am skeptical at a glance. For myself I think we should have a little time to discuss and refine things, I don’t know what the timeline is, but I f I think we test the rules on a devoted thread and see if we can puroposely manipulate and test the boundaries regarding insults and civility and such with the current mods offering their judgement to weigh in on. I want a change for the better, but I have an itch that unforeseen problems are going to arise from this. Can there be a time period given to work out the bugs? Personally, I’d be in favor of a single username policy, but have an unmoderated section that also allowed guest posting. Some concerns I would have with rule change are the ability to be most functional, while maintaining fairness, and accessibility to new readers. The new rules sound good hearted, but the games against fornits are going to persist and they will be utilizing these rules to create disorganization, I think. So I think we should test them.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Che Gookin on September 08, 2010, 10:20:14 PM
I just want an AA forum where we can coordinate more flyer raids. I think we need to mobilize more people for that sort of thing and a dedicated moderated AA forum would be the perfect place to do it. I for one plan on emulating Botched once I return to the US and I plan on regularly flyering AA meetings in my community.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Che Gookin on September 08, 2010, 10:29:37 PM
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
Hahahahahaha... oh fuck, babies and bathwater. You're shitting us, right, Psy? You've got to be shitting us. Please tell me you are shitting us.

No.  I'm not.  Ginger and I made the final decision last night.  I'll be drafting up a new constitution for the forum tonight.  I'll post it publicly for comment, and then ratify it once it meets the group's majority approval.  Outing parents in the way you did before, resulting in a kid being sent to a program, is not going to happen again.  You think parents are likely to listen to anybody on the anti-program side after you out them?  You made us all look like lunatics.  It's unpleasant sometimes but parents ultimately hold the kid's fate in their hands and if it's necessary to hold your tongue and be diplomatic to prevent the kids being sent to programs, it's worth it.  In this one case, Whooter is absolutely right.  You have a good deal of responsibility to bear for Morgan being sent to a program.  Driving off parents for kicks won't be tolerated anymore on this forum.  You weren't even in a program.  What do you care, other than for the drama you feed off of.  As far as I can tell you're pretty much the only person objecting to this.


Actually, I'm all for outing parents who won't listen to reason. They need to be punished to serve as a warning to other idiot parents. The timing is what I object to in this case, but that's neither here nor there because Daniel Gauss, the asshole he is, was bound and determined to send his kid to a program long before anyone else got involved. Evidence collected from Morgan's friends show she's been stressing this issue for months. That's months of Daniel Gauss's opinions hardening on the merits of sending his daughter to a program. That's months of Morgan's mother consulting the spirit guides.

Parents should only be outed when it is abundantly clear that they just aren't going to listen.

Morgan really didn't have a chance in the first place, her fate was signed and sealed.

also, please don't ever make light of anyone being a program survivor or not. Some of the biggest supporters of Morgan at the moment haven't even stepped foot in a program. The majority of the people who signed onto help that are program survivors are too busy fucking around on fornits and reveling in their victim status. Most of the program survivors involved in the facebook group seem to busy weeping along with some pansy assed liberal agenda to send a god damn email, make a phone call, or to send a fax.

There are a few who are doing there bit, god bless them, but the majority are about as useful as tits on a wart hog.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Samara on September 08, 2010, 10:34:11 PM
Whoo -
1. Again, I was not present where DL posted numbers. I am absent for long periods, so I can't pretend I know what you are talking about.  I do not personally know DJ.  I never even knew the big hullaboo about your sorry ass because I did not track those threads. I am sorry I later took the time to figure it out, Tar Baby.

2. I NEVER cheer on people who post numbers or IDs. I don't even like it when Anne makes fun of Danny's spelling. And I like Anne. But two tango'd.

3. I don't secretly like people getting hurt. You can't even say what I secretly  like. Or are you Omniscient?   The people here who know me would fucking laugh hysterically at your characterization of me.  

4. The fact that you continue to lie about me is why I don't like you. You statements about not caring about anything but furthering my cause exemplifies how truly ignorant you are. As I've said, I've shown more restraint than the most. I HAVEN'T posted IDs or numbers, or misrepresented myself by responding to myself.  You don't even know what I think about programs, or troubled kids.

5. My attacks on you are targeted because you baldfacedly lied about me. When you lie about me, it is targeted. Of course, it's personal.  People who intentionally lie about other people are my biggest pet peeve, possibly superceding littering. The fact you brandish it proudly and repeatedly is like waving the red cape. I already know you are meaner, crueler, and more persistently so than I will ever be. I am sorry for the time I've spent defending myself from a person of your ilk. It is truly wasted... like trying to rehab a sociopath. Can't be done. The sad thing is you are so sick and twisted you enjoy it.  It is quite a feat, to beat out EVERY single person here at The Game you play. That's all it ever was for you. You don't care about kids. I don't even think you care that much about your own or you wouldn't be on this site so much. (I realize this last statment is a bit presumptuous, but I wanted to try out your style for once.  Not sure how you live with it.)

Peace out, sweetie.

(And yes, to everyone else, I'll stop responding to more of Who's posts.  If not ban me, he obviously wants to be here more than I do.)
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 08, 2010, 10:51:17 PM
Quote from: "Che Gookin"
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
Hahahahahaha... oh fuck, babies and bathwater. You're shitting us, right, Psy? You've got to be shitting us. Please tell me you are shitting us.

No.  I'm not.  Ginger and I made the final decision last night.  I'll be drafting up a new constitution for the forum tonight.  I'll post it publicly for comment, and then ratify it once it meets the group's majority approval.  Outing parents in the way you did before, resulting in a kid being sent to a program, is not going to happen again.  You think parents are likely to listen to anybody on the anti-program side after you out them?  You made us all look like lunatics.  It's unpleasant sometimes but parents ultimately hold the kid's fate in their hands and if it's necessary to hold your tongue and be diplomatic to prevent the kids being sent to programs, it's worth it.  In this one case, Whooter is absolutely right.  You have a good deal of responsibility to bear for Morgan being sent to a program.  Driving off parents for kicks won't be tolerated anymore on this forum.  You weren't even in a program.  What do you care, other than for the drama you feed off of.  As far as I can tell you're pretty much the only person objecting to this.


Actually, I'm all for outing parents who won't listen to reason. They need to be punished to serve as a warning to other idiot parents. The timing is what I object to in this case, but that's neither here nor there because Daniel Gauss, the asshole he is, was bound and determined to send his kid to a program long before anyone else got involved. Evidence collected from Morgan's friends show she's been stressing this issue for months. That's months of Daniel Gauss's opinions hardening on the merits of sending his daughter to a program. That's months of Morgan's mother consulting the spirit guides.

Parents should only be outed when it is abundantly clear that they just aren't going to listen.

Morgan really didn't have a chance in the first place, her fate was signed and sealed.

also, please don't ever make light of anyone being a program survivor or not. Some of the biggest supporters of Morgan at the moment haven't even stepped foot in a program. The majority of the people who signed onto help that are program survivors are too busy fucking around on fornits and reveling in their victim status. Most of the program survivors involved in the facebook group seem to busy weeping along with some pansy assed liberal agenda to send a god damn email, make a phone call, or to send a fax.

There are a few who are doing there bit, god bless them, but the majority are about as useful as tits on a wart hog.



Actually you are wrong, Che, I spoke with the Gauss's.  You are just doing damage control here on fornits.  The problem is that you and Pile are just immature.  If you don’t get your way you go off and do something destructive and you don’t care who you hurt.  Why harm a young girl who never did anything to hurt you and Pile?  Where is the sense in that?

The Gauss's were open to dialog all along but you were intent on force feeding them more than they could handle in one sitting and looking for a commitment not to send Morgan.  You tried to accomplish this in a few hours where the problem took years to come to a head.
You know very little about parenting and the responsibility that goes along with it.

On the flip side what would you think if I said I was all for outing survivors who didnt listen to reason.  Would it be right if I tried to convince a survivor that they were not abused, call them a liar and tell  them that if they didn’t start posting honestly on fornits stating clearly that they could have been helped by their program if only they applied themselves and the abuse was self inflicted then I would plaster their name,photo and address all over a porn site.  Would this be tolerated at the same level as Morgans outing was?



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 08, 2010, 10:59:18 PM
Quote from: "Samara"
Whoo -
1. Again, I was not present where DL posted numbers.

I will stop here.  You were and you did but you choose to ignore it (and you know it because I linked to it in posts that you responded to).  I really dont care, Samara,  I am just making the point about you.  I know you cannot admit this openly here because then my definition of you just falls into place doesnt it?

Again I will stop here because the rest is just a pissing contest.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Che Gookin on September 08, 2010, 11:03:10 PM
Back up, I didn't speak to the Gauss's at all and had absolutely nothing to do with them being outed. The only thing I had to do with that incident is I sent Mr. "Assclown" Gauss an email offering to talk to him if he wanted to ask a former staff member of two different programs questions. My primary involvement came much later in this ordeal. And you speaking to them with your past history of being a program supporter certainly doesn't speak well for Morgan's chances of staying out of a program either. If we are going to take your word on this we all have to be absolutely frank with ourselves and remind ourselves just what kind of person you are and what you stand for.

You certainly tend to stand more for kids going to programs and your posts on Morgan's thread reflected this belief as well. Which leads me to believe you had a good deal to do with her going to a program yourself.

I didn't and still don't approve with the timing of the outing. It should have only come after it was abundantly clear they weren't going to listen. After it crossed that line I would have had no problem with any sort out outing.

I'm not even going to get into a dialogue with you about outing survivors. We've both done it and both are huge assholes for having done it. Anyone who does that sort of shit ought to be banned on spot. There IS absolutely no comparison between a survivor of a program and a dirtbag parent who refuses to listen to people who are telling them they are putting their kid at risk.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 08, 2010, 11:20:26 PM
Quote from: "Che Gookin"
Back up, I didn't speak to the Gauss's at all and had absolutely nothing to do with them being outed. The only thing I had to do with that incident is I sent Mr. "Assclown" Gauss an email offering to talk to him if he wanted to ask a former staff member of two different programs questions. My primary involvement came much later in this ordeal. And you speaking to them with your past history of being a program supporter certainly doesn't speak well for Morgan's chances of staying out of a program either. If we are going to take your word on this we all have to be absolutely frank with ourselves and remind ourselves just what kind of person you are and what you stand for.

You certainly tend to stand more for kids going to programs and your posts on Morgan's thread reflected this belief as well. Which leads me to believe you had a good deal to do with her going to a program yourself.

I didn't and still don't approve with the timing of the outing. It should have only come after it was abundantly clear they weren't going to listen. After it crossed that line I would have had no problem with any sort out outing.

I'm not even going to get into a dialogue with you about outing survivors. We've both done it and both are huge assholes for having done it. Anyone who does that sort of shit ought to be banned on spot.

Everyone who has read my posts know that I am an advocate of local service first and programs as a last resort.  Morgans chances at a local option were taken off the table by you guys (or Pile).
I stand for kids getting help.   You stand for kids not going to programs.  There is nothing helpful or pro active in your thinking or cause, Che.

Quote
There IS absolutely no comparison between a survivor of a program and a dirtbag parent who refuses to listen to people who are telling them they are putting their kid at risk.


What about a comparison between a concerned parent who is worried and looking to help their child and dirtbag survivor who put themselves at risk prior to being placed and is speaking against a program which tried to help them and refuses to listen to people who are telling them that they could have been helped if only they had applied themselves?  They blew a ton of family money which could have been put towards their siblings education?  Should they be outed right away? or should we wait and give them a chance to listen to reason first?

Again you are speaking from your point of view.   You should step back and see the bigger picture.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Che Gookin on September 08, 2010, 11:38:59 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"

Everyone who has read my posts know that I am an advocate of local service first and programs as a last resort.  Morgans chances at a local option were taken off the table by you guys (or Pile).
I stand for kids getting help.   You stand for kids not going to programs.  There is nothing helpful or pro active in your thinking or cause, Che.


And you absolutely saw to it that Morgan got that help. Congrats, I'm sure she's down in La Pine Oregon right now enjoying the living hell out of that help. Don't even try your slimy insinuation that I had anything to do with the ED article. I was left well out of the loop on that one for a reason, they knew I'd object to it.

Quote
What about a comparison between a concerned parent who is worried and looking to help their child and dirtbag survivor who put themselves at risk prior to being placed and is speaking against a program which tried to help them and refuses to listen to people who are telling them that they could have been helped if only they had applied themselves?  They blew a ton of family money which could have been put towards their siblings education?  Should they be outed right away? or should we wait and give them a chance to listen to reason first?

Again you are speaking from your point of view.   You should step back and see the bigger picture.



...

Clearly this would be a matter for the courts. You can't seriously entertain the idea that I'm going to agree to any person being shipped away without the benefit of due process for any reason. I REALLY DO believe that a person is better off dead than being deprived of their right to due process. Therefore, any parent who chooses to deny their child a day in court, are dirtbags and deserve everything they have coming to them.

Nice try though.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 08, 2010, 11:41:01 PM
Quote from: "Che Gookin"
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
Hahahahahaha... oh fuck, babies and bathwater. You're shitting us, right, Psy? You've got to be shitting us. Please tell me you are shitting us.

No.  I'm not.  Ginger and I made the final decision last night.  I'll be drafting up a new constitution for the forum tonight.  I'll post it publicly for comment, and then ratify it once it meets the group's majority approval.  Outing parents in the way you did before, resulting in a kid being sent to a program, is not going to happen again.  You think parents are likely to listen to anybody on the anti-program side after you out them?  You made us all look like lunatics.  It's unpleasant sometimes but parents ultimately hold the kid's fate in their hands and if it's necessary to hold your tongue and be diplomatic to prevent the kids being sent to programs, it's worth it.  In this one case, Whooter is absolutely right.  You have a good deal of responsibility to bear for Morgan being sent to a program.  Driving off parents for kicks won't be tolerated anymore on this forum.  You weren't even in a program.  What do you care, other than for the drama you feed off of.  As far as I can tell you're pretty much the only person objecting to this.


Actually, I'm all for outing parents who won't listen to reason. They need to be punished to serve as a warning to other idiot parents. The timing is what I object to in this case, but that's neither here nor there because Daniel Gauss, the asshole he is, was bound and determined to send his kid to a program long before anyone else got involved. Evidence collected from Morgan's friends show she's been stressing this issue for months. That's months of Daniel Gauss's opinions hardening on the merits of sending his daughter to a program. That's months of Morgan's mother consulting the spirit guides.

Parents should only be outed when it is abundantly clear that they just aren't going to listen.

Morgan really didn't have a chance in the first place, her fate was signed and sealed.

also, please don't ever make light of anyone being a program survivor or not. Some of the biggest supporters of Morgan at the moment haven't even stepped foot in a program. The majority of the people who signed onto help that are program survivors are too busy fucking around on fornits and reveling in their victim status. Most of the program survivors involved in the facebook group seem to busy weeping along with some pansy assed liberal agenda to send a god damn email, make a phone call, or to send a fax.

There are a few who are doing there bit, god bless them, but the majority are about as useful as tits on a wart hog.


Well Che, I can understand your anger at parents and Psy's reference to PODK's not being a survivor. What I don't understand is your comment that some of the "biggest supporters" of Morgan have never set foot in a program. That would whole heartedly be a erroneous statement, many of us have stayed in contact with Morgan in one way or another.
As far as parents being outed I would love to hear more on this, how would this help productively, how should a parent "hear" something and when should they "hear it"????
Parents need to be punished so as to teach other parents. So were in the, "vendetta business now" or in your case have been all along. Parents should be outed when they will not listen to Che and PODK's.
So it is Ok, for Che to barge in to a family dynamic at the request of a child posting here and aggressively start threatening them with exposure if they don't do what you want them too.
Che, did you ever stop and ask yourself why it is only PODK's and yourself acting in this way and it is definitely not on behalf of others here. Two common denominators both of you were never in a program and both of you have never been parents.
I am not trying to isolate either of you, I just find it hard to understand that your tactics will bear any ripe fruit, it seems it will only bring more discourse and push parents further away from fornits.
We have to remember this is a extremely sensitive circumstance for the child and the parents, everyone is usually at their wits end, grasping at straws, there is a lot of confusion. In these troubled days one parent is usually trying desperately to gain some control, while the other parent is very passive with worry. There has to be common sense introduced here with patience.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Che Gookin on September 08, 2010, 11:46:01 PM
Danny,

I don't think anyone here is going to believe that you've maintained any sort of contact with anyone other than your AA sponsor. Nice try though and better luck next time.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 08, 2010, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: "Che Gookin"
And you absolutely saw to it that Morgan got that help. Congrats, I'm sure she's down in La Pine Oregon right now enjoying the living hell out of that help. Don't even try your slimy insinuation that I had anything to do with the ED article. I was left well out of the loop on that one for a reason, they knew I'd object to it.

See you think that people can force others to do what they want.  I cant force Morgans parents to do anything, Che.  This is where you and Pile miss the whole picture.  You think you can force people into your way of thinking and all it accomplishes is hurting someone.  If we try engaging them and understanding their dilemma and circumstances then maybe we can lend them our understanding and experiences.  I think Morgan would have benefited from local services as well as her parents, but you cant just force your point of view down peoples throats and then start smacking them around if they dont listen within the required time limit.

Quote
Clearly this would be a matter for the courts. You can't seriously entertain the idea that I'm going to agree to any person being shipped away without the benefit of due process for any reason. I REALLY DO believe that a person is better off dead than being deprived of their right to due process. Therefore, any parent who chooses to deny their child a day in court, are dirtbags and deserve everything they have coming to them.

Where does this “Due Process” come from?  How many kids that you know of get due process for anything?  Site some examples?  Do kids choose their medical options?  When and where they go to school?  Why cant they choose their own food to eat? Church to attend?  Whether to be circumcised or not?

Were your parents dirtbags because they forced you to go to a public school?  Were you given your day in court to decide to be unschooled or home schooled?  Should kids decide this? Should we expand the courts to accommodate every request by a child or just certain ones that you decide?



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 09, 2010, 12:09:55 AM
Quote from: "Che Gookin"
Actually, I'm all for outing parents who won't listen to reason. They need to be punished to serve as a warning to other idiot parents.

Do you really think a single parent is going to be deterred just because some other parent was outed?  There is no point to it. There is no shame to it. The only outrage at the parents comes from here.  It's not an effective deterrent and even if it was it wouldn't be worth the cause in driving others away.  Parents do not want to contact people they think are crazy and might out them.  They already perceive those who criticize programs as most likely homeless drug addict fuck-ups.

Before you call a parent hopeless remember KarenInDallas.  Even after a kid is placed in a program there is still a chance the parents will eventually listen, especially if what they've been told prior to placement lines up with what their kids report.  The key, the absolute key, is to get the parents to listen for long enough that they can absorb key information so they can figure things out on their own.  You explain "this might happen in the program" and their kid reports the exact same thing...  regardless of how far gone you think parents can go, that sets off alarm bells.  That cannot happen if communication is severed.  You don't burn bridges.  There is no advantage to it, strategically, ethically, or otherwise.

Quote
The timing is what I object to in this case, but that's neither here nor there because Daniel Gauss, the asshole he is, was bound and determined to send his kid to a program long before anyone else got involved. Evidence collected from Morgan's friends show she's been stressing this issue for months. That's months of Daniel Gauss's opinions hardening on the merits of sending his daughter to a program. That's months of Morgan's mother consulting the spirit guides.

Parents should only be outed when it is abundantly clear that they just aren't going to listen.

And that worked wonders for KarenInDallas.  All it did was turn her further into a raging opponent to the program. It took dedication, hard work, logic, and persistence to get her to realize the truth about what was going on.  It was made infinitely more difficult by the vendetta against her.

Quote
Morgan really didn't have a chance in the first place, her fate was signed and sealed.

Don't defend him.  PODK came off like a lunatic, and Niles, unfortunately, followed right along.  Communication with a parents was severed as a result.  Because it's impossible to know now whether the parents could have been convinced not to place, the one chance that girl had was destroyed.  Any chance to educate her parents and convince them to remove the kid was similarly demolished.

Quote
also, please don't ever make light of anyone being a program survivor or not. Some of the biggest supporters of Morgan at the moment haven't even stepped foot in a program.

Do you honestly feel that somebody who wasn't in a program can truly understand what it was like?  I can say cult members might be able to, but other than that, unless you've read for years and years, people just don't get it.  I'm not saying I don't appreciate the support, but when you don't know what you're doing, you ask somebody to help rather than blasting off and risking a kid's future and sanity.

Quote
The majority of the people who signed onto help that are program survivors are too busy fucking around on fornits and reveling in their victim status. Most of the program survivors involved in the facebook group seem to busy weeping along with some pansy assed liberal agenda to send a god damn email, make a phone call, or to send a fax.

You're right.  More people should start fighting but I don't blame those who don't.  What else do you expect them to do when they were told for so long they're fated to failure.  Yes they're victims.  Some are resilient.  Some never recover. All we all can do is try.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 12:32:56 AM
Quote from: "psy"
They already perceive those who criticize programs as most likely homeless drug addict fuck-ups.

I would have to agree the initial perception is pretty bad especially with those who come across as extreme and out on the fringe.

(http://http://www.malcontentmemoirs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/homeless-guy-and-computer2.jpg)
- Pile Of Dead Kids 3/18/2010

I think an important point that Psy made was that if you are honest and upfront with the parents then they will remember the information as credible.  Worse case (for you) If they do end up placing their child in a program and the information that you told them turns out to be true…i.e. Dad they strip search me every night,  they open my mail, they withhold food etc… they may be more apt to believing their child is telling the truth and pull their child out early.  Morgans parents probably don’t believe any of the crap that they heard here and Morgan has lost her parents ear.

There is never anything gained by burning the bridge down.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 09, 2010, 12:47:54 AM
Quote from: "Che Gookin"
Danny,

I don't think anyone here is going to believe that you've maintained any sort of contact with anyone other than your AA sponsor. Nice try though and better luck next time.

Che, stop insulting me, please. I have asked you to stop several times. Che it is over, lets act like men now. I am apologizing for my past actions and just want to turn the page.
Yes Che, I did stay in touch with Morgan. If you have a problem with this I am sorry. Maybe when you get the chance you can ask her yourself.
I will say this Che, like yourself I did not want to see her go either but I was also torn by the parental care she was getting.
I will not discuss this matter anymore because of the sensitive nature.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Che Gookin on September 09, 2010, 01:15:01 AM
Quote from: "DannyB II"
Quote from: "Che Gookin"
Danny,

I don't think anyone here is going to believe that you've maintained any sort of contact with anyone other than your AA sponsor. Nice try though and better luck next time.

Che, stop insulting me, please. I have asked you to stop several times. Che it is over, lets act like men now. I am apologizing for my past actions and just want to turn the page.
Yes Che, I did stay in touch with Morgan. If you have a problem with this I am sorry. Maybe when you get the chance you can ask her yourself.
I will say this Che, like yourself I did not want to see her go either but I was also torn by the parental care she was getting.
I will not discuss this matter anymore because of the sensitive nature.

No you didn't, no you don't, and no you never will.


Psy:

Back up two steps and listen to what I'm saying. I'm not defend Milk or Niles, what they did was silly and a waste of effort. Karen in Dallas is an entirely different person in all of this. Her son wasn't in a program at the time. Daniel Guass has his daughter in a program. I have no problem outing people who refuse to listen to reason and refuse to remove their kids from a program. You know me well enough that it takes more than just one simple no from a dipshit parent for someone like me to consider something aggressive like outing their personal information.

Besides, I would have never bothered with something like ED. I would have done everything I could to destroy his job. Pretty damn hard to pay for a program when you are out of work.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Maximilian on September 09, 2010, 01:23:24 AM
I'm finding this all very amusing. Remember to stay on topic, it's a rule now.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Che Gookin on September 09, 2010, 01:41:39 AM
^^ Lol someone that gets it. It was fun while it lasted.


 :rofl:
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Watchful Yeoman on September 09, 2010, 10:09:34 AM
Will "full moderation" deal with posts like this?  I saw this thread and was interested in the AARC discussion, but then here was the "Fornits troll" blatantly identifying someone whom he was arguing with as someone who sexually molests his own child.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "ajax13"
JD, since you killed your son, you can't have contact with him at all, moderated or not.  Your mania, stupidity, ignorance and laziness seem to be in an epic battle for dominance.  Who will win JD?  Will your next post be shameful because it's rooted in stupidity, ignorance, laziness or your inability to think rationally when your compulsions are driving you?

why are you obsessed with this JD guy?  It isnt going to help you keep your son or erase what you do to him each night.  We both know that yet you keep throwing personal attacks at other people hoping the pain will go away.

You are sick Ajax13.  Stop molesting and abusing your son.  Just because this poster proved you wrong is no reason to take it out on your own family.  Its only a forum.  Leave your kid in peace.

This is the "Fornits troll" who above is telling other posters that it's not OK to go after people personally, but there he is accusing someone else of sexually molesting their own child.  Where were the "moderators" on this one?  Absent again I suppose.

This "Fornits troll" should be permanently banned immediately as suggested by an earlier poster in this thread.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 09, 2010, 10:20:01 AM
Quote from: "Evil WWASP"
Speaking of "seeming sane," please don't put up a forum solely dedicated to AA. Reading your (you and Antigen's) thoughts on AA, it's clear you have some "far out" opinions on the matter..and if you put up a forum, that would move your thoughts on AA from your opinion realm to official fornits position-(one that the majority of cult victim/program survivors /fornits goers don;t appear to share.)

Quote from: "psy"
I was considering a "drug treatment philosophies" forum instead of one naming AA specifically.  It could be a forum for AA, RR, SOS, SMART and discussion of the relative benefits and downsides.  It would also be opt-in.

Quote from: "Evil WWASP"
And how do you think that will make the claims on this forum appear regarding brainwashing and cults? Its also insulting to victims to equate wwasp or CEDU with AA, which is what you'd be doing, kinda, if you set up its own forum.

Quote from: "psy"
Right, but even defenders of AA such as Danny argue that AA and the 12 step philosophy has influenced this industry.  It's going to be discussed no matter what and it would be great to have a dedicated place for it.


Yup, it does have a huge influence in the TTI.  In fact, a lot of them recommend AA as part of their "aftercare"...and I don't think anyone's equating WWASP/CEDU etc. with AA.   I've never said that AA has beaten anyone or held them against their will (well, maybe the court order b.s.).  We've just noticed some similarities to the thought reform techniques that are used.

And the questioning of AA and it's practices isn't so "out there" anymore.  More and more people, including professionals, are seeing what we're seeing.  Just because it's popular or "mainstream" doesn't mean it's right.  The Scientology likeness stands.  Millions of people believe that it's saved their lives.  That doesn't mean it's so.

I don't care how it's done, but I don't want to see the discussion of AA banned.  It IS an important issue to me as I've watched it harm some people I love very much.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 09, 2010, 10:49:32 AM
Hello, I'd like to know if the moderators will be "policing" PM spam, like the hundreds of messages I continue to receive from Whooter and his sockpuppets.  It amounts to a DOS attck on my account.  Why should I have to wade through and delete dozens of Whooter's unwanted PMs every day?

Whooter's PM Spam Habits (http://http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af262/dysfunction_junction/?action=view&current=WhooterSpamPM.jpg)

This guy has a real sick obsession with me.  Even though I am not posting recently, which keeps
Whooter's trolling down, he still feels the need to personally and persistently troll me daily, even if by PMs.  It's time to take out the garbage, moderators.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 09, 2010, 11:11:11 AM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Hello, I'd like to know if the moderators will be "policing" PM spam, like the hundreds of messages I continue to receive from Whooter and his sockpuppets.  It amounts to a DOS attck on my account.  Why should I have to wade through and delete dozens of Whooter's unwanted PMs every day?

Whooter's PM Spam Habits (http://http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af262/dysfunction_junction/?action=view&current=WhooterSpamPM.jpg)

This guy has a real sick obsession with me.  Even though I am not posting recently, which keeps
Whooter's trolling down, he still feels the need to personally and persistently troll me daily, even if by PMs.  It's time to take out the garbage, moderators.


Yep...I get those too (the ones that say "This message has been removed by its author before it was delivered"), but they're usually from Danny.  Whooter's game (as I understand from what people have posted that he's done it to) is that he'll send someone a message, but then refuse to read any response.  And Max's signature has this in it...."if you send me a private message it will be deleted without being opened. no exceptions."  It amounts to "I don't like what you're saying so I'm not gonna listen"  :lala:  :lala:
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 09, 2010, 11:32:33 AM
Unfortunately, we can't block individual posters from sending us PMs.  I get many from legitimate people every month.  But Whooter is attempting to deny my service through Fornits by simply junking up my PM box with dozens of spam PMs daily.  He has sent me literally hundreds of them and refuses to stop.  

But if I stop receiving PMs then I won't get the ones I care about.  Whooter knows this so he continues to spam my inbox to deny my communications with people looking for help or to share information.  It's the same tactic he uses on the boards.  

It's a shame the admins won't properly deal with him.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Ursus on September 09, 2010, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: "shaggys"
I hope I am wrong but this move seems destined to fail if the goal is to increase posters here. Although there is always room for improvement I just dont see whats so broken here. Oftentimes the "petty vendettas" and "sockpuppetry" is quite humorous. Those that might get turned off by it probably would find something else to get offended about anyway. My 2 cents.
I am in full agreement with Shaggys here. One of the inherent drawbacks of a relatively open democratic system is that you WILL get more propagandists and spin meisters. There is simply no way around it.
Title: disallowing PMs from one's "foes"
Post by: Ursus on September 09, 2010, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Unfortunately, we can't block individual posters from sending us PMs.  I get many from legitimate people every month.  But Whooter is attempting to deny my service through Fornits by simply junking up my PM box with dozens of spam PMs daily.  He has sent me literally hundreds of them and refuses to stop.  

But if I stop receiving PMs then I won't get the ones I care about.  Whooter knows this so he continues to spam my inbox to deny my communications with people looking for help or to share information.  It's the same tactic he uses on the boards.  

It's a shame the admins won't properly deal with him.
On the TAB marked "Friends and Foes" in one's user control panel, it states:

Personal messages from foes are still permitted. Please note that you cannot ignore moderators or administrators.[/list][/size]
Might it be possible to customize the fornits phpBB software to permit banning of PMs from one's "foes?"
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Hello, I'd like to know if the moderators will be "policing" PM spam, like the hundreds of messages I continue to receive from Whooter and his sockpuppets.  It amounts to a DOS attck on my account.  Why should I have to wade through and delete dozens of Whooter's unwanted PMs every day?

Whooter's PM Spam Habits (http://http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af262/dysfunction_junction/?action=view&current=WhooterSpamPM.jpg)

This guy has a real sick obsession with me.  Even though I am not posting recently, which keeps
Whooter's trolling down, he still feels the need to personally and persistently troll me daily, even if by PMs.  It's time to take out the garbage, moderators.


Yep...I get those too (the ones that say "This message has been removed by its author before it was delivered"), but they're usually from Danny.  Whooter's game (as I understand from what people have posted that he's done it to) is that he'll send someone a message, but then refuse to read any response.  And Max's signature has this in it...."if you send me a private message it will be deleted without being opened. no exceptions."  It amounts to "I don't like what you're saying so I'm not gonna listen"  :lala:  :lala:

Sorry guys, not me.  I have sent maybe 5 or 6 PM's over the past 12 months.

This post gives Psy or Ginger permission to check my PM's in box, out box, history etc.  I have closed my acceptance of PM's because of the exact same problem.  I was literally flooded with PM's back when I was TheWho and decided to close it when I switched to Whooter.



...
Title: Re: disallowing PMs from one's "foes"
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: "Ursus"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Unfortunately, we can't block individual posters from sending us PMs.  I get many from legitimate people every month.  But Whooter is attempting to deny my service through Fornits by simply junking up my PM box with dozens of spam PMs daily.  He has sent me literally hundreds of them and refuses to stop.  

But if I stop receiving PMs then I won't get the ones I care about.  Whooter knows this so he continues to spam my inbox to deny my communications with people looking for help or to share information.  It's the same tactic he uses on the boards.  

It's a shame the admins won't properly deal with him.
On the TAB marked "Friends and Foes" in one's user control panel, it states:

    Foes are users which will be ignored by default. Posts by these users will not be fully visible.
Personal messages from foes are still permitted. Please note that you cannot ignore moderators or administrators.[/list][/size]
Might it be possible to customize the fornits phpBB software to permit banning of PMs from one's "foes?"

That would be a great solution, Ursus.  It would be nice to open up my inbox again to non moderator PM's.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 12:28:36 PM
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Will "full moderation" deal with posts like this?  I saw this thread and was interested in the AARC discussion, but then here was the "Fornits troll" blatantly identifying someone whom he was arguing with as someone who sexually molests his own child.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "ajax13"
JD, since you killed your son, you can't have contact with him at all, moderated or not.  Your mania, stupidity, ignorance and laziness seem to be in an epic battle for dominance.  Who will win JD?  Will your next post be shameful because it's rooted in stupidity, ignorance, laziness or your inability to think rationally when your compulsions are driving you?

why are you obsessed with this JD guy?  It isnt going to help you keep your son or erase what you do to him each night.  We both know that yet you keep throwing personal attacks at other people hoping the pain will go away.

You are sick Ajax13.  Stop molesting and abusing your son.  Just because this poster proved you wrong is no reason to take it out on your own family.  Its only a forum.  Leave your kid in peace.

This is the "Fornits troll" who above is telling other posters that it's not OK to go after people personally, but there he is accusing someone else of sexually molesting their own child.  Where were the "moderators" on this one?  Absent again I suppose.

This "Fornits troll" should be permanently banned immediately as suggested by an earlier poster in this thread.

I think if a poster accuses another poster of killing their own children then it should be okay to counter that with accusing the other with an equally horrible crime of say molestation and/or abuse.  Lets not set up a double standard.  I think all attacks should be handled equally.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 09, 2010, 12:40:14 PM
Yes, it was you, Whooter. (http://http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af262/dysfunction_junction/?action=view&current=WhooterSpamPM.jpg) You've spammed my PM box dozens of times daily for a looong time.  Quit lying about it.  You've been caught again.

Here we have Whooter "outing" a program kid, posting his name, picture and Facebook account.  I thought Whooter was "against" this type of behavior?  I guess not.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "Guest"
Can we get a photo of Peter Dunbar up? Thanks

Mike Dunbar (http://http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dunbar/500743425)

Notice how Whooter's defense of calling someone a "child molester" who "sexually abuses" his own son, is that the other person said  mean things, too? (while he answers to "JD" and talk about his "son")  So because ajax13 referenced some guy named JD and his son, you think it's fine to call ajax13 a child molester.  Real organized thinking there, douche.  Whooter, do you ever listen to what you say?  Not only are you an unmitigated liar, you do all of things you rail about to other posters.

And quit spamming my inbox!  Now he's using the "Mitt Romney" identity to flood my PM box.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 12:46:17 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Yes, it was you, Whooter. (http://http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af262/dysfunction_junction/?action=view&current=WhooterSpamPM.jpg) You've spammed my PM box dozens of times daily for a looong time.  Quit lying about it.  You've been caught again.

Here we have Whooter "outing" a program kid, posting his name, picture and Facebook account.  I thought Whooter was "against" this type of behavior?  I guess not.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "Guest"
Can we get a photo of Peter Dunbar up? Thanks

Mike Dunbar (http://http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dunbar/500743425)

Notice how Whooter's defense of calling someone a "child molester" who "sexually abuses" his own son, is that the other person said  mean things, too?  Whooter, do you ever listen to what you say?  Not only are you an unmitigated liar, you do all of things you rail about to other posters.

And quit spamming my inbox!  Now he's using the "Mitt Romney" identity to flood my PM box.

Here is a solution, DJ.  Give Psy access to your PM's.  He will quickly see that you photo shopped my name onto those posts.  I just counted my posts for the year and they add up to 9 PM's Since I switched to the user name Whooter.  I sent maybe 2 or 3 to you, DJ.  I dont send hundreds to you every day lol.

You tried the same trick when you claimed I was "Concerned Parent" which turned out to be you posing as a parent.

Good try though, DJ.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 09, 2010, 12:47:27 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Will "full moderation" deal with posts like this?  I saw this thread and was interested in the AARC discussion, but then here was the "Fornits troll" blatantly identifying someone whom he was arguing with as someone who sexually molests his own child.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "ajax13"
JD, since you killed your son, you can't have contact with him at all, moderated or not.  Your mania, stupidity, ignorance and laziness seem to be in an epic battle for dominance.  Who will win JD?  Will your next post be shameful because it's rooted in stupidity, ignorance, laziness or your inability to think rationally when your compulsions are driving you?

why are you obsessed with this JD guy?  It isnt going to help you keep your son or erase what you do to him each night.  We both know that yet you keep throwing personal attacks at other people hoping the pain will go away.

You are sick Ajax13.  Stop molesting and abusing your son.  Just because this poster proved you wrong is no reason to take it out on your own family.  Its only a forum.  Leave your kid in peace.

This is the "Fornits troll" who above is telling other posters that it's not OK to go after people personally, but there he is accusing someone else of sexually molesting their own child.  Where were the "moderators" on this one?  Absent again I suppose.

This "Fornits troll" should be permanently banned immediately as suggested by an earlier poster in this thread.

I think if a poster accuses another poster of killing their own children then it should be okay to counter that with accusing the other with an equally horrible crime of say molestation and/or abuse.  Lets not set up a double standard.  I think all attacks should be handled equally.


Do you deny accusing Ajax of molesting his son?    Who is "JD"?
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 12:53:07 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Watchful Yeoman"
Will "full moderation" deal with posts like this?  I saw this thread and was interested in the AARC discussion, but then here was the "Fornits troll" blatantly identifying someone whom he was arguing with as someone who sexually molests his own child.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "ajax13"
JD, since you killed your son, you can't have contact with him at all, moderated or not.  Your mania, stupidity, ignorance and laziness seem to be in an epic battle for dominance.  Who will win JD?  Will your next post be shameful because it's rooted in stupidity, ignorance, laziness or your inability to think rationally when your compulsions are driving you?

why are you obsessed with this JD guy?  It isnt going to help you keep your son or erase what you do to him each night.  We both know that yet you keep throwing personal attacks at other people hoping the pain will go away.

You are sick Ajax13.  Stop molesting and abusing your son.  Just because this poster proved you wrong is no reason to take it out on your own family.  Its only a forum.  Leave your kid in peace.

This is the "Fornits troll" who above is telling other posters that it's not OK to go after people personally, but there he is accusing someone else of sexually molesting their own child.  Where were the "moderators" on this one?  Absent again I suppose.

This "Fornits troll" should be permanently banned immediately as suggested by an earlier poster in this thread.

I think if a poster accuses another poster of killing their own children then it should be okay to counter that with accusing the other with an equally horrible crime of say molestation and/or abuse.  Lets not set up a double standard.  I think all attacks should be handled equally.


Do you deny accusing Ajax of molesting his son?    Who is "JD"?

I would have to see the original, but I might have said that to counter him accusing someone of killing their own kid. I think I got my point across, though.  Anne, are you not equally upset that Ajax13 accused someone of killing their own son?  Is killing worse then molesting?  or about equal?



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 09, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Yes, it was you, Whooter. (http://http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af262/dysfunction_junction/?action=view&current=WhooterSpamPM.jpg) You've spammed my PM box dozens of times daily for a looong time.  Quit lying about it.  You've been caught again.

Here we have Whooter "outing" a program kid, posting his name, picture and Facebook account.  I thought Whooter was "against" this type of behavior?  I guess not.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "Guest"
Can we get a photo of Peter Dunbar up? Thanks

Mike Dunbar (http://http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dunbar/500743425)

Notice how Whooter's defense of calling someone a "child molester" who "sexually abuses" his own son, is that the other person said  mean things, too?  Whooter, do you ever listen to what you say?  Not only are you an unmitigated liar, you do all of things you rail about to other posters.

And quit spamming my inbox!  Now he's using the "Mitt Romney" identity to flood my PM box.

Here is a solution, DJ.  Give Psy access to your PM's.  He will quickly see that you photo shopped my name onto those posts.  I just counted my posts for the year and they add up to 9 PM's Since I switched to the user name Whooter.  I sent maybe 2 or 3 to you, DJ.  I dont send hundreds to you every day lol.

You tried the same trick when you claimed I was "Concerned Parent" which turned out to be you posing as a parent.

Good try though, DJ.



...

I see you skipped the part about posting a program kid's name and Facebook page.  Outing program survivors is what you do, Whooter.

Are you denying you PMed just this morning as "Mitt Romney" one of your confirmed alaises?

And I never said you sent me "hundreds every day" I said you have sent me hundreds and dozens per day on some days.  Of course, your "Whooter" account is only some of them.  You have been veeeerrry busy PMing me night and day with all of your aliases.  They were all converted to "Whooter" when you had your posts linked up and your alises were moved under your "Whooter" username.

Yeah, right, buddy, I have time to sit around and "photoshop" your PMs.  Face the facts, you are snared in another bald-faced lie.  Nothing new for you.  You should be banned.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 09, 2010, 12:57:49 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"

I would have to see the original, but I might have said that to counter him accusing someone of killing their own kid. I think I got my point across, though.  Anne, are you not equally upset that Ajax13 accused someone of killing their own son?  Is killing worse then molesting?  or about equal?

That would depend on whether or not the person actually did kill or contribute to the death of their own son and then had the unmitigated gall to start an organization to make money off of the same crap that contributed to the death of said child.


Who is JD?
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 09, 2010, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Whooter"

I would have to see the original, but I might have said that to counter him accusing someone of killing their own kid. I think I got my point across, though.  Anne, are you not equally upset that Ajax13 accused someone of killing their own son?  Is killing worse then molesting?  or about equal?

That would depend on whether or not the person actually did kill or contribute to the death of their own son and then had the unmitigated gall to start an organization to make money off of the same crap that contributed to the death of said child.


Who is JD?

The important thing is that "JD" has nothing to do with Whooter, but in Whooter's sick need to go after ajax13, he took up "JD"'s identity and accused ajax13 of molesting his son, arrogant in his anonymity until his posts were linked up.  What kind of sick fuck does that kind of shit?  Why on earth would Whooter assume JD's identity and go after ajax13 under an assumed name to call him a child molester?

This is on top of "outing" program survivors which he claims not to approve of, yet he does it often, including personal information.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 01:03:06 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Yes, it was you, Whooter. (http://http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af262/dysfunction_junction/?action=view&current=WhooterSpamPM.jpg) You've spammed my PM box dozens of times daily for a looong time.  Quit lying about it.  You've been caught again.

Here we have Whooter "outing" a program kid, posting his name, picture and Facebook account.  I thought Whooter was "against" this type of behavior?  I guess not.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "Guest"
Can we get a photo of Peter Dunbar up? Thanks

Mike Dunbar (http://http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dunbar/500743425)

Notice how Whooter's defense of calling someone a "child molester" who "sexually abuses" his own son, is that the other person said  mean things, too?  Whooter, do you ever listen to what you say?  Not only are you an unmitigated liar, you do all of things you rail about to other posters.

And quit spamming my inbox!  Now he's using the "Mitt Romney" identity to flood my PM box.

Here is a solution, DJ.  Give Psy access to your PM's.  He will quickly see that you photo shopped my name onto those posts.  I just counted my posts for the year and they add up to 9 PM's Since I switched to the user name Whooter.  I sent maybe 2 or 3 to you, DJ.  I dont send hundreds to you every day lol.

You tried the same trick when you claimed I was "Concerned Parent" which turned out to be you posing as a parent.

Good try though, DJ.



...

I see you skipped the part about posting a program kid's name and Facebook page.  Outing program survivors is what you do, Whooter.

Are you denying you PMed just this morning as "Mitt Romney" one of your confirmed alaises?

And I never said you sent me "hundreds every day" I said you have sent me hundreds and dozens per day on some days.  Of course, your "Whooter" account is only some of them.  You have been veeeerrry busy PMing me night and day with all of your aliases.  They were all converted to "Whooter" when you had your posts linked up and your alises were moved under your "Whooter" username.

Yeah, right, buddy, I have time to sit around and "photoshop" your PMs.  Face the facts, you are snared in another bald-faced lie.  Nothing new for you.  You should be banned.

You should be banned for lying to the readers once again..  Do you agree to let Psy or another admin to gain access to your PM box to confirm I sent you hundreds of PM's and confirm the PM's you just posted with your photo shoot?


We can get this done right now.  Lets not drag it out.  I cant show I have only sent a handful of posts since taking the Whooter name.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Ursus on September 09, 2010, 01:04:30 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Who is "JD"?
John David, as in John David Reuben (http://http://www.plaxo.com/profile/show/51541691227?pk=1813ac0da825af776db321190d39b9d48310aa26).
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 09, 2010, 01:06:27 PM
Like I said, you've sent me hundreds of PMs under your various logins.  I provided a screenshot of your spam to my PM box from yesterday under your "Whooter" name.  Today you are spamming me with your "Mitt Romney" account.  I've asked you to stop repeatedly, yet you keep doing it.  You have some real problems, dude.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 01:06:57 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
What kind of sick fuck does that kind of shit?


Hmmmmm....  whoops!  lol

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Yes, TheWho personally abused me.  And now I'm scarred for life.  He performed several red-flag touches on the area my bathing suit covers.  I tried to turn him in, but ASR wouldn't let me use the phone and told my parents I was a liar.  TheWho molested me.

I always wondered who the person was that kept accusing me.   I thought this one was RobertBruce but I was wrong it was DJ.  Those flame threads were fun! lol

Dysfunction Junction has a lot more threads to edit because he missed this one.  He will be busy the next few weeks cleaning up his past.

Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=338417#p338417)




...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 01:08:57 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Like I said, you've sent me hundreds of PMs under your various logins.  I provided a screenshot of your spam to my PM box from yesterday under your "Whooter" name.  Today you are spamming me with your "Mitt Romney" account.  I've asked you to stop repeatedly, yet you keep doing it.  You have some real problems, dude.


So will you agree to have Psy confirm this by looking at your PMs'?   Lets get it over with, DJ.  I can show I have only sent a handful of PM's and a few to yourself.

Just give Psy permission in this thread and we can all see the truth.  Is that Okay with you?

He will confirm a total count that I have sent you (aliases and all).



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 09, 2010, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Here we have Whooter "outing" a program kid, posting his name, picture and Facebook account.  I thought Whooter was "against" this type of behavior?  I guess not.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "Guest"
Can we get a photo of Peter Dunbar up? Thanks

Mike Dunbar (http://http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dunbar/500743425)


That is pretty fucked up.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 01:13:06 PM
I know you will not agree to this because you are lying, once again.  If you are telling the truth you will not have any problem with having an admin look at our PM's and confirming what you are claiming.

Let us know.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 09, 2010, 01:15:21 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Here we have Whooter "outing" a program kid, posting his name, picture and Facebook account.  I thought Whooter was "against" this type of behavior?  I guess not.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "Guest"
Can we get a photo of Peter Dunbar up? Thanks

Mike Dunbar (http://http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dunbar/500743425)


That is pretty fucked up.

Yes, it is.  It's really fucked up.  And Whooter did it with glee.  He has contempt for abused kids and "outs" them here regularly, including their personal information, pictures and social networking accounts.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 09, 2010, 01:17:21 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"
I know you will not agree to this because you are lying, once again.  If you are telling the truth you will not have any problem with having an admin look at our PM's and confirming what you are claiming.

Let us know.



...

Lying, huh?  Let's have the admins verufy YOUR PMs, Whooter.  Let's start with this one from your alias Mitt Romney. (http://http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af262/dysfunction_junction/?action=view&current=WhooterSpamPM2.jpg)

You're a fucking liar, Whooter.  Quit trying to hide behind the admins.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 09, 2010, 01:22:33 PM
Ok guys.  This is what's called derailing.  You've done it to many many threads already.  I'm going to be implementing the rules today or tonight. Please cut this shit out voluntarily. You're always free to use the open free for all forum to resolve your differences (or fight eternally, i don't really give a fuck which).
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 09, 2010, 01:23:27 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Samara"
The rules sound great, but why not ban Whooter?The reason is not because of his stance on programs but because he is a saboteur, a gifted one. I think the loss of traffic and the decline of Fornits is partially due to in-fighting and crazy ass personal dynamics. It seems that what used to be confined to the Elan forum - which was all about flamewars - spilled out into other threads.  Then, around 2006, personal info was leaked and administrators lost credibility (sorry, but true). That diminished the site. The lack of anonymity could be a factor, as well. No guest posting.  But I think also, the Who is a derailer. Who wants to visit their favorite threads when the Whooter derails persistently, gleefully, pervasively, repeatedly, tirelessly, enduringly, and deceptively.  This is different than posting your views or just being an asshole.  

When someone asked about Fornits being a support site... it was sad. This place was a community prior to 2006. Now, there are the old loyalists but it's just basically devolved into flamewars and derailed tracks. Maybe me wishing for the old Fornits is like Cheech and Chong nostlagic for '69 but, it would be great if it were more of the community it used to be.


The rules sound great, but why not ban Samara? The reason is not because of her stance on programs but because she is a silent participant in the destruction of this forum.   I think the loss of traffic and the decline of Fornits is partially due to her apathy towards posters who spend their time hurting others and exposing their personal information rather than supporting those posters who contributed in a positive and constructive manner….. That diminished the site in my opinion.. But I think also, that Samara is an instigator. Samara is the “Grand Dragon”, she likes to wear the hood and carry a torch, but since she isn’t the one who kicks the horse, she feels she had nothing to do with the hanging and therefore feels justified in not taking responsibility….. “Who me?  I didn’t do anything wrong?”

She wants  me banned because she knows I know who she is and the type of person she has become.  Fornits was great in its earlier years and was eroded away slowly due to intolerance and closed mindedness like samara represents.  Fornits can again gain the traffic back if people can just accept each other’s opinions without being threatened and feel the need to attack rather than discuss.

It would be great if people could just learn to get along more and learn from each others experiences and points of view instead of being threatened by them and trying to change them.



...

Watch out, samara!  Whooter will be "outing" you soon, too.  Like he did to this kid:

Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Here we have Whooter "outing" a program kid, posting his name, picture and Facebook account.  I thought Whooter was "against" this type of behavior?  I guess not.

Quote from: "TheWho"
Quote from: "Guest"
Can we get a photo of Peter Dunbar up? Thanks

Mike Dunbar (http://http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dunbar/500743425)


That is pretty fucked up.

Yes, it is.  It's really fucked up.  And Whooter did it with glee.  He has contempt for abused kids and "outs" them here regularly, including their personal information, pictures and social networking accounts.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: AuntieEm2 on September 09, 2010, 01:26:18 PM
Agreed, Psy. This very thread makes the case for full moderation.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 09, 2010, 01:26:35 PM
Quote from: "psy"
Ok guys.  This is what's called derailing.  You've done it to many many threads already.  I'm going to be implementing the rules today or tonight. Please cut this shit out voluntarily. You're always free to use the open free for all forum to resolve your differences (or fight eternally, i don't really give a fuck which).

I don't see this as "derailing," psy.  I see this as an object lesson in proper moderation.  

Whooter has 50+ aliases he uses as sockpuppets, outs program kids' personal information with pictures and attempts to deny people of Fornits' service by flooding the boards and our PM boxes.  

Do your job and moderate this fool already.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Anne Bonney on September 09, 2010, 01:28:52 PM
Quote from: "psy"
Ok guys.  This is what's called derailing.  You've done it to many many threads already.  I'm going to be implementing the rules today or tonight. Please cut this shit out voluntarily. You're always free to use the open free for all forum to resolve your differences (or fight eternally, i don't really give a fuck which).


Point taken.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 09, 2010, 01:33:30 PM
I'm not deleting the last two pages just to prove a point like AuntieEm said.  I've warned both Whooter and DJ.  What they've both done is the definition of derailing.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Maximilian on September 09, 2010, 01:53:39 PM
It will be interesting to see if the moderation rules are bent for people like DJ and Anne Bonney and others who are part of the clique here. I don't trust the admin here enough to be fair handed, that's my opinion at least. I think the Open Free For All is about to get REALLY busy.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: DannyB II on September 09, 2010, 02:46:47 PM
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Quote from: "Evil WWASP"
Speaking of "seeming sane," please don't put up a forum solely dedicated to AA. Reading your (you and Antigen's) thoughts on AA, it's clear you have some "far out" opinions on the matter..and if you put up a forum, that would move your thoughts on AA from your opinion realm to official fornits position-(one that the majority of cult victim/program survivors /fornits goers don;t appear to share.)

Quote from: "psy"
I was considering a "drug treatment philosophies" forum instead of one naming AA specifically.  It could be a forum for AA, RR, SOS, SMART and discussion of the relative benefits and downsides.  It would also be opt-in.

Quote from: "Evil WWASP"
And how do you think that will make the claims on this forum appear regarding brainwashing and cults? Its also insulting to victims to equate wwasp or CEDU with AA, which is what you'd be doing, kinda, if you set up its own forum.

Quote from: "psy"
Right, but even defenders of AA such as Danny argue that AA and the 12 step philosophy has influenced this industry.  It's going to be discussed no matter what and it would be great to have a dedicated place for it.


Yup, it does have a huge influence in the TTI.  In fact, a lot of them recommend AA as part of their "aftercare"...and I don't think anyone's equating WWASP/CEDU etc. with AA.   I've never said that AA has beaten anyone or held them against their will (well, maybe the court order b.s.).  We've just noticed some similarities to the thought reform techniques that are used.

And the questioning of AA and it's practices isn't so "out there" anymore.  More and more people, including professionals, are seeing what we're seeing.  Just because it's popular or "mainstream" doesn't mean it's right.  The Scientology likeness stands.  Millions of people believe that it's saved their lives.  That doesn't mean it's so.

I don't care how it's done, but I don't want to see the discussion of AA banned.  It IS an important issue to me as I've watched it harm some people I love very much.

Anne is this a paradox or a oxymoron, we agree on not banning AA as a subject that needs its own forum but for categorically different reasons.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 09, 2010, 04:22:40 PM
So we have proven once again that DJ fabricated his screen shot of my many posts to him within an hour.  You tried this before, DJ, and failed miserably when you screwed up the dates.
This time I outed you by having my "so called" hundred plus PM's (per day lol)  verified very easily by Psy and you ran off.  We all watched you.

I will say it again, Psy has my permission to verify the number of PM's I have made to you (or to anyone) , and review any folder in my PM box and report on anything he likes.  I have made about 9 PM's since I took on the name Whooter.

Will you do the same thing DJ?  Are you willing to have that screen shot verified that states I sent you all those PM's on Wednesday the 8th of September and the hundreds of others that you claim?

This is the 3rd time you have avoid this request.  While Psy is in there he can also view the Mitt Romney post that you have concern with.

If you really want the readers to know the truth this is a fair request I believe.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 10, 2010, 08:12:38 AM
This thread is about "considering full moderation" and the following post is on that topic and is not a derailment of this thread.

Quote from: "psy"
I'm not deleting the last two pages just to prove a point like AuntieEm said. I've warned both Whooter and DJ. What they've both done is the definition of derailing.

Here we have an official admin warning for derailing at 1:33pm.

I created the following thread in the OFFA (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=31119) to discuss this topic as psy requested at 2:08pm.

Then we have Whooter derailing this thread yet again after he was just warned a few posts back over three hours before.  He was also warned via PM about his violation of the rules.  The new thread was available for this discussion for several hours already, but Whooter made the decision to flout the admin's warning and admonishment and continue to derail this very thread again.

Quote from: "Whooter"
So we have proven once again that DJ fabricated his screen shot of my many posts to him within an hour.  You tried this before, DJ, and failed miserably when you screwed up the dates.
This time I outed you by having my "so called" hundred plus PM's (per day lol)  verified very easily by Psy and you ran off.  We all watched you.

I will say it again, Psy has my permission to verify the number of PM's I have made to you (or to anyone) , and review any folder in my PM box and report on anything he likes.  I have made about 9 PM's since I took on the name Whooter.

Will you do the same thing DJ?  Are you willing to have that screen shot verified that states I sent you all those PM's on Wednesday the 8th of September and the hundreds of others that you claim?

This is the 3rd time you have avoid this request.  While Psy is in there he can also view the Mitt Romney post that you have concern with.

If you really want the readers to know the truth this is a fair request I believe.



...

I have forwarded this case of blatant violation after fair warning to psy.  According to the rules psy laid out yesterday, Whooter must be banned for this offense.  For some reason Whooter has historically gotten away with this behavior, but now we will see if the admin will be willing to enforce their own rules now.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 10, 2010, 09:21:59 AM
Look, DJ, I am not going to respond to you until you clear up the PM issue.

After you agree to let Psy verify your claims that I sent you 100's of PM's a day and also verify the screen shot that you falsified showing I sent you all those PM's on Sept 8 2010 then we can move forward with other topics.  This will also allow you to settle the Mitt Romney post also.

Give it some thought.  Until then you are free to post in here 'til your hearts content.  I will check in from time to time to see if you decide to let the Admin settle it.



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Troll Control on September 10, 2010, 09:26:56 AM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Look, DJ, I am not going to respond to you until you clear up the PM issue.

After you agree to let Psy verify your claims that I sent you 100's of PM's a day and also verify the screen shot that you falsified showing I sent you all those PM's on Sept 8 2010 then we can move forward with other topics.  This will also allow you to settle the Mitt Romney post also.

Give it some thought.  Until then you are free to post in here 'til your hearts content.  I will check in from time to time to see if you decide to let the Admin settle it.



...

Where are the admins today, I wonder?

Psy, Whooter has just derailed this thread again with another personal attack on me that is off topic.  Furthermore, he states above that he will not allow any on-topic posting until I do what he tells me to do.  Why is he still here?  Now he's holding threads hostage until I submit to his blackmailing?

Why is he allowed to flout your warning, continue to derail and blackmail me by refusing to allow this thread to proceed on topic until I submit to blackmail demands?
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Whooter on September 10, 2010, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: "Troll Control"

Where are the admins today, I wonder?

Psy, Whooter has just derailed this thread again with another personal attack on me that is off topic.  Furthermore, he states above that he will not allow any on-topic posting until I do what he tells me to do.  Why is he still here?  Now he's holding threads hostage until I submit to his blackmailing?

Why is he allowed to flout your warning, continue to derail and blackmail me by refusing to allow this thread to proceed on topic until I submit to blackmail demands?

(http://http://janeheller.mlblogs.com/crying.baby.jpg)

Geeeesh!!!



...
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: psy on September 11, 2010, 02:12:43 AM
Quote from: "Troll Control"
Psy, Whooter has just derailed this thread again with another personal attack on me that is off topic.  Furthermore, he states above that he will not allow any on-topic posting until I do what he tells me to do.  Why is he still here?  Now he's holding threads hostage until I submit to his blackmailing?

Why is he allowed to flout your warning, continue to derail and blackmail me by refusing to allow this thread to proceed on topic until I submit to blackmail demands?

This thread is in Open Free For All. Rules do not apply here at all.  Don't like what's here?  Don't opt in.
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: none-ya on September 15, 2010, 06:16:56 PM
Just an idea. Max might be on to something with the polling. But is there a way to combine the polls into 1 forum. 1 click and in? like i said just an idea
Title: Re: Considering full moderation
Post by: Oscar on September 16, 2010, 03:51:20 AM
I have a number of threads, I would have transferred somewhere where we can link to them. Because we didn't know that this forum would be locked at some point, we have create a number of links from the Wiki to this subforum and it would be waste of time to re-create them in other forums.