Zone1 Are Thread Starters allowed to list posters they prohibit?

[Lisa558]

I do have to admit that I would be worth every penny, but I have already been notified by management that this would only happen on that precise day when the entirety of Hades becomes one big ice ball.

I’m right there with you! I will be allowed to be a moderator on the precise day I convert to Islam, become gay, and identify as an illegal immigrant!

 

[BlackSand]

Gotcha. Is there a link...
We have a few threads...

.

It's easy enough to figure out the thread ...
It's the one that meets the criteria described in the OP of this thread ... And prohibits the poster that started this thread.

Get to flying our special little porcine.

Debate Now - A lynching scarred this Georgia county. Is it willing to confront its dark past?

As I was reading this story, several things crossed my mind. While I don't live in Cummings, Georgia, the refrain from this narrative is universal as it applies to the lives of Black Americans. A woman is assaulted (a white woman) and then later dies of her injuries and the only three Black...

www.usmessageboard.com

.​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.

It's easy enough to figure out the thread ...
It's the one that meets the criteria described in the OP of this thread ... And prohibits the poster that started this thread.

Get to flying our special little porcine.

Debate Now - A lynching scarred this Georgia county. Is it willing to confront its dark past?

As I was reading this story, several things crossed my mind. While I don't live in Cummings, Georgia, the refrain from this narrative is universal as it applies to the lives of Black Americans. A woman is assaulted (a white woman) and then later dies of her injuries and the only three Black...

www.usmessageboard.com

.​

I do agree that he's special.

 

[norwegen]

Lawdy, I just read through that thread. The OP reported people for making actual contributions.

Unbelievable.

 

[BlackSand]

I do agree that he's special.

.

That damn optimism can be somewhat contagious.
Special beats rather mundane window-licker any day ...

.​

 

[Zincwarrior]

Lawdy, I just read through that thread. The OP reported people for making actual contributions.

Unbelievable.

Al.ost every thread gets reported. I have been a mod on three forums and this one has five times the number of reports. It's a bit crazy.

 

[BlackSand]

It's a bit crazy.

.

You can do it ...

.​

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It seems quite disingenuous for an opinionated poster to start a thread under the idea that she wants a debate - and then list posters who are “prohibited” because she knows they will disagree with her narrative?

And then can a mod work in concert with her to delete the posts of the people the thread starter declared ”prohibited”? Seems that disallowing those who disagree with her, or point out the erroneous thinking of her position, is not a real debate.

Is this about a specific thread, or is it just hypothetical?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Lawdy, I just read through that thread. The OP reported people for making actual contributions.

Unbelievable.

Making sure to ANNOUNCE it, no less.

.......just to make sure everybody knows she is collaborating with a moderator here.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thanks. I’ve been told that the Clean Debate forum can be by invitation only - but it’s not meant to eliminate posters by calling them out. It’s like a slap in the face, basically saying “I am going to post my racist rant and the following posters are not allowed to respond.”

That's never been my understanding.

Might you be confusing it with The Bull Ring? That, as I understand it, is for one-on-one debates, in which only the designated participants are allowed to post.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.

You can do it ...

.​

I am convinced that given enough of your gentle tutelage, he may eventually approach adequacy in some small way some day.

 

[norwegen]

Making sure to ANNOUNCE it, no less.

.......just to make sure everybody knows she is collaborating with a moderator here.

And that she's a snowflake.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not sure how to link to a thread, but it’s the one under Structured Discussion and starts with “Scarred Lynching.” You’ll see she opens her thread with a list of prohibited posters.

Here it is…

Debate Now - A lynching scarred this Georgia county. Is it willing to confront its dark past?

As I was reading this story, several things crossed my mind. While I don't live in Cummings, Georgia, the refrain from this narrative is universal as it applies to the lives of Black Americans. A woman is assaulted (a white woman) and then later dies of her injuries and the only three Black...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thanks. I’ve been told that the Clean Debate forum can be by invitation only - but it’s not meant to eliminate posters by calling them out. It’s like a slap in the face, basically saying “I am going to post my racist rant and the following posters are not allowed to respond.”

I hadn't really taken notice of the Debate Now section, before, and its associated rules. Looks like the intent there is to allow the OP to set the rules for a given thread, including who may or may not participate.

Now, having seen this, I think I still have to agree that the NewsVine_Mariyam's use of it in this manner constitutes a form of intellectual cheating, and is likely to be inconsistent with the intended purpose of that section.

 

[jwoodie]

Prohibiting replies to an OP is the death knell of this forum.

 

[norwegen]

Prohibiting replies to an OP is the death knell of this forum.

To be fair, anyone can do it - lefty and righty alike. Ultimately, it would just be a subforum of threads that one side or the other would have no interest in.

 

[Zincwarrior]

That's never been my understanding.

Might you be confusing it with The Bull Ring? That, as I understand it, is for one-on-one debates, in which only the designated participants are allowed to post.

Thread has been closed. See note.
I can see the concept for in depth specific discussions, but it was being used poorly.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thread has been closed. See note.
I can see the concept for in depth specific discussions, but it was being used poorly.

The Debate Now section looks to me like an abandoned experiment, created with the intent to try out a concept, and to tweak and tune the rules, as needed, but then no one ever followed up on making any adjustments to the rules. The thread in question looks like it conforms to the letter of the original rules, still in force, but in a bad, way, not at all consistent with whatever was intended thereby.

 

[BlackSand]

The Debate Now section looks to me like an abandoned experiment, created with the intent to try out a concept, and to tweak and tune the rules, as needed, but then no one ever followed up on making any adjustments to the rules. The thread in question looks like it conforms to the letter of the original rules, still in force, but in a bad, way, not at all consistent with whatever was intended thereby.

.

It could, and would, only be properly implemented ... If the Staff actively ensured the Principles, Guidelines and Additional Rules were followed.
That would require them to actively pursue the desire to actually manage the sub-forum ... Instead of simply waiting for someone to complain.

But ... Expecting that much might be a bit of an over-estimation ... In capabilities, or possibly the desire to properly manage anything.
It's like a good idea ... That requires more than what is available in most circumstances.

.​

 

[BlackSand]

Thread has been closed. See note.
I can see the concept for in depth specific discussions, but it was being used poorly.

.

That's the decision the mod should have made the first time they visited the tread ...
Instead of just responding to "Reports" ...

.​