|
 |
| | | Author: | ToriHada  | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:05 | | Subject: | Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 326 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| To help reduce the drama and flame wars that infect this forum, I suggest that
Forum moderators be given the ability to block a member from replying to the
posts of another member with whom they do not get along. Kind of like a forum
stoplist. Not a full forum ban; just a ban on posting replies to another member.
And not a forced ignore either. They should still able to read all posts they
want; just not be able to reply to certain ones if they have a history of not
being able to respond appropriately to that member. Furthermore, this feature
should be reciprocal. So, if the mods decide to remove the ability of Member
A to reply to posts by Member B, Member B should also be unable to reply to posts
by Member A. It takes two to tango, and it would be grossly unfair to allow Member
B to post anything they want about Member A if Member A cannot respond. So make
it reciprocal.
I don't ignore anyone in the forum. Even those I personally dislike or
do not get along with. Because regardless how I personally feel about someone,
they often post something interesting or of concern to me or my LEGO business,
and because I can still agree with them on some things. So I don't think
bans or forced ignores are the answer. Just cut off the line of communication
between the two if they cannot communicate with each other properly.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BLUSER_463501 | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To help reduce the drama and flame wars that infect this forum, I suggest that
Forum moderators be given the ability to block a member from replying to the
posts of another member with whom they do not get along. Kind of like a forum
stoplist. Not a full forum ban; just a ban on posting replies to another member.
And not a forced ignore either. They should still able to read all posts they
want; just not be able to reply to certain ones if they have a history of not
being able to respond appropriately to that member. Furthermore, this feature
should be reciprocal. So, if the mods decide to remove the ability of Member
A to reply to posts by Member B, Member B should also be unable to reply to posts
by Member A. It takes two to tango, and it would be grossly unfair to allow Member
B to post anything they want about Member A if Member A cannot respond. So make
it reciprocal.
I don't ignore anyone in the forum. Even those I personally dislike or
do not get along with. Because regardless how I personally feel about someone,
they often post something interesting or of concern to me or my LEGO business,
and because I can still agree with them on some things. So I don't think
bans or forced ignores are the answer. Just cut off the line of communication
between the two if they cannot communicate with each other properly.
Thor
|
I agree to any kind of more moderated forum chat. It's been hard lately
to read messages that are actually about LEGO, they get barried to fast
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:15 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To help reduce the drama and flame wars that infect this forum, I suggest that
Forum moderators be given the ability to block a member from replying to the
posts of another member with whom they do not get along. Kind of like a forum
stoplist. Not a full forum ban; just a ban on posting replies to another member.
And not a forced ignore either. They should still able to read all posts they
want; just not be able to reply to certain ones if they have a history of not
being able to respond appropriately to that member. Furthermore, this feature
should be reciprocal. So, if the mods decide to remove the ability of Member
A to reply to posts by Member B, Member B should also be unable to reply to posts
by Member A. It takes two to tango, and it would be grossly unfair to allow Member
B to post anything they want about Member A if Member A cannot respond. So make
it reciprocal.
I don't ignore anyone in the forum. Even those I personally dislike or
do not get along with. Because regardless how I personally feel about someone,
they often post something interesting or of concern to me or my LEGO business,
and because I can still agree with them on some things. So I don't think
bans or forced ignores are the answer. Just cut off the line of communication
between the two if they cannot communicate with each other properly.
Thor
|
I say if there is a reason to ban someone from replying to someone's posts
for not being able to get along, I say there is enough of a reason for a full
ban.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:26 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| |
I say if there is a reason to ban someone from replying to someone's posts
for not being able to get along, I say there is enough of a reason for a full
ban.
|
Without pointing fingers or blame, I am going to use you and me as an example.
Clearly, we often do not get along and have heated exchanges that others don't
like to see here. Yes, the mods could ban us both, or choose sides and ban one
of us. But that ban would deprive all the other forum readers the benefits of
interacting with that banned member on the forum. Despite our disagreements,
you and I can both be very helpful, friendly and constructive in our forum discussions
with others. This suggestion offers an option for more focused addressing of
the problem without taking away anything positive. It would allow the mods to
operate with the precision of a surgical scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
And let me make one further proposal... Until this suggestion may be implemented,
I am willing to refrain from posting replies to all of your posts if you agree
to refrain from posting any replies to mine. I make the same offer to Eric and
Andy as well. With the added provision that we cannot refer to each other in
posts that responds to others. Are you game?
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | brix4kix | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| |
I say if there is a reason to ban someone from replying to someone's posts
for not being able to get along, I say there is enough of a reason for a full
ban.
|
Without pointing fingers or blame, I am going to use you and me as an example.
Clearly, we often do not get along and have heated exchanges that others don't
like to see here. Yes, the mods could ban us both, or choose sides and ban one
of us. But that ban would deprive all the other forum readers the benefits of
interacting with that banned member on the forum. Despite our disagreements,
you and I can both be very helpful, friendly and constructive in our forum discussions
with others. This suggestion offers an option for more focused addressing of
the problem without taking away anything positive. It would allow the mods to
operate with the precision of a surgical scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
And let me make one further proposal... Until this suggestion may be implemented,
I am willing to refrain from posting replies to all of your posts if you agree
to refrain from posting any replies to mine. I make the same offer to Eric and
Andy as well. With the added provision that we cannot refer to each other in
posts that responds to others. Are you game?
Thor
|
one of the best things that you have suggested in a while, I hope you guys all
agree and stick to it good luck and go back to having a fun time hear.
just my thoughts steve
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:33 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brix4kix writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| |
I say if there is a reason to ban someone from replying to someone's posts
for not being able to get along, I say there is enough of a reason for a full
ban.
|
Without pointing fingers or blame, I am going to use you and me as an example.
Clearly, we often do not get along and have heated exchanges that others don't
like to see here. Yes, the mods could ban us both, or choose sides and ban one
of us. But that ban would deprive all the other forum readers the benefits of
interacting with that banned member on the forum. Despite our disagreements,
you and I can both be very helpful, friendly and constructive in our forum discussions
with others. This suggestion offers an option for more focused addressing of
the problem without taking away anything positive. It would allow the mods to
operate with the precision of a surgical scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
And let me make one further proposal... Until this suggestion may be implemented,
I am willing to refrain from posting replies to all of your posts if you agree
to refrain from posting any replies to mine. I make the same offer to Eric and
Andy as well. With the added provision that we cannot refer to each other in
posts that responds to others. Are you game?
Thor
|
one of the best things that you have suggested in a while, I hope you guys all
agree and stick to it good luck and go back to having a fun time hear.
just my thoughts steve
|
My offer hasn't been accepted yet Steve. I am hoping the three members I
mentioned will publicly accept my proposal. I think that will do much to calm
things in the forum.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | brix4kix | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 14:03 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, brix4kix writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| |
I say if there is a reason to ban someone from replying to someone's posts
for not being able to get along, I say there is enough of a reason for a full
ban.
|
Without pointing fingers or blame, I am going to use you and me as an example.
Clearly, we often do not get along and have heated exchanges that others don't
like to see here. Yes, the mods could ban us both, or choose sides and ban one
of us. But that ban would deprive all the other forum readers the benefits of
interacting with that banned member on the forum. Despite our disagreements,
you and I can both be very helpful, friendly and constructive in our forum discussions
with others. This suggestion offers an option for more focused addressing of
the problem without taking away anything positive. It would allow the mods to
operate with the precision of a surgical scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
And let me make one further proposal... Until this suggestion may be implemented,
I am willing to refrain from posting replies to all of your posts if you agree
to refrain from posting any replies to mine. I make the same offer to Eric and
Andy as well. With the added provision that we cannot refer to each other in
posts that responds to others. Are you game?
Thor
|
one of the best things that you have suggested in a while, I hope you guys all
agree and stick to it good luck and go back to having a fun time hear.
just my thoughts steve
|
My offer hasn't been accepted yet Steve. I am hoping the three members I
mentioned will publicly accept my proposal. I think that will do much to calm
things in the forum.
Thor
|
give it time ego's cool off at different times, all of you are very passionate
about your sides, and thoughts.
good luck steve
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| |
I say if there is a reason to ban someone from replying to someone's posts
for not being able to get along, I say there is enough of a reason for a full
ban.
|
Without pointing fingers or blame, I am going to use you and me as an example.
Clearly, we often do not get along and have heated exchanges that others don't
like to see here. Yes, the mods could ban us both, or choose sides and ban one
of us. But that ban would deprive all the other forum readers the benefits of
interacting with that banned member on the forum. Despite our disagreements,
you and I can both be very helpful, friendly and constructive in our forum discussions
with others. This suggestion offers an option for more focused addressing of
the problem without taking away anything positive. It would allow the mods to
operate with the precision of a surgical scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
And let me make one further proposal... Until this suggestion may be implemented,
I am willing to refrain from posting replies to all of your posts if you agree
to refrain from posting any replies to mine. I make the same offer to Eric and
Andy as well. With the added provision that we cannot refer to each other in
posts that responds to others. Are you game?
Thor
|
You do realise the whole point you're making is that you should not be talking
to the person you're talking to now  
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 15:01 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 14:46 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| |
I say if there is a reason to ban someone from replying to someone's posts
for not being able to get along, I say there is enough of a reason for a full
ban.
|
Without pointing fingers or blame, I am going to use you and me as an example.
Clearly, we often do not get along and have heated exchanges that others don't
like to see here. Yes, the mods could ban us both, or choose sides and ban one
of us. But that ban would deprive all the other forum readers the benefits of
interacting with that banned member on the forum. Despite our disagreements,
you and I can both be very helpful, friendly and constructive in our forum discussions
with others. This suggestion offers an option for more focused addressing of
the problem without taking away anything positive. It would allow the mods to
operate with the precision of a surgical scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
|
Foster, I have already told my position on my choices to ignore or to reply to
you posts months ago.
I wont repeat myself, please read here
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=811072
My position has not changed, to the very last word in that post.
In the mean time, you have clearly made no improvement. Even more, you specifically
asked me three times to reply to a thread that you started. I refused. Why? Because
I had a reply ready before anyone else did, but decided to not post it. I knew
exactly the direction it would go if I did. I backed off, and watched things
go out of hand just as fast as they always do.
To stay away was hard, but I did it. However, I refuse to get into any agreement
that forbids me from calling out someones lies, twisted truth, insults and so
on. There have been topics in the past where you were advising wrong things to
other users. I can not let things like that go.
You also publicly called me names and insulted me multiple times in discussions,
where I have not even participated at all. Have I replied to you? No. I dealt
with it the way it must be done, and I hope soon you will hear some news from
admins that you are so eagerly waiting for.
Elsewhere in this thread you also mentioned that you are not proud of the way
things went the past couple of days. Exactly, there is nothing to be proud of.
I am refusing your offer because, in the first place, I am not calling you out
or referring to you in the topics where you are not participating or have not
been already mentioned. Not in the past few months at least. That's what
you do, not me.
Furthermore, I do not promise to stop replying to your posts where I see that
my replies are necessary. Especially when it has something to do with
my ability to conduct a business. This may be a sandbox for you, but it is the
sole source of income for me at this very moment.
I stay true to my opinion of users either deserving a full ban, or not. Nothing
in between. It is not about admins taking sides on who to ban.
Once again, you have already been banned previously. We all saw what you promised
when you came back. We are all seeing how it is working out for you. Past few
days were quite exceptional, and I really hope admins are taking it into account.
Insulting me publicly is not only hurting me, but also affecting my business
if my customers see your posts, and are not fully aware of the situation. It
was taken very seriously, I am tired of playing that game with you.
Weigh everything you say, know that you may be called upon your words. Know that
your opinion is not necessarily the truth. Accept it. Then you wont have to worry
about posting suggestions like this, in attempts to save your behind from getting
banned again.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 14:52 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| |
I say if there is a reason to ban someone from replying to someone's posts
for not being able to get along, I say there is enough of a reason for a full
ban.
|
Without pointing fingers or blame, I am going to use you and me as an example.
Clearly, we often do not get along and have heated exchanges that others don't
like to see here. Yes, the mods could ban us both, or choose sides and ban one
of us. But that ban would deprive all the other forum readers the benefits of
interacting with that banned member on the forum. Despite our disagreements,
you and I can both be very helpful, friendly and constructive in our forum discussions
with others. This suggestion offers an option for more focused addressing of
the problem without taking away anything positive. It would allow the mods to
operate with the precision of a surgical scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
|
Foster, I have already told my position on my choices to ignore or to reply to
you posts months ago.
I wont repeat myself, please read here
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=811072
My position has not changed, to the very last word in that post.
In the mean time, you have clearly made no improvement. Even more, you specifically
asked me three times to reply to a thread that you started. I refused. Why? Because
I had a reply ready before anyone else did, but decided to not post it. I knew
exactly the direction it would go if I did. I backed off, and watched things
go out of hand just as fast as they always do.
To stay away was hard, but I did it. However, I refuse to get into any agreement
that forbids me from calling out someones lies, twisted truth, insults and so
on. There have been topics in the past where you were advising wrong things to
other users. I can not let things like that go.
You also publicly called me names and insulted me multiple times in discussions,
where I have not even participated at all. Have I replied to you? No. I dealt
with it the way it must be done, and I hope soon you will hear some news from
admins that you are so eagerly waiting for.
Elsewhere in this thread you also mentioned that you are not proud of the way
things went the past couple of days. Exactly, there is nothing to be proud of.
I am refusing your offer because, in the first place, I am not calling you out
or referring to you in the topics where you are not participating or have not
been already mentioned. Not in the past few months at least. That's what
you do, not me.
Furthermore, I do not promise to stop replying to your posts where I see that
my replies are necessary. Especially when it has something to do with
my ability to conduct a business. This may be a sandbox for you, but it is the
sole source of income for me at this very moment.
I stay true to my opinion of users either deserving a full ban, or not. Nothing
in between. It is not about admins taking sides on who to ban.
Once again, you have already been banned previously. We all saw what you promised
when you came back. We are all seeing how it is working out for you. Past few
days were quite exceptional, and I really hope admins are taking it into account.
Insulting me publicly is not only hurting me, but also affecting my business
if my customers see your posts, and are not fully aware of the situation. It
was taken very seriously, I am tired of playing that game with you.
Weigh everything you say, know that you may be called upon your words. Know that
your opinion is not necessarily the truth. Accept it. Then you wont have to worry
about posting suggestions like this, in attempts to save your behind from getting
banned again.
|
I keep on seeing objective, non-insulting posts by Thor replied with personal
attacks. Now I'm not saying who's right and wrong here and I have no
clue what happened in the past, but at this point in time this is just a factual
observation I think I should share..
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 15:15 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| |
I keep on seeing objective, non-insulting posts by Thor replied with personal
attacks. Now I'm not saying who's right and wrong here and I have no
clue what happened in the past, but at this point in time this is just a factual
observation I think I should share..
|
Thank you for posting this Teup. Others share your same observation:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=811040
"Lukas; I read the forum regularly and usually enjoy your posts. I don't,
however,
understand your regular need to confront Thor. If his posts are not to your
liking, you could just ignore them. I don't think he usually intends, or
appreciates his ability, to antagonize anyone when he starts a post, but he clearly
feels the need to defend himself from the personal attacks, which then often
escalates the confrontation.
My advice to him is to ignore the provocations. My question for you is why pick
a fight with him in the first place?"
and:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=811065
"I have reported this member (Enig) in the recent past to the Administration
for specifically targeting Foster by bringing up things from the past. Yes, Foster
should ignore him (complete non-response), but there is no question in my mind
as to who the
instigator is.
I think sometimes there has been extra leniency given to members that bait Foster,
because he is not easily intimidated and there is the idea that he doesn't
need the same level of protection from other members as, say, someone with a
green hat."
and:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=811074
"Unfortunately that is not how you (Enig) come across. I do not spend much time
reading
these super threads because they become tiresome, but in the parts I do see they
show you as the ultimate troll and hypocrite. If you are truly calling him out
then do so in a civilized manner. All I have seen in you last dozen post or so
are simple name calling, insults, and trolling."
Obviously, as he admitted in a recent post, Enig wants to continue replying to
my posts for the purposes of "entertainment". It appears he has no interest in
calming things down and is in this for sport.
My offer still stands Enig. You don't need to make it your personal mission
to call me out of line to entertain yourselves and others. If I post something
inappropriate, I am sure there are plenty of other less biased members without
our history who are fully capable of calling me out, and doing so in a much more
civil, constructive and less contentious manner.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 15:35 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| That post is also baiting them. "Hey look other people think I'm a good guy
and it's the others that are bad guys."
To me, you are bluffing secure in the knowledge they won't agree to your
idea at the same time as trying to make yourself look consolatory.
It also shows why the no reply idea won't work, as you can just reply to
someone else's post to put down the person you cannot reply to.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 15:44 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Andy_Bell | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 16:24 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | That post is also baiting them. "Hey look other people think I'm a good guy
and it's the others that are bad guys."
|
| | To me, you are bluffing secure in the knowledge they won't agree to your
idea at the same time as trying to make yourself look consolatory.
|
Foster and I disagree on 2 things - one of which is banned from the forum - and
ultimately it is the source of statements toward me. Which lead lead to the AboutMe
page....
He has admitted the he used profanity it his stoplist reason for me, but justifies
it by saying that many others did so before.
- A side argument is that I also did so towards him - regardless of my statement
that I did not and do not use profanity and have apologized in the off chance
that I did(!) and if he had proof that I did then I would apologize again. (But
I am the antagonist?)
Which leads to the AboutMe page. As a result of the wonderful comment by foster
'about me' in the stoplist. I choose to place it in my AboutMe page.
After all it was 'about me' so it seemed fitting. A 'Scarlet Letter'
if you will.
Once he saw it (Ask yourself why is he visiting my AboutMe page?) He brought
the issue up in the forum with a post on the topic. This post and following heated
discussion was part of / the instigation for the removal (added to the many others
who mis-used it also according to foster).
Because of the language in the AboutMe page (again the quote from foster) it
was deleted by Admin Dan.
I don't have a copy of the AboutMe page neither does foster. I have a copy
of my stoplist reason as part of an e-mail in 2008. foster only has his memory
- but he remembers it to be similar to others that had profanity.
TL/DR; Foster says I have animosity towards him. I don't. Foster says
that I cursed at him. I say I didn't. He has only his memory of the statements/pages.
I my memory and have some e-mails.
Summary of disagreement: He insists his memory is more accurate than my
memory and e-mails.
reflection: Since he is so keen on site improvement, and a feature that
was according to him widely abused was removed because of his action and attention;
that he would proud that he improved the site, but it does not come across that
way! 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I see you have not responded to my proposal for more peace in the forum. Or is
this your response to that proposal?
In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | That post is also baiting them. "Hey look other people think I'm a good guy
and it's the others that are bad guys."
|
| | To me, you are bluffing secure in the knowledge they won't agree to your
idea at the same time as trying to make yourself look consolatory.
|
Foster and I disagree on 2 things - one of which is banned from the forum - and
ultimately it is the source of statements toward me. Which lead lead to the AboutMe
page....
|
Andy and my differences started years ago when there were several heated debates
by many over whether it was appropriate to discuss religion or politics in the
forum. Those debates arose because when members tried to discuss those topics
they more often than not became very heated and out of control. Then, as today,
discussions about religion and politics (especially US politics) were very polarizing
because many people had such strong feelings on those issues.
Ultimately, it was suggested that those two topics be banned for forum discussions.
I was a strong supporter of that suggestion, and this upset several who had occasionally
used the forum for religious discussion and even Bible study. After my opposition
to discussing these topics became known, I was stoplisted by several members,
one of whom called me a "#@%&#! pagan" in their stoplist reason (why he called
me a pagan I don't know because I never disclosed my own religious views).
Andy was not the author of this stoplist reason. But he did stoplist me nonetheless
and his stated reson was not neutral as he claims. I really don't remember
exactly what it was - we're talking 8 years ago here - but I do recall it
was, indeed, a personal insult and not at all civil.
| | He has admitted the he used profanity it his stoplist reason for me, but justifies
it by saying that many others did so before.
|
Yes, I at least have been honest and confessed to doing this after being led
to believe that this was tolerated on BrickLink so long as we kept it private.
| | - A side argument is that I also did so towards him - regardless of my statement
that I did not and do not use profanity and have apologized in the off chance
that I did(!) and if he had proof that I did then I would apologize again. (But
I am the antagonist?)
|
I do not recall any such apology and have to question why any was even allegedly
made if Andy is so sure he did not use profanity when stoplisting me.
| | Which leads to the AboutMe page. As a result of the wonderful comment by foster
'about me' in the stoplist. I choose to place it in my AboutMe page.
After all it was 'about me' so it seemed fitting. A 'Scarlet Letter'
if you will.
|
Andy's AboutMe page included more than a mere quote. If quoting my stoplist
reason was, indeed, the sole reason why Andy's AboutMe page was summarily
removed by AdminDan without any prior notice to Andy, you can be certain that
AdminDan would have strongly admonished me and even banned me from the site.
That never happened. I referred AdminDan to Andy's offensive AboutMe page,
AdminDan quickjly removed it, and I never again heard from AdminDan about it.
| | Once he saw it (Ask yourself why is he visiting my AboutMe page?)
|
Thank you for asking. Your AboutMe page was read by someone else who messaged
me about it. As you say, I really want nothing to do with anyone who has stoplisted
me. But another member thought I should be aware of your offensive AboutMe page
and kindly reported it to me.
The rest of your post is redundant and not worthy of any reply.
Again, I propose peace between us by the both of us simply agreeing not to have
anything further to do with one another. Including an agreement not to reply
to one another's forum posts or to negatively refer to each other in any
other posts. The ball is in your court.
If you agree, I further suggest that you and I delete all the posts we have exchanged
since yesterday.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Andy_Bell | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 18:00 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
TL/DR; Foster says I have animosity towards him. I don't. Foster says
that I cursed at him. I say I didn't. He has only his memory of the statements/pages.
I my memory and have some e-mails.
Summary of disagreement: He insists his memory is more accurate than my
memory and e-mails.
| | I see you have not responded to my proposal for more peace in the forum. Or is
this your response to that proposal?
In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | That post is also baiting them. "Hey look other people think I'm a good guy
and it's the others that are bad guys."
|
| | To me, you are bluffing secure in the knowledge they won't agree to your
idea at the same time as trying to make yourself look consolatory.
|
Foster and I disagree on 2 things - one of which is banned from the forum - and
ultimately it is the source of statements toward me. Which lead lead to the AboutMe
page....
|
Andy and my differences started years ago when there were several heated debates
by many over whether it was appropriate to discuss religion or politics in the
forum. Those debates arose because when members tried to discuss those topics
they more often than not became very heated and out of control. Then, as today,
discussions about religion and politics (especially US politics) were very polarizing
because many people had such strong feelings on those issues.
Ultimately, it was suggested that those two topics be banned for forum discussions.
I was a strong supporter of that suggestion, and this upset several who had occasionally
used the forum for religious discussion and even Bible study. After my opposition
|
I LOL - thanks!
Again - you e-mailed me the content of your deleted post - if you need a refresher
ask.
I have no disagreement that the BL forum is not the right place for religious
discussion. Don't recall ever having the sentiment that a Lego website is
the right place for religious discussions. I think and have always thought (at
least I think) that this is a privately owned website and the owner(s) are free
to make rules as they see fit.
| | to discussing these topics became known, I was stoplisted by several members,
one of whom called me a "#@%&#! pagan" in their stoplist reason (why he called
me a pagan I don't know because I never disclosed my own religious views).
Andy was not the author of this stoplist reason. But he did stoplist me nonetheless
and his stated reson was not neutral as he claims. I really don't remember
exactly what it was - we're talking 8 years ago here - but I do recall it
was, indeed, a personal insult and not at all civil.
|
Summary of disagreement: He insists his memory is more accurate than my
memory and e-mails.
| | | | He has admitted the he used profanity it his stoplist reason for me, but justifies
it by saying that many others did so before.
|
Yes, I at least have been honest and confessed to doing this after being led
to believe that this was tolerated on BrickLink so long as we kept it private.
| | - A side argument is that I also did so towards him - regardless of my statement
that I did not and do not use profanity and have apologized in the off chance
that I did(!) and if he had proof that I did then I would apologize again. (But
I am the antagonist?)
|
I do not recall any such apology and have to question why any was even allegedly
made if Andy is so sure he did not use profanity when stoplisting me.
|
Because doing the right thing is not dependent on the other person also doing
the right thing.
| | | | Which leads to the AboutMe page. As a result of the wonderful comment by foster
'about me' in the stoplist. I choose to place it in my AboutMe page.
After all it was 'about me' so it seemed fitting. A 'Scarlet Letter'
if you will.
|
Andy's AboutMe page included more than a mere quote. If quoting my stoplist
reason was, indeed, the sole reason why Andy's AboutMe page was summarily
removed by AdminDan without any prior notice to Andy, you can be certain that
AdminDan would have strongly admonished me and even banned me from the site.
That never happened. I referred AdminDan to Andy's offensive AboutMe page,
AdminDan quickjly removed it, and I never again heard from AdminDan about it.
| | Once he saw it (Ask yourself why is he visiting my AboutMe page?)
|
Thank you for asking. Your AboutMe page was read by someone else who messaged
me about it. As you say, I really want nothing to do with anyone who has stoplisted
me. But another member thought I should be aware of your offensive AboutMe page
and kindly reported it to me.
The rest of your post is redundant and not worthy of any reply.
|
Summary of disagreement: He insists his memory is more accurate than my
memory and e-mails.
Combined with occasional back-handed insults...of course we know foster is the
innocent victim here with never an unkind word.
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=832493
| | Again, I propose peace between us by the both of us simply agreeing not to have
anything further to do with one another. Including an agreement not to reply
to one another's forum posts or to negatively refer to each other in any
other posts. The ball is in your court.
|
Yes and now the ball is in your court. Simply not replying means you agree that
Summary of disagreement: Foster insists his memory is more accurate than
my memory and e-mails.
| | If you agree, I further suggest that you and I delete all the posts we have exchanged
since yesterday.
|
Because doing the right thing is not dependent on the other person also doing
the right thing.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Jun 30, 2014 05:54 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| |
I keep on seeing objective, non-insulting posts by Thor replied with personal
attacks. Now I'm not saying who's right and wrong here and I have no
clue what happened in the past, but at this point in time this is just a factual
observation I think I should share..
|
Thank you for posting this Teup. Others share your same observation:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=811040
"Lukas; I read the forum regularly and usually enjoy your posts. I don't,
however,
understand your regular need to confront Thor. If his posts are not to your
liking, you could just ignore them. I don't think he usually intends, or
appreciates his ability, to antagonize anyone when he starts a post, but he clearly
feels the need to defend himself from the personal attacks, which then often
escalates the confrontation.
My advice to him is to ignore the provocations. My question for you is why pick
a fight with him in the first place?"
and:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=811065
"I have reported this member (Enig) in the recent past to the Administration
for specifically targeting Foster by bringing up things from the past. Yes, Foster
should ignore him (complete non-response), but there is no question in my mind
as to who the
instigator is.
I think sometimes there has been extra leniency given to members that bait Foster,
because he is not easily intimidated and there is the idea that he doesn't
need the same level of protection from other members as, say, someone with a
green hat."
and:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=811074
"Unfortunately that is not how you (Enig) come across. I do not spend much time
reading
these super threads because they become tiresome, but in the parts I do see they
show you as the ultimate troll and hypocrite. If you are truly calling him out
then do so in a civilized manner. All I have seen in you last dozen post or so
are simple name calling, insults, and trolling."
Obviously, as he admitted in a recent post, Enig wants to continue replying to
my posts for the purposes of "entertainment". It appears he has no interest in
calming things down and is in this for sport.
My offer still stands Enig. You don't need to make it your personal mission
to call me out of line to entertain yourselves and others. If I post something
inappropriate, I am sure there are plenty of other less biased members without
our history who are fully capable of calling me out, and doing so in a much more
civil, constructive and less contentious manner.
Thor
|
1) So here you offering "peace" in one sentence, and then pouring more gas into
the flames in another. What is your point of quoting these members? One of the
quoted members even apologized in public right away for what he wrote and expressed
the will to stay away from discussions like this. Yet you quoted him still, for
your selfish reasons. You showed once again you have no respect for others. Me
and that member - I respected his will and we carried it out in private. While
I can not reveal anything, lets say it is not something what you (foster) would
choose to quote yourself.
2) What's with quoting other people's opinions at all? I know what you
want to answer but before you do that THINK. Are these opinions, or facts? Following
a typical debate I should reply to your "arguments" (well, I did to one already)
and then also post quotes of what others said about your behavior too. Do you
want that? You do realize that the list of quotes would be incomparably longer,
and would picture you in a much darker light than your quoted posts picture me.
To me it looks that all you want is an argument, by doing what you did.
I will not do that. To begin with, I find this kind of behavior to be at a kindergarten
level at best. "Someone else said that they agree with what I said and therefore
I am right". I would also not do it just to avoid bloating this topic off topic
again, which wold lead "discussing" about something totally irrelevant to your
OP.
3) You twisted the truth and provided false accusations based on your biased
opinion, while also ignoring all the facts that I mentioned many times for my
reasons to replying to some of your posts.
* I never replied to your POST (singular) for the purpose of entertainment.
You are also referring to plural, taking a cheap shot to make your argument somewhat
stronger.
* You thanked me yourself for the quotes in my post you are referring to, now
you are unhappy with it?
* you are putting words in my mouth I never said
* I never admitted having such intentions. I have mentioned my intentions many
times, you ignored them.
After all this, ALL THIS. You still have the nerve to suggest that I should ignore
what you say and not call you out on it? That someone else will do it? Many are
not doing it just because they dont want their hands to get dirty, and I totally
get it.
You say it is my mission to keep calling you out. It is not my mission, I have
way better things to do in my life. What I am, is I am not indifferent to the
direction you have been steering this forum since your ban was lifted. Since
you are so preoccupied with what others think or say, go look through the forum
and see just what a great number of forum members there is who say or agree that
you are destroying this forum.
Finally, as I wrote earlier, I am already ignoring some of your posts. A very
large portion of them to be honest. I have made that decision long time ago.
And lastly, for someone who was truly into what you you are suggesting yourself,
your reply to my post should have been much different. While you did exactly
the opposite of what you picture yourself as a promoter of.
Will be no further replies from me in this topic for the purpose of sanity, feel
free to carry on undisturbed. Although I hope for the admins to get to you first
for the huge number of your recent violations.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 14:17 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| |
I say if there is a reason to ban someone from replying to someone's posts
for not being able to get along, I say there is enough of a reason for a full
ban.
|
I agree.
Why should the moderators have to take on the additional effort of making it
easier for those who lack self control to participate?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Rolf | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:23 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To help reduce the drama and flame wars that infect this forum, I suggest that
Forum moderators be given the ability to block a member from replying to the
posts of another member with whom they do not get along. Kind of like a forum
stoplist. Not a full forum ban; just a ban on posting replies to another member.
And not a forced ignore either. They should still able to read all posts they
want; just not be able to reply to certain ones if they have a history of not
being able to respond appropriately to that member. Furthermore, this feature
should be reciprocal. So, if the mods decide to remove the ability of Member
A to reply to posts by Member B, Member B should also be unable to reply to posts
by Member A. It takes two to tango, and it would be grossly unfair to allow Member
B to post anything they want about Member A if Member A cannot respond. So make
it reciprocal.
I don't ignore anyone in the forum. Even those I personally dislike or
do not get along with. Because regardless how I personally feel about someone,
they often post something interesting or of concern to me or my LEGO business,
and because I can still agree with them on some things. So I don't think
bans or forced ignores are the answer. Just cut off the line of communication
between the two if they cannot communicate with each other properly.
Thor
|
I suggested something similar but more strict - ignore works both ways like it
does at one site. You ignore someone and you won't be able to read that person
posts - but that person ALSO can't read any of yours.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:31 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rolf writes:
| |
I suggested something similar but more strict - ignore works both ways like it
does at one site. You ignore someone and you won't be able to read that person
posts - but that person ALSO can't read any of yours.
|
Yes, I am familiar with this. The problem I see is that by completely ignoring
someone, you cannot read anything positive, constructive or helpful they may
post to others. Nor can you read anything they propose that may affect your business.
If the problem is that two members cannot communicate in a civil manner, simply
remove their ability to communicate only with each other.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Rolf | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rolf writes:
| |
I suggested something similar but more strict - ignore works both ways like it
does at one site. You ignore someone and you won't be able to read that person
posts - but that person ALSO can't read any of yours.
|
Yes, I am familiar with this. The problem I see is that by completely ignoring
someone, you cannot read anything positive, constructive or helpful they may
post to others. Nor can you read anything they propose that may affect your business.
If the problem is that two members cannot communicate in a civil manner, simply
remove their ability to communicate only with each other.
Thor
|
That's point of ignore function, remove posts you don't want to read.
My suggestion just makes that person cannot read yours either.
Odd effect would be that if some person spammed forum and many people ignored
that person, the forum would be silent to that person.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 15:57 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rolf writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rolf writes:
| |
I suggested something similar but more strict - ignore works both ways like it
does at one site. You ignore someone and you won't be able to read that person
posts - but that person ALSO can't read any of yours.
|
Yes, I am familiar with this. The problem I see is that by completely ignoring
someone, you cannot read anything positive, constructive or helpful they may
post to others. Nor can you read anything they propose that may affect your business.
If the problem is that two members cannot communicate in a civil manner, simply
remove their ability to communicate only with each other.
Thor
|
That's point of ignore function, remove posts you don't want to read.
My suggestion just makes that person cannot read yours either.
|
I understand Rolf. But ignoring a poster hides ALL posts from that poster, even
the good non-offensive ones. Most people who are ignored do not always write
inappropriate posts. In fact, most of their posts are fine. Wouldn't you
still want to read those?
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | TheBrickGuys | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 18:00 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rolf writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rolf writes:
| |
I suggested something similar but more strict - ignore works both ways like it
does at one site. You ignore someone and you won't be able to read that person
posts - but that person ALSO can't read any of yours.
|
Yes, I am familiar with this. The problem I see is that by completely ignoring
someone, you cannot read anything positive, constructive or helpful they may
post to others. Nor can you read anything they propose that may affect your business.
If the problem is that two members cannot communicate in a civil manner, simply
remove their ability to communicate only with each other.
Thor
|
That's point of ignore function, remove posts you don't want to read.
My suggestion just makes that person cannot read yours either.
|
I understand Rolf. But ignoring a poster hides ALL posts from that poster, even
the good non-offensive ones. Most people who are ignored do not always write
inappropriate posts. In fact, most of their posts are fine. Wouldn't you
still want to read those?
Thor
|
Let me see if I understand this... if a good discussion starts up and one of
the parties involved with some of the flame wars start posting on that thread
then that would mean the other could not post a comment on that thread at all?
If so, what about then losing out on the good comments of the other person which
is what you dont want to happen, correct?
I agree with others that the people with problems with each other should not
be able to see the posts of the other person. It would probably be best if that
was done by admin and not done simply by a choice being made by one of the problem
persons, this way no flame wars would even be able to start.
As far as losing out on the value of other good posts when you said "The problem
I see is that by completely ignoring someone, you cannot read anything positive,
constructive or helpful they may post to others". I really dont see that as being
much of a possibility considering the feelings both parties have toward one another
and besides, would not the community at large be better off by not seeing any
flame wars erupt at all by doing away with the ability of warring parties not
being able to see any posts by others they have an ongoing war with?
I do not mention all of this because I think that your posts are the ones that
cause the problems by being inflammatory, actually, just the opposite. When a
flame war starts between you and someone else I always find that your posts are
more often based on reason and not on emotions. But regardless who is to blame,
if you cannot see their posts and they cannot see yours then that is a small
price to pay for the good of the community.
Jim.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rolf | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 22:15 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rolf writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rolf writes:
| |
I suggested something similar but more strict - ignore works both ways like it
does at one site. You ignore someone and you won't be able to read that person
posts - but that person ALSO can't read any of yours.
|
Yes, I am familiar with this. The problem I see is that by completely ignoring
someone, you cannot read anything positive, constructive or helpful they may
post to others. Nor can you read anything they propose that may affect your business.
If the problem is that two members cannot communicate in a civil manner, simply
remove their ability to communicate only with each other.
Thor
|
That's point of ignore function, remove posts you don't want to read.
My suggestion just makes that person cannot read yours either.
|
I understand Rolf. But ignoring a poster hides ALL posts from that poster, even
the good non-offensive ones. Most people who are ignored do not always write
inappropriate posts. In fact, most of their posts are fine. Wouldn't you
still want to read those?
Thor
|
Indeed. It is up to you to decide if that person posts probably isn't worth
reading permanently. So far I have ignored 2 persons, so pretty rare for me.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BLUSER_170194 | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To help reduce the drama and flame wars that infect this forum, I suggest that
Forum moderators be given the ability to block a member from replying to the
posts of another member with whom they do not get along. Kind of like a forum
stoplist. Not a full forum ban; just a ban on posting replies to another member.
And not a forced ignore either. They should still able to read all posts they
want; just not be able to reply to certain ones if they have a history of not
being able to respond appropriately to that member. Furthermore, this feature
should be reciprocal. So, if the mods decide to remove the ability of Member
A to reply to posts by Member B, Member B should also be unable to reply to posts
by Member A. It takes two to tango, and it would be grossly unfair to allow Member
B to post anything they want about Member A if Member A cannot respond. So make
it reciprocal.
I don't ignore anyone in the forum. Even those I personally dislike or
do not get along with. Because regardless how I personally feel about someone,
they often post something interesting or of concern to me or my LEGO business,
and because I can still agree with them on some things. So I don't think
bans or forced ignores are the answer. Just cut off the line of communication
between the two if they cannot communicate with each other properly.
Thor
|
This suggestion fails to account for the law of unintended consequences. The
banned replier can simply start a new thread, and after a little copy/pasta (with
sauce) we now have spread the nuisance to multiple threads.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, dbc writes:
| |
This suggestion fails to account for the law of unintended consequences. The
banned replier can simply start a new thread, and after a little copy/pasta (with
sauce) we now have spread the nuisance to multiple threads.
|
Yes, that is true. But if that abuse occurs, a ban would then be entirely proper.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:37 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To help reduce the drama and flame wars that infect this forum, I suggest that
Forum moderators be given the ability to block a member from replying to the
posts of another member with whom they do not get along. Kind of like a forum
stoplist. Not a full forum ban; just a ban on posting replies to another member.
And not a forced ignore either. They should still able to read all posts they
want; just not be able to reply to certain ones if they have a history of not
being able to respond appropriately to that member. Furthermore, this feature
should be reciprocal. So, if the mods decide to remove the ability of Member
A to reply to posts by Member B, Member B should also be unable to reply to posts
by Member A. It takes two to tango, and it would be grossly unfair to allow Member
B to post anything they want about Member A if Member A cannot respond. So make
it reciprocal.
I don't ignore anyone in the forum. Even those I personally dislike or
do not get along with. Because regardless how I personally feel about someone,
they often post something interesting or of concern to me or my LEGO business,
and because I can still agree with them on some things. So I don't think
bans or forced ignores are the answer. Just cut off the line of communication
between the two if they cannot communicate with each other properly.
Thor
|
I find it highly amusing that you are suggesting using developers time for more
unnecessary functionality just because a few of you do not have the self restraint
to be better people or use the ignore feature that is already in place. *ALL*
of you need to just stop all of this crap and grow up. I am sick of it, as are
many others. That is all that I am going to say about this.
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:44 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | A2ZBricks | | Posted: | Jun 30, 2014 02:04 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | I find it highly amusing that you are suggesting using developers time for more
unnecessary functionality just because a few of you do not have the self restraint
to be better people or use the ignore feature that is already in place. *ALL*
of you need to just stop all of this crap and grow up. I am sick of it, as are
many others. That is all that I am going to say about this.
Randy
|
This +1
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 14:13 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I vote no, unless both parties are also subject to bans in making suggestions
as well.
Otherwise they could make suggestions and the other party would have no right
of reply, which is important if the suggestion affects their business.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 14:29 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | I vote no, unless both parties are also subject to bans in making suggestions
as well.
Otherwise they could make suggestions and the other party would have no right
of reply, which is important if the suggestion affects their business.
|
They can still vote and post a comment on the suggestion. But they would need
to post their comment as a reply to the post of another member and not the OP.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 16:23 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 16:34 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To help reduce the drama and flame wars that infect this forum, I suggest that
Forum moderators be given the ability to block a member from replying to the
posts of another member with whom they do not get along. Kind of like a forum
stoplist. Not a full forum ban; just a ban on posting replies to another member.
And not a forced ignore either. They should still able to read all posts they
want; just not be able to reply to certain ones if they have a history of not
being able to respond appropriately to that member. Furthermore, this feature
should be reciprocal. So, if the mods decide to remove the ability of Member
A to reply to posts by Member B, Member B should also be unable to reply to posts
by Member A. It takes two to tango, and it would be grossly unfair to allow Member
B to post anything they want about Member A if Member A cannot respond. So make
it reciprocal.
I don't ignore anyone in the forum. Even those I personally dislike or
do not get along with. Because regardless how I personally feel about someone,
they often post something interesting or of concern to me or my LEGO business,
and because I can still agree with them on some things. So I don't think
bans or forced ignores are the answer. Just cut off the line of communication
between the two if they cannot communicate with each other properly.
Thor
|
Some grammar problems with my post so I fixed it:
How can you dislike a poster because of what is posted? Nothing discussed here
is monumental or even close to being all that important. Noway I could form
an opinion of someone detailed enough to dislike them. I neither dislike or
like anyone because of a post here. We have had out words in the past on the
forum and PM, but I do think you are OK. I was one that always supported you
life ban being lifted. But a moderater might have kept us from communicating,
so I really do not see how they would have the ability to decide who would be
allowed to post in a reply to another post. I also do not think any mod
would like that job. If I do not want to read replies or posts I just do not.
I believe more in self policing rather than have an agency do it. If it bothers
me what another might say, I just do not read a post or reply. I do not need
anyone to prohibit it based on an artificial decision. Besides this is all balderdash
anyway with minimal impact in the real world of life.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 16:38 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| |
How can you dislike a poster because of what is posted? Nothing discussed here
is monumental or even close to being all that important. Noway I could form
an opinion of someone detailed enough to dislike them. I neither dislike or
like anyone because of a post here. We have had out words in the past on the
forum and PM, but I do think you are OK. I was one that always supported you
life ban being lifted. But a moderater might have kept us from communicating,
so I really do not see how they would have the ability to decide who would be
allowed to post in a reply to another post. I also do not think any mod
would like that job. If I do not want to read replies or posts I just do not.
I believe more in self policing rather than have an agency do it. If it bothers
me what another might say, I just do not read a post or reply. I do not need
anyone to prohibit it based on an artificial decision. Besides this is all balderdash
anyway with minimal impact in the real world of life.
John P
|
John, I have always respected you. Despite our occasional strong disagreements
on the forum, you and I never stoplisted each other or let things get out of
hand by crossing into the personal. It helps that you don't feel the need
to personally judge people or comment on their personal character or motives
like some others here do.
I don't dislike anyone because of what they post. If I disagree with someone
about, for example, when to leave feedback, who is responsible for uninsured
orders, or whether BL is legally required to have automated checkout, I don't
take it personally and I certainly don't dislike them for it.
But it is different for me (and others, apparently) when someone publicly attacks
you personally. When they publicly insult, demean, taunt or mock you, or even
insult your family and fabricate lies about you to create controversy and get
others allied with them (as happened here):
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=792414
Or when you post a perfectly civil opinion about something, only to be personally
slammed and blasted as "selfish", "nagging", and "like having the last word"
(as happened here):
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=832027
Now try to imagine this happening almost every time you get a reply from one
of these people. HUNDREDS of such unprovoked personal attacks. When they oppose
and poke and bait you on everything, even issues they once previously supported.
And happening so much and openly that others notice and repeatedly call them
out on it.
That is way beyond merely disagreeing with someone on the issues.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 17:57 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| |
How can you dislike a poster because of what is posted? Nothing discussed here
is monumental or even close to being all that important. Noway I could form
an opinion of someone detailed enough to dislike them. I neither dislike or
like anyone because of a post here. We have had out words in the past on the
forum and PM, but I do think you are OK. I was one that always supported you
life ban being lifted. But a moderater might have kept us from communicating,
so I really do not see how they would have the ability to decide who would be
allowed to post in a reply to another post. I also do not think any mod
would like that job. If I do not want to read replies or posts I just do not.
I believe more in self policing rather than have an agency do it. If it bothers
me what another might say, I just do not read a post or reply. I do not need
anyone to prohibit it based on an artificial decision. Besides this is all balderdash
anyway with minimal impact in the real world of life.
John P
|
John, I have always respected you. Despite our occasional strong disagreements
on the forum, you and I never stoplisted each other or let things get out of
hand by crossing into the personal. It helps that you don't feel the need
to personally judge people or comment on their personal character or motives
like some others here do.
I don't dislike anyone because of what they post. If I disagree with someone
about, for example, when to leave feedback, who is responsible for uninsured
orders, or whether BL is legally required to have automated checkout, I don't
take it personally and I certainly don't dislike them for it.
But it is different for me (and others, apparently) when someone publicly attacks
you personally. When they publicly insult, demean, taunt or mock you, or even
insult your family and fabricate lies about you to create controversy and get
others allied with them (as happened here):
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=792414
Or when you post a perfectly civil opinion about something, only to be personally
slammed and blasted as "selfish", "nagging", and "like having the last word"
(as happened here):
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=832027
Now try to imagine this happening almost every time you get a reply from one
of these people. HUNDREDS of such unprovoked personal attacks. When they oppose
and poke and bait you on everything, even issues they once previously supported.
And happening so much and openly that others notice and repeatedly call them
out on it.
That is way beyond merely disagreeing with someone on the issues.
Thor
|
While all this is fun on the forum, I love arguments, it has a minimal impact.
Posters say stuff about you because they know they will illicit a strong response.
You say stuff about them because you know it will illicit a strong response.
It is a never ending circle until a mod steps in and say enough is enough.
I joke around on the forum because I do not take it seriously and humor has a
way of disarming people. All my life I have been a frustrated comedian in the
vain of Andy Kaufman (that is why I did not do well for the year I worked at
NBC's Tonight Show, everyone else was funnier than I was.) As I get older
there are fewer and fewer things I find important with the exception of our nation,
harm to children and harm or indifference to kitty cats. What we write here
is fleeting and not important. If someone cuts off you hand, get upset. If
some says things about you, at some point, let it be. Everyone has an opinion
and to them that opinion is as valid as yours. That does not mean they should
be continually hassled, and they should not in turn hassle you. I love the conflict
on the forum but nothing every really seems to get settled and after awhile I
cannot keep track of what is being said because it digresses to minutia and becomes
uninteresting.
So here is a picture of my latest cat I had to bottle feed from a few days old,
every three hours. She is doing fine and I need to adopt her out as I am already
way too attached to my baby. The other picture is of two of my other permanent
cats. One from the Humane Society and another I found greasy in a parts warehouse,
adopted out, and had returned to me. She is now a loved member of my family.
And to emphasize, Let It Be.
John P
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 18:28 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 18:43 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| |
I would like to pass on to you my admiration, for the time & effort you put into
taking care of & finding homes for the cats.
We were adopted by a stray. A big, beautiful, male cat showed up at our back
door with a hole through it's back, just below the backbone. It was really
beat up, an obvious entanglement with our local dog packs in the area. I didn't
think it would survive. The kids & I decided we would give it what aid we could,
to at least give him a chance at life. Long story made short; he survived and
regained full strength & health. The kids named him Ryan. He is for sure an outdoors-cat.
My boy is allergic, so he remained an outdoors-cat. The neighborhood belongs
to him (feline wise)
|
That is a good story and thanks for sharing. There are so many cats that need
someone and need love. And you did a good thing. An acquiescence of mine had
her attacked by a dog and needs neurosurgery. It will be in the thousands and
she works at Starbucks. I am not sure what I will do here, but the cat is an
indoor cat and she loves the cat. I guess I will deal with my vet and see if
he can be of service for a reasonable price. I feel so sorry for this young
girl.
Also I might mention my dislike of the city animal shelter. I was looking for
an outdoor cat I have been feeding for a couple of years, it disappeared for
awhile. I went to the city animal shelter and was taken to the room where they
put the cats to be killed that day. There were hundreds. I just could not take
it. I went to the desk and asked how much to adopt some of these cats and I
was going to release them in my neighborhood. She said it was $125.00 per cat
plus all their boarding charges since they came to the shelter. I was aghast
that they would charge that much to adopt them out; they would rather kill them.
It came out to be around $250 per cat. I asked her if I get a discount because
I saved them the cost of gas in the ovens. My out door cat did show up, we feed
5 or 6 feral cats, the one I was looking for lets me pet her and pick her up
but will not stay in the house.
It is really good you saved your cat. Because of you a little cat lived.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 19:04 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 23:58 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| |
I would like to pass on to you my admiration, for the time & effort you put into
taking care of & finding homes for the cats.
We were adopted by a stray. A big, beautiful, male cat showed up at our back
door with a hole through it's back, just below the backbone. It was really
beat up, an obvious entanglement with our local dog packs in the area. I didn't
think it would survive. The kids & I decided we would give it what aid we could,
to at least give him a chance at life. Long story made short; he survived and
regained full strength & health. The kids named him Ryan. He is for sure an outdoors-cat.
My boy is allergic, so he remained an outdoors-cat. The neighborhood belongs
to him (feline wise)
|
That is a good story and thanks for sharing. There are so many cats that need
someone and need love. And you did a good thing. An acquiescence of mine had
her attacked by a dog and needs neurosurgery. It will be in the thousands and
she works at Starbucks. I am not sure what I will do here, but the cat is an
indoor cat and she loves the cat. I guess I will deal with my vet and see if
he can be of service for a reasonable price. I feel so sorry for this young
girl.
Also I might mention my dislike of the city animal shelter. I was looking for
an outdoor cat I have been feeding for a couple of years, it disappeared for
awhile. I went to the city animal shelter and was taken to the room where they
put the cats to be killed that day. There were hundreds. I just could not take
it. I went to the desk and asked how much to adopt some of these cats and I
was going to release them in my neighborhood. She said it was $125.00 per cat
plus all their boarding charges since they came to the shelter. I was aghast
that they would charge that much to adopt them out; they would rather kill them.
It came out to be around $250 per cat. I asked her if I get a discount because
I saved them the cost of gas in the ovens. My out door cat did show up, we feed
5 or 6 feral cats, the one I was looking for lets me pet her and pick her up
but will not stay in the house.
|
I don't get it....they spend municipal funds (taxes) on rounding up animals
& overhead on the facility itself, you would think they would be appreciative
of anyone willing to help-out in adopting
| | It is really good you saved your cat. Because of you a little cat lived.
John P
|
We are kinda lucky here in the Olympia area. There are many well-doers here with
the means and time. We have a 'cat only' shelter, run by volunteers,
a couple miles away. These people are amazing, John....it's all about the
cat's welfare with these people. I have had some dealings with them, when
my mother (who adopts every homeless cat she comes across) had to be moved up
here, from CA.
It would have been pretty cool, if your shelter replied; just give us 5 bucks
a cat. To which I imagine your reply would have been; load them up....
|
I did learn one thing, I can never go into that room again.
To add to the irony, the director of the Humane Society in El Paso gets paid
$70,000 a year. Seems a bit much. Also donating to the national Humane Society
is not a good idea. They have the same problem that Make a Wish has, a very
small amount of money actually goes to help people or the pets.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 18:01 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| |
How can you dislike a poster because of what is posted? Nothing discussed here
is monumental or even close to being all that important. Noway I could form
an opinion of someone detailed enough to dislike them. I neither dislike or
like anyone because of a post here. We have had out words in the past on the
forum and PM, but I do think you are OK. I was one that always supported you
life ban being lifted. But a moderater might have kept us from communicating,
so I really do not see how they would have the ability to decide who would be
allowed to post in a reply to another post. I also do not think any mod
would like that job. If I do not want to read replies or posts I just do not.
I believe more in self policing rather than have an agency do it. If it bothers
me what another might say, I just do not read a post or reply. I do not need
anyone to prohibit it based on an artificial decision. Besides this is all balderdash
anyway with minimal impact in the real world of life.
John P
|
John, I have always respected you. Despite our occasional strong disagreements
on the forum, you and I never stoplisted each other or let things get out of
hand by crossing into the personal. It helps that you don't feel the need
to personally judge people or comment on their personal character or motives
like some others here do.
I don't dislike anyone because of what they post. If I disagree with someone
about, for example, when to leave feedback, who is responsible for uninsured
orders, or whether BL is legally required to have automated checkout, I don't
take it personally and I certainly don't dislike them for it.
But it is different for me (and others, apparently) when someone publicly attacks
you personally. When they publicly insult, demean, taunt or mock you, or even
insult your family and fabricate lies about you to create controversy and get
others allied with them...
|
[snipped some]
It's simple: Read what you want to read. Don't read what you don't
want to read. Respond what you want to respond to, don't respond to what
you don't want to respond to.
The forum moderation is already excessive. We don't need Mama and Papa BrickLink
to exercise an even stricter hand to control who we talk to and what we say.
Make the forum what you want it to be. You don't want there to be "personal"
comments? Don't make any. Don't respond to the ones that are there. Post
content that you enjoy reading. Respond to content that you enjoy. This isn't
just for you -- this is for everyone who feels the forum isn't what they
want it to be.
Stop complaining and just do it.
Unless, of course, it's the complaining that you like. In which case, enjoy.
The forum is exactly what you want it to be.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bb289632 | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 22:15 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To help reduce the drama and flame wars that infect this forum, I suggest that
Forum moderators be given the ability to block a member from replying to the
posts of another member with whom they do not get along. Kind of like a forum
stoplist. Not a full forum ban; just a ban on posting replies to another member.
And not a forced ignore either. They should still able to read all posts they
want; just not be able to reply to certain ones if they have a history of not
being able to respond appropriately to that member. Furthermore, this feature
should be reciprocal. So, if the mods decide to remove the ability of Member
A to reply to posts by Member B, Member B should also be unable to reply to posts
by Member A. It takes two to tango, and it would be grossly unfair to allow Member
B to post anything they want about Member A if Member A cannot respond. So make
it reciprocal.
I don't ignore anyone in the forum. Even those I personally dislike or
do not get along with. Because regardless how I personally feel about someone,
they often post something interesting or of concern to me or my LEGO business,
and because I can still agree with them on some things. So I don't think
bans or forced ignores are the answer. Just cut off the line of communication
between the two if they cannot communicate with each other properly.
Thor
|
How about a ban on inflammatory posters? This would stop others needing to reply
and deprive the instigator of a soapbox.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | Jun 30, 2014 01:46 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To help reduce the drama and flame wars that infect this forum, I suggest that
Forum moderators be given the ability to block a member from replying to the
posts of another member with whom they do not get along. Kind of like a forum
stoplist. Not a full forum ban; just a ban on posting replies to another member.
And not a forced ignore either. They should still able to read all posts they
want; just not be able to reply to certain ones if they have a history of not
being able to respond appropriately to that member. Furthermore, this feature
should be reciprocal. So, if the mods decide to remove the ability of Member
A to reply to posts by Member B, Member B should also be unable to reply to posts
by Member A. It takes two to tango, and it would be grossly unfair to allow Member
B to post anything they want about Member A if Member A cannot respond. So make
it reciprocal.
I don't ignore anyone in the forum. Even those I personally dislike or
do not get along with. Because regardless how I personally feel about someone,
they often post something interesting or of concern to me or my LEGO business,
and because I can still agree with them on some things. So I don't think
bans or forced ignores are the answer. Just cut off the line of communication
between the two if they cannot communicate with each other properly.
Thor
|
Since Suggestions are also part of the forum, I don't think this is a good
idea.
I would like to have the possibility to give a reply on a suggestion, even if
the member who listed it doesn't get along with me.
Diana
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | PBM | | Posted: | Jun 30, 2014 06:32 | | Subject: | Re: Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Funny this suggestion should be made by the one person I am ignoring, but I agree.
This would have solved the problem quickly with this poster and myself.
I now ignore EVERYTHING from this poster per choice, and he was asked (well I
was told he was asked) to do the same with me.
More the likely that never happened, but I ignore him anyway.
I have a high stress life, and I do not need more in a LEGO forum.
Either way, thank you (to the person who forwarded this to me) for the suggestion.
This is a good one, and should be implemented ASAP (and imposed on both myself
and the poster of this idea!)
|
|
|
|
|
USA, North Carolina
Lithuania, Panevėžys
Netherlands, Utrecht
United Kingdom, England
)
)
)
)
)
Canada, Ontario
Australia, New South Wales
