This site exists because of ME

[Brent]

I was the first person to accuse SR of reading u2u messages, which led to the investigation conducted by Grind and yours truly, and ultimately to the creation of this site. Feel free to thank me. ;)

Note: I am joking.

[Beefy]

Well, I was the first to boycott the other board. You'll also notice that I was the first to join the other board.

My boycott created the demand. Sorry bdw, I get all the credit.

[Brent]

Well, I was the first to boycott the other board. You'll also notice that I was the first to join the other board.

My boycott created the demand. Sorry bdw, I get all the credit.

LOL... I guess so. :p

[Care4all]

hahahahahahaha!

to the both of you! lol

nanni, nanni, boo hoo...(sung to Ring around the rosies)

;)

care

I really don't know why I am here.....?

hahahahaha!

Thinking back on it....maybe it really was because SR kept insulting me?

Maybe it was because this whole mess caught me off guard, and surprised me?

Maybe it was because I did not think that any of these actions that were done, could harm a soul and were a real good civics lesson for all of us, and on how things really work in politics...very similar to what happened on fullpolitics....and no one should have been banned for any of the actions that took place?

Maybe it was because I really did NOT think it was right for SR to to post the u2u's of others from the site, regardless of what he thought was coup in the making....though, he did apologize for this and said he was wrong?

I really have no idea, the whole thing was just infantile to me....Juvenile at best!

care

[Beefy]

hahahahahahaha!

to the both of you! lol

nanni, nanni, boo hoo...(sung to Ring around the rosies)

;)

care

I really don't know why I am here.....?

hahahahaha!

Thinking back on it....maybe it really was because SR kept insulting me?

Maybe it was because this whole mess caught me off guard, and surprised me?

Maybe it was because I did not think that any of these actions that were done, could harm a soul and were a real good civics lesson for all of us, and on how things really work in politics...very similar to what happened on fullpolitics....and no one should have been banned for any of the actions that took place?

Maybe it was because I really did NOT think it was right for SR to to post the u2u's of others from the site, regardless of what he thought was coup in the making....though, he did apologize for this and said he was wrong?

I really have no idea, the whole thing was just infantile to me....Juvenile at best!

care


I left the other site for one reason only, the u2us. The admin posting private messages.... I couldn't believe it. What a foolish thing for SR to do on an otherwise terrific board.

[Care4all]

Yes Mbl, in the end, that was the real reason I came over here too....that is the bottom line.

Though, call me a pansy, but I do think that SR has "learned a little" from doing that.....I still never read the actual emails that he posted, I refused to do such....

And I was pretty much able to keep up with what was going on without them...

care

[Brent]

Ultimately, though, it was Grind and yours truly who laid the foundations for a Revolution. ;)

[Beefy]

Yes Mbl, in the end, that was the real reason I came over here too....that is the bottom line.

Though, call me a pansy, but I do think that SR has "learned a little" from doing that.....I still never read the actual emails that he posted, I refused to do such....

And I was pretty much able to keep up with what was going on without them...

care


SR really needs to deflate his head.

[Care4all]

I do need to add, that I love Sr's site...it was a great message board, a heck of alot better than politics.com, that's for certain! And much better features....! I miss it already, and probably will end up back there someday after I abstain for a bit...

I like this site too and we seem to be doing fairly well with gathering people and posts, don't you think...? for it just being around for a couple of days?

[Immanuel]

I do need to add, that I love Sr's site...it was a great message board, a heck of alot better than politics.com, that's for certain! And much better features....! I miss it already, and probably will end up back there someday after I abstain for a bit...

I like this site too and we seem to be doing fairly well with gathering people and posts, don't you think...? for it just being around for a couple of days?

One feature about this site that makes it great is the personal ignore idiots feature that Damo gave us and look I have only had to ignore one idiot so far and he (or she) has already been banned for being an impersonator. Yes that was a hint to SR.

Thanks Damo!

[tianabautre]

I think its doing well too. The good thing is damo doesn't mind input.

[Damocles]

Shucks guys... Give me ideas. Making this a unique and fun site dealing with politics is the goal. Nothing can make it more unique than people's input on what they actually want...

[klaatu]

You are da bomb Lady T .... and may I say ... Care .. you are here because you are one of the "Cool" people ..... as rob dawg or dastud would say..... :cool:

[klaatu]

Shucks guys... Give me ideas. Making this a unique and fun site dealing with politics is the goal. Nothing can make it more unique than people's input on what they actually want...

I still think my "rack it" idea is a good one .... if you want me to elaborate on it I will...... ;)

[Damocles]

I still think my "rack it" idea is a good one .... if you want me to elaborate on it I will...... ;)

I think the idea is to have a "Trophy Case" for the best Threads and/or Posts...

I've been thinking about this one. I do have a choice to put in the "Reputation" of a poster where each poster can add or take away from the rep of a poster based on their posts... And I believe I could add a feature to give Awards to posts that one could search out... But I haven't figured a way to put them in a special area yet...

The Reputation feature tends to make it so a D or R heavy site gives high rep to their own but people on the lower end have negative rep points and no rep power to give or take from another. Basically I don't want that to happen because it tends to make those on the lower end leave the board for more friendly territory...

[klaatu]

You are on the right track ... iow ... Hall Of Fame for great posts. I used to visit a sports forum .. and everyone had the option of clicking on a "rack this post" feature. What that would do is nominate the post to be placed in a special forum room. But... we may be talking about a committee to select whether or not the post is deserving of such recognition. Im not sure you want to go in that direction ... lol

Or just have a member wide vote ..... where you would place a time limit on how long we will have to vote. Lets say for instance... you have 100 members ... a post gets nominated .. and we have 48 hours to place a vote. If the post gets a certain percentage of votes from the overall membership .. say 75% ... it goes into the Hall of Fame.

[Immanuel]

You are on the right track ... iow ... Hall Of Fame for great posts. I used to visit a sports forum .. and everyone had the option of clicking on a "rack this post" feature. What that would do is nominate the post to be placed in a special forum room. But... we may be talking about a committee to select whether or not the post is deserving of such recognition. Im not sure you want to go in that direction ... lol

Or just have a member wide vote ..... where you would place a time limit on how long we will have to vote. Lets say for instance... you have 100 members ... a post gets nominated .. and we have 48 hours to place a vote. If the post gets a certain percentage of votes from the overall membership .. say 75% ... it goes into the Hall of Fame.

Uh Oh! Talk about a committee! I can see the fights starting already. :eek:

Immie

[klaatu]

Uh Oh! Talk about a committee! I can see the fights starting already. :eek:

Immie


Thats why included the second part of the suggestion .. :readit: lol

[Immanuel]

Thats why included the second part of the suggestion .. :readit: lol

Good point. I guess I should have read the whole thing. All I saw was the end of jpp.com before it even got off the ground.

Immie

[Care4all]

One feature about this site that makes it great is the personal ignore idiots feature that Damo gave us and look I have only had to ignore one idiot so far and he (or she) has already been banned for being an impersonator. Yes that was a hint to SR.

Thanks Damo!

I think the personal ignore feature is a great one, and if SR is reading this, I think his members would greatly appreciate it....

(I don't need the government to "take care of me", with a security council, give me the tool and I can take care of myself...I think that is a very conservative ideal and would have thought SR would understand that... :( )

[SR_]

I think the personal ignore feature is a great one, and if SR is reading this, I think his members would greatly appreciate it....

(I don't need the government to "take care of me", with a security council, give me the tool and I can take care of myself...I think that is a very conservative ideal and would have thought SR would understand that... :( )


The ignore feature is a great thing to completely silence those who you dont agree with or who bother you or who are abrasive to your senses.

FP.com is a debate forum, not a collection of likeminded people who choose to ignore those who pester, sicken, or annoy them. You can come here for that!!!

I think the medium used for free speech should be used for all equally, not on a personal basis. The council speaks for ALL the board, and offers such option of ignoring a member TO ALL members.

My opinion is that in order to offer free speech, all members being protected from censor on an individual basis through "government intervention... that being board administration as it would be the admin providing you the feature", is a good thing. Instead id rather ALL MEMBERS decide who to censor on an equal basis.

That being said if your two elected liberals, and my two elected cons, and Ihate's two elected libers, and DivingDW's two elected fringies all feel like or at least a majority feel like the entire membership should be afforded the opportunity to ignore a member, than im fine with that.

What you are saying is it doesnt matter if 99% of the board didnt feel like a member should be ignored you personally would like the government to provide you a solution on that individual basis based on your personal opinion on why this member should be censored from your reading.

I dont think thats fair to members or a protection of free speech.

Some of us are annoying to others, some of our opinions are sickening to others, hardly a reason to censor their thoughts or comments on subjects, and hardly a reason for me to offer you the ability to do so using the medium that we communicate on.

I feel its like having all of us come together in a room to debate topics and while we're debating some of us ask me for ear plugs, then sit there with their ears plugged so as not to hear from people they dont "feel" like hearing.

Id rather have a concesus from all the people about behavior that we wont accept at these meetings, and tie up those few who misbehave in the corner, instead of offering earplugs to everyone else.

Who knows if you can even read this, i may be being ignored?

SR

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The ignore feature is a great thing to completely silence those who you dont agree with or who bother you or who are abrasive to your senses.

FP.com is a debate forum, not a collection of likeminded people who choose to ignore those who pester, sicken, or annoy them. You can come here for that!!!

I think the medium used for free speech should be used for all equally, not on a personal basis. The council speaks for ALL the board, and offers such option of ignoring a member TO ALL members.

My opinion is that in order to offer free speech, all members being protected from censor on an individual basis through "government intervention... that being board administration as it would be the admin providing you the feature", is a good thing. Instead id rather ALL MEMBERS decide who to censor on an equal basis.

That being said if your two elected liberals, and my two elected cons, and Ihate's two elected libers, and DivingDW's two elected fringies all feel like or at least a majority feel like the entire membership should be afforded the opportunity to ignore a member, than im fine with that.

What you are saying is it doesnt matter if 99% of the board didnt feel like a member should be ignored you personally would like the government to provide you a solution on that individual basis based on your personal opinion on why this member should be censored from your reading.

I dont think thats fair to members or a protection of free speech.

Some of us are annoying to others, some of our opinions are sickening to others, hardly a reason to censor their thoughts or comments on subjects, and hardly a reason for me to offer you the ability to do so using the medium that we communicate on.

I feel its like having all of us come together in a room to debate topics and while we're debating some of us ask me for ear plugs, then sit there with their ears plugged so as not to hear from people they dont "feel" like hearing.

Id rather have a concesus from all the people about behavior that we wont accept at these meetings, and tie up those few who misbehave in the corner, instead of offering earplugs to everyone else.

Who knows if you can even read this, i may be being ignored?

SR


SR, what you are talking about is censorship. Me ignoring you would not be censoring you anymore than me blocking a channel on my TV station. The government forcing all of us to block the TV channel is certainly worse.

[Damocles]

The thing of it is, I am a member of other sites, each that have the ignore feature and in none of them does what SR say happen. It just isn't reliable reporting.

[SR_]

SR, what you are talking about is censorship. Me ignoring you would not be censoring you anymore than me blocking a channel on my TV station. The government forcing all of us to block the TV channel is certainly worse.


me coming to the same place as you, with the same rights, and the same medium to be used, whether is be a message board, or be a public square with a megaphone, sets us as equals. You ignoring me for any personal reason USING a feature provided by the government censors me with the governments consent IN THAT SAME MEDIUM for any personal reason. meaning, instead of not paying attention, which is your choice, instead of leaving the place or medium which is your choice, you are instead depending on the government to tailor anothers individual opportunities to be heard while not limiting yours to speak in the same medium.

The TV channel is not on the same equal level as you the viewer. In this case I am the TV channel and you are the content. You turn off the TV Channel and so too do you turn off your ability to speak or be the content.

On the flip side the people as a whole have elected members to decide what is acceptable for public consumption in the public square, which is the medium. This is to say that you dont have the right to disturb the public, or stand up during a PTA meeting and tell everyone to fuck themselves, or threaten others, etc..

And so the public servants enforce such censor and prosecutes those on behalf of ALL members of society based on the agreed laws or rules that are applicable to ALL citizens on an equal basis.

This is to say that the police in one city wont arrest you for verbalizing that you like the color blue. The people that are surrounding as you verbalize this on the street cannot ask the government to provide them a method of censoring you so that they dont hear you for whatever reason. They themselves have the opportunity to not pay attention to you, or leave, or speak louder than you.

SR

[SR_]

The thing of it is, I am a member of other sites, each that have the ignore feature and in none of them does what SR say happen. It just isn't reliable reporting.


this isnt about other forums damo. You may have experienced any number of things that are not accurate. this is to say that members may be making a decision to hold back their true feelings, or restrain their passion out of fear of being ignored. hardly something that is preferrable on a debate site.

I could be talking to only two of you here, i could be being ignored not for anything ive said on this forum but for personal reasons based on what has occured on OTHER forums.

Freedom to speak, and freedom not to listen shouldnt be dependent on a government provided tool within the same medium and environment. Freedom to speak is protected under the accepted behavior of ALL of society, and freedom to not listen is apprciated in terms of leaving the medium or not listening to such speech.

my reasons for not providing such a feature is more than just the reality of a message board.

SR

[Damocles]

this isnt about other forums damo. You may have experienced any number of things that are not accurate. this is to say that members may be making a decision to hold back their true feelings, or restrain their passion out of fear of being ignored. hardly something that is preferrable on a debate site.

I could be talking to only two of you here, i could be being ignored not for anything ive said on this forum but for personal reasons based on what has occured on OTHER forums.

Freedom to speak, and freedom not to listen shouldnt be dependent on a government provided tool within the same medium and environment. Freedom to speak is protected under the accepted behavior of ALL of society, and freedom to not listen is apprciated in terms of leaving the medium or not listening to such speech.

my reasons for not providing such a feature is more than just the reality of a message board.

SR

You clearly haven't been a member of those sites. Nobody is holding anything back. LOL.

It's all good. I chose to leave the option in mostly because some people like to chatstalk and may not make the "trolls" list. That's pretty much it. If people choose to use it, then they do. It's all good either way. I personally have never used the feature nor have I ever been ignored.

[SR_]

You clearly haven't been a member of those sites. Nobody is holding anything back. LOL.

It's all good. I chose to leave the option in mostly because some people like to chatstalk and may not make the "trolls" list. That's pretty much it. If people choose to use it, then they do. It's all good either way. I personally have never used the feature nor have I ever been ignored.


this may be true, who's to say, the decisions are personal and are not available to all, which tends to skew the results or the accuracy of its effectiveness or harm one way or the other. but again this is spefically about message board reality.

my main arguments are more principled based.

SR

[Damocles]

this may be true, who's to say, the decisions are personal and are not available to all, which tends to skew the results or the accuracy of its effectiveness or harm one way or the other. but again this is spefically about message board reality.

my main arguments are more principled based.

SR

As is mine. I give them the tools to help themselves.

[SR_]

As is mine. I give them the tools to help themselves.


yes, you as the admin (or government) provide them the tool to make the decision that someone will not be seen on an individual basis while allowing the user ignoring the ability to continue on within the same environment.

I know of no tool or features the governmnet provides to me other than the freedom of choice to either leave, not listen, or put up with it.

Youre saying that that choice isnt good enough as it would entail personal control, tolerance, or a desire not leave the environment. Instead YOU have become the solution to relieve the individual of any accountability as they can use YOUR tool, to censore someone from the environment, while staying in the same environment.

care said "I don't need the government to "take care of me", obviously she does and you agree with her since for some reason without the tool she has no ability to not read something, or the desire to leave, or just to tolerate it, or anything that requires personal accountability. In the same respect anyone ignored has no method or ability of preventing such actions, as they are entirely up to someones personal opinions regardless of relevance or fairness.

I wish that I had these opportunities when i go to the ranger game and sit beside some guy who laughs real loud in my ear. I could just look to the government to provide me with tool to erase him, then i wouldnt have to tolerate it, not pay attention to it, or leave. Without the tool it may be personally difficult for me to accept it, or to not pay attention, and I naturally want to watch the game. All of these provide me with a sense of personal accountablity, if to myself at the least if no one else.

SR

[Damocles]

yes, you as the admin (or government) provide them the tool to make the decision that someone will not be seen on an individual basis while allowing the user ignoring the ability to continue on within the same environment.

I know of no tool or features the governmnet provides to me other than the freedom of choice to either leave, not listen, or put up with it.

Youre saying that that choice isnt good enough as it would entail personal control, tolerance, or a desire not leave the environment. Instead YOU have become the solution to relieve the individual of any accountability as they can use YOUR tool, to censore someone from the environment, while staying in the same environment.

care said "I don't need the government to "take care of me", obviously she does and you agree with her since for some reason without the tool she has no ability to not read something, or the desire to leave, or just to tolerate it, or anything that requires personal accountability. In the same respect anyone ignored has no method or ability of preventing such actions, as they are entirely up to someones personal opinions regardless of relevance or fairness.

I wish that I had these opportunities when i go to the ranger game and sit beside some guy who laughs real loud in my ear. I could just look to the government to provide me with tool to erase him, then i wouldnt have to tolerate it, not pay attention to it, or leave. Without the tool it may be personally difficult for me to accept it, or to not pay attention, and I naturally want to watch the game. All of these provide me with a sense of personal accountablity, if to myself at the least if no one else.

SR
You've never heard of the channel button on your TV? You've never heard of not buying a book?

This is a long rant to say you want the government to choose who is worthy to be listened to or not. So long as the government votes them as "unworthy" or as "trolls" then they can avoid them at the party... Not until!

I have simply given them the ability to avoid people that they don't want to talk to, to walk away. Just like you could do if you were at a party.

Sometimes they get quoted so you can still see their stuff, just as if you were at that party and they were nearby and you could hear.... You just don't have to participate if you don't want to.

Anyway, you are not going to convince me, and I am not going to convince you. I am going to have the feature, you are not. That's fine with me. I haven't tried to convince you. I supported your SC, and especially so since you chose to have it be majority rather than unanimous voting...

It wouldn't have mattered to me, I would never have even ignored the trolls.

[SR_]

You've never heard of the channel button on your TV? You've never heard of not buying a book?

sure i have. what people tend to not understand in this situation is that THIS SITE is the TV CHANNEL. The show, the storyline, the characters are the members. If you dont like the show you make a decision to change the channel, or leave. You dont get to change the channel and still participate in watching the same show. That is the accountability. THIS SITE is the book, and the words are provided by the authors. Sure you can decide not to read the book, or you can skip over pages, or you can read all the words and tolerate what the book is about. But you dont LOOK to the government to offer you a tool to somehow make things you personally do not like dissappear from the book for any personal reason. That disscounts all accountability.

This is a long rant to say you want the government to choose who is worthy to be listened to or not.

Actually its the exact opposite. I want the people to decide what behavior is accptable as a whole, not based on what is acceptable on a personal basis. I dont want police officers deciding on their own that I have said or done something that would require me to hidden or silenced from the public square. Now if people dont like what I have to say and I am within the accepted parameters stipulated by the people, then individuals are forced to take account for themselves. They can leave, tolerate, or not pay attention, however I am still speaking, and they can still hear me, and no government tool is interfering. I also have a method to protect myself, in that I have rules and a set of guidelines that makes me aware of how far i can go or what I can do to enble me to PREVENT being silenced or removed.

Im not trying to convince you to remove the feature one way or the other, this isnt a debate about a public medium, again this is private property. However i would hope that even in this private property debate on any issue would be welcomed?

then again, I guess you could just put me on your ignore list.

SR

[Damocles]

You've never heard of the channel button on your TV? You've never heard of not buying a book?

sure i have. what people tend to not understand in this situation is that THIS SITE is the TV CHANNEL. The show, the storyline, the characters are the members. If you dont like the show you make a decision to change the channel, or leave. You dont get to change the channel and still participate in watching the same show. That is the accountability. THIS SITE is the book, and the words are provided by the authors. Sure you can decide not to read the book, or you can skip over pages, or you can read all the words and tolerate what the book is about. But you dont LOOK to the government to offer you a tool to somehow make things you personally do not like dissappear from the book for any personal reason. That disscounts all accountability.



I disagree. I believe that each post is a TV station... Either way. I see the site as more like a party. Just as in my original analogy. People can always avoid people that they don't want to talk to. Sometimes they hear them anyway, just as in here they'll get them in quotes...



This is a long rant to say you want the government to choose who is worthy to be listened to or not.

Actually its the exact opposite. I want the people to decide what behavior is accptable as a whole, not based on what is acceptable on a personal basis. I dont want police officers deciding on their own that I have said or done something that would require me to hidden or silenced from the public square. Now if people dont like what I have to say and I am within the accepted parameters stipulated by the people, then individuals are forced to take account for themselves. They can leave, tolerate, or not pay attention, however I am still speaking, and they can still hear me, and no government tool is interfering. I also have a method to protect myself, in that I have rules and a set of guidelines that makes me aware of how far i can go or what I can do to enble me to PREVENT being silenced or removed.


Except it isn't the opposite. You have a vote of representatives who choose who they can ignore or not, that is a government making the decision of who is "unworthy"...




Im not trying to convince you to remove the feature one way or the other, this isnt a debate about a public medium, again this is private property. However i would hope that even in this private property debate on any issue would be welcomed?

then again, I guess you could just put me on your ignore list.

SR

Nope. I cannot. But were I a user and wanted to avoid you at the party I could.

[SR_]

I disagree. I believe that each post is a TV station... Either way. I see the site as more like a party. Just as in my original analogy. People can always avoid people that they don't want to talk to. Sometimes they hear them anyway, just as in here they'll get them in quotes...

If each post is a TV Channel, then the analogy isnt based in reality as Ive never seen a TV that can show up to infinite channels at one viewing but if this is the case and the members are the cast, what TV show allows you to utilize your government tool to watch the brady bunch and erase greg and bobby while the show is playing? meaning you can still watch the show and erase the cast members you dont like?


Except it isn't the opposite. You have a vote of representatives who choose who they can ignore or not, that is a government making the decision of who is "unworthy"...

no you being the government in this case is a dictator, it is my case as well, we were not elected to decide what is what. A representative is elected, they choose something on behalf of those who gave him their voice. It is not a matter of being unworthy, it is a matter of what people decide on as a whole for what is acceptable.

Nope. I cannot. But were I a user and wanted to avoid you at the party I could.

no you really couldnt. you could choose to be in a different room than me (or thread) which would be your decision, or you could choose to not pay attention to me (skip over my posts) which would be your decision, or you could tolerate me which would be your decision. But you dont get to stay in the same environment as me be it a room, and press a little button and make me dissappear. If I am within what is acceptable to everyone else in the room then it is YOUR choice to take account for yourself, not the governments choice to provide you with some tool to make me invisible.

SR

[Beefy]

Peanut boy says...

This is acrually a great discussion. Carry on.

[Damocles]

I disagree. I believe that each post is a TV station... Either way. I see the site as more like a party. Just as in my original analogy. People can always avoid people that they don't want to talk to. Sometimes they hear them anyway, just as in here they'll get them in quotes...

If each post is a TV Channel, then the analogy isnt based in reality as Ive never seen a TV that can show up to infinite channels at one viewing but if this is the case and the members are the cast, what TV show allows you to utilize your government tool to watch the brady bunch and erase greg and bobby while the show is playing? meaning you can still watch the show and erase the cast members you dont like?



Should have said that it was more like each thread is like a TV channel, but not exactly. You can see the "Thread" as you use the guide, just as you can each channel. You can decide to read them or not, just as you can decide to watch... However I believe the Party analogy fits much better... As you go around the room you purposely avoid people at the party that you want to avoid. Sometimes you get them in your face anyway as you make your circles about the floor just as here you get them in the quote boxes...



Except it isn't the opposite. You have a vote of representatives who choose who they can ignore or not, that is a government making the decision of who is "unworthy"...

no you being the government in this case is a dictator, it is my case as well, we were not elected to decide what is what. A representative is elected, they choose something on behalf of those who gave him their voice. It is not a matter of being unworthy, it is a matter of what people decide on as a whole for what is acceptable.


It is impossible for me to dictate who they ignore, unless I BAN them. Just as I can throw somebody out of my party at my house.




Nope. I cannot. But were I a user and wanted to avoid you at the party I could.

no you really couldnt. you could choose to be in a different room than me (or thread) which would be your decision, or you could choose to not pay attention to me (skip over my posts) which would be your decision, or you could tolerate me which would be your decision. But you dont get to stay in the same environment as me be it a room, and press a little button and make me dissappear. If I am within what is acceptable to everyone else in the room then it is YOUR choice to take account for yourself, not the governments choice to provide you with some tool to make me invisible.

SR

I cannot "ignore" any user, it is not a function available to the "Host"... I can throw you out of my party, but I cannot make you ignore anybody at all. I can let you ignore others, or I can make you listen to them by placing you in a room... I can do alot at my party. I choose to let you make your own personal decisions on who you wish to speak with. That's pretty much it.

At your site, they have to wait until the government is voted in, then they vote the person that they want onto a list (which of course may never happen) then they have to ignore the entire pariah list or not ignore anybody. Their choices are dictated to them by the Host of the party who chooses which table they'll be at rather than allowing them to decide...

Either way it is within the prerogative of the Host. I let people make personal choices on who to avoid at this particular party. Were I running a different type of party it may be different.

[SR_]

Either way it is within the prerogative of the Host. I let people make personal choices on who to avoid at this particular party. Were I running a different type of party it may be different.

And i dont see it as "allowing" them their personal choice. I see it as providing them a tool to censor other posters in effect making the equation unequal, and removing their accountability. They dont have to make a decision that would demonstrate their tolerance, penalize them for leaving while wanting to stay, or showing control in not paying attention. ALL of which are unavoidable if rights to speech are protected.

As you go around the room you purposely avoid people at the party that you want to avoid.

You can personally control that behavior damo, that is in no way is reliant on any tool, certainly not one provided by the government by fiat. In addition you cant demonstrate that you are personally and purposefully trying to avoid someone at a party by going into the room they are in and standing next to them. Thats what is confusing to me by what you are saying, youre saying that you somehow you can demonstrate some personal action to avoid someone by walking into the same room, standing beside the person you dont like, and asking the government to give you a button to push to make that person invisible.

I fail to see any type of personal desire to avoid that person, in fact its more of a desire to not avoid that person but to censor them from the environment YOU want to be in and doing so by depending on the government to give you this tool.

At my site people are free to avoid the room, if they choose to forgoe the disre to be in the room, thats their call, if they choose to enter the room they can not pay attention, or they can choose tolerate it, but at no point can they look to me, who was not elected to provide them with a tool to dissolve them from any accountablity. They will be able to decide through their elected members what is acceptable behavior, regardless of me being the host, and they will be able to decide when such unacceptable behavior should require the ability FOR ALL members to have the option of making someone invisible as ALL members had input. As that morphs it will be reflected in their elected representatives.

I at no point offer them the tools to take away accountablity, nor do I decide what is acceptable in all cases, naturally i do protect peoples rights to be anonymous by fiat, but thats really it in terms of speech. Until something is unacceptable i protect the ability and the equality of all members to free speech within the same medium.

SR

[FUCK THE POLICE]

me coming to the same place as you, with the same rights, and the same medium to be used, whether is be a message board, or be a public square with a megaphone, sets us as equals. You ignoring me for any personal reason USING a feature provided by the government censors me with the governments consent IN THAT SAME MEDIUM for any personal reason. meaning, instead of not paying attention, which is your choice, instead of leaving the place or medium which is your choice, you are instead depending on the government to tailor anothers individual opportunities to be heard while not limiting yours to speak in the same medium.

The TV channel is not on the same equal level as you the viewer. In this case I am the TV channel and you are the content. You turn off the TV Channel and so too do you turn off your ability to speak or be the content.

On the flip side the people as a whole have elected members to decide what is acceptable for public consumption in the public square, which is the medium. This is to say that you dont have the right to disturb the public, or stand up during a PTA meeting and tell everyone to fuck themselves, or threaten others, etc..

And so the public servants enforce such censor and prosecutes those on behalf of ALL members of society based on the agreed laws or rules that are applicable to ALL citizens on an equal basis.

This is to say that the police in one city wont arrest you for verbalizing that you like the color blue. The people that are surrounding as you verbalize this on the street cannot ask the government to provide them a method of censoring you so that they dont hear you for whatever reason. They themselves have the opportunity to not pay attention to you, or leave, or speak louder than you.

SR


You're analogy is ridiculous.

God, you're like talking to a wall.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

"If each post is a TV Channel, then the analogy isnt based in reality as Ive never seen a TV that can show up to infinite channels at one viewing but if this is the case and the members are the cast, what TV show allows you to utilize your government tool to watch the brady bunch and erase greg and bobby while the show is playing? meaning you can still watch the show and erase the cast members you dont like?"

I believe it would be an intrusion on privacy to forcibly prevent people from doing video editing...

Stupid analogy. It certainly wouldn't be wrong, it'd just be pointless of the government to do it. Since this isn't the government, and there'd be no other way to implement it without the admin, your analogy is pointless.

[SR_]

"If each post is a TV Channel, then the analogy isnt based in reality as Ive never seen a TV that can show up to infinite channels at one viewing but if this is the case and the members are the cast, what TV show allows you to utilize your government tool to watch the brady bunch and erase greg and bobby while the show is playing? meaning you can still watch the show and erase the cast members you dont like?"

I believe it would be an intrusion on privacy to forcibly prevent people from doing video editing...

Stupid analogy. It certainly wouldn't be wrong, it'd just be pointless of the government to do it. Since this isn't the government, and there'd be no other way to implement it without the admin, your analogy is pointless.

water,

is that all you've got? I didnt bring up the analogy, you did.

SR

[MasterChief]

Funny how SR added the _ to his name in an attempt to avoid being located in the database and added to the ignore list. With the underline to everyones name it was almost hidden at first.

SR now ignored.:321:

[Beefy]

Funny how SR added the _ to his name in an attempt to avoid being located in the database and added to the ignore list. With the underline to everyones name it was almost hidden at first.

SR now ignored.:321:


Um, no, he added it because the usernames here require three charachters. Don't be a retard. You really think he's hiding or something?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

SR, I brought up an analogy of allowing people to block channels.

You went off on the deep end and said that it would be evil to allow people to block certain actors. It would be pointless to block actors. It would not be pointless to block channels, or TV shows, or users.

Really, this isn't a government anyway, so the analogy is useless.

[Beefy]

This is an interesting argument though because I strongly believe that government cannot give rights, it can only take them away. As I reconcile this against SR's argument and Damos argument, I'm inclined to agree with Damocles (if this were a government - thats the pretext they're arguing upon).

Essentially Damo is saying that we can do whatever we want, and if we want to ignore someone, the right is there, it has not been taken away. What SR is saying is that some sort of government can determine if a person is worthy of being ignored, and then the peons can decide then if they want to ignore such person.

I agree with Damo, although, SR's thing would have been fun, if he were trustworthy as an admin.

* disclaimer, I like SR, he did a good job with his board, but its like no limit poker. One misstep and you lose some serious equity.

[SR_]

SR, I brought up an analogy of allowing people to block channels.

You went off on the deep end and said that it would be evil to allow people to block certain actors. It would be pointless to block actors. It would not be pointless to block channels, or TV shows, or users.

Really, this isn't a government anyway, so the analogy is useless.

no, i used your analogy and corrected you, and clearly explained the relevance everytime. Care had mentioned that she didnt need government help, in this instance she does in order to have this tool, the admin is the government of this site, the admin decides what the rules are, who stays, who goes, how it operates, and so.... in effect to have this option she does need the government it is not a natural occurance to be in any scenario and remain there while making other disappear from existence.

It would not be pointless to block actors if you felt you needed such a tool, as many on this site feel they need. You cant block a channel and still watch the channel water. If the thread is a channel then the members posting are the actors, they make up the content. If you block the channel you no longer see ANY of the show or the actors. Obviously if you wanted to watch the show you would be choosing for yourself to penalize yourself if you turned it off. With this tool you escape such accountability and continue to watch the channel but just erase some actors. This feature is offered to you by the admin, without such dependence you would not have such an ability.

SR

[SR_]

Essentially Damo is saying that we can do whatever we want, and if we want to ignore someone, the right is there, it has not been taken away. What SR is saying is that some sort of government can determine if a person is worthy of being ignored, and then the peons can decide then if they want to ignore such person.


youre wrong mbl. Damo is saying the right is there to purposefully not avoid someone, to not take any personal action that involves accountability, but instead DEPEND on him to offer you a tool to make other speakers invisible. DAMO is the government. You are essentially depending on the government to offer you a way to NOT take individual actions to choose to ignore someone, but instead DEPENDING on the government to provide you with that capacity.

What I am saying is that ALL speech is protected unless the people decide that certain behavior is unacceptable. On FullPolitics I AM THE GOVERNMENT and I do not decide in any way if a person is worthy of being ignored. Everyone is equal within the same medium. If the people decide that certain behavior is unacceptable and pass such a designation by a majority than ALL MEMBERS EQUALLY have the opportunity to make that person invisible.

In addition all forms of speech being protected until a decision or a definition is decided by the people, it offers a method for a particular speaker to protest such a designation or to prevent themselves from being made invisible, meaning, they have a way to plead their case, make changes in behavior, etc..

When speech is not protected and the environment is censored due to personal taste than the individual who is ignoring others can be wherever they want, talk about whatever they want, to whoever they want with no accountability for their desire to avoid any other speaker.

If we are both a building that has four rooms and I do not want to see or hear you, it is up to ME to avoid you through action. I can decide whether to go into a room you are in or not, which you may be in a room with 20 pretty blondes and I may want to go in there but I must weigh whether it is worth it, and If i decide not to enter then I am accountable for my actions to myself, I may decide to go in the room with you and tolerate you, again I may suffer because you are there but I choose to be there with you and that is an inevitable result. I may decide to not pay attention to you, and to show personal control over my ability to pay attention to other things, again I am accountable for my actions.

What DAMO is offering you erases all that by fiat, meaning the other people in the room may love you as you have no crossed any unacceptable line, but I want to be there too and so I walk in right beside you and DEPEND on Damo to provide me the ability to forsake any accountability and press a button and make you invisible.

I put forth no effort to recognize what is acceptable behavior, and no effort to avoid you of my own volition instead I look to the government to provide me the solution. And you have no recourse in your ability to be heard even though we are both in the same room, the same environment, using the same medium. The government who is not elected has declared us unequal and offered you the ability to remain without accountability and silence me.

Right now in reality with our protections on free speech, the peons decide what is acceptable, the peons enforce what is acceptable, and the peons remain accountable for their own decisions. I am suggesting nothing different.

You mischaracterized both my and Damo sides.

SR

[SR_]

I agree with Damo, although, SR's thing would have been fun, if he were trustworthy as an admin.

* disclaimer, I like SR, he did a good job with his board, but its like no limit poker. One misstep and you lose some serious equity.

this is bullshit peanut boy no matter how many times you repeat it.

SR

[FUCK THE POLICE]

no, i used your analogy and corrected you, and clearly explained the relevance everytime. Care had mentioned that she didnt need government help, in this instance she does in order to have this tool, the admin is the government of this site, the admin decides what the rules are, who stays, who goes, how it operates, and so.... in effect to have this option she does need the government it is not a natural occurance to be in any scenario and remain there while making other disappear from existence.

It would not be pointless to block actors if you felt you needed such a tool, as many on this site feel they need. You cant block a channel and still watch the channel water. If the thread is a channel then the members posting are the actors, they make up the content. If you block the channel you no longer see ANY of the show or the actors. Obviously if you wanted to watch the show you would be choosing for yourself to penalize yourself if you turned it off. With this tool you escape such accountability and continue to watch the channel but just erase some actors. This feature is offered to you by the admin, without such dependence you would not have such an ability.

SR


You see, SR, that's where the difference's between this and real government begin.

The government doesn't own my speech. Yet, technically, the admin owns all of the speech on the site. There isn't any realistic way to circumvent this. To compare it to actual government is beyond useless. If the people want an ignore feature, give it to them. It's certainly not less intrusive to only offer people one list.

:pke:

:cof1:

[Beefy]

youre wrong mbl. Damo is saying the right is there to purposefully not avoid someone, to not take any personal action that involves accountability, but instead DEPEND on him to offer you a tool to make other speakers invisible. DAMO is the government. You are essentially depending on the government to offer you a way to NOT take individual actions to choose to ignore someone, but instead DEPENDING on the government to provide you with that capacity.

SR, you miss my point. You are suggesting that some sort of legistalive body making its decisions through popular opinion is better at deciding who people should or should not have the right to ignore. You are defacto relegating the individual to a political process. You know me SR. You know that I respect the rights of the individual above the subjugation of rights by a beauracracy.

What I am saying is that ALL speech is protected unless the people decide that certain behavior is unacceptable. On FullPolitics I AM THE GOVERNMENT and I do not decide in any way if a person is worthy of being ignored. Everyone is equal within the same medium. If the people decide that certain behavior is unacceptable and pass such a designation by a majority than ALL MEMBERS EQUALLY have the opportunity to make that person invisible.

All speech is protected here as well. What you are failing to realize is that nobody is being precluded from saying anything whatsoever, in any capacity here. People in fact are afforded the freedom to preclude what they read, but nobody is precluded from writing anything. We both know the same can't be said for your board.

In addition all forms of speech being protected until a decision or a definition is decided by the people, it offers a method for a particular speaker to protest such a designation or to prevent themselves from being made invisible, meaning, they have a way to plead their case, make changes in behavior, etc..

The difference is that you make it collectivist, and Damo makes it individual. With the Security Council, people will be able to only act upon what a beauracracy says, and in doing so, they will be able to ignore all, or ignore none. You're completely relegating the individual to a group that determines what is and what is not a troll. The individual becomes secondary to the popular election. Again, a collectivist approach.

If we are both a building that has four rooms and I do not want to see or hear you, it is up to ME to avoid you through action. I can decide whether to go into a room you are in or not, which you may be in a room with 20 pretty blondes and I may want to go in there but I must weigh whether it is worth it, and If i decide not to enter then I am accountable for my actions to myself, I may decide to go in the room with you and tolerate you, again I may suffer because you are there but I choose to be there with you and that is an inevitable result. I may decide to not pay attention to you, and to show personal control over my ability to pay attention to other things, again I am accountable for my actions.

But we are not in a room in the classic sense. I'll humor you anyway though. Say this room is full of beautiful blonde sirens, and one fat obnoxious broad suffering from halitosis and athelete's foot. I would love to be in this room of sirens only, and be avoiding the beast, but the Security council says that in order to avoid the beast, I must also give up the sirens. The SC has essentially said that I must give my power to ignore and accept to a couple of people who I find the least untrustworthy. Do you get that?

[Beefy]

What DAMO is offering you erases all that by fiat, meaning the other people in the room may love you as you have no crossed any unacceptable line, but I want to be there too and so I walk in right beside you and DEPEND on Damo to provide me the ability to forsake any accountability and press a button and make you invisible.

Again, this is not a real room, but I'll humor you. In the sense of this board, you are afforded the opportunity to no have to see any given posters posts. In your board, a commitee will decide who is eligible to be ignored or not. Its a collectivist thing again. Surely you realize this. I do think it will be a cool thing once you have it down, but you must realize that you are not absolutely right while everything else is absolutely wrong. That's your ego fucking shit up again.


You mischaracterized both my and Damo sides.

Maybe this post will clear that up. I don't misrepresent friend. You have made this some sort of contest. Well its not, you do whatever you want with your board, Damo does the same.

this is bullshit peanut boy no matter how many times you repeat it.

SR

You broke your own rule, and if you read the thread of Grinds on your site where this whole thing was unearthed, you'll see that I was damned well on your side until you went and published other members u2us. That was a fuckup. You should recognize it.

[SR_]

SR, you miss my point. You are suggesting that some sort of legistalive body making its decisions through popular opinion is better at deciding who people should or should not have the right to ignore. You are defacto relegating the individual to a political process. You know me SR. You know that I respect the rights of the individual above the subjugation of rights by a beauracracy.

no, through representation the people decide what is acceptable behavior. You dont need me to allow you an option to ignore. You need me to enforce the desires of acceptable behavior. In terms of a message forum, I can offer you the same protections against such censorship as I offer anyone else as long as the terms for deciding what behavior make you deserving of such censorship are applied to everyone else. OTHERWISE no one is ever censored by anyone else.

You know me SR. You know that I respect the rights of the individual above the subjugation of rights by a beauracracy.

And free speech rights shouldnt be facilitated by the government, meaning I shouldnt be able to refuse to offer you the same right to be heard as anyone else in the same medium and chosen environment because youre black. The subjugation of rights facilitated by the government is just as bad.

All speech is protected here as well. What you are failing to realize is that nobody is being precluded from saying anything whatsoever, in any capacity here. People in fact are afforded the freedom to preclude what they read, but nobody is precluded from writing anything. We both know the same can't be said for your board.

sure it can, the only difference Is i dont facilitate it on an individual basis. no one depends on me, they do it themselves and accountable for their own decisons, if they dont want to read something it is up to them to not read it, one thing is for sure though, ALL speech is equally visible to ALL members no matter their taste as they choose to go to the forum, and they choose to click on a thread.

The difference is that you make it collectivist, and Damo makes it individual. With the Security Council, people will be able to only act upon what a beauracracy says, and in doing so, they will be able to ignore all, or ignore none. You're completely relegating the individual to a group that determines what is and what is not a troll. The individual becomes secondary to the popular election. Again, a collectivist approach.

I would hope that any type of censoring is done on a collectivist level if we are to operate equally in the same medium. I dont want a police officer in Denver to make up his own mind that I should not sing "Silent Nite" to myself as i walk down a public street just because he hates the song, or he hates me for being white, or for whatever reason. I like the protection of knowing what i can do to prevent me from being silenced. Left up to the individual there is no longer that protection, no method of appeal, if i dont like you i can silence you even though we both should be equal in this medium, we should have the same rights, the same protections.

But we are not in a room in the classic sense. I'll humor you anyway though. Say this room is full of beautiful blonde sirens, and one fat obnoxious broad suffering from halitosis and athelete's foot. I would love to be in this room of sirens only, and be avoiding the beast, but the Security council says that in order to avoid the beast, I must also give up the sirens. The SC has essentially said that I must give my power to ignore and accept to a couple of people who I find the least untrustworthy. Do you get that?

Actually its the exact opposite, you dont have to avoid the sirens, you do however need to convince a majority of the people in building that the fat obnoxious beast is not acceptable. If you cannot do that, then you will suffer her but you wont be missing any of the blondes. If you can, then you will have an option, to ignore her. At the very least she knows that hey, "im fat, im diseased, if i lose some weight and get healthy I can avoid this". In either case you dont lose the blondes, but you do have to make a decison and hold yourself to account, "are the blondes worth suffering the beast?" if so, make a choice to go in the room, if not make a choice not too, but in either case I DID NOT FACILITATE YOUR PERSONAL DESIRES, they were and are still out of my hands, where they should be.

And we are in a room. We access the building the same way, we walk through the building in the same halls, all the rooms are available to each of us in the same manner, our voice is the same volume, everything is the same at a forum. You may not like taking account for your actions, but thats how equality is protected, I work hard to succeed, I like to play poker and If i lose I pay for it, i want to read this thread and toby is in it so ill suffer him, UNLESS people make a distinction of unacceptable behavior in this environment, and then and only then can they look to the executive to enforce rules or laws against it.

SR

SR

[SR_]

Again, this is not a real room, but I'll humor you. In the sense of this board, you are afforded the opportunity to no have to see any given posters posts. In your board, a commitee will decide who is eligible to be ignored or not. Its a collectivist thing again. Surely you realize this. I do think it will be a cool thing once you have it down, but you must realize that you are not absolutely right while everything else is absolutely wrong. That's your ego fucking shit up again.

i see, i must agree or its an ego thing. Im not trying to convince you to tell me im right peanut boy.... calm down. its a debate.

The "collectivist" attitude ensures protections of speech as the people collectively designate what is acceptable and what is not. There was a time when a person could decide worhiness on an individual basis, worthy to be seated, worthy to have access to a certain water fountain, worthy to be left alone to practice their own cutures... In both cases you are afforded the opportunity to not see another persons posts, its just one way relies on the individual, the other way relies on provided tool.

Maybe this post will clear that up. I don't misrepresent friend. You have made this some sort of contest. Well its not, you do whatever you want with your board, Damo does the same.

you did misrepresent when you tried to summarize. And its not a contest between this board and my board, i could care less what happens here, this is a principled debate... its like you cant understand people actually just wanting to debate, its always a personal issue for you. why is that?

You broke your own rule, and if you read the thread of Grinds on your site where this whole thing was unearthed, you'll see that I was damned well on your side until you went and published other members u2us. That was a fuckup. You should recognize it.

I didnt break my own rule, there was no personal information displayed on the site. u2u's are not personal information, you may think they are and thats fine, but they arent. No ones real name, or address, or anything was revealed on the board which is specifically what my own rule pertains too and you know it. And I said i did recognize my mistake and apologized for it. I wasnt then and im not now seeking your thums up. I keep telling you that and you keep accussing me of some ego problem or other horseshit.

Im not seeking your support mbl, again you make everything so personal and emotional? Its like youre a bitch or something?

SR

[Beefy]

And free speech rights shouldnt be facilitated by the government, meaning I shouldnt be able to refuse to offer you the same right to be heard as anyone else in the same medium and chosen environment because youre black. The subjugation of rights facilitated by the government is just as bad.

SR, either you are being dishonest or obtuse in making this point. There is a profound difference between someone's right to free speech, and someones right to see and hear, read and absorb. Nobody, but nobody is being restricted from saying whatever they want here.

This is simply not happening, but you keep throwing out that strawman as if it will go over my head. Nobody is restricted from saying anything. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want (well, except for Grind and BDW at your site).

I would hope that any type of censoring is done on a collectivist level if we are to operate equally in the same medium. I dont want a police officer in Denver to make up his own mind that I should not sing "Silent Nite" to myself as i walk down a public street just because he hates the song, or he hates me for being white, or for whatever reason. I like the protection of knowing what i can do to prevent me from being silenced.

Again, you're being dishonest. Nobody is preventing you from SINGING silent night. But rather, they are saying that they should be able to avoid HEARING it.

I swear man. You know you're dragging this argument into the abyss, I just wonder why you have to change the premise? And then I realize it is so that you can win the argument, that you can be right, and you ego can feel good. Seriously man. Good night.
The difference is that people here have the ability to filter what they don't want to see. I predict that most wont use it, but the ability is there.

In your classic fashion, I will give an analogy. If parents preclude certain channels from coming into their home via a filter on their cable box, are they squelching free speech?

Think about it SR.

[SR_]

In your classic fashion, I will give an analogy. If parents preclude certain channels from coming into their home via a filter on their cable box, are they squelching free speech?

no. but this is not what is happening here. You either have to accept that this board is a channel, or a thread is a channel. You have to at the very least use the analogy and assign what is what to your examples.

I dont think parents precluding certain channels from coming into their home via a filter on their cable box is squelching free speech. But I do think that theyre decision to do so wont allow them to watch the channels. I dont think the same is true here, as you can continue to watch the channels but filter out the actors. Which is fine, but this censors the actor without changing the environment or blocking the channel.

Again, this is just fine, but that ability is DEPENDENT on the admin. In terms of a message board this is fine, as i mentioned earlier when speaking with Damo, I am not addressing the reality of the message board, but the principle of it. This was in response to Care4all's statement that she didnt need the "government" in this regard. Quite obviously she does, as she is dependent on such a feature that does not occur naturally at any point in her life in this society.

We are all able to avoid hearing things, we simply avoid the location of the speech, or we tune it out, or we tolerate it. We however have no right to remain in the same place knowingly and purposefully while making the speaker invisible through government facilitation. The reason for this is because we all have accepted laws that govern what is acceptable and what is not, and if you choose not to leave or change the channel than you accept the right of the person who is speaking to be heard. In fact it is protected that they speak within those acceptable limits and you cannot take any action personal or otherwise to make them invisible to yourself or others, you simply either leave, dont pay attention, or you tolerate it.

I have yet to be dishonest mbl.

SR

[Beefy]

no. but this is not what is happening here. You either have to accept that this board is a channel, or a thread is a channel. You have to at the very least use the analogy and assign what is what to your examples.

Okay, the channel is HBO, and I don't want everything that's on there. I filter out certain programming. I can watch Shrek 2, but not Taxicab confessions. How am I usurping free speech. Again, you misconstrue someone's listening ability as someone's ability to speak. Free speach is free speach. It does not mean that your speech is somehow undermined if someone chooses not to hear you. Get it yet?

I dont think parents precluding certain channels from coming into their home via a filter on their cable box is squelching free speech. But I do think that theyre decision to do so wont allow them to watch the channels.

Incorrect. Filters work on shows as well as channels. But even if you were right, it is not a matter of free speech.

The rest of your post talks about the principle. That's exactly what I've been arguing. I can respect your principle about having people in the same medium having to deal with the same shit. But what you have been saying is that there is some sort of squelching of free speech via the ignore feature, and I'm merely showing you that you're wrong in that particular assessment.

I'll catch up with you later. I've got a couple of Johnsonville Brats on, and saurkraut in the pan.