This site exists because of ME

[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.