Did Sporky's hand slip on the ban-hammer?

randomhandclaps

fatherjack said:

 

Just to explain: I was curious when I saw Sporky's status, and given that he's accidentally banned people in the past, wondered if he'd dropped the ban-hammer on his foot.

 

Absolutely fair enough.  It was clear that there was a light-heartedness to your initial question but I'm not sure everyone that followed took it in the context you intended.  Via the internet people see far more willing to wade in (not necessarily conscious of possible effects) without knowing the full picture or considering some troubles may be bigger than the forum.

viz

chillidoggy said:

Never mind all that crap, I hope Sporky's gone just long enough for me to overtake him in the wisdom stakes.

I think he'll return before 100 years are up.

bertie

imalone said:

Had been meaning to ask if there was an ignore button. Fed up reading the stuff I post.

you're not alone........................... oh hang on,  you are arent you ? 

my 3.142  pence worth......... some people like having a good over zealous debate about things........largely, even with terrible words and names being used,  its with a half glint in the eye and a small portion of tongue pressed against the inside of the mouth.   That being said - as had already been said it all happens over in "speakers corner" (it does, doesnt it ?)  where that forum is clearly 'defined'  so shouldnt upset anyone really............and if it doesnt affect the perpetrators themselves, then others if offended by that behavior, simply should ignore it and stick to the other forums.   

You dont search for a beheading video on youtube, watch it, and then complain about how upset you are by it all........ do you ?

No arse licking, but Im certainly very very grateful for what the 'gang of 6'  did , where else would I go to be able to hurl insults at Drewkins  on line  

(6 was a made up no. BTW  )

monquixote

I should mention for those that aren't aware of the feature that you can turn of the visibility of areas of the site 

If you go to the little cog icon by the board name and click it you will see an option to "Hide" 

Once done you need never see the offending pages again.

chillidoggy

viz said:

chillidoggy said:

Never mind all that crap, I hope Sporky's gone just long enough for me to overtake him in the wisdom stakes.

I think he'll return before 100 years are up.

I going to complain to the management. The system is clearly unfair as there's no Margate weighting for wisdoms.

snakemanStoo

Margate and wisdom aren't often seen in the same sentence.

TTony

snakemanStoo said:

Margate and wisdom aren't often seen in the same sentence.

Col_Decker

Jesus Christ! Just an observation but do some of you guys still wet the bed?

digitalscream

Col_Decker said:

Jesus Christ! Just an observation but do some of you guys still wet the bed?

Some, apparently, do.

CabbageCat

PolarityMan said:

Now I'm under no illusions that this is a democracy, of course the mods are free to run the forum as they see fit....but...I do feel that a lot of the way that is done is basically "what sporky feels is best".

 

As opposed to "what Polarityman feels is best"?

You are taking on the role of The Voice of the People without any mandate from the people or even any knowledge of the people's consensus. A suggestion you like is not the same thing as a good suggestion.

In case you're in any doubt: You don't speak for me.

Running a community full of idiots with opinions is an impossible balancing act. No-one is going to like everything about it. The only way the playground can function is for the architects to put the swings down where they want and to let the kids play - if the kids want to argue about where the roundabout should be then just sit back and let 'em.

 

CabbageCat

CloudNine said:

Does this qualify as a 'Flounce'? Or should a new (more spectacular) word be invented?

Remember the rhyme:

For a flounce to be flounced
It must first be announced
Without vocal to-do
It's a tacet "adieu"

TTony

^^

Mr Cat

You're on a wisdom roll this morning!

Paul_C

close2u said:

When I read rule number 1 ... and its interweaving influence on all subsequent rules I thought it was GOOD.

Everyone knows if and when they're being a dick.

Rule 1: Don't be a dick.

I'm not sure that's entirely true - previous experience in many forums suggests that there are always some folks who are either completely unaware that their behaviour is causing offence, or who genuinely don't understand why they might need to moderate their behaviour to keep the peace.

Whether it's here, at work, or in a band, people are by turns friendly, helpful, generous, spiteful, miserable arseholes.

PolarityMan

CabbageCat said:

You are taking on the role of The Voice of the People without any mandate from the people or even any knowledge of the people's consensus. A suggestion you like is not the same thing as a good suggestion.

In case you're in any doubt: You don't speak for me.

 

I said I wasn't going to post more here but I do have one more addition. I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else. For anything else, go read the original thread and my further comments here.

digitalscream

Paul_C said:

I'm not sure that's entirely true - previous experience in many forums suggests that there are always some folks who are either completely unaware that their behaviour is causing offence, or who genuinely don't understand why they might need to moderate their behaviour to keep the peace.

Whether it's here, at work, or in a band, people are by turns friendly, helpful, generous, spiteful, miserable arseholes.

From my own personal standpoint (stepping outside my "admin" role for a moment), I don't believe it's good (or even necessary) to "keep the peace" in a forum 100% of the time. This is The Internet - there are going to be arguments, and people will fall out. It happens on forums far bigger than this one, and on much smaller ones too; it's not realistic to think that it's all going to be unicorns and rainbows all the time.

What does matter is how people deal with discord like that; I'm not talking about admins or moderators (who, it's to be hoped, would not need to step in much at all). I'm talking about the people involved in the spat in the first place. Do they seek trouble? Or get angry and lash out? Or do they step away for a moment, calm down and realise that it really is just the Internet? Or maybe, just maybe, take the personal part of the argument out of the equation by having a chat by PM and sort things out on a one-to-one basis?

As I said, this is my personal view; this is not necessarily the view of all the admins.

martinw

It's ok having a DBAD rule, but like all rules it needs to be enforced, or it's pointless.

In the last couple of weeks I stopped reading threads in Off Topic, as it clearly wasn't being enforced, IMO.

Paul_C

Of course people will fall out from time to time, I was thinking more of those who consistently and persistently cause the number of fallings-out to increase, without necessarily recognising their remarks as being responsible, or if they do, being willing to adapt for the improved harmony of the whole.

If it's always down to the injured party to take a breath and accept that "he/she is always like that, you just have to put up with it" it's likely that eventually aggrieved folk will either loudly or quietly walk away.

Different personalities will always throw up these issues though, so maybe there is no solution, but as you say, "just the internet"

CloudNine

CabbageCat said:

CloudNine said:

Does this qualify as a 'Flounce'? Or should a new (more spectacular) word be invented?

Remember the rhyme:

For a flounce to be flounced
It must first be announced
Without vocal to-do
It's a tacet "adieu"

I see, I see. So:

To clearly announce,

Is the key to the flounce,

And if not pronounced,

It should be denounced.

I think I understand now.

VimFuego

I'm in agreement with Paul. It is not up to the injured party to walk away, the fault doesn't like with them it lies with the person doing the insulting.

It's not about stifling robust debate, if anything it's about encouraging it. How can you have debate if you have individuals who just resort to name calling and trolling whenever their viewpoint is challenged.

digitalscream

VimFuego said:

I'm in agreement with Paul. It is not up to the injured party to walk away, the fault doesn't like with them it lies with the person doing the insulting.

It's not about stifling robust debate, if anything it's about encouraging it. How can you have debate if you have individuals who just resort to name calling and trolling whenever their viewpoint is challenged.

I dunno...again, not speaking as an admin, I can't help but think of what happens in the real world. If I came across somebody like that, who repeatedly gets on my nerves/makes me angry/etc, I wouldn't go running to an authority figure and say "make them stop, they're not being nice to me". I'd simply ignore them and/or limit the possibilities for them having contact with me. Hell, it'd make life much easier if I had an "ignore" button in real life