Future of the Study

[Touch Of Death]

Naming names here.

Bill, I agree with you in principle here. Booting the troublemakers makes sense.

But, how do we decide who gets the boot?

I can look at our reports for a hint.
But half of those are 'I disagree with him, so smack him for me'.
Or aren't 'a big deal'.

I can say "These 3".
And boot TwinFist, billicihak and, well someone else...maybe me.

A few years ago the names were different.
Tellner, Big Don and MichaelEdward.

A few years before that, 3 others.

At 1 point, it was def. myself and Arnisador.
Archs been listed, Elder, yourself, Tez, Suk, and a dozen others.

In fact, look at the top 10 posters in The Study for any given year. 7 of the 10 are on the "Bob, you need to boot them now" list.

I know who's the current PITA list. The question is though....What's in the best interests of MT?

Sometimes, keeping the PITA is good for business. Sometimes it puts you out of it.
Hard call.

And please, no body I just named get bent out of shape, again, for being named. Last time I used this example I got 3 offers to leave.

On the contrary. It seems you don't remember when I started posting.

 

[Empty Hands]

A few years ago the names were different.
Tellner, Big Don and MichaelEdward.

I miss those guys. I guess I would miss Big Don too in an odd way but he's still here.

At 1 point, it was def. myself and Arnisador.
Archs been listed, Elder, yourself, Tez, Suk, and a dozen others.

Who could call Sukerkin a troublemaker? That's just not right.

For myself, I've responded to the craziness and the recent hard line by mostly distancing myself from the discussion and the site. No sense banging my head on the wall. It was only for the benefit of the lurkers and not for letting nonsense stand anyway. None are so blind as they who will not see.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I miss those guys. I guess I would miss Big Don too in an odd way but he's still here.

I was wondering how rmcrobertson didn't make the list...then I realized that even the server didn'g go back that far. :rofl:

 

[Xue Sheng]

I have more than once wanted the study to go away, even I had it blocked so I couldn’t see it and I use to think it had nothing to do with martial arts so why on earth is it here….I still think it has nothing to do with Martial Arts and I still do not know why it is here but at this point my thoughts about the study are that I just don’t care anymore… but I am getting that way for just about just about all things web forum these days... do with it what you will

 

[MaxiMe]

My $.02

Opt in opt out or leave it. Most of the time I find it entertaining to see Bill and Tez or others go at it (nice sparring matches always intrest me). And Both sides of the issues have linked to thought provoking stuff. So hey if it causes me to think it must be of some value (more than watching Tooky or Snokky or Kooky or what evet on those reality shows).

But ultimately Bob it's your lawn. And you can tell us all to get off it

 

[Tez3]

It's one thing to ignore a poster because they are annoying you that's fair enough but when they aren't annoying you but making posts you feel must be challenged that's something else. If we ignored the more extreme of the political postings would we then not be guilty of doing nothing to put the other side forward? I can honestly say no poster here annoys me, no posts annoy me but I do feel I have to challenge some of the more outrageous statements made about political views and political history. If we allow such posts to go unchallenged we allow only one side of the political coin to show. I'm not in favour of banning people unless it's like one chap we had who sent me Pms and posted stuff that was disgustingly anti semitic, because if people don't post their views how can I post mine? I've had neg reps slagging me off for being a leftie, I'm not actually but it went on to say the forums were better without us scum. That sort of attitude needs challenging, but it doesn't have to be with insults or 'oh you must be drunk/on drugs/stupid' types of posts. I think most of us are like Bill Mattocks, we will say when we disagree right out front, no sneaking around, it's 'in yer face'. Bill and I have had our arguments , heated yes, nasty never. neither of us ran off complaining to teacher.

I think it's important that no one sided political stands are taken here, no one side reigns over the Study. I asked that some people could post less videos up, so that it would facilitate easier discussions rather that people wading through propaganda, the point being 'what does the poster think?' not what does some pundit think. That means more discussions not less, and certainly not censorship.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

rep comments, report them if you think they are out of line. Much of the time we don't reverse them, sometimes we do.

PM's fall under forum rules. If you feel they are harassing, report them, we will investigate. Again, much of the time we don't 'police', sometimes we do.

We try to take things in context, etc. We try to be fair.




As to interpersonal disagreements, consider these phrases:

I disagree with you.

You're wrong.

You're stating a falsehood.

You're a liar.

You're full of ****.

**** you, *** hole.

Lick my balls you hate spewing douche.

Which ones are RTM worthy, and which ones are not? Which ones should be water off your back, and which ones merit a visit from a mods LART?
(Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool)


The last 2 got the offender banned. The 3rd from the bottom got a warning. The first 4 aren't on my radar at all.

 

[elder999]

I belong to another forum where simply saying that there are moderate muslims, or the Islam is a religion of peace, will get you banned. You can discuss Islam, but only as a negative. I only lurk there, but I could see a similar rule governing content making some things easier to bear: start with a ban on defaming any religious figure or prophet from history-not living beings currently on earth, but the likes of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. No calling the founder of Islam a "pedophile," no saying that "Jesus didn't exist." Similar rules for the various factions along the political spectrum could be used: no demonization of liberals, or equating "the left" with discredited political systems that should be relegated to the scrapheap of history, and no demonization of "the right," and accusations of a lack of compassion. And, for those who are decrying the spectre of "censorship," this is Bob's house, and we're already subject to censorship-get over it.

 

[Archangel M]

It's one thing to ignore a poster because they are annoying you that's fair enough but when they aren't annoying you but making posts you feel must be challenged that's something else. If we ignored the more extreme of the political postings would we then not be guilty of doing nothing to put the other side forward? I can honestly say no poster here annoys me, no posts annoy me but I do feel I have to challenge some of the more outrageous statements made about political views and political history. If we allow such posts to go unchallenged we allow only one side of the political coin to show. I'm not in favour of banning people unless it's like one chap we had who sent me Pms and posted stuff that was disgustingly anti semitic, because if people don't post their views how can I post mine? I've had neg reps slagging me off for being a leftie, I'm not actually but it went on to say the forums were better without us scum. That sort of attitude needs challenging, but it doesn't have to be with insults or 'oh you must be drunk/on drugs/stupid' types of posts. I think most of us are like Bill Mattocks, we will say when we disagree right out front, no sneaking around, it's 'in yer face'. Bill and I have had our arguments , heated yes, nasty never. neither of us ran off complaining to teacher.

I think it's important that no one sided political stands are taken here, no one side reigns over the Study. I asked that some people could post less videos up, so that it would facilitate easier discussions rather that people wading through propaganda, the point being 'what does the poster think?' not what does some pundit think. That means more discussions not less, and certainly not censorship.

Tez..this is the internet.

Refer to:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?97923-Future-of-the-Study&p=1419793#post1419793

 

[Big Don]

I miss those guys. I guess I would miss Big Don too in an odd way but he's still here.

I'm so touched I may cry

 

[Empty Hands]

No calling the founder of Islam a "pedophile," no saying that "Jesus didn't exist."

There are reasonable arguments for both propositions. If we ban expression of controversial but supportable opinions because it hurts feelings, how long do we go before banning questioning of religion at all? Or any other emotional topic?

These things probably have to be judged on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket ban. There is a difference between the statements "there is no solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus" and "Jesus never existed you scum sucking Christian cockbag" which a blanket ban elides.

 

[Empty Hands]

I'm so touched I may cry

I did say an "odd" way.

 

[elder999]

There are reasonable arguments for both propositions. If we ban expression of controversial but supportable opinions because it hurts feelings, how long do we go before banning questioning of religion at all? Or any other emotional topic?

These things probably have to be judged on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket ban. There is a difference between the statements "there is no solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus" and "Jesus never existed you scum sucking Christian cockbag" which a blanket ban elides.

A rule would be a good place to start. Calling Mohammad a pedophile adds absolutely nothing to any discussion about him or Islam-and, if one understands the cultural context, it's also likely that it's completely inaccurate anyway. Ditto Jesus, actually, though that was only an example: saying that there is "no solid historical evidence" adds nothing to most discussions-though I can see merit to allowing this one on a case by case basis......

 

[Tez3]

Tez..this is the internet.

Refer to:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?97923-Future-of-the-Study&p=1419793#post1419793

Yeah but I don't get mad, I enjoy arguing, ask anyone that knows me lol! It makes me smile when I can post a rebuttal or challenge to someones argument and I do feel that many arguments do need challenging! I'm saying this to distance myself from those who feel insulted, or get angy, I don't, as I said it just makes me smile. I enjoy the cut and thrust of good debate, not 'shut up you're stupid' or 'shut up your drunk or on drugs' that kills argument stone dead.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm so touched I may cry

:grins: I've commented myself, in positive fashion, that you seem a much more contented man these days - a welcome thing indeed :nods happily:.

 

[granfire]

I found this set of debating rules pretty spot on:
http://distanthorizons.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ctb&action=display&thread=14891


Especially this part:

Expanded Rules: These rules are for people who have never really debated in a forum before.

1. I have noticed a ton of arguments being taken personally. Critical Thinking is a place for discussion and debate. Debate is where someone refutes an opinion and supports his or her own. There is no reason to take offense about a reasonably presented debate. I know if someone insults what you believe in you tend to get insulted, however part of what makes humans sentient is the ability to control instinctive reactions. If someone debates with you, debate back. Don't insult them. Sure, put a harsh twinge on your comments, it makes it more fun, but do not insult the person for having an opinion.

However on the flip side, if you present your opinion in a juvenile, disrespectful or just plain stupid way; you should expect to be made fun of.

If you keep arguing about something that people have just completely disproved, you should expect some insults. No one is going to respond politely to the same opinion over and over again.

2. If you state a fact that is not your opinion or common knowledge, be sure you have the sources to back it up. A common way to discredit an opponent is to ask where they got their sources. If they cannot cite their sources then it discredits their opinion.

 

[Tez3]

I may have to post this question on the Law Enforcement section lol. Perhaps Archangel, myself and others of our ilk have thicker skins due to having abuse flung at us on a regular basis and it sliding off? Perhaps though a military/police/medical sense of humour means you see things that bit differently? I know that certainly the military tend to think civvies are a bit soft lol!

 

[Big Don]

I may have to post this question on the Law Enforcement section lol. Perhaps Archangel, myself and others of our ilk have thicker skins due to having abuse flung at us on a regular basis and it sliding off? Perhaps though a military/police/medical sense of humour means you see things that bit differently? I know that certainly the military tend to think civvies are a bit soft lol!

That makes a lot of sense.

 

[Archangel M]

I may have to post this question on the Law Enforcement section lol. Perhaps Archangel, myself and others of our ilk have thicker skins due to having abuse flung at us on a regular basis and it sliding off? Perhaps though a military/police/medical sense of humour means you see things that bit differently? I know that certainly the military tend to think civvies are a bit soft lol!

I also tend to think that we are the opposite of the often mentioned "If this were real life you wouldn't be saying the things you are saying".

While I tend to avoid political/religious discussion in general in "the real world", when I do I do indeed say the exact sort of things I say here.

 

[granfire]

Maybe I am just hanging with a rough crowd...