More uselessness from DBC

[NoTailT]

2 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

Human dignity is the base currency of civilisation. There are no gods before it.

Fuck sakes Viddy, can't have you semi agreeing with me, everyone will think I'm a nutter too.

[Amadeus]

 

2 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I think we can all agree he became obsessed and unfortunately that detracts from the key issue which he has every right to be angry over.

I said several pages back that - in my view - @Amadeusmisplaced this because instead of treating him as an aggrieved individual and reaching out to him off the public posts to maybe hear him out some more (even if he doesn't care), I don't think spurring him on and calling him a vocal minority was particularly helpful. Dignity. It's important, for both sides of any debate.

Did you miss the posts where I said there's a history of abusive posts and messages? Do you honestly think I or any other mod should have to endure abuse over this and have our private lives impacted negatively? What planet do you live on where that is acceptable? 

[Viddy well]

Just now, NoTailT said:

Fuck sakes Viddy, can't have you semi agreeing with me, everyone will think I'm a nutter too.

LOL. I appreciate the solidarity.

[NoTailT]

2 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

 

Did you miss the posts where I said there's a history of abusive posts and messages? Do you honestly think I or any other mod should have to endure abuse over this and have our private lives impacted negatively? What planet do you live on where that is acceptable? 

I didn't miss it. If people know you're reacting, they will continue. Just don't rise to it and let it die its own death.

[NoTailT]

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

But that’s fine. There was a time on here a few years back where one poster in particular was clearly absolutely shit-faced after 8PM most evenings and caused complete carnage. That went on for ages. A lot of people post on here for a lot of different reasons. Most of them are probably half-pissed and talking nonsense a lot of the time. You can’t assume everyone’s intentions are rational. 

I find my Manx Forums ramblings are far more comprehensive and meaningful after a bottle of blue label. What's the problem? 😇

[Amadeus]

Just now, NoTailT said:

I didn't miss it. If people know you're reacting, they will continue. Just don't rise to it and let it die its own death.

You really don't get it, do you? 

[NoTailT]

2 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

You really don't get it, do you? 

Apparently, I do not.

[Passing Time]

29 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

I’ve actually met the guy you claimed to be TJ IRL. He’s not the rampant nutter that this forum made other forum members believe he was. It was nothing short of bullying the lad at one stage. And that was years and years ago anyway so nit relevant to anything happening now. 

Did you actually type that without laughing?

[Albert Tatlock]

23 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

No.

I'm arguing that there are some of us who have a passion for our cause but don't know best how to articulate it. There are some of us who think that the best way to advance an argument is through personal attacks. Hell, if that was a condition of continued participation on Manx Forums, there wouldn't be anyone left.

You've banned a person who had something to say but didn't know how to say it.

I found his direction to John Wright to "fuck off" highly distasteful. John has been a stalwart and infinitely patient, stabilizing presence amongst the often lunatic threads on Manx Forums and certainly did not deserve that attack. But I also think John's strength to have been to know when the line was crossed.

By contrast, you've made an emotional line call and I think you're wrong. You played the man, not the message. It's incumbant upon you to be the adult in the room.

Disagree...I really do understand why you are saying that, but the reality of what you are saying is that by allowing that, effectively the forum itself takes over responsibility for that person's posts 24/7 even when they breach the T&Cs, leaving the forum at risk - particularly if posts were to become libellous.

Nevermind the hours of monitoring that would take, the fact is posters are responsible for their own posts, and moderators do not edit posts. MF effectively becomes an editor and owner then - which it is not and cannot become.

[Viddy well]

21 hours ago, Amadeus said:

 

You clearly don't know the whole background of the TJ saga. This went way beyond a few abusive forum posts. It also included abusive personal messages and other things. Explain to me why we, as unpaid volunteers who pay with time and money to keep this place running, should put up with that? Seriously. 

.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Viddy well
"Fucking off" with my pseudo-intellectual bullshit

[NoTailT]

I have one simple argument which I'm sure many will agree with.

Presented with 2 options;

1) MF with its mods and admins

2) James Corrin and MNP

I'll pick MF any day over *truly* whacko moderation.

[Viddy well]

8 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Disagree...I really do understand why you are saying that, but the reality of what you are saying is that by allowing that, effectively the forum itself takes over responsibility for that person's posts 24/7 even when they breach the T&Cs, leaving the forum at risk - particularly if posts were to become libellous.

Nevermind the hours of monitoring that would take, the fact is posters are responsible for their own posts, and moderators do not edit posts. MF effectively becomes an editor and owner then - which it is not and cannot become.

Okay - I understand. It's a legal dimension upon which I'm ill-equipped to comment. It might be useful to publish the limitations that are supplied to you when you become a moderator so that the common posters can adjust their posts accordingly.

I don't think anyone on this forum comes to this forums to be deliberately contentious, notwithstanding some fall into difficulties expressing their viewpoints.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Viddy well

[Steady Eddie]

6 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Disagree...I really do understand why you are saying that, but the reality of what you are saying is that by allowing that, effectively the forum itself takes over responsibility for that person's posts 24/7 even when they breach the T&Cs, leaving the forum at risk - particularly if posts were to become libellous.

Nevermind the hours of monitoring that would take, the fact is posters are responsible for their own posts, and moderators do not edit posts. MF effectively becomes an editor and owner then - which it is not and cannot become.

Have they submitted you to water torture Albert, or some sort of extensive brainwashing programme before they let you loose with the codes to the nuclear suitcase? By removing posts you have made yourself an editor. You are choosing what posts can be displayed and what posts can’t. That’s editing pure and simple. And how can posts become libelous? They either are libelous or they aren’t. I’m sorry but it looks like you removed posts because the admins didn’t like the content as they were critical of the admins or friends and colleagues of the admins. That’s it. Simple as. 

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I have one simple argument which I'm sure many will agree with.

Presented with 2 options;

1) MF with its mods and admins

2) James Corrin and MNP

I'll pick MF any day over *truly* whacko moderation.

So would I.  I also think that, in the main, the standard of argument is more intelligent and supported with real research, but I think it's days are numbered, particularly with the influx of shouty opinioneers. 

Sad, but I suppose everything has its life cycle. 

 

5 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

 

 

[HeliX]

Just now, Steady Eddie said:

Have they submitted you to water torture Albert, or some sort of extensive brainwashing programme before they let you loose with the codes to the nuclear suitcase? By removing posts you have made yourself an editor. You are choosing what posts can be displayed and what posts can’t. That’s editing pure and simple. And how can posts become libelous? They either are libelous or they aren’t. I’m sorry but it looks like you removed posts because the admins didn’t like the content as they were critical of the admins or friends and colleagues of the admins. That’s it. Simple as. 

Never attribute to malice...