If I was a moderator on this forum...

[Age]

Where did she say she wants to shut down anyone who disagrees with her?

That's such a stupid claim. I have no interest in shutting down people who disagree with me! That would likely be most people here, and then I'd be here by myself.

Yes, I thought that at most you wanted people whose behavior was problematic tp be moderated , not based on their opinions.

AND, some want people, like 'you' here, whose behavior IS problematic to be MODERATED, as well. But, WHO is going to MODERATE 'your' PROBLEMATIC BEHAVIOR "iwannaplato"?

[Age]

Yes, I thought that at most you wanted people whose behavior was problematic tp be moderated , not based on their opinions.

LOL Here is ANOTHER who HAS COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

And, AGAIN, this is BECAUSE this one here is ANOTHER COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED human being.

They OBVIOUSLY are NOT ABLE to SEE and COMPREHEND the BIG and WHOLE Picture of what is going on EXACTLY here.

Isn't it odd the way EVERYONE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISUNDERSTANDS everything YOU SAY.....

LOL Here we go, AGAIN, NOT EVERY one COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISUNDERSTANDS EVERY thing I SAY. To ASSUME or BELIEVE otherwise is a SIGN of PURE ABSURDNESS.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, 'you', "vegetariantaxidermy", have, ONCE AGAIN, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISUNDERSTOOD 'this'.

What is called 'black and white' thinking, which 'you' are SHOWING A PRIME EXAMPLE OF here "vegetariantaxidermy", IS ANOTHER FORM of DISTORTED thinking.

[henry quirk]

fuck you Henry

[henry quirk]

What has that got to do with anything?

Everything. You open with...

I would ban Age for being an excessively noisy and monotonous spammer

As I say: you have everything you need right now. Just put the autist in your penalty box. You'll never be bothered by his noisy & monotonous spam again. It's a sensible, minimal solution you can implement today, right now. You don't need to be (don't get to be) a moderator of anything other than your view of the forum, your posts, your account.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What has that got to do with anything?

Everything. You open with...

I would ban Age for being an excessively noisy and monotonous spammer

As I say: you have everything you need right now. Just put the autist in your penalty box. You'll never be bothered by his noisy & monotonous spam again. It's a sensible, minimal solution you can implement today, right now. You don't need to be (don't get to be) a moderator of anything other than your view of the forum, your posts, your account.

That's bullshit. Spammers are nuisances who clutter up the forum and slow it down, inconveniencing OTHERS. The 'blocking' mechanism is ridiculously primitive and essentially 'invites' you to look at what some spammy moron has posted. Completely pointless. Telling someone to use it is nothing more than a disingenuous red herring. I don't read a word of what datasmarmy writes, but he still annoys me. 'Blocking' him wouldn't make an iota of difference.

[Lacewing]

As I say...

As usual, your limited logic and 'solution' ignores the statements and points that have been made by several forum members. But then, you like to act as if your narrow viewpoint is larger than it is and trumps all others. And you like to oppose me.

[henry quirk]

Is there a counter to my suggestion in there? Of course there isn't.

I'll say it again (then leave all you benevolent tyrants to your schemings). If X offends: put 'em the penalty box.

'nuff said.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Just as I know that any time some dipshit posts a thread on abortion then all the religiofuck hypocrites on here (invariably male) will home in on it like cockroaches to Henry's kitchen. Yes, I could have them 'blocked', but I would still see 'Immanuel Can/Walker/Henry Quirk/ and co. is currently on your ignore list blah blah' so what's the point? I know what they will be saying without bothering to look.

[Age]

What has that got to do with anything?

Everything. You open with...

I would ban Age for being an excessively noisy and monotonous spammer

As I say: you have everything you need right now. Just put the autist in your penalty box. You'll never be bothered by his noisy & monotonous spam again. It's a sensible, minimal solution you can implement today, right now. You don't need to be (don't get to be) a moderator of anything other than your view of the forum, your posts, your account.

It REALLY DID take some people, back in the days when this was being written, to even BEGIN to learn and understand.

"lacewing" was TOLD plenty of times that 'it' does NOT HAVE TO read what "others" write, but this ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE KNOWLEDGE just did NOT seem to be UNDERSTOOD by "lacewing". No matter HOW MANY TIMES nor by HOW MANY people this one was TOLD this "lacewing" just seemed to NOT be able to COMPREHEND this Fact.

It was like 'I' HAD CONTROL OVER "lacewing" and 'I' was just TOO COMPELLING.

[Age]

What has that got to do with anything?

Everything. You open with...

I would ban Age for being an excessively noisy and monotonous spammer

As I say: you have everything you need right now. Just put the autist in your penalty box. You'll never be bothered by his noisy & monotonous spam again. It's a sensible, minimal solution you can implement today, right now. You don't need to be (don't get to be) a moderator of anything other than your view of the forum, your posts, your account.

That's bullshit. Spammers are nuisances who clutter up the forum and slow it down, inconveniencing OTHERS.

LOL So now I have the CAPABILITY to SLOW DOWN the INTERNET or, at least, THIS FORUM, supposedly.

Also, and by the way, what EXACTLY do you think or BELIEVE I am 'spamming' here, EXACTLY?

And, if 'you' find 'me' a 'nuisance', then, AGAIN, just STOP READING THE WORDS that i WRITE here. That way you will NOT be SO 'inconvenienced' as 'I' am MAKING 'you'.

It appears that 'I' REALLY DO have SO MUCH POWER and CONTROL OVER some of these 'posters' here.

The 'blocking' mechanism is ridiculously primitive and essentially 'invites' you to look at what some spammy moron has posted.

LOL
LOL
LOL

EXCUSES, EXCUSES, EXCUSES.

Also, for some, it appears, had absolutely NO 'self-control' AT ALL, over "themsleves", as even the IGNORE tool 'INVITES' them to READ the WORKS of "others".

Either 'that' or 'I' just REALLY had TO MUCH CONTROL OVER 'them' thy 'Self'.

Completely pointless. Telling someone to use it is nothing more than a disingenuous red herring.

EXCEPT for the Fact that it WORKS PERFECTLY for "henry quirk" and some "others". Or, is it just the Fact that they ACTUALLY HAVE CONTROL OVER what they can and can NOT do here?

I don't read a word of what datasmarmy writes, but he still annoys me.

1. HOW do 'you' KNOW 'it' is a "he"?

2. HOW can the ''writer of words, which you supposedly do NOT even read, 'annoy' 'you'?

3. Are 'you' REALLY LACKING that much 'self-control' that even the 'writers' that you do NOT even read HAVE CONTROL OVER 'you'?

'Blocking' him wouldn't make an iota of difference.

How would you KNOW if you have NEVER done it?

How do you KNOW what the future HOLDS?

[Age]

As I say...

As usual, your limited logic and 'solution' ignores the statements and points that have been made by several forum members.

Which is ALSO EXACTLY what "lacewing" has ALREADY PROVEN to HAVE DONE and CONTINUE TO DO.

But then, you like to act as if your narrow viewpoint is larger than it is and trumps all others. And you like to oppose me.

LOL Talk ABOUT WHO likes to OPPOSE the "other".

'you' came here starting a thread WHINGING ABOUT a situation. "henry quirk" just came here and PROVIDED 'you' A SOLUTION that ACTUALLY WORKS, for "henry quirk".

'you' could have just either TAKEN IT or LEFT IT. But, NO, 'you' had to TAKE IT to a WHOLE OTHER LEVEL, and AGAIN START ACCUSING the "other" of DOING the EXACT SAME 'thing' that 'you' DO "lacewing". Which is; take 'your' OWN personal, little, narrowed, and somewhat very CLOSED viewpoint, which 'you' BELIEVE is much larger than it really is, and express it as though it trumps all other viewpoints. 'you' do this VERY REGULARLY by the way.

And, as for LIKING to 'oppose' "others" and their viewpoints, then HOW OFTEN this ACTUALLY OCCURS can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout this forum.

Also, what else that can be CLEARLY SEEN here is EXACTLY what I and "others" have been SAYING and POINTING OUT 'you', "lacewing", WOULD 'moderate' and/or 'ban' "others" for just HAVING viewpoints that 'you', personally, do NOT agree with. And as ALREADY CLEARLY EXPRESSED, and SHOWN and PROVED by ones like 'you', "lacewing", even a smidge of power (of one over another) invites abuse

[Age]

Is there a counter to my suggestion in there? Of course there isn't.

I'll say it again (then leave all you benevolent tyrants to your schemings). If X offends: put 'em the penalty box.

'nuff said.

One would think that would be enough said, but then there are some who ACTUALLY take A LOT before they CAN COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND.

[Age]

Just as I know that any time some dipshit posts a thread on abortion then all the religiofuck hypocrites on here (invariably male) will home in on it like cockroaches to Henry's kitchen.

These 'posters' back in these days REALLY just could NOT help "themselves" in regards to ATTEMPTING to RIDICULE and HUMILIATE "each other". And as you can CLEARLY SEE that this way of misbehaving happened on a philosophy forum, of all places, so you can imagine what 'life' was like outside of a philosophy forum.

Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here ALSO is that when one BELIEVES that 'its' OWN views are the ONLY true, right, AND correct ones, of which EVERY one of these did, back in these days, then they also SEE ALL OTHER views opposing their views as just HAVING TO BE ABSOLUTELY false, wrong, OR incorrect.

Yes, I could have them 'blocked', but I would still see 'Immanuel Can/Walker/Henry Quirk/ and co. is currently on your ignore list blah blah' so what's the point? I know what they will be saying without bothering to look.

LOL HOW WILL you KNOW what 'they' ARE SAYING. If you DO NOT LOOK, then you WILL NOT SEE.

And, if you are UNDER some sort of ILLUSION that by reading THE RESPONSE by one, then you WILL KNOW what the "other" one SAID, then the ONLY one 'you' are FOOLING here IS "your" 'self'.

'you' WILL NOT KNOW what the "other" one SAID, let alone what they ACTUALLY SAID, EXACTLY, let alone even being CLOSE to KNOWING what they ACTUALLY MEANT, EXACTLY.

[Lacewing]

Is there a counter to my suggestion in there? Of course there isn't.

There have been plenty of counter suggestions already. Of course you will deny them because they're not yours.

I'll say it again

'nuff said.

Then stop saying it.

[henry quirk]

There have been plenty of counter suggestions already.

Let's take a gander at 'em...

May I be a moderator PLEASSSSSE???

I started thinking about alternatives to banning. Like the moderators can make the text in your posts more and more blurry, until finally you are illegible. Or perhaps they edit portions, but not to improve, just for fun. I suppose there is the upvote and downvote democratic options, but I find it hard to believe this doesn't end up being upvotes for people 'on my team' regardless of quality.

Worst post of the week, perhaps in different categories: worst logic, most off topic, most self-congratulatory without merit, least responsive response (not dealing with points made), most ludicrous analogy, greatest anger at trivia, worst appeal to authority and so on. Perhaps 'winning' would cut down on certain patterns. Though I'd guess some would try to win in certain categories.

I think there should be some polling system setup where we can vote for blocks/bans.

There should be a hard coded limit to how many threads anyone can create in a set period. I think 3 threads/mth for anyone should be enough - that would screw dataswami ...and DAM when she is feeling thread spammy!

Or, if you start more than three threads in a month, the website starts spamming your email address. It generates new email addresses to send from so it can't be blocked.

Or, if you start more than 3 threads that no one responds to in a month your posts appeared as blocked posts - as if everyone had chosen to foe/block you - for one month.

If you post more than 3 threads but these are all are very active - like burning threads in other forums - then you get a little prize.

I think those are reasonable ideas. Might it make people more responsible and balanced if they knew their peers could vote them into the penalty box? It would need to require enough votes... maybe 5... to demonstrate a significant shared response.

Ignore. If X offends (you), put 'em in (your) penalty box and forget about 'em.

All of these ('cept the last) involve tinhorns, like yourself, controllin' & bottlenecking (at least you're flat-out honest: you wanna moderate to get rid of folks, like age, you deem unacceptable).

Thank Crom on His mountain Rick prefers things as they are: open & freewheelin'.

If any of these...

EE570D45-6382-439A-8F9F-6E304AFA8F6F.png (60.48 KiB) Viewed 891 times

...offered suggestions: obviously, I wouldn't know.