New Rule Forbidding Banning

martin said:
That we permit threads with wholesale bans on participation is asinine. One member does it repeatedly. Today the member launched five new threads each banning dozens of members who typically express political views at odds with his own.

Put an end to this.
Click to expand...

No, if you don't like it then bugger off. There have been several votes on this before now!!
 
martin said:
That we permit threads with wholesale bans on participation is asinine. One member does it repeatedly. Today the member launched five new threads each banning dozens of members who typically express political views at odds with his own.

Put an end to this.
Click to expand...

Fuck off pussy.
 
Althea said:
Typically, doesn't someone of sound mind just create a duplicate thread aimed at actual discussion?
Click to expand...

I guess, at least sometimes. Made the suggestion in the interest of improving this place as a debate forum which it falls short of. What's coming back is why bother.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Captain Earl Turner, ex-USAF, is a disgrace to his uniform, violates his oath daily and, IMO, a traitor to American ideals. When he drops offline, it'll be a blessing.

That said, Damo sets the rules and he's already ruled a few times on the thread ban issue.
Click to expand...

I've noticed these bans and wondered why someone would ban everyone that doesn't think like they do. What is the fucking point in the thread, so others can say "yeah great, I agree with you"? On the other hand there are a few assholes on here that ruin the integrity of a debate forum and when they show up the thread goes to shit. It would be nice if when discussing say the presidency and maybe why Trump lost and some asshole says "Trump didn't lose" it would be nice to THEN remove them from the thread. All they do by defying fact is make the entire thread turn to something that someone else, a newcomer, looks at and says I'm not participating here, they have a bunch of morons posting. You won't find intelligent debate where people are arguing over wheteher or not the sky is blue or it's green.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Checked how?

I support identifying cowardice 100%. A good way to identify the cowards, losers, liars and pedophiles is to let them identify themselves, then educate the rest of the forum on why they are not to be trusted.

Jus' sayin'. :thup:


PS, FWIW, threads like this help educate why those what ban others out of political disagreement and simple dislike are cowards. :)
Click to expand...

I too support identifying cowardice and those professing obvious lies. What would be nice is if you started the thread and someone begins to profess the sky is green and they are fucking up a perfectly intelligent thread that you can respond to them. "sorry but you are destroying an intelligent conversation, see ya later" and then ban them from the thread. Maybe it will cause them to think twice before turning threads to juvenile banter. Or at least be able to say to them that in this thread it is a given that the sky is blue and if you are going to profess that it isn't you will be removed.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Maybe Damo needs to create a subforum called The Excessive Thread Ban Safe House, for tender buttercups like pEarl. Any massive threads posted elsewhere just get deleted.

That being said, I often thread-ban certain trolls and obsessed stalkers like TDAK, Primavera, CO/goat, etc.
Click to expand...

Can you do that after the thread is a few pages long? I mean, I'm willing to allow everyone to participate until it's obvious they have destroyed a perfectly good discussion.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I dont always follow the rule myself, in part because I have gotten so little support for it, but I have long called for a community shunning of all threads with more than five threadbans.

I dont believe threadbanning should be allowed at all, but surely five is enough, more than that proves the lack of willingness to allow a fair fight.
Click to expand...

So if you are discussing the reasons for our war with Japan and how we defeated them and some asshole comes on professing that we didn't win and that Japan kicked our ass and they won't shut up with their bullshit there should be no way to remove them and the discussion goes to shit?
 
Port Tack said:
I've noticed these bans and wondered why someone would ban everyone that doesn't think like they do. What is the fucking point in the thread, so others can say "yeah great, I agree with you"? On the other hand there are a few assholes on here that ruin the integrity of a debate forum and when they show up the thread goes to shit. It would be nice if when discussing say the presidency and maybe why Trump lost and some asshole says "Trump didn't lose" it would be nice to THEN remove them from the thread. All they do by defying fact is make the entire thread turn to something that someone else, a newcomer, looks at and says I'm not participating here, they have a bunch of morons posting. You won't find intelligent debate where people are arguing over wheteher or not the sky is blue or it's green.
Click to expand...

The originator of a thread can ask the mods to retro-ban someone who is disrupting discussion, or just because they're a petty mean grrl. lol
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Rule #13 is becoming my favorite rule. :thup:

73z43o.jpg
Click to expand...

As long as you have posters declaring the sky is green we aren't going to have adults here.
 
Port Tack said:
So if you are discussing the reasons for our war with Japan and how we defeated them and some asshole comes on professing that we didn't win and that Japan kicked our ass and they won't shut up with their bullshit there should be no way to remove them and the discussion goes to shit?
Click to expand...

See prior post about retro-thread bans. Don't listen to Hawkeye. He spends the vast majority of his time on a thread with another brain-damaged drunk that has at least a dozen members thread-banned from it. He puts the hyp in hypocrisy. lol
 
Celticguy said:
debate would be welcome but those generally banned seldom do.

take Bbidenresident whose standard debate is "fuck you".

but sure, take away thrad banning and replace it with every forum being an APP forum. that would be fun.
Click to expand...

Once a thread turns to shit with idiots arguing over whether or not the sky is blue or green "fuck you" is about the only intelligent response.
 
LurchAddams said:
You know - it irritated me at first but then I realized the people that mass thread-ban people aren't people I wish to have discussions with anyway.

If moon, for example ever started a thread where the topic intrigued me, I'd just start a duplicate-type thread and invite everyone to participate. Even moon.
Click to expand...

That is the way to combat massive thread bans. Start your own thread and copy and paste exactly the post starting the one with the bans and additionally state, I wanted to respond to this thread but was banned from it so I will do it here......and post your response. I'd venture to say the thread with all the people banned will die rather quickly.
 
Jarod said:
I rarely ban anyone, but I can see a valid use for it. I have on occasion banned TruthTeflector because he spammed with stupid comments. It made him difficult to ignore.
Click to expand...

Yup, Into the night and that zombie shithead are 2 more that never add anything to a thread.
 
Port Tack said:
That is the way to combat massive thread bans. Start your own thread and copy and paste exactly the post starting the one with the bans and additionally state, I wanted to respond to this thread but was banned from it so I will do it here......and post your response. I'd venture to say the thread with all the people banned will die rather quickly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you would think so! But I've seen some of moon and Earl threads get some higher than expected post counts. There are a lot of like-minded Nazi trolls out there, I guess!
 
Port Tack said:
I've noticed these bans and wondered why someone would ban everyone that doesn't think like they do. What is the fucking point in the thread, so others can say "yeah great, I agree with you"? On the other hand there are a few assholes on here that ruin the integrity of a debate forum and when they show up the thread goes to shit. It would be nice if when discussing say the presidency and maybe why Trump lost and some asshole says "Trump didn't lose" it would be nice to THEN remove them from the thread. All they do by defying fact is make the entire thread turn to something that someone else, a newcomer, looks at and says I'm not participating here, they have a bunch of morons posting. You won't find intelligent debate where people are arguing over wheteher or not the sky is blue or it's green.
Click to expand...

Yes. People who ban opposition are seeking to create an echo chamber. Anyone who disagrees is added to the ban.

It proves both the weakness of the person creating the thread ban and also their delusional attempt to blot out reality. They only want to see what they want to see, nothing else.

74jw6c.jpg
 
Port Tack said:
I too support identifying cowardice and those professing obvious lies. What would be nice is if you started the thread and someone begins to profess the sky is green and they are fucking up a perfectly intelligent thread that you can respond to them. "sorry but you are destroying an intelligent conversation, see ya later" and then ban them from the thread. Maybe it will cause them to think twice before turning threads to juvenile banter. Or at least be able to say to them that in this thread it is a given that the sky is blue and if you are going to profess that it isn't you will be removed.
Click to expand...

It won't change the behavior of some. IMO, the self-discipline to scroll through the idiots makes it easier. The good news is that their trolling and idiocy bumps up the thread count. LOL

It's also a good reason to only respond to posts directed at you by quote. It helps with the sifting through a dozen posts by Sybil, Truth Deflector and the Trumpian Pedo fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top