"Banned members amnesty" Topic

Perhaps people who hide behind the stifle

Exactly how does one hide behind the stifle?

Gazzola,

Intellectual dishonesty benefits nobody. I made it clear in my posts that I was opposed to a blanket amnesty, and that individual members had a path back if they applied to Bill and accepted the rules of the site.

While I realize you wouldn't have many arguments to make if you weren't misrepresenting someone else's, I stated my position very clearly. You really ought to have some sense of shame, at your age.

Now go LOL at your own wit.

Gazzola +1

The issue isn't the "people who hide behind the stifle" (not that the concept makes the slightest sense) but the people who are hidden behind the stifle. If the functionality makes someone's use of the forum more enjoyable, why is that any sort of problem – or anyone else's business?

It's so hard to keep track ConnaughtRanger.

One minute you're supposed to stifle people or ignore abusive and negative posts rather than complaining to 'get people banned just because they disagree'. The next, you're mocked for doing so.

One minute there's a call for a general amnesty of all those banned and anyone pointing out flaws in this thinking is obviously biased and has aspersions cast regarding their character. The next, after just one returnee bends the knee, the strident calls were 'just a suggestion', everyone has an opinion and the current process seems fine.

Curious.

*all paraphrasing my own.

This forum software allows one to ignore members easily. It is a great feature that I use to filter out those who have attacked me or my work without providing any substantive argument. I would never expect them to be banned, and if they offered more than insults, I would engage. I would share data. I would do what I have done for the last decade which has significantly added to the data and knowledge of the early 19th century. This is typically called adulthood.

Any forum that bans members, especially those that go by their actual identity, is a disgrace to humanity.

Those who discuss history, even in gaming, and especially when it deals with political or military matters, must be expected to handle any words used. If anyone is to be banned, let it be the babies who can't handle rough discussions. They rarely add any value anyhow.

@Nine Pound Round – the only objectionable behavior on this thread is yours. You have not made a single argument that has any value. If you want to discuss further, 1-770-317-8108.

Attack ad hominem? Check.

Dismissal, rather than engagement with, the other party's arguments? Check.

Offensive slurs implied, but oh-so-carefully not stated? Check.

Deliberate obfuscation of the difference between common courtesy and vigorous debate? Check.

Self-congratulation? Check.

General tone of rudeness and condescension? Check.

The phone number is a nice touch, but really, given the catalogue above, why would I bother?

Any forum that bans members, especially those that go by their actual identity, is a disgrace to humanity.

So … every forum everywhere. Good to know.

Well, someone whose posts have never previously made any impression on me whatsoever finally has: obnoxious, aggressive, self-righteous, and crassly opinionated, all couched in a blast of pontificating pure wind. Where's that stifle button?

Spoilsport – don't leave us guessing!

Leaving aside the ad hominem attacks in that recent post, I attach little weight to a post which labels banning members of a website (for breaking rules which they voluntarily sign up to) 'a disgrace to humanity'.

I'm all for a bit of hyperbole, it makes the world go around, but a post apparently free of irony which states that suggests a stunning lack of proportion; particularly given many recent events in the real world.

Nine pound round

I suggest the only shame is on you! I made an suggestion, hopefully to entice members back to the website. I did not think if would be fair to say only banned members who did this or did that or who some members favoured should return. Hence the amnesty idea. Obviously you and others want this site just for little selves. You don't believe in giving people a second chance. I do.

If my LOL's upset you, get over it. LOL

ConnaughRanger

You seem to implying that those who use the stifle don't have the ability to ignore people's posts, that they must read them and reply if they don't use the stifle. LOL

Stephen Beckett

Great post and so truthful. But I can here them running to the stifle now. LOL

sadly neither un ami, chuvak, Steve Smith, Dave Hollins did pledge for amnesty.

Why don't you get in touch with them and invite them back. All they have to do is ask and then promise to behave.

Great post and so truthful.

Any forum that bans members, especially those that go by their actual identity, is a disgrace to humanity.

Perhaps you have the list of forums that don't ban people for violating their TOS..?

@Nine Pound Round – the only objectionable behavior on this thread is yours. You have not made a single argument that has any value.

So this has no value

No names, but those whom I can remember who were banned were frequently doghoused, usually for good reason, and were pretty distinguished for a lack of good manners when they were here. The forum was more active, but it wasn't necessarily better, unless you define "better" as generating outraged post and counter-post. They generated more heat than light, and were banned for a reason.

nor this?

Reasonable people can disagree. But they should be able to do it without name-calling, denigrating someone's intellect or lack of knowledge, dismissing them, ascribing malicious intent, or taunting them. It is a shame that there aren't as many knowledgeable people here to answer questions, but it's nice that the discussions are about the subject at hand, rather than the back-and-forth goat-getting.

I am certainly as willing to hear your explanation (not just a fiat claim) of the lack of value in those posts as I am for the aforementioned list. We can move on to other posts after that.

Once again- a misrepresentation of what I said, Gazzola.

Gazzola, two questions still awaiting an answer:

- do you still think there should be a general amnesty? Yes/No
- is the stifle a useful tool to improve the forum user experience? Yes/No

Interesting to note how the tone of a number of threads in this forum has changed over the past few weeks.
Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

Interesting to note how the tone of a number of threads in this forum has changed over the past few weeks.
Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

– don't leave us guessing!

ConnaughtRanger

Changed for the better, I would say. But I doubt anyone wants a website full of sheep, all going baa to the same tune, do they? Do you?

It is obvious that some people still can't accept their viewpoints being challenged. They seem to think whatever they say or the way they think is always right. How can anyone disagree with them or think differently! LOL Sad really.

La Belle Ruffian

This is not a quiz show, you know! LOL

But if it will help you sleep at night, yes, I think all banned members who have broken house rules should be offered an Amnesty. I think everyone deserves a second chance. And they can be banned again if they don't follow the site rules. So what's the problem?

My view on the stifle is that, firstly, I wonder what those who use it are afraid of? Secondly and as I have said before, I am not aware of any rules that say you must read every post, you must be affected by them and you must reply. But is seems some people just aren't capable of doing this? Perhaps it is a case of better not to see something in case they will be proved wrong.

There are some posts and topics that I have not posted on or replied to. Why – because I can. I don't have to hide behind the stifle. I don't have to agree with them but I'm always interested in hearing other people's viewpoints. Sometimes they do have a point and sometimes they don't. But the stifle reminds of a newspaper with sections cut out and full of holes in case it upsets the reader. LOL

Any more questions?

Brechtel198

Great suggestion to Von Winterfeldt. However, he might have you on stifle and is unable to appreciate it. LOL

Perhaps someone, not stifled, can pass the suggestion on to him. I'm sure he will be ever so thankful.

The more viewpoints that can be offered on this or any other forum is a strength. I have had over the years many recommendations put forward on this forum, for example, for both illustrations and references that have been of great help in research.

Did I miss some "LOL"s?

ConnaughtRanger

Changed for the better, I would say. But I doubt anyone wants a website full of sheep, all going baa to the same tune, do they? Do you?

It is obvious that some people still can't accept their viewpoints being challenged. They seem to think whatever they say or the way they think is always right. How can anyone disagree with them or think differently! LOL Sad really.

+1 Gazzola

LOL

La Belle Ruffian

This is not a quiz show, you know! LOL

But if it will help you sleep at night, yes, I think all banned members who have broken house rules should be offered an Amnesty. I think everyone deserves a second chance. And they can be banned again if they don't follow the site rules. So what's the problem?

+1 (or is that +2?) oh, and LOL

If we interpreted the rules the way he does, everyone would be off except the anti-Napoleon crowd.

Three of my favourite (stifled) contributors.

Stephen Beckett:

It is a great feature that I use to filter out those who have attacked me or my work without providing any substantive argument

Nah! Be honest! It's that you don't like criticism.

Those who discuss history, even in gaming, and especially when it deals with political or military matters, must be expected to handle any words used.

Hmm! So, not use filters?

If anyone is to be banned, let it be the babies who can't handle rough discussions. They rarely add any value anyhow.

Again, Hmm! Filters anyone?

I'm against banning and I never stifle or 'filter' Perhaps it's because I have a thicker skin and am not afraid to read what they post.

But Then, The 'forwardcombinglittlefat er' fawners just love to attack and I just love to read it. :D

If I made the rules, I'd make it mandatory that posters use the quote facility when addressing another poster. Apart from that, I'm game for anything.

I think everyone deserves a second chance.

Nice sentiment. Completely irrelevant to this discussion, but a nice sentiment nonetheless.

I'm against banning and I never stifle or 'filter' Perhaps it's because I have a thicker skin and am not afraid to read what they post.

Agree-well said.

I think everyone deserves a second chance.

Anyone on the banned list probably has had many, many chances before getting banned.

The prime example is Derek Hodges, who used to bully kids on our forum about playing Flames of War, which he strongly dislikes. We gave him warning after warning, but it seemed he could not control his bullying behavior. He's had many chances, why does he deserve any more?

Bill

Surely the answer is for the kids to ignore him. I should imagine that bullies do not like being ignored and would probably stop posting if they did not get a reaction? Just a thought.

ConnaughyRanger

To show I care. Just for you. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Hopes that's enough? LOL

Perhaps those mentioned by VW, who have not yet requested a return, do not find the posts made interesting or attractive enough for them to want to return? Unless, of course, they are still unaware that they can request a return via the editor? Perhaps we will never know. LOL

I never stifle or 'filter' Perhaps it's because I have a thicker skin and am not afraid to read what they post.

It's a signal to noise issue. Most pubs have a bore. Do you feel obliged, when you go into the pub, to engage with the bore, or do you just move out of earshot, let him bore other people, and focus on the people with something interesting to say?

The people I stifle have nothing to say about gaming, no historical knowledge, and/or say the same thing over and over again. If someone's input is empirically of scant value, why bother looking at it?

4th Cuirassier

I will will read from/listen to anyone, including the bore. Because even a bore can utter a nugget or broach something that becomes of interest. They can also leave themselves open to 'critique' and amusement.

Excellent posting, Paul. And right on the money as you usually do.

Yeah, right on! dibble 1 stiflers 0

4th Cuirassier

How would you ever know if you stifle people? LOL

I agree with Boney that I cannot waste my time – so consequently it is great to have stifle – a time safer.

anyone, including the bore.

People with good posts and bores don't quite comprise "everyone". You forgot …

* people who are abusive to children, women, or anyone not "like" them
* people who proselytize their religious beliefs (including athiesm)
* people who berate others' religious beliefs
* people throwing a tantrum
* people (including group) who tell offensive lies about you
* people who tell offensive lies about others
* people who can't post without a rhetorical fallacy in their post, like the overgeneralization fallacy

and the list goes on.

Thank goodness that previous post didn't contain an "overgeneralization fallacy" otherwise there'd be one more added to my stifle list.

4th Cuirassier, I take your point.

etotheipi

What I meant by 'everyone' 'as well you know' means everyone on this site, and similar sites. Including you (Though as with all the members of this site or others, I have no idea if you have any of those proclivities you listed).

To me, using the stifle is like watching a football match but having the goals scored by the team playing the team you follow not being shown, just in case it upsets you!

This is a good website with lots of knowledge shared and fun and it baffles me why some people take everything so seriously, as if the site should only be for them and must only offer what they want, including their viewpoints on everything.

Anyway, I hope using the stifle makes those who feel they need to use it for whatever excuse they create, happy. Each to their own, I suppose.

What I meant by 'everyone' 'as well you know' means everyone on this site, and similar sites.

If you didn't mean what you say, I'm not sure how I am supposed to know what it was. I assumed you meant everyone on TMP, not on whatever you think are "similar sites".

But my comment was focused on this site. Other than the last item, the list I provided are some of the reasons people have been warned, dawghoused, and banned from TMP and can be banned in the future. Those are the behaviours of some people on this site.

You have the right to advocate to not ban people for those behaviours. Even when they have had a second, third, and more chances to curb it. Or did you not mean what you said again?

I suggest you go through what I have posted. And I have not advocated what this site should do but what I would do. I abide by the rules, but try on occasions to walk as close as possible to the edge.

I wouldn't ban, someone for losing their temper about for example, the playing wiv' sowjers, ranting about the forwardcombinglittlefat*r, how many 'English' colours were captured at Cacabelos or just how s*** the Imperial Guard Infantry was at Waterloo (all of which I have done with great gusto but without crossing the line), which does not 'in my point of view' warrant a permanent banning. But If the advocation of a poster are threats, child exploitation, post obscene images, or any other material deemed as offensive or illegal, then of course they should be banned and reported to the authorities too if need be. I'm sure that you really know that to be the case?

I smell the odour of an ex-Twitter-like, oik.

I suggest you go through what I have posted.

I suggest you do as well.

I have not advocated what this site should do

I'm against banning

If I made the rules, I'd make it mandatory that posters use the quote facility when addressing another poster. Apart from that, I'm game for anything.

I would never have had him banned

I'd give a one-off amnesty.

So … you were against banning on some other site? You think what you would do is not a good idea so others shouldn't do it? Advocating for amnesty isn't advocating against banning?

I don't know why you're getting so worked up agreeing with me. You said you would read from anyone, but your last post indicates anyone doesn't mean anyone.

And just to repeat …

If I made the rules, I'd make it mandatory that posters use the quote facility when addressing another poster.

I guess you mean posters other than you.

I smell the odour of an ex-Twitter-like, oik.

What is an ex-Twitter-like? If it has anything to do with every having had a Twitter account, then as well as actually reading your own posts, you should get your nose checked.

… and some more classy name calling.

I quote with the appropriate highlight box and the person's name that I am quoting. But if you don't give the courtesy of naming the person you are replying to, be assured of my reciprocation.

I guess you mean posters other than you.

Don't be silly.

Me (dibble):
"I have not advocated what this site should do"

"I'm against banning"

"I would never have had him banned"

"I'd give a one-off amnesty."

What 'I' would do, yes! It's called 'opinion' not 'demand of others'

What is an ex-Twitter-like?

Similar to a (recent) sacked, Twitter, moderator employee. For more information, use yer' search facility. Maybe an account page?

then as well as actually reading your own posts, you should get your nose checked.

Thanks for the advice. I have bad sinuses at the moment, what with this cold weather we are having here in St Albans.

… and some more classy name calling.

Quality is a matter of opinion. Yours is noted.