JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[John Simkin]

The case of Tim Gratz is instructive and for some too long ago to be well known - or known at all. He was notorious for posting at the end of any thread he disagreed with with a post - no matter how frivolous or off point - as long as he stopped the thread; made it into a circus; acted as a provocator or tried to debunk/naysay/negate (usually without substance). Similar things go on on the Forum today. Gratz was expelled. 

Tim Gratz did post at the end of threads he did not want to be discussed. Many members did not read those threads when his name appeared at the end. However, Tim was not expelled, he was placed on moderation. He continued to post for some time after that but he eventually left in the run-up to the presidential elections. Understandably, he found it difficult to discuss the possibility that the US would no longer have a right-winger in the White House. (Remember the appalling disinformation campaign against John Kerry in the 2004 election?). The important point was that the moderation system was a good way of dealing with Tim Gratz. It has also been a good way of dealing with other members.

[Guest]

To do less would be to relinquish my duty as a human committed to certain principles of truth, law, democracy, equality, peace, justice, ecocentric sustainability, and a bottom-up model for humans - not top-down.

Running the risk of 'questioning your motives' am I alone in finding this an extraordinarily pompous statement? (I also note with resigned amusement the omission of gender equality from your list).

Your problem Peter is that you are convinced by a wide range conspiracy narratives to such an extent that they have become part of your identity. You will therefore always question the motives of posters who disagree with you hence your desire I presume for a rule change.

[Len Colby]

Dennis, I think you can't distinguish clearly between attacks and defense from attacks. Dirty tricks are not just things I've read about - I've had them happen to me in my life. I've also belonged to organizations and groups that were infiltrated or exposed to dirty-tricks, spying upon, we later learned in detail - though suspected at the time. I suppose that does add a sensitivity others who feel more a part of the so-called 'dominant' and 'approved' societal viewpoint on history, polity structure, et al. 

Ironic that Peter accuses Dennis of not being able to "distinguish clearly between attacks and defense from attacks" when he, rather than Dennis, obviously suffers from such an inability. In Peter's case it is to "distinguish clearly between attacks and" simple disagreement with his views. Perhaps Peter can point to examples of when his numerous personal attacks directed at Evan, Kevin, Matthew or me were preceeded by personal attacks on him. Even in his exchanges with Craig the former normally threw the 1st stone.

Not being able to respond to our posts with facts or logic he resorts to spam and/or personal attacks. It's not at all surprising that he would want the rule to be changed. Fortunately no other members seem to agree with him.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Please leave the personal comments out of this thread; let's discuss the pros and cons of changing the rule, our opinions on why it should or should not happen.

Thanks!

[Len Colby]

I noticed to my surprise two other members voted for Peter's proposed rule change. I was wondering if either of them could explain why they thought it should be changed.

[Denis Pointing]

I noticed to my surprise two other members voted for Peter's proposed rule change. I was wondering if either of them could explain why they thought it should be changed.

Yes, Len's right, in fact it should be a requirement for voting. Without it being so the voting is really quite meaningless. I think I made my reasons clear why rule iv needs to stay, without it the forum would be ruined by witch hunts and accusations by the more paranoid amongst us.

Also, and I know this is off topic, does anyone else think it a good idea that when a member is placed on moderation or expelled his/her name should be posted, along with the offence, in this section? That way members can actually see the rules (including rule iv) are clearly being enforced and that in itself, should act as a deterrent. It would also stop wild rumors circulating, at the moment if a regular member isn't seen posting for a few weeks the P.M.'s start flying around asking if so and so has been banned along with all kinds of imaginary reasons as to why. Any thoughts?

Edited July 15, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[Pamela Brown]

While I voted not to change the rule, I am wondering if there might be another way to address the complexities of the situation, such as a thread where concerns, not about the motives of posters, but about the threads themselves, might be addressed.

We just had an example this week when a member asked that material that had segued into a different topic be removed from that thread and put into its own thread. If there were a comments area there might be more feedback from those involved in a thread if it starts to disintegrate or have other issues with it.

Also, there might be able to be discussion about some of the tactics used to try to hijack or shut down a thread, but focusing on the material posted, not the poster.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

I voted to modify the rule. Generally every aspect of the rule is good, apart from the no questioning of a posters motivation. The motivation of a poster is an absolutely vital piece of information in determining a posts validity - that cannot necessarily be gleaned from a biography. A posters motivation is normally understood in the vast majority of posts - e.g. David tallbot publicising a book. The small handful of people who actually know rule iv are the worst offenders. The vast vast majority of the forum membership have never had to look at this rule never mind report on it. Posters motivations are questioned or understood, through implication, in a great number of posts on the forum - where no complaint is ever made and/or no moderator decides to interfere.

The rule, unfortunately (and sorry for harping on), has become something of weapon...all too often pedants are examining the 'rules' with more dilligence than they examine posts. I find this recourse to rules, as a means of hounding members (often disguised as genuine concern), an anathema.

If questioning a posters motivation is done with 'too much enthusiasm' - the personal attack portion of the rule can be brought in to play.

[Cigdem Göle]

I agree with Kathy.

It seems like the reason for some to want a rule change is to be able to insult each other a bit more freely,

as if the existing name calling/labelling game was not repulsive enough.

If the rule is changed, surely, the ones benefiting from it will be those who dominate the Forum by trying to

ram their world views down our throats in each of the posts they make or those who hang around the Forum 24/7

like a police patrol car only to jump in every thread regardless of the subject and those who use bullying people

online as a means of self-satisfaction.

[Guest]

Poster's motivations are already being questioned, all the time. Calling people Borg, etcetera, are classic examples of this. And I think the attempt at the rule change is nothing more than trying to justify that.

Kathy

agreed

[John Simkin]

I have just sent an email with your plea to JS. FWIW, I agree he has a good prime fascia case for an exemption from a photo. Did he ever send an email directly to JS? If he doesn't have a means, pass it on to me and I'll pass it on to JS directly. Peter

I will contact Bill directly about this.

[John Dugan]

ATTETNTION, KING OF ALL MODERATORS:

Could you please make it common place or a rule, that in this Forum, people not QUOTE the whole thread when posting? If a viewer is reading the thread, there is no need to quoye the WHOLE thread all over again.

I sense that this is done, sometimes, for self promotion. As most of the large quotes, have some kind of website link or 10,000 word essay attached to it.

Negative things about extensive posts with many quotes:

1. Its very annoying to scroll through a whole page of quotes to find the post at the end

2. It takes up space on the site.

3. My roller ball on my mouse is almost work out.

4. It could prevent readers from finishing the thread due to the convoluted post of others posting 20 quotes

5. Nobody needs to read the same thing twice. One cab always go back a page or 2 to get caught up.

Please Help.

Please alert the forum to stop this abuse of quoting everything in the thread. Please.

thank you

[John Simkin]

ATTETNTION, KING OF ALL MODERATORS:

Could you please make it common place or a rule, that in this Forum, people not QUOTE the whole thread when posting? If a viewer is reading the thread, there is no need to quoye the WHOLE thread all over again.

I sense that this is done, sometimes, for self promotion. As most of the large quotes, have some kind of website link or 10,000 word essay attached to it.

Negative things about extensive posts with many quotes:

1. Its very annoying to scroll through a whole page of quotes to find the post at the end

2. It takes up space on the site.

3. My roller ball on my mouse is almost work out.

4. It could prevent readers from finishing the thread due to the convoluted post of others posting 20 quotes

5. Nobody needs to read the same thing twice. One cab always go back a page or 2 to get caught up.

Please Help.

Please alert the forum to stop this abuse of quoting everything in the thread. Please.

thank you

I agree but I doubt if the moderators have the time to edit these posts. I would like to think that members would realize it is counter-productive to quote such large chunks of text.

[John Dugan]

ATTETNTION, KING OF ALL MODERATORS:

Could you please make it common place or a rule, that in this Forum, people not QUOTE the whole thread when posting? If a viewer is reading the thread, there is no need to quoye the WHOLE thread all over again.

I sense that this is done, sometimes, for self promotion. As most of the large quotes, have some kind of website link or 10,000 word essay attached to it.

Negative things about extensive posts with many quotes:

1. Its very annoying to scroll through a whole page of quotes to find the post at the end

2. It takes up space on the site.

3. My roller ball on my mouse is almost work out.

4. It could prevent readers from finishing the thread due to the convoluted post of others posting 20 quotes

5. Nobody needs to read the same thing twice. One cab always go back a page or 2 to get caught up.

Please Help.

Please alert the forum to stop this abuse of quoting everything in the thread. Please.

thank you

I agree but I doubt if the moderators have the time to edit these posts. I would like to think that members would realize it is counter-productive to quote such large chunks of text.

I didn't mean that The Mods should be deleting posts or quotes, just let it be known that large quote repeats are shunned upon. Maybe I'll post something on the board and headline it with "Attention all Members".

thanks for the reply.

[William Kelly]

I've filed a report with the moderators to complain about Craig Lameson, who continues to attack Doug Horne personally, calling him a hack, a failure, and less of a man for not defending himself, and I don't blame him for not bothering to deal with such idiots.

Lameson might know something about photography, but he hasn't contributed one thing that has advanced our knowledge of anything, as far as I can tell, and everyone one of his posts merely attacks Horne or Fester or Healey, or other "alterationists" without discussing the issues.

I'm not even an "alterationist," and don't know that the film has been altered, but I do believe there are a lot of issues and questions that must be answered and can be if we stick to the questions, and avoid attacking each other in such simplistic terms.

Bill Kelly