Jump to content
The Education Forum

Motivations of posters


Rule (iv)  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the motivations of posters be allowed to be questioned?

    • Yes - the rule needs modification
      1
    • Unsure / No opinion
      0
    • No - the rule should remain
      9


Recommended Posts

There has been some discussion regarding Rule (iv) of the forum rules of behaviour. It has been suggested that the motivations of a poster should be able to be questioned. Part of Rule (iv) currently forbids this.

What is your opinion? Should you be able to question why a poster makes the posts they do, why they hold those opinions?

Please note this is NOT an "official" rule change vote; it is simply a vehicle to allow the board owners to know the opinions of forum members.

The poll / discussion will also be repeated on the JFK section of the board. You might have one opinion on one section of the board, and a different opinion for a different section of the board. Please use the respective sections to make your opinions known.

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own opinion is that the rule should remain. To me, it doesn't matter what the motivations of a poster are. If I disagree with what they say, I'll say why I disagree. If I believe they are posting inaccurate or misleading data, then I'll demonstrate why the posts are inaccurate or misleading. Who posts the statements is mostly irrelevant, in my opinion. To me, calling some as a "disinfo agent" or "agent provocateur" simply means you are unable to counter to other person's argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far this page has gotten 41 views, I imagine that some were from non-members, members not logged in and/or people viewing it more than once (this my 2nd visit) but this is an important issue and more members should vote. There doesn't seem to be much support (0 out of 6 thus far) for Peter's proposal though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I might have been the one to bring it up, I do note that Evan took it upon himself to create the thread - hardly making it 'my' proposal en toto. Framing the debate is one way to control things.

Peter,

Please be cautious on how you phrase certain things. That almost sounds like you are accusing me of deliberately trying to control the debate. I know you would not do this, as you can easily see that I have asked EVERYONE to have their say, and specifically said it is not a vote to change the rule in a specific way but simply to indicate member feeling as to the necessity of examining what changes might be required.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absurd, Peter proposed the change but intially want to burry discusion in another thread. The after Evan and I point out why that would be a bad idea agrees that a new thread was appropriate. Then he does nothing about it. Then when Evan takes it upon himself to start such a thread Peter complains he is trying to "control" things.

I imagine he's just sore because no one but him voted for his bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poll / discussion will also be repeated on the JFK section of the board. You might have one opinion on one section of the board, and a different opinion for a different section of the board. Please use the respective sections to make your opinions known.

If you think it's better merged into one, I have no problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Sorry Andy, but I can't read that because they banned my IP and I'm not even a member!

Perhaps Peter would be kind enough to describe 'the distasteful work' he deigns to undertake here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
I thought everything was being consolidated--not removed.

My reaction was a lessening of opportunity for members to comment on actions, but it doesn't seem to be so. As it, for those who don't enable viewing more topics and posts in board settings, it also allows for more topics to stay current and prevents large scale book sales and deliberate pushing of postings off the front pages. IOW it's different, but not worse. (IMO)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I most stongly and totally object to this thread. It was my original idea to discuss this topic, yet the person most opposed to the notion as I see it started the thread. This is known as co-opting and is a well-known method of attempting to defeat a discussion, by controlling both the framing of the discussion and the control of it. Now it is proposed [privately among the moderators] that this and other thread pinned in Conspiracies and JFK be removed. I object in the strongest terms. I have not participated much in this thread as my political opponent chose to start it, IMO, in order to co-opt it. If it is removed, know that this and other likely to-be-removed pinned threads I just downloaded...so will have to cite...the reason I feel some want them removed - so to not be cited - able to be referred to. 

I really think you need to check your sources, Peter. There was discussion about reducing the number of pinned threads in the JFK section, due to a complaint from a member. I suggested consolidating some:

  • Rules of behavior, photographs as avatars, moderating committee and motivation of posters combined into one.
  • Actions of moderators and moderation options combined into one.
  • Index and poll remain separate threads.

No mods objected (some agreed) and John S asked for it to go ahead.

Nothing has been removed, nothing changed.

There has been no discussion about the same happening here; the only request has come from a member that we put a Forum Technical Help thread on the JFK section.

THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT REMOVING THREADS OR PINNED TOPICS

BTW - you complain six months after this thread was started and four months after the last post? Get a grip...

P.S. To John S: Did I predict this or did I not? LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...