I have a suggestion.

I propose an abuse forum. When one of us notices a personal attack post ... we could copy it and place it in the 'Abuse Forum'. This way the author and others (the upper crust here) could notice what is going on and how others feel about it.

It could be like Natter Matters ... not open to the general public. And BTW ... what happened to Natter Matters? I can't find it anymore. Did it get deleted along with my Hmmm.

Okay ... don't attack me too much about my ideas. But, bring it on.

The forum Natter Matters is between "Things we don't talk about" and "World Affairs". I can see it there.

As for your other idea, I could see it working.

Seems like a very good idea.

I can see Natter Matters with no problem.

pk

Yeah, but you need to think of a creative name for it. I don't like "Abuse Forum." Maybe Grievances or something.

I am in favour of the idea, but would the abusers look there or would they pride themselves in getting more coverage?

I think we could have a little more tolerance of critics, just let it run off your back like you would do in the everyday world. It doesn't take much for someone to call it abuse when it is sometimes not meant that way at first.

QR frame:

I follow a few of these threads rather closely, and cannot find direct abuse of one lister to another. Where? Direct example, please.

Now, per the dissing of third parties and orgs, I admit mea culpa; however, as pertains: third parties and orgs!? c'mon, are we really so feebly effete - that vigorous debate frightens or otherwise cowers us?

Is treacle so pleasing to the emotional palate that we devolve to baby talk and tippy-toe? --Dinky, Dinky-doo

No one has been as abused on these threads as my very self; however, no one heard a whine, snivel, or squeak from me. Matter of fact, I like the man who expressed himself so colorfully - that's, "I like him."

Tribulation comin', folks. Learn to suck it up.

In my humble opinion.

I agree that we need to learn what an abusive post is actually. Admin. has indicated that there is name calling and abuse. They have asked that it be stopped. But no one here seems to know what they are talkin about. No one thinks that THEY do it ... Thus ... my idea. If they would post what they thought was abuse ... then we would have a better idea.

I know what they are talking about...and so do you, Redwood...

It's just that we users are currently being nice. at least most of us have been..

It's about how we [and by "we" I mean the collective we, as in all of clubAdventist members] discipline those among us who cross a certain line and posts posts that are not in keeping with being nice.

Currently, we have been doing it by collectively giving the "bad person" the ol' admonition routine..."Mr. Smith, your post of [insert date] was rather rude in it's postings. I suggest you lighten up your conversation and join in. Most of us desire new viewpoints, but not at the expense of poor ediquette. ect"..... Collectively, WE either ignore that person or we agree or give some advice on how to be sociable.

If Mr. Smith persues his rudeness, sterner warnings and some out right "Mr. Smith, your rude!" posts pop up on the BBS. If it still continues, Amelia steps in and tell Mr Smith to stop or face some consequences... If he continues, Stan or Amelia quietly tell the man that he needs to find another outlet or bans the person for 30 days.

We have collectively discussed this ad nausem last year and basically arrived at the consensus to be nice...We did not feel that moderators could be fair in thier moderation and didn not feel that they could be global moderators...

And yes, I have some "sins" that I have to fess up to....
but before I go public and tell what is going on, I have to give Administration a chance to rectify the situation.

My complaint is that I find the weakness of clubAdventist and it keep serfacing....And I am rather tired of ....well, of passive agressive behavior....

'nuff said for now...

>>And I am rather tired of ....well, of passive agressive behavior....<<

Is calling another of the list "Ichy" an example of "passive aggressiveness"? I'll grant that that is clever, but have you asked Ichabod if he'd prefer that you didn't refer to him as "Ichy"?

That's the only example I find of one lister _directly_ attempting to diminsh another; but I perceive a more 'holier than thou' in the lead quote this post - rather than passive aggressiveness in the gripe

Disabuse me should I err.

Again, I admit to orgs and third party dissing - but, c'mon, the list is so sensitized that we have to dish treacle? Besides, isn't the "Politics" board advertised as the Hot Zone?

Ah...... an Abuse Forum. We could have a menu:

Breakfast, Lunch, Supper
with appetizers, entrees, and *just* desserts

Good suggestion Pam. An Abuse Menu would be a good way to catagorize the abuse.

Anyway ... it is so good to hear from you again.

Sorry Neil. But I have to set the record straight. 30 day bans are not carried out as you have described. Neither are warnings or examples. We do have a global moderator and he does single handedly give out bans to those he wishes to. It happened to me after I asked him to delete a personal attack post and within minutes he get me off the forum. Single handedly.

Sorry I missed this aspect Pam. Good Point. The abusers do need their "just desserts". But posting their abuse would be a good start for them to learn and for us to learn what is expected on this forum.

This is not a place where MY ideas of good behavior is expected. My ideas are much different than Stans. This is Stan's place. HIS values are reflected here. The problem is ... I am just not sure what his values are. The idea of posting examples of what is considered over the line would allow us to better understand what many say is 'obvious' but what some appear to not know that it is 'obvious' because they don't see what they do as 'bad'.

Maybe you need an "Ombudsman" to represent you in dealings with the moderators.

That would be a thankless, and difficult job.

Then the Ombudsman would probably need a lawyer, etc. whew!

Oops, I went looking for an example of the direct diss – and an example, of sorts, found me. [/gulp]

Sorry, Neil. Apologies.

It was the collective, clique-claquish – ‘we’s gonna do this, and we’s gonna do that to y’all, if’n y’all don’t play nice’ – that put the burr under my saddle. Whose nice? What’s THAT!?

Mob mentality just absolutely

grinches me!

Again, sorry. Peace.

Good to see you posting

You always seem able to maximize the economy of words. You must be the par excellence to those who advocate

'less is more'.

I haven't that skill - so, just gave up - and let it rip :-(

I second that jasd. But I think you did an excellent job in the above post. But then when it comes to Pam ... there is no doubt about it. She has a great way of concisely saying the truth on matters.

I suspect it's not a workable idea, engaging as it is in the abstract, simply because one man's (and, sadly, it's almost always men) abuse is another man's 'straight truthtelling' or whatever. There is no universal standard for what counts as an abusive post, and everyone tends to be right in his own eyes (including me).

There's really no substitute for maturity, and for each of us being accountable to himself for what is posted. For thinking twice or three times, especially if we know we're taking on someone's cherished beliefs.

Neil, much as I agree with you on many things and enjoy your contribution, I have to say I disagree on the 'Ichy' thing. I have always maintained that respect breeds respect and vice versa. Even if it's sometimes the tough thing to do, modeling the behaviour you would like to see is always the right thing to do, and most times also the most effective thing.

This is sound advice. We do need to be careful about someone else's faith.

Yes, but when someone crosses the line ... it would be good to see the example. It would be very instructive.



We could make a list ... Gringo is in. Ichy is out. The 'D' word is in. It goes on and on. But what is offensive to one is not to another. The bottom line is that if it offends someone ... then it should be stopped and an apology made.

Ignorantly I called Ichabod ... Ich for short. I like Ichabod. I had no intentions of hurting him. But I did apologize to him and stopped the abbreviation.

Just don't ban "legalist"....I like it a lot, as you know.

OK, (slightly TIC) - I find it offensive when someone constantly drags up the ancient past.

You're cool.

...And the easily offended take control by taking offense at anything with which they disagree or at the point they need an excuse to derail the conversation that isn't going so well to their interests or point of view.

Let's just end all our posts with an automatic apology to cover our bases...

Sorry to have offended anyone,

Tom

One Country's terrorist is another Country's freedom fighter.

It is not that different on forums...

Hmmm. You miss the point of the response. Could it be that you are focused on the past?

Not sure I agree with the tone of this post by my friend Tom. But it does bring up a good concern. But, I think that my post to which this comment was referring to is still valid to some degree but perhaps not always. Yes, there are some unreasonable whiners. But perhaps if in doubt you could post the name calling name that was used and ask the rest of us.

On second thought .... send it to me ... I don't trust the others from ancient history. But I do trust myself.

I have a suggestion....could we all just stop this silly whining, "I'm offended-I find that offending-your offending", and on and on! I find this whole topic offending, reminds me of my grandkids,"mommy she did this-no, she did that", and on and on!

What ever is said, can be and will be, by someone, found offensive! It's called, changing the subject, we're not going to talk about the subject but how it was written! When one is put on the spot, a favorite defense....of some...of many?

(Sorry if this offends anyone, snif,snif. I'll just take my ball and go home) ( ( , so there! )

Why is it 99.9% of the time, men?

Women are near perfect... ranking alphabetically of course

I think it's because of the differences between the male and female brain and the resulting hormonal differences. Females are far more into other peoples feelings and tend to be protective and nurturing. Males, by contrast, are more into control and imposing their will.

That is essentially a postmodern position: There are no absolutes (absolutely!), and if there are, we cannot know them.

And if it is actually the truth, or a reflection of actual reality, or however it can be verified (an extremely difficult proposition from a postmodern perspective), then there is no point in having church doctrines, or church discipline, or any rules of any kind. Since every one sees everything differently, no disputes can ever be resolved. Treason is a matter of dates, and embezzlement is a disagreement over accounting techniques.

That's one of many reasons that postmodernism is ultimately nihilistic, and self-defeating.

I see a lot of give and take here....Combined, we are influenced by the good virtues that we attempt to express...IOWs, most of us are here to communicate and express our ideas. Sure, we are amazed by some of what some say here. And we argue with them. Yes, it is ok to disagree, even get spirited at times....There is nothing wrong with the exchanging of ideas....even good nature redicule...[now there's an oxymoron, but it happens!]

But for me, to take this type of action is to consistantly see posts that have double meanings, one meaning less agressive than the other, and when clarification is ask for, the response is "I never meant it like that. Where do you get that from?"...It is always the recievers' fault for misinterpreting the origionator of the post. If it happens once in a while, that is one thing....but when it continues to happen, I get a bit testy, admitedly.

I have seen some powerful people in church use this tactic, and the church has allowed it to continue and the results are always the same...the abuser continues to abuse and use the same tactics. His behavior is rewarded as people are bullied into submission and then avoid him. The people say things like, "we need to model proper behavior for him." "Oh he doesn't mean it." or " He's so good at other areas.We need him."

Each of these excuses are classic examples of platitudes that make no sense. "Model proper behavior?" The man is an adult. In this case, he is also a teacher AND a principal. He KNOWS what is good behavior!!! And he means every word he says....He is also an author. He has NO EXCUSE. Our church has been browbeaten by strong willed individuals, so much so that I have to ask, at what point do we need to stand up for ourselves? At what point, are we going to say, I refuse to be held hostage for your bad behavior, when you can obviously display good behavior.

In a community like this, responsiblity for discipline has been given to the users [looking over at Stan and raising the eyebrow for commformation?]. In a community such as this, when is the community to collectively come to the bully and say, "We have modeled proper behavior and it is time for you to come up to our standards."? If the bully will not toe the line, at what point does members of the community take disciplinary action? ...and in what form..?

My shortening Ed's handle to Ichy is a result of his behavior.It was explained that why at the begining..And there has been absolutely NO consequences to his past behavior, nor any indication that he is willing to express remorse over any part of the communication. If he shows any sort of willingness to say that he is sorry for misbehaving or poor communication skills or SOMETHING along those lines, I am MORE than willing to drop the shortened handle....Believe me when I say that I am not exactly 'thrilled' to be using it...But given my options as to what I can use for discipline, I chooose something with some humor....better that than with rancor.

There is not a parent here who is not willing to discipline a child when he/she is out of control. If we have an adult bully, at what point do we stand up to him and say, "enough"?

Suck up!!!!!!

What is that about? Suck up for what?

your comment came right after this one.....

"Women are near perfect... ranking alphabetically of course"

OH ok. I didn't understand. I meant something different by my comment but that's all right.

Just teasing you....and it was worth it....

That's ok...Redwood said something a while back, and I got suckered into a misunderstanding....some consturnation was spread around,...I felt a bit foolish...Oh well...

[going to the reading lab-bor-it-tory and perusing Redwood's threads for something to get even by...muahahahahhahaha]

Oh yeah I know what you're talking about. LOL.

That was something all right. Glad it ended fast.

Excuse my ignorance Neil. But what are you referring to? My poppy growing?

To change the subject ... if you are concerned about discipline regarding Ed. All he has to do is to stop by where you are the moderator and you can ban him from the entire Forum for 30 days. According to the rules that Stan has outlined. Just imagine!!!

Have fun ....

And by the way ... why would I ever "snucker" you.

You is my friend.

I didn't say that you "snuckered" me, I said that you said something and **I** got suckered into thinking something...

And for absolutely no reason, I might add. It's called jumping to wild conclusions with no basis whatever. It's what happens when people make assumptions because of rumors or whatever. Not a good thing to do.

But it was all cleared up fairly fast, so it could have been far worse. As it is, it was just a little lesson learned, hopefully.

No bad feelings about it. Just made the day kinda interesting, is one way to look at it.