(July 21, 2010 at 4:40 pm)Cego_Colher Wrote: But I did have to agree that locking the objectification thread was a good idea.

Personally I saw that as a bad choice, whether or not anything was being said. If people want to fling insults at each other, let them. It was all part of the discussion.

Just because a thread is going on for a while that's no reason to lock it.

I don't think I could disagree with this idea more. I'm an adult and I certainly do not need a nanny telling me who I can and cannot insult or when I can or cannot insult them. It's not as if I start out insulting someone, but if, during the course of interaction, I end up feeling like insulting them... I will. If someone insults me... fine... I can take care of myself and do not need someone to step in on my behalf. Like someone else said... the freedom to say what you really want to say and to hear what others really want to say back to you... is one of the best things about this community.

I actually think that a moderator (or admin) stepping in when things get out of hand is more than enough... and only necessary if things get really out of hand. Eilonnwy stepped in and told us to cool it in that Dawkins thread when Syn and I took the bait and called Cecco a couple of names. That was fine, but I even think that was a bit overboard. It had not gotten out of hand and wasn't going to. It felt a little like "Sorry Mom!"... and a 45 year old man should not have to feel that way for speaking his mind.

Encouraging positive behaviour doesn't involve punishment. Hurt a person and they learn to hurt.

I vote not to change anything.

I just kept going back to it even though I didn't want to. I have no self-control. I should eat the rest of the ice-cream in the freezer. It was also: "you didn't read what I said. This is what I said..." and "no, you didn't read what I said..." I think if it wasn't uhm, angering me I'd be more like "eh, whatever." That's a bit selfish, oh, well. Even though, I wasn't on In the Mind's "side" I am still female and the subject of rape is still a difficult one. I guess I'm just saying I am biased?

I can understand where you are coming from, though. I also agree with just because a thread is long isn't a reason to lock it. Had it not been locked I might not have complained either.

I kinda think the thread might have ended with whoever screams loudest is the winner.
However, I feel different about the cecco threads, because, they didn't make me mad? Well, and also they were more of the type of threads that you could just say "don't feed the trolls."

(I sent Eilonnwy a PM saying that I was glad she did and I didn't want to seem like a hypocrite. This is why I stated how I feel/felt about the objectification thread. Or I could be allowing people to see my hypocrisy, whichever one works best.)

(July 21, 2010 at 4:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: And you!

I'm hard to insult....I have no personal stake in this god shit.

(July 21, 2010 at 5:06 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: I actually think that a moderator (or admin) stepping in when things get out of hand is more than enough... and only necessary if things get really out of hand. Eilonnwy stepped in and told us to cool it in that Dawkins thread when Syn and I took the bait and called Cecco a couple of names. That was fine, but I even think that was a bit overboard. It had not gotten out of hand and wasn't going to. It felt a little like "Sorry Mom!"... and a 45 year old man should not have to feel that way for speaking his mind.

You and Syn called her a cunt and bitch and you don't think that was overboard? It was not just insulting but personally offensive to me, as a woman. It was clearly going the way of flames, and for a 45 man you were acting like a child.

I always thought the best thing about the community was the honest discussion, but nope. It's just because you can insult people if you really get ticked off. What a wonderful standard to set.

(July 21, 2010 at 7:04 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: You and Syn called her a cunt and bitch and you don't think that was overboard? It was not just insulting but personally offensive to me, as a woman. It was clearly going the way of flames, and for a 45 man you were acting like a child.

I didn't consider Cecco's gender at all and thought she was a guy until you just said that. I said 'Bitch' in the slang sense... like a guy calls another guy when he's being a 'little bitch'. It was schoolyard name calling... on purpose. It was in mockery of her (which I thought was a him) actually telling me to either 'feed the troll' or call her names. I fell for the bait by making a comment for my own amusement. You should not find it insulting, because it wasn't directed at you, for one thing. For another... is was meant satirically. I only brought it up as an example of the kind of moderation I personally prefer to see... even if it was a bit premature, in my opinion.

(July 21, 2010 at 7:04 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I always thought the best thing about the community was the honest discussion, but nope. It's just because you can insult people if you really get ticked off. What a wonderful standard to set.

Oh come on! The discussions here are wonderful, but discussions can be found in a lot of places. One thing that makes this such a great place for discussion is that everyone, no matter what they think or believe, can feel free to speak their mind here. Don't be so extreme about it. I seriously doubt that anyone was saying the ability to insult people at will is all that makes this community great. Without the great discussions... it would be nothing.

The trouble with allowing people to insult each other is that it can create a bad atmosphere, which even if it doesn't result in an instant flame war (which is most likely) it can fester and result in out of the blue conflicts further down the line. And the trouble with allowing people to insult each other's points of view is that many people feel personally insulted and so the outcome can often be the same. This is why we're generally tactful in person. On the other hand if you feel a certain way you should have some way of expressing it. The trick is to find a balance. Also, when one person insults another, surely they're aware that the other person will most likely respond likewise, at least in most cases. So whenever someone insults another, it's usually in the full knowledge, therefore almost certainly in the hope, that the other person will reciprocate. If they do, you get a flame war. If they don't, it frustrates the person and makes them try harder and then others join in. The best thing to do is if you don't have anything positive to say, and by that I mean positive in terms of the overall discussion, then just say nothing.

@Eilonnwy: I want to clarify something. I am not complaining (at all) about you stepping into that Dawkins thread and agree that Syn and I were both stepping a bit out of line. You intervened and that was that. That's how it should be. That's all I'm saying. You wanted comments and opinions about your proposed rule change and that is my opinion. Stepping in the way you already do serves well and I see no reason to change it. I only brought up that particular time as an example. I mentioned that I thought it was a bit premature, because it wasn't quite the best example of what I was trying to advocate.

That's all the rule would really allow, for moderators to step in, but with a little more leeway since there's no specific insult rule. So some mods let things go, and others don't. This would make things more concrete. Saying flames aren't allowed is far to subjective.