A quick word on "Overwhelmingly Negative Influences"

[LadyForCamus]

People keep responding to the member you're speaking of, though I'm pretty sure this is about the recent rash of bandwagons as a whole. It's no secret that trolls get bored when no one responds. If he were truly a troll, the forum could easily police itself by ignoring him. The small, but vocal, group that seems the backbone of these complaints hasn't even tried that to my knowledge. From what I can see, the staff has given them multiple options from the ignore function to actual ignoring which have thus far been the only things they've ignored.

Every member is a valuable member to some degree, so I hate to see you guys losing people you like, but it's important not to change rules under threat of losing donations or membership. If the staff voted against something, that means the majority were against, as you know. If they pander to one because he either threatens to leave or actually does leave, it destroys the integrity of staff.

Completely fair assessment of the situation, ShellB.  I think a lot of us have a particular member who gets under our skin for some reason.  Different members bother different people for different reasons.  I say the same thing you just said here to others about a particular theist who gets responded to constantly, but then I turn around and fall into the same trap with someone different.  I feel we can all work a little harder to help out Tibs by doing a better job of self-regulating, and refraining from fueling negative attention seeking posters.  Or...at least stop bitching about it so much after the fact.  

[LadyForCamus]

Well, I guess how much this particular "Overwhelming Negatve Influence" is actually contributing to discussions is up for debate, then.  Given how much he(and let's face it, we all know who is being discussed) likes to antagonize and minimize the feelings of anyone that shows the slightest bit of vulnerability due to past experience, spends dozens of pages arguing semantics only to try and backtrack later, courts controversy for the sake of courting controversy, and generally relishes in getting a reaction out of people, I'm confident he's just trolling at this point.  

I'm all for freedom of speech, but how far do we let someone who is so clearly abusing this freedom to skirt the "no trolling" rule?  How many egregiously stupid and nonsensical things does he have to say before it's decided that he's just doing it to piss people off?

I agree that he's doing it to piss people off.   It's just, in his mind he is pissing us off on purpose as a way to "teach" us, or shock us into his way of thinking.  He sees us as a hive mind, that needs help. He's admitted all of this at various times.  It's Troll-like behavior for sure, but I believe he is sincerely invested in his actions and statements.  If that's truly the case, then Tibs is right.  Banning is not appropriate at this point.  As much as it HURTS me to admit that.  

[Sterben]

I'm a bit confused, so let's just say a religious person on the forum has a very hostile opinion on Same-Sex Marriage. He or she states their opinion on the matter in very offensive way. Does that rule protect their rights on the forum? Or does this mean that they are banned for possibly inciting a message of hate speech?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

They would not be banned for voicing an opinion. Nobody is banned for that.

If people are discussing their views, however 'offensive', in a way that is conducive to the dialogue of the topic/thread, then none of us in all good conscious can ask for them to be banned. It's not fair and it creates a bad precedent.

We are not responsible for policing the views and beliefs of people, neither are we here to police the reactions to those beliefs. Nobody can claim to have a discussion forum and yet ban people for wanting to discuss.

[Joods]

Taken directly from the Stated purpose of AF: 

In the interests of communication, we ask that members do not diverge from definitions of words that are found in established dictionaries, unless a thread's specific purpose is to discuss various alternative definitions.

Okay. So how many times in that one thread alone, has the offender specifically twisted the definitions of words or a phrase that expressly does opposite of what is posted above? Let's see... he's intentionally twisted the following words and phrases:
Rape
Forced
Forced sex
Consent
Consensual
Statute of Limitations.

There are probably more. But how many pages in that one thread alone, were wasted because the offender twisted actual definitions, left out second meanings, etc, to suit his own agenda? No one can deny that this has happened and there is nothing in the thread title or the OP of that thread, that even specifically states the purpose of that thread is to discuss various alternative definitions of any word. But, continue to allow him to deviate from parts of the stated purpose of AF, because that's not an actual rule.


In the case of our offender, I don't think this has anything to do with his freedom of speech. Rather, allowing him to continue misrepresenting "words that are found in established dictionaries", wasting pages and pages on it in a thread, causing it to be a hot topic, regardless of the amount of upset it causes active members, it simply promotes and increases AF being noticed on a search engine. Especially given the topic of conversation. In reality, how many times do you think the words "rape" "consent" "forced sex" and "statute of limitations" are looked up on google, yahoo and bing on a daily basis? Given the sheer number of "guests" that we have "visiting" here during busy times, I imagine it has to be a lot. But, by all means, keep allowing him to get away with it because it generates traffic for the website and I'm sure that makes the advertisers here really happy. At the end of the day, this site is a business, like any other. Money has to be made. Money has to be paid out for expenses (as minimal as they are: No staff to pay, no inventory to buy, no liability insurance, no rent on a brick and mortar building, etc) so the money has to come from somewhere, right? Advertisers bring that money in. So regardless of a topic, or the rules or anything else, it all comes down to money. Screw the integrity of the members here who actually have morals and values. Rather, keep the undesirables around because they bring drama and controversy and that causes hot topics and that causes the numbers to rise in the search engines and that causes the money to flow.

And speaking of money... twice now, low blows have been made in reference to the pulling of donations from here. The fact that your wife  never said one word about donations until I said I was pulling my financial support out of this place gives me every reason to know those comments were directed at me. Once here and once in the CIJS thread. I am not required to keep up my support of a place that chooses to put its own integrity on the line to save one ignorant, spiteful, rude member over trying to keep those with morals, compassion and empathy. I fully have the right to say why I am no longer giving money to AF. Free speech, remember? I stand by my reasons for doing so when I mentioned it last week. Continuing to bring that up and trying to make it something that it isn't, doesn't do anything but make her sound petty.

@ShellB: I have done nothing to you, personally, but the ignorance of last week's comments from you, still bleeds into today. I did not respond to a single comment you made, from the picture of the box of tampons to you trying to trivialize someone's hurt, I stayed out of it, even when I knew some of those things were directed at me. All you did was promote and incite more drama.  And speaking of that tampon picture: Pot meet kettle.

[Tiberius]

There's a difference between asking people to stick to dictionary definitions of words and requiring them to by enforcing some kind of rule.

Also the only reason money is even mentioned is because you made the fact that you were withdrawing your monthly donation very public. That was taken by some staff as an attempt at trying to influence our stance, and we don't appreciate that kind of behavior. This isn't a pay to play kind of setup. We appreciate donations but if users think they can influence us by donating or withdrawing their donation they are very much mistaken.

[brewer]

Shit, sounds like some of you need your "piss off", "ability to ignore" and "humor" thresholds adjusted. 

These are just words and ideas and this is the internet. It might be different if the behavior being discussed went on in IRL, but this it is not real life. If you think that participation here should be conducted as if it were "IRL" you might need a reality check. 

Sorry, but if you demand your own rules maybe you should find the door marked "EXIT". To the comment, to the thread, to the forum, your choice.

[Tiberius]

Also I'm not sure if you are aware but we don't make money via ads anymore. We rely solely on donations so the site is technically losing money. We haven't ever been in the black so to speak.

[mlmooney89]

Ok I thought I knew who it was but now I think I was wrong and another person comes to mind... that being said (and despite my curiosity) I will admit the person's identity isn't needed... Still my original statement works. Although this new person is harder to ignore lol.

[Joods]

I wasn't trying to influence staff. I clearly stated why I pulled my support. I don't use hidden meanings. I'm direct and to the point about it and made no qualms about what I felt. Sorry if anyone read more into that then they should have.

As far as the dictionary goes, as I already said, I know it is not a rule. I specifically said so. Again, being to the point and obvious about that fact.

ETA: And perhaps that is something that could possibly become part of a rule at some point. Intentionally misusing words clearly defined in established dictionaries, for the purposes of inciting drama, causing hurt or otherwise interrupting thread topic flow, is a problem. Something to discuss behind closed doors then? If several pages are wasted because a member chooses to intentionally and irrationally misunderstand the meaning of a word, and it is repeatedly corrected by several contributing members of a given thread , perhaps that should be taken into consideration as the offender causing discord? I don't even know how that would be worded, but in my (apparently worthless) opinion, it ought to be some sort of rule. And no - it's not about limiting one's freedom of speech. Especially when that member specifically goes out of their way to shift the goalposts of the definition of a word, so that it suits their own agenda, it does indeed do harm. It disrupts the flow of the conversation because the focus then becomes all about the person misusing it, and no longer relevant to the actual topic at hand. Just food for thought.