DiscussMormonism.com

Here's an issue I'd like to discuss here, rather than in its original thread:

Re: From: Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge Purge
Post by Jersey Girl » Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:55 pm

Note to our vigilant mods: He's crapping all over the V&T thread merge with derailing comments (probably other threads as well but I haven't checked) and mainly discussing discussing instead of contributing to the thread or putting his comments on the moderation thread. I'll come back soon to see what I think needs reporting but If this doesn't stop I'm moving the topic myself because screw this crap.

The issue of "discussing discussing" is a tough one, because, per Shades, a poster's motivation for posting something is "on topic," as are moderation issues related to the post. Combined, that makes most, if not all, meta discussion of a topic "on topic."

If we look at function, I think nearly all "meta" posts function to derail the substantive discussion. But, perhaps to avoid threads multiplying like bunny rabbits, lots of meta posts are treated as on topic here.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:59 pm

Here's an issue I'd like to discuss here, rather than in its original thread:

Re: From: Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge Purge
Post by Jersey Girl » Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:55 pm

Note to our vigilant mods: He's crapping all over the V&T thread merge with derailing comments (probably other threads as well but I haven't checked) and mainly discussing discussing instead of contributing to the thread or putting his comments on the moderation thread. I'll come back soon to see what I think needs reporting but If this doesn't stop I'm moving the topic myself because screw this crap.

The issue of "discussing discussing" is a tough one, because, per Shades, a poster's motivation for posting something is "on topic," as are moderation issues related to the post. Combined, that makes most, if not all, meta discussion of a topic "on topic."

If we look at function, I think nearly all "meta" posts function to derail the substantive discussion. But, perhaps to avoid threads multiplying like bunny rabbits, lots of meta posts are treated as on topic here.

What is necessarily wrong with "threads multiplying like bunny rabbits"? It's not like space is an issue, really, and people will respond where they are interested. Suppose it allows the OP to protect a topic a bit, if others object to that, they can start their own thread to complain. If the OP is alone in wanting to protect a topic, they will eventually reign over a kingdom of one. So in the end we may have lots of threads expressing these opinions instead of one, yes, but why is that a problem?

If we protect people's right to behave like assholes in their 'free speech' posts, I don't see why we can't let an OP protect their topic. We are not limiting comments, just moving them to a proper location, right?

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:59 pm

Here's an issue I'd like to discuss here, rather than in its original thread:

Re: From: Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge Purge
Post by Jersey Girl » Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:55 pm

Note to our vigilant mods: He's crapping all over the V&T thread merge with derailing comments (probably other threads as well but I haven't checked) and mainly discussing discussing instead of contributing to the thread or putting his comments on the moderation thread. I'll come back soon to see what I think needs reporting but If this doesn't stop I'm moving the topic myself because screw this crap.

The issue of "discussing discussing" is a tough one, because, per Shades, a poster's motivation for posting something is "on topic," as are moderation issues related to the post. Combined, that makes most, if not all, meta discussion of a topic "on topic."

If we look at function, I think nearly all "meta" posts function to derail the substantive discussion. But, perhaps to avoid threads multiplying like bunny rabbits, lots of meta posts are treated as on topic here.

Reinstate thread starter rights if you'd like. I'm not planning to address the V&T thread here for the time being.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:59 pm

Here's an issue I'd like to discuss here, rather than in its original thread:

Re: From: Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge Purge
Post by Jersey Girl » Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:55 pm

Note to our vigilant mods: He's crapping all over the V&T thread merge with derailing comments (probably other threads as well but I haven't checked) and mainly discussing discussing instead of contributing to the thread or putting his comments on the moderation thread. I'll come back soon to see what I think needs reporting but If this doesn't stop I'm moving the topic myself because screw this crap.

The issue of "discussing discussing" is a tough one, because, per Shades, a poster's motivation for posting something is "on topic," as are moderation issues related to the post. Combined, that makes most, if not all, meta discussion of a topic "on topic."

If we look at function, I think nearly all "meta" posts function to derail the substantive discussion. But, perhaps to avoid threads multiplying like bunny rabbits, lots of meta posts are treated as on topic here.

There is also the issue of reactions to posts where the intent of the post was to trigger an off topic reaction.

For example.

Dagianton wrote:Ips makes money in his pajamas because he can bill hours while working from home while moderating this forum and posting covid porn to extend the lockdown.

Technically, that would be on topic in a thread about vaccines and lockdowns.

Ips Resa wrote:Dagianton, this is just another made up lie and accusation and more validation of why I do not trust you, and will never trust you.

Technically, this response is off topic even though it is a continuation of the thread conversation.

Maybe, when bombastic and stupid things are said that are meant to get a reaction, and they get a reaction, we can just roll with that since insults that are on topic are fair game. If we call a poster a Nazi because she posts a video about voter identification, why is that allowed but her refusal to accept the insult or her rebuttal and rejection is disallowed?

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:42 pm

If we protect people's right to behave like assholes in their 'free speech' posts, I don't see why we can't let an OP protect their topic. We are not limiting comments, just moving them to a proper location, right?

What about dicks, pussies and douchebags? Do we protect those rights too? Seriously, I am not being funny or crass. This is a serious question.

If we protect people's rights to be aggressive, what are we also doing? We are requiring another person or other people to be submissive to that, or expecting their submission? If we allow one form of aggression, is an aggressive response allowed or disallowed, and is it off topic or on topic?

If we protect the rights of a poster to play the victim card about her thread, must the other person submit and agree that indeed she is a victim?

I see a huge pattern that Marcus is identifying. It is okay to insult posters you do not like and it is okay for them to be insulted (asshole, aggression) but a response to that aggressions NOT EFFING ALLOWED HERE. Can't we go back to calling ajax names and he doesn't do F all about it?

Be careful what you wish for.

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:49 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:59 pm

Here's an issue I'd like to discuss here, rather than in its original thread:



The issue of "discussing discussing" is a tough one, because, per Shades, a poster's motivation for posting something is "on topic," as are moderation issues related to the post. Combined, that makes most, if not all, meta discussion of a topic "on topic."

If we look at function, I think nearly all "meta" posts function to derail the substantive discussion. But, perhaps to avoid threads multiplying like bunny rabbits, lots of meta posts are treated as on topic here.

Reinstate thread starter rights if you'd like. I'm not planning to address the V&T thread here for the time being.

If idiots can derail threads at will, why can't we have threads "multiplying like bunny rabbits"?

I know I am harping on this, but knowing that Shades' free speech rules allow the most egregious derailments, harassment, and personal attacks (as long as they are moved to the proper forum) makes worrying about "threads multiplying like bunny rabbits" seem UTTERLY RIDICULOUS.

Expecting everyone else to behave with decorum while allowing trolls to trash the place is asking too much.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:02 am

Expecting everyone else to behave with decorum while allowing trolls to trash the place is asking too much.

Is it just enough to ask some posters to be insulted without decorum and accept the insult with decorum? For example, if I call you a Branch Covidiot in the vaccine thread, do you have to stay in a specific lane to reject my insult? Can you only reject my insult in the context of the OP?

If I insult lawyers who sue doctors for vaccine reactions and accuse a poster, who may be a doctor, of being complicit with malpractice, can that poster respond to my insult without doing so in the context of the OP? Can he respond at all? If my aggressive insult is tolerated, can he be aggressive back to me, or must he be a victim, a poser or submit to my aggression? Can he not fire his metaphorical guns at me for making such a slanderous insult without decorum?

Binger wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:16 am

Marcus wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:02 am

Expecting everyone else to behave with decorum while allowing trolls to trash the place is asking too much.

Is it just enough to ask some posters to be insulted without decorum and accept the insult with decorum? For example, if I call you a Branch Covidiot in the vaccine thread, do you have to stay in a specific lane to reject my insult? Can you only reject my insult in the context of the OP?

If I insult lawyers who sue doctors for vaccine reactions and accuse a poster, who may be a doctor, of being complicit with malpractice, can that poster respond to my insult without doing so in the context of the OP? Can he respond at all? If my aggressive insult is tolerated, can he be aggressive back to me, or must he be a victim, a poser or submit to my aggression? Can he not fire his metaphorical guns at me for making such a slanderous insult without decorum?

Since you're back to your habit of deleting your posts, cultellus, let's just save this little bit of nonsense. You're not worth responding to, but documenting your ridiculousness is easy enough and provides a fascinating look at troll behavior.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:59 pm

Here's an issue I'd like to discuss here, rather than in its original thread:

Re: From: Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge Purge
Post by Jersey Girl » Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:55 pm

Note to our vigilant mods: He's crapping all over the V&T thread merge with derailing comments (probably other threads as well but I haven't checked) and mainly discussing discussing instead of contributing to the thread or putting his comments on the moderation thread. I'll come back soon to see what I think needs reporting but If this doesn't stop I'm moving the topic myself because screw this crap.

The issue of "discussing discussing" is a tough one, because, per Shades, a poster's motivation for posting something is "on topic," as are moderation issues related to the post. Combined, that makes most, if not all, meta discussion of a topic "on topic."

If we look at function, I think nearly all "meta" posts function to derail the substantive discussion. But, perhaps to avoid threads multiplying like bunny rabbits, lots of meta posts are treated as on topic here.

What is necessarily wrong with "threads multiplying like bunny rabbits"? It's not like space is an issue, really, and people will respond where they are interested. Suppose it allows the OP to protect a topic a bit, if others object to that, they can start their own thread to complain. If the OP is alone in wanting to protect a topic, they will eventually reign over a kingdom of one. So in the end we may have lots of threads expressing these opinions instead of one, yes, but why is that a problem?

If we protect people's right to behave like assholes in their 'free speech' posts, I don't see why we can't let an OP protect their topic. We are not limiting comments, just moving them to a proper location, right?

Marcus wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:24 am

Binger wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:16 am

Is it just enough to ask some posters to be insulted without decorum and accept the insult with decorum? For example, if I call you a Branch Covidiot in the vaccine thread, do you have to stay in a specific lane to reject my insult? Can you only reject my insult in the context of the OP?

If I insult lawyers who sue doctors for vaccine reactions and accuse a poster, who may be a doctor, of being complicit with malpractice, can that poster respond to my insult without doing so in the context of the OP? Can he respond at all? If my aggressive insult is tolerated, can he be aggressive back to me, or must he be a victim, a poser or submit to my aggression? Can he not fire his metaphorical guns at me for making such a slanderous insult without decorum?

Since you're back to your habit of deleting your posts, cultellus, let's just save this little bit of nonsense. You're not worth responding to, but documenting your ridiculousness is easy enough and provides a fascinating look at troll behavior.

So, the point about rejecting insults is nonsense to you. This is good information. And now, when the process is pointed out to you, like others, you will put me on ignore, correct?

You start your post with a comment about me, rather than the topic. You call my post nonsense. You then judge me and insult me, then call me a troll......... without addressing the topic. What in the hell are you afraid of?

It is VERY simple. Some people get to be assholes, and that is okay. If the asshole's terms are rejected, that feels icky and yucky and off topic and trollish and we can't process that.

By they way, who brought up assholes in this thread?