# Future of the Study



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2011)

Based on concerns, here are some options.
Vote and let us know your reasoning.

Thanks.


----------



## billc (Aug 7, 2011)

I have to say, even if you make it an opt in area for members, the same people will complain about who and what is being posted rather than posting things they would like to see instead.  Thanks for the effort though.  I appreciate the steps you are taking to keep the study going.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 7, 2011)

Hmm, tough call faced with it cold.  

My instinctive reaction is to opt for just dumping it but, despite this ever-present cloud of Politics, other things do get discussed there - which is what you'd expect from a bunch of people who have gotten to know each other a bit (as much as the Net allows at any rate).

The Study is for more serious talking points than the more 'light' "Bar & Grill" but I really think that Partisan Politics should have no home there.  Stick all that in a bespoke Politics forum and, within a specified time frame, after the first thread on a soapbox a poster makes, charge for each subsequent thread on the same theme; with an exponential scale that'd do it.

The answer is not going to be an easy one in all seriousness.  Making it SM only has the advantage of keeping it hidden from new sign ups, so they don't get driven off by it before they have a chance to get their feet under the table.  Of course there is the downside that if people are paying to see it then they are going to be even more infuriated and offended by the political 'eternal tidal wave' (and it does feel that way).


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 7, 2011)

Keep it, opt-in if you want to view or post there. we are after suppose to be adults......


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 7, 2011)

make it opt in with the caveat that it is opt in, no crying about afterwards


----------



## billc (Aug 7, 2011)

Or...how about a part of the study that is like it is now, and then the rest for everything not confrontational, you could call it the arena and put it in the same area as the U.S. political thread.  that way it would be hard for people to not intentionally go there, and you could just not list it in the new posts when people "pop" in to see what is new on the site.  It would be a fight club, where no one talks about the fight club kind of thing.  Now, I think what the study is now is fine, but this might be a solution.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 7, 2011)

the first rule is......


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 7, 2011)

:chuckles:  It's an idea ... but {there is always one of those isn't there} what we are really after is more mature, intelligent and adult conversation, not a sanctified area for mud-slinging.  Now the problem is that that, so it seems, that is what we are all saying we want but that is not what we are getting.

That's why I said earlier that *we* have to change if we want the site to change.  Talk about politics is not the same thing as preaching about politics.  What we have is the latter and, significantly, the views causing the trouble are those held by a tiny minority of the membership.  What the rest of us want is not 'censorship' {ooh scary bogey-man}, it's a bit of consideration and some normal decorum.  It's self-censorship and an appreciation of when we've had our say and noone wants to hear any more then it's time to be quiet for a bit.  That way the tail might stop wagging the dog.

Addendum:  I realise I'm muddling two trains of thought here from two threads.  Hopefully those involved reading it will be able to stitch them together - now I'm back to the LOTRO instance I'm half way through before I get my ears shouted off by my Kinnies ...


----------



## billc (Aug 7, 2011)

Sukerkin, not to complain,but to do it anyway, I post articles and videos, as well as making my own comments, but I have to say I am also polite when I do it.  I definitely can't say the same of many of those who disagree with me.  By making a seperate area, the people who complain about how others post, and what they post, will go there with the understanding that if people express their point of view differently, it is in an area that you really have to go to in order to be offended by it.  Not so much the mud slinging is in my mind as a place where the faint of heart go knowing they might not like what they see there, but there will be no excuse to complain about it.

Articles and videos aren't much different than what you see in the martial arts side the same with the articles.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2011)

Just a note:  If this goes the opt-in route, due to the nature of the software, it may be an opt-out instead.  I'll have to figure that bit out I suppose.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 7, 2011)

I would say to make it an opt-in, but if a user chooses to participate, they agree to some form of hightened accountability.  I know that sounds ambiguous as all hell, but it would make more sense from my perspective than the SM-only solution.  To use billicihak's reasoning (ironically enough), all it would take would be for the offending posters, for lack of a better term, to put $5 down and the same problem exist.  So I think the opt-in option, while not a simple solution, would be the best way to address the problem.


----------



## rlobrecht (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm an adult. I know how to ignore things on the Internet that bother me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2011)

Risk is people trying to buy access or thinking that paying for it = exemption from the rules.
Doesn't work that way. Even if I have to issue refunds.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 7, 2011)

Leave it as is!


----------



## billc (Aug 7, 2011)

I have to say I agree with Mr. Vancise.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 7, 2011)

Bob, do what you have to do to preserve your sanity and quality of life. It is, after all your site.
That said. I'd prefer leaving it as is, or opting in or out.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 7, 2011)

how about make some rule like, for every post in the Study, you have to post in some martial arts section.  Maybe do a 1:3 study/martial arts ratio requirement...


----------



## Senjojutsu (Aug 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Risk is people trying to buy access or thinking that paying for it = exemption from the rules.
> Doesn't work that way. Even if I have to issue refunds.


Bob, 

FWIW If you are asking these questions in August of 2011, imagine what August - or late October- of 2012 will be like!?


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 7, 2011)

restrict politics to the political section.

solved


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 7, 2011)

Exactly.  Oh and make it invisible to all who don't want to see it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 7, 2011)

that should be possible, i mean, only sm's could see the casino, right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> that should be possible, i mean, only sm's could see the casino, right?



Different rule set at play.  Casino, Arcade, etc had "can access" permissions.

With the forums, AFAIK it works like this:
I can set  a "study access" user group up that you would have to be in to see it.  I can make it a joinable group (there are a few now).
Most members will never find the option.
(Hell I get 1 email a week asking how to make a post.)

Setting it up so that all members by default are in that group, and can opt-out is the challenge.
Opting in isn't.  It just means that only members at the time I set it up and add them will likely be active there.
New members will most likely never even look for it.

There are other variations.  Make it visible by all, but you must opt in to post.
I'll get 1 email a week asking how to do that, despite a sticky in each area.
(I get 2-3 emails a week asking why people cant post events....there are numerous notes indicating why)


As to my sanity...that's long gone.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 7, 2011)

yeah, like we didnt know THAT.......................

make it opt in, and have a strict "no crying" policy


----------



## Steve (Aug 7, 2011)

Personally, I'd leave the forum as it is.  Billicihak likes to stir the pot, but I personally don't have a problem with his posts.  It's not always constructive, and he's usually argumentative, but I don't get any sense that he's dangerous.  Rather, he strikes me as a guy who likes to argue, likes to stir things up and enjoys his status as the forum heel (in the pro wrestling sense).  Once I realized that this is just a game for him, it put things in perspective for me.  

The real issue for me at this time is that we have an unstable person amongst us and everyone's trying to pretend otherwise.


----------



## MJS (Aug 7, 2011)

I voted for making it an opt in feature.  The Study is one of those places that you either love or hate.  There is no middle.  It allows for discussion thats not allowed in other areas, ie: world events, etc.  Its a place where some extra heat is allowed, but its not a free for all, though some tend to try to make it that way.  If someone opts in, then that tells me that they accept the rules of the field.  If someone doesnt like it, but opts in anyway, and then complains, well, those people will get little to no sympathy from me.  Why?  Well, we're all supposed to be adults here, therefore, nobody is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to join in.  If you join, be prepared to deal with the topics, the differences of opinion, and dont ***** about it!  After all, you opted to join in.  

And yes, as I've said many times, topics in this area will, 99% of the time, be hot ones.  99% of the time, you'll have everyone having different opinions.  It'd sure be nice if people could respect the opinions of others.  Makes alot of extra work when people have to resort to calling someone a dumb ****, an *******, a troll, or any of the other choice terms that've been used over time.


----------



## granfire (Aug 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Just a note:  If this goes the opt-in route, due to the nature of the software, it may be an opt-out instead.  I'll have to figure that bit out I suppose.



hmmm, I did not see you or your staff twist my arm participating....so it's already opt-in or -out....

not sure if I have a suggestion...
I have found the study rules to be very lenient (and sadly abused) compared to a set of rules put forth by a group of kids on another forum for the heavy topics. (let's just say a couple of Study regulars would have not lasted...)


----------



## Big Don (Aug 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> hmmm, i did not see you or your staff twist my arm participating....so it's already opt-in or -out....


qft


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2011)

The playpen is fine.  However, a couple of the kiddies smear the contents of their diapers on the walls.  Get rid of them.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 7, 2011)

IMO this is a case study in modern mans lack of self control. People can't stop themselves from clicking on a link? Is this a "disease"? If someone is not violating a rule here this boils down to simply crying about not liking someones politics and attempting to get the powers that be to silence them. People need to cowboy up.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2011)

It's not really a question of using the ignore function or not clicking on a link.  It's more like swimming in a pool that we all enjoy, but it has a certain amount of pee in it.  At a certain point, it stops being nasty and becomes a health hazard.  We can all ignore a little now and then.  None of us want to swim in pure pee.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2011)




----------



## Archangel M (Aug 7, 2011)

Any "pool" filled with politics and religion should be recognized as having a high pee content before you jump in. 

It's the other peoples pee that some people seem offended by. Their own just makes the water pleasantly warm in their part of the pool.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 7, 2011)

BTW I voted "don't care" I would keep it as is, but unlike some others (apparently) Im not so personally invested in the study that it's staying or going would alter my mood.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2011)

Personally I'd like to keep it. Some issues I enjoy discussing.
But, the overall health of MT is in my thoughts.

Worst case I suppose I could spin it off as a stand-alone site.  Just need someone to donate $500 to the cause, lol.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2011)

When my apartment complex had some problems with gang-bangers, we complained to the management.  After enough people complained, they evicted the troublemakers.  There was no discussion of shutting down the apartment complex because apparently people could not live in peace within it.

On the other hand, I once lived in an apartment complex that refused to get rid of the few trouble-makers they had.  I moved, as did most of the decent people I knew who lived nearby.

To me, the problem is not one that requires extensive navel-gazing or vote-taking.  We all know the problem children are.  They refuse to clean up their act and have even made it clear that they intend to continue baiting people so that they can claim they are the victims when people explode with anger at their horrible posts.  Dump those idiots and let peace and common sense return.  People *can* disagree without being disagreeable; but not when they are confronted with the type of garbage we've been subjected to lately.  Yes, the decent people can all go elsewhere, or choose to put up with the gangsters, but it's easier to get rid of the gangsters.  So that's my vote.  Dump the troublemakers.  Sorry nobody has the courage to say that, but I do.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 7, 2011)

While I get the allegory...this is the internet. Hasn't everybody been exposed to the saying about what arguing on the internet is like???


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 7, 2011)

THIS



Archangel M said:


> IMO this is a case study in modern mans lack of self control. People can't stop themselves from clicking on a link? Is this a "disease"? If someone is not violating a rule here this boils down to simply crying about not liking someones politics and attempting to get the powers that be to silence them. People need to cowboy up.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Mr Mattocks is advocating censorship


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 7, 2011)

http://images.piccsy.com/cache/imag...something-on-the-internet-126457-530-1209.jpg


----------



## granfire (Aug 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


>







comes to mind....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2011)

Naming names here.

Bill, I agree with you in principle here.  Booting the troublemakers makes sense.

But, how do we decide who gets the boot?

I can look at our reports for a hint.
But half of those are 'I disagree with him, so smack him for me'.
Or aren't 'a big deal'.

I can say "These 3".
And boot TwinFist, billicihak and, well someone else...maybe me.

A few years ago the names were different.
Tellner, Big Don and MichaelEdward.

A few years before that, 3 others.

At 1 point, it was def. myself and Arnisador.
Archs been listed, Elder, yourself, Tez, Suk, and a dozen others.

In fact, look at the top 10 posters in The Study for any given year. 7 of the 10 are on the "Bob, you need to boot them now" list.

I know who's the current PITA list.  The question is though....What's in the best interests of MT?

Sometimes, keeping the PITA is good for business. Sometimes it puts you out of it.
Hard call.

And please, no body I just named get bent out of shape, again, for being named. Last time I used this example I got 3 offers to leave.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 7, 2011)

this is really simple, if you dont like what peoiple are posting (and make no mistake, thats all this is) you can either:
1) ignore them
2) dont read crap you dont want to
3) try to get them busted for breaking the rules, if they do
4) try to get the rules changed so what they are doing is against the new improved rules.
5) grow up

someone posting links? give me a friggin break, if you dont like them, DONT READ THEM

i do enjoy the occasional colume from breitbart's crew or colture.

if you dont, DONT READ IT

but trying option 4? thats some seriously cowardly crap, right there.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2011)

We've changed the rules in the past by demand.

For one, we stopped filtering ***.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 7, 2011)

***


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 7, 2011)

I was only listed ONCE?!?

Thats IT! IM OUTTA HERE!!


----------



## billc (Aug 7, 2011)

Who demanded that you stop filtering A**.

Oh, I have to go back to crossing off names on my "Send christmas present to..." list.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 7, 2011)

but you get my point.

I LIKE bill's links, they make me think and TO ME, promote conversation. All the bitching about them is about 90% "i disagree, and this makes me butt hurt so it shouldnt be allowed"


like i said, people need to grow up.

as for me?

I havnt broken a rule in ages, opinion calls about rudeness are just that, opinions

i do not care how many people dont agree with me, i believe what i believe, and have, on the islam thing, never seen a thing that made me change my mind.

but again, people dont like my opinion, so they report me and try to get me banned.

see above IE grow up

IGNORE ME if you dont like it, it wont hurt my feelings and it would apparently save Bob from reading all the "Dear Bobb, my butt hurts" emails

ignore Bill, ignore me, hell, i got 3 people on my iggy list right now and I feel BETTER for it.

but i would never try to get those people banned.

but then i guess my butt is pain proof


----------



## billc (Aug 7, 2011)

Hmm...I have to say, the whole banning people thing for anything other than rude behavior is pretty weak.  Not unexpected, but very weak.  "I don't like what he posts, I don't like how he posts it..."  Hmmm...wow.   What silly people.  Just my opinion.  This must be how Fox news feels.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> comes to mind....


Thanks for making the picture bigger.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 7, 2011)

I have said what I have to say.  Ban the trolls or don't.  I don't care.

I have never - and Bob can out me if I'm lying - complained to the mods here about any of you.  Not once.  I think I sent a warning message to him when someone once threatened the POTUS on MT, but that's it.

I never even complained to anyone when (you know who you are) sent me vile hate-filled PMs.  I kept it to myself because I am a man and I deal with my own problems.

But you assume I whine to the staff about you.  I never have.  I say what I have to say to your face.  I'll do it up close and personal if you want to take it there.

So I'm saying here and now, in front of you, in front of everyone, that if the question is how do we make the study a decent place again, I say the way to do that is to turf the trouble makers.  You don't like me saying that?  Tough.  I'll not sneak around behind anyone's back, I said it right in front of you.  Got a problem with that?  Too bad.  Send me some obscenities via PM, you crybaby.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm just traumatized that we've now started discussing TF's butt.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 7, 2011)

dont drink the hater-aid


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm just sayin.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 8, 2011)

sorry, my *** belongs to heather, but you can dream Bob


----------



## Big Don (Aug 8, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> sorry, my *** belongs to heather, but you can dream Bob


 Thomas or Locklear?


----------



## Jenna (Aug 8, 2011)

Ultimately do what will give you most enjoyment at MT Bob rather than what is best for MT.  If you do not enjoy your activities at MT then you will become disaffected with it, put no energy into its marketing and then there will be no MT in any commercial sense I think.  Do what you must to make it enjoyable.  Why did you start the site?  What was enjoyable in the beginning and what has changed?  It is your business and not only your prerogative to make it an enjoyable endeavour and but your duty to yourself as owner.  If you enjoy MT then you will put more energies into promotion and admin and it will thrive, no?


If my opinion were sought, I would say I think there is little or no relationship between the Study and the friendly discussion of martial arts.  Therefore if it were at all feasible I say it should be annexed or rebranded as a separate autonomonus entity.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Ultimately do what will give you most enjoyment at MT Bob rather than what is best for MT. If you do not enjoy your activities at MT then you will become disaffected with it, put no energy into its marketing and then there will be no MT in any commercial sense I think. Do what you must to make it enjoyable. Why did you start the site? What was enjoyable in the beginning and what has changed? It is your business and not only your prerogative to make it an enjoyable endeavour and but your duty to yourself as owner. If you enjoy MT then you will put more energies into promotion and admin and it will thrive, no?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm with Jenna here, Bob should do what he thinks is best ...for him. That will then be best for us.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 8, 2011)

First off Bob is asking for our opinion before making any final decision, which I feel is the right way to go. The study, I feel, is a great addition to this site, making it a well rounded place, with something for everyone. There is an agitator within the study that uses it like a fishing hole, and while somewhat polite, stays under the radar. That person relentlessly starts threads (like fishing) until he gets a bite. Some of his threads go unanswered, or with little feed back. At that point he abruptly starts a new "fishing hole" hoping to snag someone. Once he gets a bite, the fun for him begins, and he plays the game well. Using a life time membership as a bargaining chip, he goes about his game of agitating. (If this was a bar room situation, the bouncers would have given him the door long ago. Was the site better before he came, or is it better because he came???? No names were given, use your imagination.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 8, 2011)

I see no reason to close or restrict it.

Just add in some strict rules, about what the Topics of Threads can be, and all will be swell.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 8, 2011)

Sometimes, when posting in the Study, you don't know that you have actually annoyed someone.  I was amazed when I found out that I'd been RTM'd as I could not for the life of me figure out what I'd said that could have so offended someone (without them talking to me first about it at any rate).  I still don't know (as even Moderator's don't get to see that sort of thing about themselves) but in the end I figured it must've been religious people who didn't like my disdain for all things religious as I did tend to cut loose with more honesty than tact on that subject.  

So I changed the way I posted (as much as I could for I have really strong feelings on the matter).  That's what helps keep things civilised i.e. modify your own behaviour for the company that you are keeping.

The Study has reached the state it has (and it is the worst I have seen it in six years) because people seem unwilling to do that and because, as I have been calling for for five of those six years, the Moderation needs to be swifter and harder hitting when people refuse to play-well-with-others.  I thought the new tougher line announced recently would help but it does not seem to have done so - possibly because people have got RTM-fatigue and just don't bother any more (I know I am guilty of that some days).

So either we abandon the Study to it's fate, give the disturbers of the peace one last chance to shape up or just surrender wholsesale and pack our bags.


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 8, 2011)

I'm in favor of leaving it as it is, but also bringing in a level of personal responsibility.  You can always use the ignore feature, and out of all the people who complain about a particular poster, I wonder how many of y'all have actually used the ignore feature?  

My thoughts were summarized in this post.  

A little bit of personal responsibility can greatly cut down on things, without killing good discussions in this forum.  

Y'all are martial artists, and have higher standards when it comes to discipline.  Why not take some of that ability that your dojo helped instill in you, and use it?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Naming names here.
> 
> Bill, I agree with you in principle here.  Booting the troublemakers makes sense.
> 
> ...


On the contrary. It seems you don't remember when I started posting.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> A few years ago the names were different.
> *Tellner*, Big Don and *MichaelEdward*.



I miss those guys.  I guess I would miss Big Don too in an odd way but he's still here. 



Bob Hubbard said:


> At 1 point, it was def. myself and Arnisador.
> Archs been listed, Elder, yourself, Tez, Suk, and a dozen others.



Who could call Sukerkin a troublemaker?  That's just not right.

For myself, I've responded to the craziness and the recent hard line by mostly distancing myself from the discussion and the site.  No sense banging my head on the wall.  It was only for the benefit of the lurkers and not for letting nonsense stand anyway.  None are so blind as they who will not see.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I miss those guys. I guess I would miss Big Don too in an odd way but he's still here.



I was wondering how rmcrobertson didn't make the list...then I realized that even the server didn'g go back that far.  :rofl:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 8, 2011)

I have more than once wanted the study to go away, even I had it blocked so I couldn&#8217;t see it and I use to think it had nothing to do with martial arts so why on earth is it here&#8230;.I still think it has nothing to do with Martial Arts and I still do not know why it is here but at this point my thoughts about the study are that I just don&#8217;t care anymore&#8230;  but I am getting that way for just about just about all things web forum these days... do with it what you will


----------



## MaxiMe (Aug 8, 2011)

My $.02

Opt in opt out or leave it. Most of the time I find it entertaining to see Bill and Tez  or others go at it (nice sparring matches always intrest me). And Both sides of the issues have linked to thought provoking stuff. So hey if it causes me to think it must be of some value (more than watching Tooky or Snokky or Kooky  or what evet on those reality shows).

But ultimately Bob it's your lawn. And you can tell us all to get off it


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2011)

It's one thing to ignore a poster because they are annoying you that's fair enough but when they aren't annoying you but making posts you feel must be challenged that's something else. If we ignored the more extreme of the political postings would we then not be guilty of doing nothing to put the other side forward? I can honestly say no poster here annoys me, no posts annoy me but I do feel I have to challenge some of the more outrageous statements made about political views and political history. If we allow such posts to go unchallenged we allow only one side of the political coin to show. I'm not in favour of banning people unless it's like one chap we had who sent me Pms and posted stuff that was disgustingly anti semitic, because if people don't post their views how can I post mine? I've had neg reps slagging me off for being a leftie, I'm not actually but it went on to say the forums were better without us scum. That sort of attitude needs challenging, but it doesn't have to be with insults or 'oh you must be drunk/on drugs/stupid' types of posts. I think most of us are like Bill Mattocks, we will say when we disagree right out front, no sneaking around, it's 'in yer face'. Bill and I have had our arguments , heated yes, nasty never. neither of us ran off complaining to teacher.

I think it's important that no one sided political stands are taken here, no one side reigns over the Study. I asked that some people could post less videos up, so that it would facilitate easier discussions rather that people wading through propaganda, the point being 'what does the poster think?' not what does some pundit think. That means more discussions not less, and certainly not censorship.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 8, 2011)

rep comments, report them if you think they are out of line.  Much of the time we don't reverse them, sometimes we do.

PM's fall under forum rules.  If you feel they are harassing, report them, we will investigate.  Again, much of the time we don't 'police', sometimes we do.

We try to take things in context, etc. We try to be fair.  




As to interpersonal disagreements, consider these phrases:



> I disagree with you.
> 
> You're wrong.
> 
> ...



Which ones are RTM worthy, and which ones are not? Which ones should be water off your back, and which ones merit a visit from a mods LART?
(Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool)


The last 2 got the offender banned.  The 3rd from the bottom got a warning. The first 4 aren't on my radar at all.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 8, 2011)

I belong to another forum where simply saying that there are moderate muslims, or the Islam is a religion of peace, will get you banned. You can discuss Islam, but only as a negative. I only lurk there, but I could see a similar rule governing content making some things easier to bear: start with a ban on defaming any religious figure or prophet from history-not living beings currently on earth, but the likes of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. No calling the founder of Islam a "pedophile," no saying that "Jesus didn't exist." Similar rules for the various factions along the political spectrum could be used: no demonization of liberals, or equating "the left" with discredited political systems that should be relegated to the scrapheap of history, and no demonization of "the right," and accusations of a lack of compassion. And, for those who are decrying the spectre of "censorship," this is Bob's house, and we're already subject to censorship-get over it.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It's one thing to ignore a poster because they are annoying you that's fair enough but when they aren't annoying you but making posts *you feel must be challenged *that's something else. If we ignored the more extreme of the political postings would we then not be guilty of doing nothing to put the other side forward? I can honestly say no poster here annoys me, no posts annoy me but *I do feel I have to challenge *some of the more outrageous statements made about political views and political history. If we allow such posts to go unchallenged we allow only one side of the political coin to show. I'm not in favour of banning people unless it's like one chap we had who sent me Pms and posted stuff that was disgustingly anti semitic, because if people don't post their views how can I post mine? I've had neg reps slagging me off for being a leftie, I'm not actually but it went on to say the forums were better without us scum. That sort of attitude *needs challenging*, but it doesn't have to be with insults or 'oh you must be drunk/on drugs/stupid' types of posts. I think most of us are like Bill Mattocks, we will say when we disagree right out front, no sneaking around, it's 'in yer face'. Bill and I have had our arguments , heated yes, nasty never. neither of us ran off complaining to teacher.
> 
> I think it's important that no one sided political stands are taken here, no one side reigns over the Study. I asked that some people could post less videos up, so that it would facilitate easier discussions rather that people wading through propaganda, the point being 'what does the poster think?' not what does some pundit think. That means more discussions not less, and certainly not censorship.



Tez..this is the internet.

Refer to: 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?97923-Future-of-the-Study&p=1419793#post1419793


----------



## Big Don (Aug 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I miss those guys.  I guess I would miss Big Don too in an odd way but he's still here.


I'm so touched I may cry


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 8, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No calling the founder of Islam a "pedophile," no saying that "Jesus didn't exist."



There are reasonable arguments for both propositions.  If we ban expression of controversial but supportable opinions because it hurts feelings, how long do we go before banning questioning of religion at all?  Or any other emotional topic?

These things probably have to be judged on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket ban.  There is a difference between the statements "there is no solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus" and "Jesus never existed you scum sucking Christian cockbag" which a blanket ban elides.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I'm so touched I may cry



I did say an "odd" way.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> There are reasonable arguments for both propositions. If we ban expression of controversial but supportable opinions because it hurts feelings, how long do we go before banning questioning of religion at all? Or any other emotional topic?
> 
> These things probably have to be judged on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket ban. There is a difference between the statements "there is no solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus" and "Jesus never existed you scum sucking Christian cockbag" which a blanket ban elides.



A rule would be a good place to start. Calling Mohammad a pedophile adds absolutely nothing to any discussion about him or Islam-and, if one understands the cultural context, it's  also likely that it's completely inaccurate anyway. Ditto Jesus, actually, though that was only an example: saying that there is "no solid historical evidence" adds nothing to most discussions-though I can see merit to allowing this one on a case by case basis......


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Tez..this is the internet.
> 
> Refer to:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?97923-Future-of-the-Study&p=1419793#post1419793



Yeah but I don't get mad, I enjoy arguing, ask anyone that knows me lol! It makes me smile when I can post a rebuttal or challenge to someones argument and I do feel that many arguments do need challenging! I'm saying this to distance myself from those who feel insulted, or get angy, I don't, as I said it just makes me smile. I enjoy the cut and thrust of good debate, not 'shut up you're stupid' or 'shut up your drunk or on drugs' that kills argument stone dead.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I'm so touched I may cry



:grins:  I've commented myself, in positive fashion, that you seem a much more contented man these days - a welcome thing indeed :nods happily:.


----------



## granfire (Aug 8, 2011)

I found this set of debating rules pretty spot on:
http://distanthorizons.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ctb&action=display&thread=14891


Especially this part:


> Expanded Rules: These rules are for people who have never really debated in a forum before.
> 
> 1.  I have noticed a ton of arguments being taken personally. Critical  Thinking is a place for discussion and debate. Debate is where someone  refutes an opinion and supports his or her own. There is no reason to  take offense about a reasonably presented debate. I know if someone  insults what you believe in you tend to get insulted, however part of  what makes humans sentient is the ability to control instinctive  reactions. If someone debates with you, debate back. Don't insult them.  Sure, put a harsh twinge on your comments, it makes it more fun, but do  not insult the person for having an opinion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2011)

I may have to post this question on the Law Enforcement section lol. Perhaps Archangel, myself and others of our ilk have thicker skins due to having abuse flung at us on a regular basis and it sliding off? Perhaps though a military/police/medical sense of humour means you see things that bit differently? I know that certainly the military tend to think civvies are a bit soft lol!


----------



## Big Don (Aug 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I may have to post this question on the Law Enforcement section lol. Perhaps Archangel, myself and others of our ilk have thicker skins due to having abuse flung at us on a regular basis and it sliding off? Perhaps though a military/police/medical sense of humour means you see things that bit differently? I know that certainly the military tend to think civvies are a bit soft lol!


That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I may have to post this question on the Law Enforcement section lol. Perhaps Archangel, myself and others of our ilk have thicker skins due to having abuse flung at us on a regular basis and it sliding off? Perhaps though a military/police/medical sense of humour means you see things that bit differently? I know that certainly the military tend to think civvies are a bit soft lol!



I also tend to think that we are the opposite of the often mentioned "If this were real life you wouldn't be saying the things you are saying". 

While I tend to avoid political/religious discussion in general in "the real world", when I do I do indeed say the exact sort of things I say here.


----------



## granfire (Aug 8, 2011)

Maybe I am just hanging with a rough crowd...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> *I'm so touched *I may cry



I've heard that about you 

and no :uhohh: I did not change a THING in your post


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I may have to post this question on the Law Enforcement section lol. Perhaps Archangel, myself and others of our ilk have thicker skins due to having abuse flung at us on a regular basis and it sliding off? Perhaps though a military/police/medical sense of humour means you see things that bit differently? I know that certainly the military tend to think civvies are a bit soft lol!



I've been meaning to post something along those lines myself, especially the past day or so, in response to Angel's comments about the Study. It's good to hear someone actually in that line of work express what I've been thinking :tup:.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 8, 2011)

Bob, I voted for Supporting member, but here is my plan. 
1) Supporting members get to read as supporting members. 
2) They get X posts to make a day. "X" is unknown at this moment. But I am thinking to one a day or they can keep up to 5 saved to log in and make a few posts after being gone a few days. 
3) They CANNOT CREATE a new thread. If you want to create a new Thread you need to be a permanent member or even a specil paying member of the Study. I think Permanent Members could create a minimum number and the special paying ones could create as many as they wish, or you could even come up with a pay as you post plan. Kind of like Text messages in the old days. 
4) The Special Study members (* referred to henceforth in this post as the Specials - with no derrogatory meaning, I just did not want post about the SS *) can create and post as they see fit as long as they follow the rules. 

The Money would go to a good cause:
a) Supporting the work it takes to maintain this site and the Study
b) Possibly paying a moderator (* Supporting membership covered for a month of Moderation or maybe a gift card of some nominal value so you could go by a pizza. *)
c) If enough people contribute, Bob could by Pizza. :~D


While I support the "free" usage of membership, I also understand the "COST" of running a business and maintaining software licenses and upgrades. I also know it is taxing on the "staff" to deal with issues all the time. Which is why I mentioned the gift card idea as a reward to some who do the work in the Study. 


This model / plan allows for those who want to be involved to decide how much it is worth to them to be involved. Being a supporting membership is the price of entry to get in and read and to make a minimum number of posts. You might even allow regular members the chance to read but not post (* if possible *).  And yes I understand this woudl require lots of work to set up, but it could generate income for the site. The Specials would be able to post as they saw fit and the Life Time Members could create a few threads of their own, and if they had a desire to create more threads then they could pay for the priviledge of doing so. 

Just my ideas off the top of my head.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I also tend to think that we are the opposite of the often mentioned "If this were real life you wouldn't be saying the things you are saying".
> 
> *While I tend to avoid political/religious discussion in general in "the real world", when I do I do indeed say the exact sort of things I say here*.



Exactly!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 8, 2011)

Rich

I like what you said...except there is one thing I see here that is absolutely unacceptable is this bit



Rich Parsons said:


> c) If enough people contribute, Bob could by Pizza. :~D



Pizzas, although good, are not healthy so I will support this ONLY if Bob signs an agreement..IN TRIPLICATE... stating he will buy an organic salad with the money.... 

And I still don't care about the study :uhyeah:


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I also tend to think that we are the opposite of the often mentioned "If this were real life you wouldn't be saying the things you are saying".
> 
> While I tend to avoid political/religious discussion in general in "the real world", when I do I do indeed say the exact sort of things I say here.



What I say is generally what I say.  But then, I'm careful to say what I mean, whether on line or in person.  It confuses some people, who don't necessarily hear what I say, but what they think I meant...


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 8, 2011)

read my facebook, i say the exact same **** here as i do in real life and i do not care one whit who might be offended


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> read my facebook, i say the exact same **** here as i do in real life and* i do not care one whit who might be offended*



And that, ladies and gentlemen, is from the horses mouth.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 8, 2011)

you got something to say?


----------



## Jenna (Aug 8, 2011)

Is it just me or is this yet another self-condemning thread?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 8, 2011)

Rich Parsons said:


> While I support the "free" usage of membership, I also understand the "COST" of running a business and maintaining software licenses and upgrades. I also know it is taxing on the "staff" to deal with issues all the time. Which is why I mentioned the gift card idea as a reward to some who do the work in the Study.



Here's the thing though; if Bob were to say "hey folks, can't afford to run the site free of charge anymore" or even "hey folks, I just dont feel like running the site free of charge anymore", I see no problem.  Running any type of website costs dollars, and it's perfectly within the administrator's right to charge if they see fit.  

However, Bob's not considering SM-only as a solution to being underfunded.  He's considering it in response to the Study's.....uniquely partisan problem (i.e. certain participants' inability to act like they're above legal driving age.)  I personally just don't see how putting a pay-to-play requirement would really address that particular issue.  But like I said before, I'm not a forum admin., so I don't know all the ramifications.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Is it just me or is this yet another self-condemning thread?



Not in my eyes, it isn't; it's actually rather even-handed.


----------



## granfire (Aug 8, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> What I say is generally what I say.  But then, I'm careful to say what I mean, whether on line or in person.  It confuses some people, who don't necessarily hear what I say, but what they think I meant...


eh, some people don hear what you say when you make it basically impossible to misunderstood. It's in their nature since they don't say what they mean.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Is it just me or is this yet another self-condemning thread?


While I agree with random, (twice today?! WTF?) A few people are going out of their way to condemn themselves...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> While I agree with random, (twice today?! WTF?) ...



:rofl: :lol:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 8, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Rich
> 
> I like what you said...except there is one thing I see here that is absolutely unacceptable is this bit
> 
> ...




Have you had a Greek Pizza. Made with sun dried tomatos and purple onions and feta cheese and some mild/hot peppers. Yum Yum. And it can all be made organic including the whole grain wheat dough. 

I am telling you it is possible I have eaten some before. :~D


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 8, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Here's the thing though; if Bob were to say "hey folks, can't afford to run the site free of charge anymore" or even "hey folks, I just dont feel like running the site free of charge anymore", I see no problem.  Running any type of website costs dollars, and it's perfectly within the administrator's right to charge if they see fit.
> 
> However, Bob's not considering SM-only as a solution to being underfunded.  He's considering it in response to the Study's.....uniquely partisan problem (i.e. certain participants' inability to act like they're above legal driving age.)  I personally just don't see how putting a pay-to-play requirement would really address that particular issue.  But like I said before, I'm not a forum admin., so I don't know all the ramifications.



We once considered switching to a fine system.  Something like $1 per infraction, $25 remove suspension, etc.
We've thought about going pay only. We've bounced a lot of things around on monetizing the site more. 
In the end, those routes usually do more long term harm than good (hence most of the site being free to all).

MT costs about $5,000 per year to run. (hosting, domains, advertising, software).


If I were to just charge for Study access, I'd have to go with $20-30 a month, because lets be honest, a basic SM averages out to $1.84 a month.
Read the bickering in here.....who the hell would want to deal with that constantly for $1.84 a month?   (and the staff deals with it for free.  I never can thank them enough for everything they do.)
I'd have to switch to 'rag squeezings' as my drink of choice and not this fine imported mead.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 8, 2011)

Aside:  I was eating cheese pizza as I replied.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 8, 2011)

I found the study to be a good place for non MA discussions but what has been noticed by most (if not all) are the desires to make one's opinion be the only opinion on whatever subject and emotional outbursts when someone disagrees. 
Wonders if something could be done to prevent anyone from posting 24 hours after the last post... to give time to "cool off"... which is what should be done if someone posts a reply that causes the reader to be upset. Just plain common sense and courtesy I think... not to the offending poster but to the readers.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 8, 2011)

Rich Parsons said:


> Have you had a Greek Pizza. Made with sun dried tomatos and purple onions and feta cheese and some mild/hot peppers. Yum Yum. And it can all be made organic including the whole grain wheat dough.
> 
> I am telling you it is possible I have eaten some before. :~D



NO!!!!! 

I shall not support it unless Bob uses ALL that extra money for organic salad...NO PIZZA!!!....it's just wrong I tells ya :uhyeah:



Bob Hubbard said:


> Aside: I was eating cheese pizza as I replied.



I will NEVER support it now :uhyeah:


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2011)

I'm shaking my head here at the lates rep I got! No not neg but seriously odd all the same.
I think it proves one thing that what you post is open to serious misinterpretation and that people have weird ideas about others character. It's like imagining that inanimate objects have human characteristics, people assign emotions to you here that you simply aren't feeling. I may write with passion about things I'm passionate about but never am I crying and I make a point of not being personally offended. I can point out that sometimes what someone said is a kick in the teeth to some other groups of people.


I think as had been said before what's written in one emotion is read by another in a different emotion but the reader assumes theirs is the correct one, hence a lot of misunderstandings. Don't assume the writer understands life as you do, don't assume the writer is even thinking the same as you and don't assume you know the writer unless you actually do. Hell, people here don't even know what I look like or very many personal details about me so how can they construe meanings from my posts or emotions I was feeling when I wasn't? It's a dangerous thing to do, reading people's posts as if you were writing them, it leads to most of the misunderstandings we have here. If you think I'm angry when writing you are wrong, if you think I'm crying you are wrong unless it's a post on the Remembrance section., if you think I'm easily upset, you are wrong, that's you reading into something that's not there, not my writing. 

Thanks for the rep but you are very, very wrong.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 8, 2011)

I'll have salad for dinner.  To bring balance to The Bob.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'm shaking my head here at the lates rep I got! No not neg but seriously odd all the same.
> I think it proves one thing that what you post is open to serious misinterpretation and that people have weird ideas about others character. It's like imagining that inanimate objects have human characteristics, people assign emotions to you here that you simply aren't feeling. I may write with passion about things I'm passionate about but never am I crying and I make a point of not being personally offended. I can point out that sometimes what someone said is a kick in the teeth to some other groups of people.
> 
> 
> ...



OH REALLY!!! So you're in FAVOR of Bob eating pizza..IS THAT IT!!!!! :uhyeah:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'll have salad for dinner. To bring balance to The Bob.



It better be Organic :uhyeah:

Now I am off for a captain Picard moment... tea time for me.... Earl Grey...Hot


----------



## Buka (Aug 8, 2011)

I'm just happy to be here. I think this discussion/decision should be left to the members of MT that have been here a long time.

To me, if something I read is bothering me, I just don't read it. And if everyone's opinion was the same - that would be very odd.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2011)

If Billy Idol gets it, why doesn't everyone else?


----------



## Big Don (Aug 8, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> It better be Organic :uhyeah:


How good do you expect that salad to be? 


Oh, you said _ORGANIC_... nevermind


----------



## Big Don (Aug 8, 2011)

Honestly, having seen the behavior of a couple of posters who people tend to lump me in with, in this thread and over the past couple of days. I'm fairly disgusted.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 8, 2011)

I am too


Big Don said:


> Honestly, having seen the behavior of a couple of posters who people tend to lump me in with, in this thread and over the past couple of days. I'm fairly disgusted.


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

And then there was one.


----------



## Steve (Aug 9, 2011)

This forum is much like a martial arts school.  Bob's school.  If you guys had one person... not necessarily a bad person... in your school who was a consistent, negative force, what would you do?  I know from previous discussions that most of you wouldn't hesitate to invite this person to leave if it came to that.   There would be no thoughts of free speech or the student's "right" to stay.  There wouldn't be any consideration of censorship. That would be ridiculous. If the student was disruptive to the atmosphere in the school and fails to fall in line, you would ask him to leave.    

This isn't a public square.  It's Bob's little place on the internet.  He pays the bills.  He sets the rules.  He keeps the lights on.  We have no right to free speech.  We have no right to dictate the rules.  Whether we're "right" or "wrong" is beside the point completely.  This is Bob's place and he sets the rules.  It then becomes our choice whether to hang around and willingly comply with the rules or move on to a place better suited to our personality and point of view.


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

I see your point steve.  For example, you have a tae kwon do school with several training areas, one area is down the hall, in the basement, around the corner and through two doors, away from the main floor, and the guy in there teaches fma, and is polite, so when people intentionally go down the hall, down the stairs, around the corner, through the two doors and open the door to this training area and then say, hey, I don't like what this one person is doing way back here, the type of material he is working on and the way he is doing it offends me, let's kick him out. Yes, I can see how that would work.  And as everyone acknowledges, Bob's word is law, he owns the site, I believe in private property rights so what he decides here is law.  So let it be written, so let it be done.


----------



## Steve (Aug 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I see your point steve.  For example, you have a school with several training areas, one area is down the hall, in the basement, around the corner and through two doors, away from the main floor, so when people intentionally go down the hall, down the stairs, around the corner, through the two doors and open the door to this training area and then say, hey, I don't like what this one person is doing way back here, the type of material he is working on and the way he is doing it offends me. Yes, I can see how that would work.  And as everyone acknowledges, Bob's word is law, he owns the site, I believe in private property rights so what he decides here is law.  So let it be written, so let it be done.


  If we're looking at the school metaphor, this is more like an open gym area, where everyone's mixed together.  While the forums have areas, my impression is that most people just use the "new posts" link and pay attention to the forums primarily when posting a new thread.  

But ultimately, in the end, we agree on the important stuff.


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I see your point steve.  For example, you have a tae kwon do school with several training areas, one area is down the hall, in the basement, around the corner and through two doors, away from the main floor, and the guy in there teaches fma, and is polite, so when people intentionally go down the hall, down the stairs, around the corner, through the two doors and open the door to this training area and then say, hey, I don't like what this one person is doing way back here, the type of material he is working on and the way he is doing it offends me, let's kick him out. Yes, I can see how that would work.  And as everyone acknowledges, Bob's word is law, he owns the site, I believe in private property rights so what he decides here is law.  So let it be written, so let it be done.



I fixed up my example, but it is still a more accurate picture than an open gym area.  You have to actively seek out the other guy to be offended.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 9, 2011)

Big Don said:


> How good do you expect that salad to be?
> 
> 
> Oh, you said _ORGANIC_... nevermind



Exactly


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 9, 2011)

Quite right!  Or as another example, it'd be like a number of regulars sitting in Bob's Cafe, discussing various newspaper articles, having the occassional argument, but everyone being generally respectful.  Now if a person were to walk into said cafe with a copy of the local supermarket tabloid, dropping a copy of the most slanted, inciteful articles on top of everyone's bagels, baiting people into arguments and pretty much farting in everyone's general direction, none of us would make any claim otherwise if Bob, the owner of said Cafe, were to ask this individual to shut up or leave.  Or to the contrary, inform everyone that said person can say whatever he wants because he paid the cover charge.  It is, after all, Bob's Cafe.  

(cwutididthur?)


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

That example doesn't work randomphantom.  More accurately, you would have to walk over to the guys corner table way in the back, where he is quietly and politely stating his opinions and declare loudly to the whole room, I don't like what he reads or what he says, let's grab him and toss him out.  That is about where this discussion is.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> That example doesn't work randomphantom. More accurately, you would have to walk over to the guys corner table way in the back, where he is quietly and politely stating his opinions and declare loudly to the whole room, I don't like what he reads or what he says, let's grab him and toss him out. That is about where this discussion is.



Man's gotta point. 

It might be best-if I can carry the analogy back to MT-if we were to collectively agree to _ignore_ such a person, and let him have his "corner table," untroubled by any opinion of what he is quietly doing over there......


----------



## Steve (Aug 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I fixed up my example, but it is still a more accurate picture than an open gym area.  You have to actively seek out the other guy to be offended.


Okay.  But you seem to be missing my point.  Whether it's down the hall or out in the parking lot or in another virtual building, my original point remains the same.  If you own the school, whether it's one room or a sprawling, multi-level complex, as a school owner you wouldn't hesitate to ask a belligerent, disruptive student to leave.  He may be a super-nice guy, but you'd invite him to find another school better suited.   

The key difference, billicihak, is that you're still taking it from the perspective of the student whom you feel is being picked on.  Ultimately, whether or not the complaints are valid again fall to Bob.  It's his business.  This is about Bob.  The point is, if this were a brick and mortar business, it would be obvious.  Because it's on the internet, we think we have a right to free speech and cry "censorship" when we're told to stop being a jerk.    

If this makes more sense to you in a multi-room, multi-level metaphor, great.  Have it your way.  

If I become so disruptive to the forum that I'm invited to leave, I'll probably be a little butthurt.  I won't lie.  I'd be offended.  But ultimately, it's not about me.  I could post about censorship, but I'd be wrong.  I could lash out angrily about how people ratted me out or were oversensitive or didn't like me... but none of that matters.  I would probably get over it pretty quickly, but ultimately, whether or not I ever get over it is irrelevant.  Whether I "deserved" to be asked to leave is also irrelevant.  If this were a brick and mortar school, this would all be self-apparent.


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

Innappropriate references aside, you are on the right track Elder, the need to not be offended by alternative viewpoints is not flattering to those people.


----------



## Steve (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Man's gotta point.
> 
> It might be best-if I can carry the analogy back to MT-if we were to collectively agree to _ignore_ such a person, and let him have his "corner table," untroubled by any opinion of what he is quietly doing over there......


 


billcihak said:


> Innappropriate references aside, you are on the right track Elder, the need to not be offended by alternative viewpoints is not flattering to those people.


See?  We have a difference of opinion now.  I'm not offended.  I don't think you guys are, either.  This isn't about alternative viewpoints, IMO.  I see where you're coming from.  I just don't agree.   You and Elder disagree with me, and it doesn't offend me in the slightest.  We're not yelling at each other. We're not saying things that require ***** to cover them up.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 9, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> See? We have a difference of opinion now. I'm not offended. I don't think you guys are, either. This isn't about alternative viewpoints, IMO. I see where you're coming from. I just don't agree. You and Elder disagree with me, and it doesn't offend me in the slightest. We're not yelling at each other. We're not saying things that require ***** to cover them up.



Exactly..then why the big hue and cry to "do something" about the Study???


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

Archangel, exactly.  Tempest in a tea pot?


----------



## The Last Legionary (Aug 9, 2011)

Maybe if people could behave themselves but that doesn't happen. You have irrational nutcases spouting lies, falshoods and the talking points of fools as if they were gods truths, reporting every one who disagrees with them or calling them on their ********, driving the modsquad squirllier than nut ****. You have so called adults acting like kids. Hey, I get it, I'm in the mix too, but I pop in poop on a couple pigeons then flap away again.  Some people though, they're like that **** demon and no one has an air freshner.  The complaints are valid. You got a guy who says "what do you want to do about this" rather than just putting his foot down and saying 'here's the new line, cross it and die'. Be grateful for that courtecy.  I would have just went zero tollerance and booted anyone on infraction 1. Sure, I'd have to boot myself too in a week, but that's fine.  The problem here is a bunch of unapprecative ingrates taking advantage of a staff that's more than generous on giving people leeway to figure out for themselves they're being dinks.  Problem is the major dinks can't see themselves in that mirror. All the "I never am part of the problem" BS is just that, ****.  The ones claiming innocence the loudest are the flag carriers of the problem.  I'm an ***, but I admit it at least.


----------



## Steve (Aug 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Exactly..then why the big hue and cry to "do something" about the Study???


I don't think the study needs to change at all.  I personally don't have any issue with billcihak's posts.  He stirs things up and enjoys arguing, but that's not an issue for me.  TF was posting rhetoric that became borderline crazy in my opinion.  The kind of stuff that you read about in a news article after something really bad has happened.  THAT worries me. But as I said, the solution, in my opinion, is pretty simple and doesn't involve changing the study.  If one poster is a cancer to the site, you don't shut down or change the site.  You cut out the cancer.  

This isn't about provocative posters.  Who doesn't like reading the back and forth between elder and billcihak?  I love it.

Edit:  The above is strictly my opinion.  Just to be clear.


----------



## MaxiMe (Aug 9, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I don't think the study needs to change at all. I personally don't have any issue with billcihak's posts. He stirs things up and enjoys arguing, but that's not an issue for me. This isn't about provocative posters. Who doesn't like reading the back and forth between elder and billcihak? I love it.



I think Bill is related to my wife,  It's a sporting event in her family. So I got no problem with it. I said it before, nothing like a good sparring match.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Man's gotta point.
> 
> It might be best-if I can carry the analogy back to MT-if we were to collectively agree to _ignore_ such a person, and let him have his "corner table," untroubled by any opinion of what he is quietly doing over there......



Which is precisely the opinion I've reached myself in recent days.  I still have a problem with the site being used as a platform for political propoganda, rather than a discussion of personal political views.  Those two are very different animals.

But, it's not my site, so I don't get have things my way {I have a very heavy ban hammer on a three-stage-trigger and have never been afraid to use it to keep things pleasant on sites I've admin'd}.

That being so, sticking the vemonous political soapbox stuff in it's own forum and keeping the Study free of it works well for me.


----------

