Cool it....
In short, The Givers idea of a forum would be to combine the best elements of both of these institutions into a place where issues of the day could be discussed by all who wish to discuss them. Discussed with passion by the passionate as they feel. And with fairness to all "speakers". And yes, folks would inevitably get offended on occasion. Look at it as a necessary evil if you will associated with all meaningful discourse between human beings. But a hell of a place to expand ones knowledge, experience, and ideas. Personal growth is painful. Yet, no pain, no gain as they say.
How to maintain control? Moderators seem to work fairly well for most forums. When has a member gone to far? When the moderator tells him he has. Upon what scale does the Moderator weigh his evaluation of a member? On a fair and just scale as best he can. Fair to all.
Well in fairness, The Giver was not planning on calling the Department of Justice Greg. The Giver is very aware that this is a private enterprise and not necessarily subject to the limitations which the Bill of Rights imposes on public entities. If you want a site which discriminates you are perfectly within your rights to have one. But is that what you folks really want?Santilli said:Tannin has written out a rather percise discription of what he desires in a forum. Since it's a private forum, that's the perogative of the owner.
Unless being leaned on with federal funding, the Bill of Rights limits the states, and the federal government, not private group membership. If we stop people from free association, we loose that right, in the Bill of Rights.
Indeed The Giver perhaps went too far. Some issues tend to inspire The Giver more than others. Then again, The Giver and Tannin have had a running battle for sometime now. And Tannin may just have gone a bit too far on occasion himself. The Givers Mother (Momma Giver) used to say - "It takes two to fight Son". A wise lady indeed.That said, I think The Giver is over reacting here, and his presence, and comments here, would be a valuable addition to the forum.
Tannin has certainly quantified what I would like in a forum, and I think, pretty much what storage review USED to be.
Very true and observed first hand by The Giver if days of yore at SR.The downfall of that forum, in my view, was when the forum leaders sanctioned, and joined in personal attacks, and I was the target of that attack.
How can the forum leaders object to personal attacks, when in fact they are the ones that started that kind of stuff, and allowed others to continue???
Have you watched the US house of representatives during a debate on the House floor? Or Britain's Parliament during Questions to the Prime Minister? The US House debates are wide ranging not only in subject matter but also in the tone and character of those Congressmen who may be debating a particular Bill. Some are gentle and mild, others are filled with emotion and fiery at times. And occasionally harsh, no doubt offensive, things are said when a member feels passionately about a particular subject. Yet these debates are inspirational and thought provoking. Many great things such as civil rights legislation has come from them. Questions to the Prime Minister on the other hand are not really debates at all but rather a cat and mouse game skillfully and cleverly played between the Prime Minister and the Members of Parliament. Again some are passionate and some mild mannered. Others very witty and entertaining. Both of these great institution's debates on occasion include personal attacks upon a particular member. But it is done so in the hopes that one might get their point across.Let's through the guantlet the other way, and ask The Giver what he desires in a forum, and how he would limit, or confine, or not, control, or not control, these strange animals known as forums?
In short, The Givers idea of a forum would be to combine the best elements of both of these institutions into a place where issues of the day could be discussed by all who wish to discuss them. Discussed with passion by the passionate as they feel. And with fairness to all "speakers". And yes, folks would inevitably get offended on occasion. Look at it as a necessary evil if you will associated with all meaningful discourse between human beings. But a hell of a place to expand ones knowledge, experience, and ideas. Personal growth is painful. Yet, no pain, no gain as they say.
How to maintain control? Moderators seem to work fairly well for most forums. When has a member gone to far? When the moderator tells him he has. Upon what scale does the Moderator weigh his evaluation of a member? On a fair and just scale as best he can. Fair to all.