So would anyone object

[Rick]

Side step the outrage right CP?

ETA: and LJ?

[Sue U]

That's fair enough Miles but I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's easy to tell somebody to ignore that type of constant harassment when it's not happening to you. It's not so easy to do when you are the one subjected to the harassment. It's even more difficult when you have a vested interest in the board that is being undermined by certain posters.

That's some pretty weak sauce, Sean. No one forces you to read anyone else's blather. And if you do, so what? Do you really care what a troll on the internet says? Do you think no one else can evaluate such comments for what they are? And if you really MUST respond, don't you think that some eyerolling would be enough? Doesn't doing anything more simply validate the offensive remarks and gratify the offender by showing your buttons have been pushed?

Yes, this board is not CSB and has not adopted the same kind of free-speech ethic that was supposedly in effect there. But while the owners here clearly can do what they want, I think there is a certain moral obligation to respect the wishes of the community members as a whole -- after all, that's what makes us a community.

[BoSoxGal]

I agree that the righteousness from those not being targeted is a bit disingenuous.

I would also point out that the other option, when one has a truly vile, destructive neighbor, is to move away. How sad it will be if the 'to the bitter end' defense of the resident trolls' right to troll should ultimately result in a shuttered, abandoned house.

In light of the Sandusky scandal, mayhap we should all take on the role of our brother's keeper a little more; perhaps there should be consistent, repeated demands on loCA and quad from all the board's non-trolling members - not just a few of us - to STOP the behaviour toward the Oz couple that has been so toxic here.

[Rick]

I agree that the righteousness from those not being targeted is a bit disingenuous.

I would also point out that the other option, when one has a truly vile, destructive neighbor, is to move away. How sad it will be if the 'to the bitter end' defense of the resident trolls' right to troll should ultimately result in a shuttered, abandoned house.

In light of the Sandusky scandal, mayhap we should all take on the role of our brother's keeper a little more; perhaps there should be consistent, repeated demands on loCA and quad from all the board's non-trolling members - not just a few of us - to STOP the behaviour toward the Oz couple that has been so toxic here.

Get a grip BSG

I posted Devils advocate.

So now I'm equated with an alleged child molester?

She'll be pissed that I posted this, so does that mean I'll be next on the list?

[Crackpot]

I doubt she;s refering to you there keld

[Lord Jim]

That's some pretty weak sauce, Sean.

Well that's what makes horse races...

I thought he made some excellent points....

[Lord Jim]

I doubt she;s refering to you there keld

And whoever she's talking about, she isn't equating them to a child molester...

I believe she's trying to draw an analogy (maybe not the best one to make) to the folks who didn't report the guy to the police to make the point that people frequently tend to view things less seriously if they aren't the target.

[Sue U]

I haven't seen anyone here defend trolling behavior or the flame wars that periodically erupt between posters. But if people want to make jackasses of themselves that's pretty much up to them. I think the rest of us are sophisiticated enough to discern who's doing what and, as Keld said, consider the source.

ETA:

This is not child molestation, this is not the workplace, this is not a neighborhood. Nothing that happens here has any actual effect in real life. This is a BBS on the internet, where we come to shoot the shit. Sometimes there's more shitting than shooting, but no one is going to jail for anything done here.

[Guinevere]

I haven't seen anyone here defend trolling behavior or the flame wars that periodically erupt between posters. But if people want to make jackasses of themselves that's pretty much up to them. I think the rest of us are sophisiticated enough to discern who's doing what and, as Keld said, consider the source.

ETA:

This is not child molestation, this is not the workplace, this is not a neighborhood. Nothing that happens here has any actual effect in real life. This is a BBS on the internet, where we come to shoot the shit. Sometimes there's more shitting than shooting, but no one is going to jail for anything done here.

Exactly.

And I also want to be crystal clear -- I have never even come close to suggesting that free speech is absolute and should be held above all else. That was Steve's deal NOT mine. In fact, in my objection I explicity said the precise opposite:

I've said before that in the real world free speech isn't absolute -- there are consequences to one's actions and if it is time for some to bear those consequences that is in the hands of the administrators.

I'd also like to point out that not one of the objectors had made any dramatic statements about leaving, or shutting down the place. In fact, again, some have said the precise opposite. Whatever decision Gob and Hen make, they make. If they asked for objections, expecting none, oh well. You can't please all of the people all of the time. But you can control your own behavior and reactions, which was the main point of my objection and comments -- a point which seems to have gotten a bit lost in the resulting drama and fingerpointing.

[Crackpot]

ETA:

This is not child molestation, this is not the workplace, this is not a neighborhood. Nothing that happens here has any actual effect in real life. This is a BBS on the internet, where we come to shoot the shit. Sometimes there's more shitting than shooting, but no one is going to jail for anything done here.

This is not that simple. The line frequently gets blurred as I posted in another thread. to pretend that everything happens at arms length in these places is extremely unrealistic.

[BoSoxGal]

Yes, this is a place where most of us visit every day, to interact with friends/acquaintances.

If it were a bar and one regular patron was regularly harassing/abusing another regular patron, the bar owner would be well within his/her rights to ban the offender - happens all the time in the real world.

This is, in fact, the real world. It does, in fact, matter if posters come here and viciously attack other posters, whether on the basis of their personal or professional lives.

I frankly find any other perspective bewildering.

[Miles]

A page or so back Sean asked me if I had a solution to the trolling problem. Perhaps I have. Way back when on the DAF there was a poster who was so disruptive that his name coined a phrase, 'russing'. Everyone simply ignored him completely and he finally gave up and went away on his own. It does work. If you feed a troll they are fat and happy, if you starve one they find somewhere else get what they want/need.

I agree with Guin, free speech is not free from consequences. The best response may well be to ignore the trolls there is nothing to lose and much to gain from that.

[Rick]

This is, in fact, the real world. It does, in fact, matter if posters come here and viciously attack other posters, whether on the basis of their personal or professional lives.

That door swings both ways.

LO was piled on over a video she thought was funny, she was even referred to as a sociopath.

She reacted defensively, who wouldn't.

The subject gravitated to hunting (by me I think and it might not have even been on that particular thread there is always spill over). She suggested hunting was"FUN" some took exception.

Got news hunting is "FUN". It's considered "recreational", the critters that are killed are called "game", hunters are called "sportsmen", I hold a resident "sportsman" license. Folks that hunt yuck it up in the camp, in the blind, and on the boat. I've never seen anyone presenting their "game" in a photo crying.

The term conservationist is used for the squeamish, would we be after the biggest and best if we were true conservationists instead of settling for what come along?

Because she thought a video was funny.

She then went into defense mode because that's what we do. The criticizers had little more to justify themselves than just that, criticism and they didn't like that poster.She's not ALWAYS wrong.

Same with Quad I went to his first few posts he was actually quite amiable, @W fired the 1st shot. I don't know what happened on the other board he didn't post directly to me or vs.

It seems some folks just won't let some stuff go.

I don't know that I have seen Quad troll anyone, I can see that he follows the prime directive here.

"but above all argue"

I will say I"m not a big fan of how LO presents some things to certain folks.

I have yet to see anyone come to her defense on this. I do wish she would refrain.

Having posted this, I think I'm finished but as always I reserve the right to...

[BoSoxGal]

loCA is the one who denigrated the concept of hunting for sport, not me.

My issue was with her putting words in my mouth which I did not utter. She does this reheatedly and it is beyond bad form.

[Rick]

It is what it is...

[Gob]

[

I'd also like to point out that not one of the objectors had made any dramatic statements about leaving, or shutting down the place. In fact, again, some have said the precise opposite. Whatever decision Gob and Hen make, they make. If they asked for objections, expecting none, oh well. You can't please all of the people all of the time. But you can control your own behavior and reactions, which was the main point of my objection and comments -- a point which seems to have gotten a bit lost in the resulting drama and fingerpointing.

I asked for objections expecting objections.

I'm very pleased to see that those objections were made on the principle of "no banning", not on the understanding that Lo and Quaddy were not doing the things I had claimed they had. (Please note again, no "bannings" were ever mooted, a short period of exclusion was.)

A number of people have told me via PM that I should have just gone ahead and suspended Lo and Quaddy for the two weeks, as no one would particularly care about their exclusion for that period, and no one would miss their destructive effect on the board, and we would still be having the same debate.

I'd ask people again, please see Lo's reaction to this over the past few days. No reflection, no acceptance of responsibility for her actions despite people accepting that she is out of order, no let up in her stupid spamming.

[Gob]

Just to add; If anyone had been suffering the same treatment as Hen and I have with Lo, or anyone else, (constantly following them about and posting blatantly stupid shit and lies, just in order to get their attention,) and had come to me asking that she be excluded for a while for some respite from her, the same process would have been followed as here.

I hope you trust me on this.

[Lord Jim]

I hope you trust me on this.

Strop, I am certain that you be can be absolutely confident that there is no one on this board who would ever question your honesty or integrity (with the exception of course, of the folks who are the topic of this discussion...their comments make that clear)

Your record on that score is beyond reproach.

[dales]

Mega Dittoes to what LJ posted.

WE WILL NOT LET A FEW MALCONTENTS RUIN THIS BOARD!

[Gob]

Many thanks Jim and Dales, I'm humbled.