I Object

[The Hen]

Cheers Beery.

I appreciate that.

(Irony post above mine!)

[Gob]

Here's a thought.

Maybe those who object to the suspensions could register their dislike of the idea, and/or support for Lo and Quaddy, by not posting during the two weeks.

[Guinevere]

Hen, I've been extremely busy with work and living my somewhat complicated and over-committed life. Even if I don't post, like kristina, I try to read fairly regularly so I'm aware of the full scope of what's been going on.

I disagree that ignoring is runing away. Discuss or debating the facts or issues, can be done by ignoring the crap and without resorting to personal attacks and name-calling. And if a post is entirely gratuitous crap, why not ignore it? If you came across a pile of crap on the sidewalk wouldn't you step over it and keep on going in the direction you intended?

Certainly, as founders and administrators of the board you and Gob have the right to administer the board how you see fit, and do what you please with memberships - I stated that in my opening post. You don't have to tell us. Or ask us. And you can ask for opinions and ignore whatever of those opinions you wish. Such is the privilege and responsibility of running a board.

Gob, I honestly don't know what I'd do if you take that action. I have not yet weighed for myself how I value some of the different issues that would be implicated by a suspension or banning.

[liberty]

I find it interesting that some people allow other people to control them through the use of words. Other people’s words have no power over you unless you give those words power.

[Sean]

With all due respect to those who object...

One thing you all have in common is that (to the best of my recollection) none of you have been trolled or slandered by the two posters in question. It's all too easy to take the high ground and post things like "rise above it", "ignore the slight" and "don't get involved" when you yourself have not been subjected to the relentless abuse that some here have. Moral objections are a good thing but so is empathy.

[Gob]

Gob, I honestly don't know what I'd do if you take that action. I have not yet weighed for myself how I value some of the different issues that would be implicated by a suspension or banning.

Se Lo's most recent posts.

[Guinevere]

Here's a thought.

Maybe those who object to the suspensions could register their dislike of the idea, and/or support for Lo and Quaddy, by not posting during the two weeks.

Seriously?

You asked for opinions objections. Several of us provided them. In not one opinion objection was there even an iota of "support for Lo and Quaddy."

Edited to substitute objections for opinions.

[Rick]

With all due respect to those who object...

One thing you all have in common is that (to the best of my recollection) none of you have been trolled or slandered by the two posters in question. It's all too easy to take the high ground and post things like "rise above it", "ignore the slight" and "don't get involved" when you yourself have not been subjected to the relentless abuse that some here have. Moral objections are a good thing but so is empathy.

The question was asked I responded.

Take from it what you will...

[Gob]

That's why I wrote "and/or" Guin.

Some people may object to the suspensions, but not support the way Quaddy and Lo abuse the board. Some may object as they are friends of Quaddy or Lo.

I appreciate there has been not support posted for Lo or Quaddy and the way they behave here, but some may not want to voice their support of them publically.

[Guinevere]

Fair enough -- it didn't read quite like that. If someone had an opinion they didn't want to publically voice, why not just send a PM?

I'm not sure absence of posting is a fair measure of "support for Lo or Quaddy." There are plenty of people who may not post over the next two weeks (especially with the Thanksgiving holiday next week, and lots of travel and holiday time over here), but neither support the behavior or either poster and may not be happy having been painted with that particular brush.

[Gob]

People could always declare, along the lines of; "I will not post here over the next two weeks , as I object to suspensions being imposed"

(They could also add a caveat on whether they support Lo or Qaddy if they wish.)

[Gob]

Away for a little while, dogs won't walk themselves.

Well they will, but that's not the point.,

[Guinevere]

Why would those who object not post for two weeks? I guess I don't get the point you are trying to make.

[loCAtek]

Interestingly, it was because Wendy wouldn't listen to the majority of posters, amongst other things, that the CSB was created.
Gwen making an 'administrative decision' without consulting the board, planted the seed for 'Plan B'.
Garaelb not installing an ignore feature on CSB as desired by some, was a reason for Gob refusing to post there, except to troll.

Now, a majority has spoken here, and Gob's going to head down that same road...

Amazing.

[Andrew D]

And if a post is entirely gratuitous crap, why not ignore it?

But that is not how the "ignore" function works. If you use the ignore function, you are ignoring postings without ever determining whether they are entirely gratuitous crap or partly gratuitous crap or not gratuitous crap at all.

To me, that is running away: It is not choosing to ignore gratuitous crap; it is choosing not to decide whether something is gratuitous crap.

Suppose that I insult you in some way. You put me on ignore. Later, I regret having insulted you, and I apologize. You will not even know that I have offered an apology, so you will have robbed yourself of the opportunity to decide whether to accept it.

[Rick]

I tried the ignore once just to see what it was like (not saying who I ignored it's irrelevant, they are a prolific poster).

Ignoring someone such as myself would be easy.

Ignoring a prolific poster not so.

I would think it would be even harder if the person had garnered ones ire...

[Sue U]

As someone was fond of saying at CSB, there is an ignore function right between your ears ...

[loCAtek]

I tried the ignore once just to see what it was like (not saying who I ignored it's irrelevant, they are a prolific poster).

Ignoring someone such as myself would be easy.

Ignoring a prolific poster not so.

I would think it would be even harder if the person had garnered ones ire...

That's a good point Keld, obviously I don't comment after the admin's every single post. My exploits and motives have been wildly exaggerated for emotional reasons.
...which is odd, I don't claim to like everyone I've ever posted with, some I have no idea what they are like personally for me to judge if I would like them. However, I respond to the posts as presented, not just to the presenter. I may not like someone, but I can show some respect. ...which is why I don't use the ignore feature.

[Gob]

Why would those who object not post for two weeks? I guess I don't get the point you are trying to make.

As a protest against suspension being imposed.

[Guinevere]

As someone was fond of saying at CSB, there is an ignore function right between your ears ...

That was me.

Andrew, when I say ignore someone, I don't mean using the ignore function on this BBS. I mean using the capabilities we all have as adults to control and police our own behavior. (I believe I noted in my initial post that the ignore function doesn't work anyway).