it makes the general vote biased or the general consensus, but tainted would be a better word maybe
and that doesn't imply that you came to this forum because of that, but it suggests that some people did and that some people left or didn't stay because of it
i would like more 'random' people like you tho if we can call it that
This isn't a hard question, and it doesn't have really that much to do with anyone that took their ball and went home. (Should have made a poll... can I add a poll?)
"Do you think that threads on CPF, regardless of their content, should ever be locked by a moderator?"
"Do you think that threads on CPF, regardless of their content, should ever be locked by a moderator?"
I find a couple of things wrong with this question.
First, mods are only human, and what one person may find offensive and intolerable will differ considerable with others.
Second, this is SCOOPS site, not the mods. The mods just work for him, for no pay I might add. He's the owner of this site, and it generates income for him, so seeing as he is the business owner, it basically drills down to what he wants or doesn't want on the site.
Finally, I think most of us could care less if a thread is locked for any reason. There have been some that I think should have locked before they got out of hand, but weren't, wasn't my call. I just look for the threads I want to read and ignore the rest, as often, its all bullshit anyway.
Don't think for a second that we live in a democracy. The actuality is the one with $$ is the one with the power, and therefore the one who makes the rules.
This isn't a hard question, and it doesn't have really that much to do with anyone that took their ball and went home. (Should have made a poll... can I add a poll?)
"Do you think that threads on CPF, regardless of their content, should ever be locked by a moderator?"
Mark
you can put up a vote....you just cant enforce the result or suggest it should change anything
its as absurd as getting straight people to vote on gay marriage or slave owners voting on the rights of a race
He's the owner of this site, and it generates income for him, so seeing as he is the business owner, it basically drills down to what he wants or doesn't want on the site.
isn't it possible though, that you are just addicted to conflict? And lack the self discipline to give a shit?
and wasn't that thread locked because it was just filled with bullying....that it really served no other purpose.
And you said that you work with teens, do you try to instill in them that cyber bullying is wrong or that freedom of speech is more important and cyber bullying is our right
and before we decide whether or not bullying took place can't we ask whether or not threads should be locked to stop bullying
and of course we could ban someone for bullying but banning a dozen people prob isn't the best solution
Everyone is attributing this to the one thread, whereas I have had several in the past shut down that I was eager to keep discussing.
Further, connecting cyber bullying to this topic is not quite a great analogy, and I'd appreciate it if you'd assume that I have the basic education and intelligence to not basically contradict the good work being done against cyber bullying in my professional life.
Further, I understand that this site is essentially a business venture, but the same argument was brought up with censoring swearing a few years back, and I can't help but notice I can throw "fuck" around as much as I want nowadays.
As for the "addicted to conflict" bit, Darb, seriously, this isn't a multi-level philosophical thing here. I think that locking threads is similar to censoring, and no, I'm not a fan of that. As much as you and I have butted heads, I've said repeatedly I like that you at least have the moxie to say what you want (despite it's occasional incoherence).
I mostly wanted to know if I was the only one that felt this way, and nobody had said something. I'm not going to get all drama-y (conflict addictedy?) and say I'm going to fight and rile against the site and leave and piss&moan. I think it's wrong, I want to know if others think it's wrong. I don't think it should happen. I love this site, and am one of the longer users of it. My opinion on this matter is both valid and IMO right.
did you just really imply that straight peple are to gay people like slave owners are to other races? like really?.....
also, yes I believe that threads should be locked by a moderator, I believe that comes with the job description. the obvious case would be illegal content but I don't think bullying other members is ok either
part of your response suggest we could move this along by discussing which threads should be locked....not by deciding if none should be locked at all. There is no validity in the latter.
I am for the most part meh about this. This I see as giving mods the power to decide when enough is enough. Not nearly as important to me as the inflicting of personal morals on a group with a program that would automatically censor swear words.....maybe in a Care Bears forum....not here.
But, I will always be more of a free for all lover than a controlled mayhem type. I think most everyone knew that.
you're contradicting yourself. you say that slaveowners should not be allowed to vote in a matter that concerns them cause they're biased but gay people should cote on gay marriages, a question in which they are equally biased
the correlation is there were both things that should not be put to a vote
Are you suggesting that they should just be accepted because "they're right"? (i.e. nobody should be a slave, and anyone should marry anyone)? I'm in agreement with that, but voting is CRUCIAL to democratic rule - Canada was originally formed on the basis of religious based morals forming our laws. Democracy is the vehicle that we amend and improve the governing of things. You just saying "It shouldn't be put to a vote" would suggest you want a dictator.
Are you suggesting that they should just be accepted because "they're right"? (i.e. nobody should be a slave, and anyone should marry anyone)? I'm in agreement with that, but voting is CRUCIAL to democratic rule - Canada was originally formed on the basis of religious based morals forming our laws. Democracy is the vehicle that we amend and improve the governing of things. You just saying "It shouldn't be put to a vote" would suggest you want a dictator.
Mark
democracy taught you democracy is correct
so we stand for democracy before human rights and decency
Comments
that makes me opinionated, not biased
and that doesn't imply that you came to this forum because of that, but it suggests that some people did and that some people left or didn't stay because of it
i would like more 'random' people like you tho if we can call it that
This isn't a hard question, and it doesn't have really that much to do with anyone that took their ball and went home. (Should have made a poll... can I add a poll?)
"Do you think that threads on CPF, regardless of their content, should ever be locked by a moderator?"
Mark
I find a couple of things wrong with this question.
First, mods are only human, and what one person may find offensive and intolerable will differ considerable with others.
Second, this is SCOOPS site, not the mods. The mods just work for him, for no pay I might add. He's the owner of this site, and it generates income for him, so seeing as he is the business owner, it basically drills down to what he wants or doesn't want on the site.
Finally, I think most of us could care less if a thread is locked for any reason. There have been some that I think should have locked before they got out of hand, but weren't, wasn't my call. I just look for the threads I want to read and ignore the rest, as often, its all bullshit anyway.
Don't think for a second that we live in a democracy. The actuality is the one with $$ is the one with the power, and therefore the one who makes the rules.
its as absurd as getting straight people to vote on gay marriage or slave owners voting on the rights of a race
and wasn't that thread locked because it was just filled with bullying....that it really served no other purpose.
And you said that you work with teens, do you try to instill in them that cyber bullying is wrong or that freedom of speech is more important and cyber bullying is our right
and before we decide whether or not bullying took place can't we ask whether or not threads should be locked to stop bullying
and of course we could ban someone for bullying but banning a dozen people prob isn't the best solution
Everyone is attributing this to the one thread, whereas I have had several in the past shut down that I was eager to keep discussing.
Further, connecting cyber bullying to this topic is not quite a great analogy, and I'd appreciate it if you'd assume that I have the basic education and intelligence to not basically contradict the good work being done against cyber bullying in my professional life.
Further, I understand that this site is essentially a business venture, but the same argument was brought up with censoring swearing a few years back, and I can't help but notice I can throw "fuck" around as much as I want nowadays.
As for the "addicted to conflict" bit, Darb, seriously, this isn't a multi-level philosophical thing here. I think that locking threads is similar to censoring, and no, I'm not a fan of that. As much as you and I have butted heads, I've said repeatedly I like that you at least have the moxie to say what you want (despite it's occasional incoherence).
I mostly wanted to know if I was the only one that felt this way, and nobody had said something. I'm not going to get all drama-y (conflict addictedy?) and say I'm going to fight and rile against the site and leave and piss&moan. I think it's wrong, I want to know if others think it's wrong. I don't think it should happen. I love this site, and am one of the longer users of it. My opinion on this matter is both valid and IMO right.
Who else thinks as such?
Mark
also, yes I believe that threads should be locked by a moderator, I believe that comes with the job description. the obvious case would be illegal content but I don't think bullying other members is ok either
But, I will always be more of a free for all lover than a controlled mayhem type. I think most everyone knew that.
the correlation is there were both things that should not be put to a vote
Are you suggesting that they should just be accepted because "they're right"? (i.e. nobody should be a slave, and anyone should marry anyone)? I'm in agreement with that, but voting is CRUCIAL to democratic rule - Canada was originally formed on the basis of religious based morals forming our laws. Democracy is the vehicle that we amend and improve the governing of things. You just saying "It shouldn't be put to a vote" would suggest you want a dictator.
Mark
so we stand for democracy before human rights and decency
yes, I don't think your survival of the strongest anarchy would be any better
ergo, it is ok to dictate beliefs on to people as long as those beliefs are decent.
what's left if you take away democracy and dictatorship? communism?
Ask? Ask who? Dictatorship.
Less than 24 hours,amazing.
but not knowing an answer does not show democracy is correct good or the best solution
i not then maybe you could ask if a system could exist without belief