• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Closing and Locking Threads

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Francois the Postman said:
And all he did was refuse to answer it. After which we can all draw our own conclusions,

or

start another thread, have several posts with just re-establishing that there will be no answer in public, in which case a PM might offer plan b? Have that thread flagged by several members (rightly or wrongly) dragging all mods in. Then digging up another thread to ask a valid question [not sure if you tried to PM a mod about it first], ........

[don't mean to sound a bit weary, but sometimes things appear to cause chain events that are utterly disproportionate to the 2 posts that could have been 'it'. Needing to set the internet straight can trigger more fall-out and work than that the [unsubstantiated] observation that some folk in the clinic are a bit focussed, single-minded and uncompromising calls for. It is a clearly subjective opinion. All of us have experience with the Clinic and can draw our own conclusions how wide of the mark it is, or not. It is not the basis for the Bill of Rights, and hardly calls for line by line justification. IMO.]

I did not refuse to answer. I gave him some rules and he didn't like them.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
OK, some challenges you refused to answer for reasons you gave, others you did or felt you did, but the overall answer was certainly not accepted, triggering follow-up posts. I am not gonna go back and revisit the ins and outs of that thread.

The detail is actually a bit besides the point of why it was closed. The Doc himself says that a key part of the OP might have been worded awkwardly. But it is of course part of the light in which the action was taken. There is a fundamental problem with threads like that, even if they themselves might try to tackle other problems.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
Granville57 said:
I think it's definitely worth a shot. What's to lose?

Only two things I would point out:
Such a condition may arise after the OP is put in place—threads often evolve in unexpected ways. So you may want to have other options for imposing such rules besides leaving it to the OP.

The "humor" aspect may have to be dealt with somewhat liberally. Any thread that legitimately includes FLandis/Manrod quotes is bound to have humor woven into it. Not to mention Fabiani. His quotes are often even more comical.

I think that initially the reigns might be a bit tighter than ideal, just until folk get a sense of how they operate. The more people stroke with the fur, the more oxygen there is to let things ramble.

In the end the real problem is that people would have to accept that the mods make the calls, and accept the decisions too, even if they disagree. Trust the judgement of folk like me that we can steer some threads to be only informative and interesting. I can see some who would baulk at the suggestion. Not to mention the fact that everyone has a different scale for valid and/or worthwhile.

I guess the proof of the pudding would be in the eating. It could be a pleasant surprise to all of us.

It would certainly address the concerns of those that would like some threads to remain diversion free, and at the same time it would challenge those who are quick to call troll, and also those who are quick to lampoon or irritate, rather than argue, to raise their games, and confront only the issues, or sit this one out. Whilst avoiding the circular diversions too [great post/question, but has been raised addressed several time already --> gone, maybe with link]

Those threads could also become a sort of Clinic FAQ reference points, and we could have one stickied Clinic Index Thread to help people find [all] the worthwhile threads/issues quickly.

I do, on the whole, think a thread's tone and purpose should be set by the OP, and clearly so. I can see situations where a thread might qualify anyway, or would be a prime candidate to be turned into one, or be one by popular request. I guess, some discretion and common sense, and trusting our judgement, would come into play, rather than rules.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Why should I take it to PMs when their original post is (still) up on the public forum? They offered their opinion to the forum - all I did was question it.

Personally I'm always happy to re-evaluate a mod decision - which is also one reason I just closed it for now as it can easily be reopened that way. I think I hoped any discussion you guys had in there could have continued in private and that would be it.

But as for your comment above I don't agree - had you "just questioned it" it would simply have been another post in that same thread. What you did was to make a new thread and so make a new subject out of it.

Whatever your intention was in that, it can easily come across as if you were looking to bash a poster publicly. If your problem was JRT in particular, then a PM had been less public but achieved the same or a post in the original thread had been on topic. If it was more a general grievance over the lack of documented claims and general derailing, then maybe it would have been wise not to single out one poster in particular, but maybe have shown another couple of examples. Even then it could easily be construed as poster-bashing however valid it might be or not.

Critique of other posters is walking a fine line and so is moderating it. Critique of other poster's arguments is always fine. For this reason there's the opportunity to report posts if you feel someone is out of line. You can also always choose to ignore what other people post.

If you feel someone is not backing up what they say or don't pay attention to your own points, chances are they don't care about your points. Then chances are you can't sway them anyway. Again, inappropriate behaviour can be reported.

Maybe this got a bit roundabout, but I hope not... There's nothing - so far - that's telling me it was the wrong decision. If I'm mistaken I'm obviously happy for the thread to be reopened.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
I did not refuse to answer. I gave him some rules and he didn't like them.

I adhered to 'your' rules.

If you can narrow this down to one or two major points of concern for you I will attempt to engage you, at least up to the point you engage in ad hominem.

You acknowledged that I didn't 'ad-hominen' - so I was never going to get "to the point you engage in ad hominem".

The other 'rule' appeared to be that you hadn't time to address all the points which you had time to make.
I only asked 5 questions - yet you made 17 posts throughout the day, many dealing with why you wouldn't answer.

IMO your rules were nothing more than an attempt to avoid answering the questions.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Granville57 said:
What Dr. Mas is suggesting seems to be very much in line with what I was leaning towards in the "Victim" thread.



So why not have a "Challenge" thread, an "Arbitration" thread of sorts? And keep it in The Clinic along side whatever thread spawns it? History seems to indicate that opposing sides are more than glad to jump in. I could see a problem occurring if two different "debates" were taking place simultaneously, but mostly these things seem to erupt one at a time.

Kindof sortof.

I cannot remember you're original post on the 'victim' thread - but I believe it was some sort of free for all?
If so, then no - I would not agree. As quite quickly that would spill out in to other threads.

Quite frankly - there is no good reason or excuse for personal or 'ad-hominem' attacks and to give the Mods their due they rightly take a dim view of that and act quickly when it is done.

I can see their point on what I proposed - however I think people are confusing what is a personal attack against querying a posters post or position (in particular when that has already been offered.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Francois the Postman said:
BTW, I have several times toyed with the idea of starting am experiment in the Clinic: offering a different option to thread starters: an OP can opt for a thread to be a "super-moderated thread".

ON topic only, no name calling, ****taking, humor, derailing, etc. Mods can and will delete everything that seems to be out of place, and flagrant breaches will have consequences, as the aim is to do nada. A bit like the link threads.

I am not sure it could work, mostly because of the extra demands it probably puts on us, and having to be fair when folk seem to have problems with some of our/my calls already.

But it might be a worth shot, just to see if it works. If it doesn't, at least we know.

They're gonna be boring prob, sorry, andit will be "just the meat" [pun intended].

I keep trying to get round to it, but there is always something that slips inbetween.

There are a couple of other ideas I had for the clinic, and other mods have their thoughts too. But for now, that maybe worth shot?

I like the idea, but would also request this: (and I am not joking) You start a sticky called "Fight Club Thread." An un-moderated place where brass knuckles and circumnavigation of the language filters are allowed. You get two people who are going after each other, you come in and say "I am moving your posts to Fight Club Thread." If they don't move, you ban them. You could put a disclaimer telling all who venture in that they are accepting the probability that they will be offended. Then, you just never go there. The only thing I can see that might be an issue is if there are actual physical threats conveyed.

Yes, I know that my idea will go over like a lead turd with the mods but I bet it would work. If you actually want to fix things, then sometimes you have to embrace that you will not be able to control it (and provide for it in a limited manner) no matter how hard you try, how many people you punish, or how many rules you make. There are a plethora of examples throughout society that show this. It isn't giving in to the terrorists, it is making a reality based decision. I think you would find it would free up some of your time.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
I adhered to 'your' rules.



You acknowledged that I didn't 'ad-hominen' - so I was never going to get "to the point you engage in ad hominem".

The other 'rule' appeared to be that you hadn't time to address all the points which you had time to make.
I only asked 5 questions - yet you made 17 posts throughout the day, many dealing with why you wouldn't answer.

IMO your rules were nothing more than an attempt to avoid answering the questions.

Except your opinion is wrong. I simply wanted to narrow the discussion to smaller chunks. Its a very effective strategy for communication and often makes things much simpler when there all multiple points. In light of the fact that IMO you like to derail things I felt this was required. You didn't like it and choose to engage other tactics, your choice.

Additionally I never addressed any single poster, I referred to the greater clinic. As such, I had nothing to defend to you. The only thing I did was accuse you of being slow by quipping that you are struggling to keep up, I apologized for that comment.

If you use ad hominem or not was not in question, I have no idea if you do or don't. I simply set a rule that if you resorted to it the conversation would end.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
JPM London said:
Personally I'm always happy to re-evaluate a mod decision - which is also one reason I just closed it for now as it can easily be reopened that way. I think I hoped any discussion you guys had in there could have continued in private and that would be it.
One good point I will say about the Forum in general is that you (all mods) are able to view a decison and are not afraid to overturn or stick to your guns.

Also -I appreciate that the Mods are willing to discuss issues with 'us', the members.


JPM London said:
But as for your comment above I don't agree - had you "just questioned it" it would simply have been another post in that same thread. What you did was to make a new thread and so make a new subject out of it.
The point or claims raised were already off topic for that thread - to question it (and in particular to have a back & forth) would have derailed the thread entirely.

It was a separate issue to the thread so IMO the correct thing to do was open a thread for that purpose, I also was hoping that the thread could be a catchall for any other off topic or side issues that sometimes spoil good threads.

I stopped following the 'live race' threads because they often decended in to an off topic back & forth.

I believe if there was a place dedicated to that then people will self moderate - in the same way if someone brings up doping in the General threads it is the posters themselves that tell the poster 'to take it to the Clinic'


JPM London said:
Whatever your intention was in that, it can easily come across as if you were looking to bash a poster publicly. If your problem was JRT in particular, then a PM had been less public but achieved the same or a post in the original thread had been on topic. If it was more a general grievance over the lack of documented claims and general derailing, then maybe it would have been wise not to single out one poster in particular, but maybe have shown another couple of examples. Even then it could easily be construed as poster-bashing however valid it might be or not.
This is where I believe is where the error in closing it was made.

There was nothing personal in my remarks - I questioned their post which they made.

In the last week I have had people ask me to link to what I claimed and in one instance asked about my backround.

I answered those queries and I have no problem in doing so (as long as it is relevant to the topic). If I make a claim I should be able to back it up or withdraw it.

On the other hand I have claims made against me - as an example that I purposefully derail threads, not only is that inaccurate it is a personal attack.


JPM London said:
Critique of other posters is walking a fine line and so is moderating it. Critique of other poster's arguments is always fine. For this reason there's the opportunity to report posts if you feel someone is out of line. You can also always choose to ignore what other people post.

I didn't critique the poster - I asked them to back up what they claimed.

There is no 'fine line' - the distinction between questioning a a post and a personal remark is very clear and easy to distinguish.

JPM London said:
If you feel someone is not backing up what they say or don't pay attention to your own points, chances are they don't care about your points. Then chances are you can't sway them anyway. Again, inappropriate behaviour can be reported.

Maybe this got a bit roundabout, but I hope not... There's nothing - so far - that's telling me it was the wrong decision. If I'm mistaken I'm obviously happy for the thread to be reopened.
The highlighted would be fine - but in this instance the poster offered the claim which was off topic- it had nothing to do with my opinion as I had not offered one.

I questioned it and so as not to derail the existing thread and make it unreadable I opened a thread for that purposes in the appropriate area.
 
Thoughtforfood said:
I like the idea, but would also request this: (and I am not joking) You start a sticky called "Fight Club Thread." An un-moderated place where brass knuckles and circumnavigation of the language filters are allowed. You get two people who are going after each other, you come in and say "I am moving your posts to Fight Club Thread." If they don't move, you ban them. You could put a disclaimer telling all who venture in that they are accepting the probability that they will be offended. Then, you just never go there. The only thing I can see that might be an issue is if there are actual physical threats conveyed.

Yes, I know that my idea will go over like a lead turd with the mods but I bet it would work. If you actually want to fix things, then sometimes you have to embrace that you will not be able to control it (and provide for it in a limited manner) no matter how hard you try, how many people you punish, or how many rules you make. There are a plethora of examples throughout society that show this. It isn't giving in to the terrorists, it is making a reality based decision. I think you would find it would free up some of your time.

That is a really stupid idea, you inbred hillbilly hick moran.:D
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
Except your opinion is wrong. I simply wanted to narrow the discussion to smaller chunks. Its a very effective strategy for communication and often makes things much simpler when there all multiple points. In light of the fact that IMO you like to derail things I felt this was required. You didn't like it and choose to engage other tactics, your choice.

Additionally I never addressed any single poster, I referred to the greater clinic. As such, I had nothing to defend to you. The only thing I did was accuse you of being slow by quipping that you are struggling to keep up, I apologized for that comment.

If you use ad hominem or not was not in question, I have no idea if you do or don't. I simply set a rule that if you resorted to it the conversation would end.

I have adhered to your rules and you still have not answered, so my opinion appears to be confirmed.

Strange that you accuse me of derailing a thread when I opened a separate thread for you to answer my query. Can you point out a number of threads that I have derailed are is that another opinion that is subject to your rules?

To the blue - what does it matter who you addressed? You made a claim (it could have been about anything) I queried it and because it was already off topic I decided to put it in a separate thread, as there was none already I opened a new one.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
I have adhered to your rules and you still have not answered, so my opinion appears to be confirmed.

Strange that you accuse me of derailing a thread when I opened a separate thread for you to answer my query. Can you point out a number of threads that I have derailed are is that another opinion that is subject to your rules?

To the blue - what does it matter who you addressed? You made a claim (it could have been about anything) I queried it and because it was already off topic I decided to put it in a separate thread, as there was none already I opened a new one.

Show me where you narrowed it down to one or two items to be addressed. If you did I missed, my bad. I suspect you didn't and as such you have engaged in...

See my point.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
That is a really stupid idea, you inbred hillbilly hick moran.:D

But see, truth like this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about people arguing over something that is not an abject fact.:D
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
Show me where you narrowed it down to one or two items to be addressed. If you did I missed, my bad. I suspect you didn't and as such you have engaged in...

See my point.

No - I don't see your point at all - could you explain it?
Engaged in what exactly?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Francois the Postman said:
BTW, I have several times toyed with the idea of starting am experiment in the Clinic: offering a different option to thread starters: an OP can opt for a thread to be a "super-moderated thread".

ON topic only, no name calling, ****taking, humor, derailing, etc. Mods can and will delete everything that seems to be out of place, and flagrant breaches will have consequences, as the aim is to do nada. A bit like the link threads.

I am not sure it could work, mostly because of the extra demands it probably puts on us, and having to be fair when folk seem to have problems with some of our/my calls already.

But it might be a worth shot, just to see if it works. If it doesn't, at least we know.

They're gonna be boring prob, sorry, andit will be "just the meat" [pun intended].

I keep trying to get round to it, but there is always something that slips inbetween.

There are a couple of other ideas I had for the clinic, and other mods have their thoughts too. But for now, that maybe worth shot?


Isn't it a pity someone didn't do that in the "Official "another interesting piece I found on Lance Armstrong" Thread" - and put in some clear instructions on how the thead should develop........ ;)

Francois the Postman said:
If you have stumbled upon...

-an interesting link for news/opinions/videos/blog-posts about Lance Armstriong
OR
-a comment by the good man himself that doesn't really add anything new to the overall picture

...and you want to share it with the Clinic, this is the place to do it.


However. if it triggers a genuinely mayor new development - use your head - it might be appropriate to start a new thread. In doubt, then it goes here for sure.

This should become the place to check for new snippets in the vast majority of cases. Bitst hat might interest some, but are swamping the Clinic if each would get a new thread.

If it is a topic you want to discuss, rather than a news story or opinion piece by an insider/reporter/blogger/etc, do a search first. The chances that there is an existing thread that covers the topic close enough are huge. If it exists, use that thread.

Don't hesitate to start a new thread if the post merits it. But think before you post, please.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
No - I don't see your point at all - could you explain it?
Engaged in what exactly?

That was a statement.

You acknowledge by omission of a link in your response that you never adhered to my rules. In essence you have posted, I said I adhered to your rules so I must be telling the truth. Yet you never narrowed it down at all.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
That was a statement.

You acknowledge by omission of a link in your response that you never adhered to my rules. In essence you have posted, I said I adhered to your rules so I must be telling the truth. Yet you never narrowed it down at all.

We discussed this at the time that you threw in the rules
JRTinMA said:
Sorry doc, I appreciate your interest in my post, I can't debate you on all your questions. You have unlimited time on your hands and your only goal is to derail threads. If you can narrow this down to one or two major points of concern for you I will attempt to engage you, at least up to the point you engage in ad hominem.
Your "one or two" rule was based on that you didn't have 'unlimited time' - and I was actually thinking abut asking you to address the first 2 points.
However as you continued posting throughout this time frame and you racked up 17 posts throughout the day then this 'rule' appears nothing moe than to avoid answering any questions.


Also - why should I (or anyone else) have to adhere to your rules?
The rules of this forum are the only rules one needs to adhere to.
I have not set any rule or condition for you to answer or for any of the numerous questions that you have asked.

If you wish to address this issue - then request the Mods to reopen the other thread and we can discuss it there.


Originally Posted by JRTinMA
Show me where you narrowed it down to one or two items to be addressed. If you did I missed, my bad. I suspect you didn't and as such you have engaged in...

See my point.
You didn't answer my question regarding this - again can you point out what I was engaged in?
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
Doc, gimme e break. You're starting to pick words apart to a level that is insane, all the more if you want me to do shorthand too. I already try to over-explain things to avoid most easily understandable internet-confusion, and people can place my words in a context that is mine, rather than theirs..

I'll make one insertion in red into that quote. Don't expect me to check that with my legal team too to see if it covers all bases.

If it is a topic you want to discuss, rather than a news story or opinion piece by an insider/reporter/blogger/etc, do a search first. The chances that there is an existing thread that covers the topic close enough are huge. If it exists, use that thread.

Don't hesitate to start a new thread if the post merits it. To clarify, no, that doesn't mean to say that all the rest of what mods are saying or trying to suddenly has lots its value, that the rules and guidelines have gone out of the window, or that the mods have hereby handed back their discretionary powers to apply their common sense and judgement after you have made that thread, and take any action that they judge to be appropriate.
But think before you post, please.

No one has suggested that anything you said was not worth raising of discussing. No-one has accused anyone of acting in bad faith or something, yourself included. So all we are talking about is one thing that we looked upon, and both see pros and cons for, is seen differently.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but we have replied in detail, at length. For what we are talking about, this amount of dust and legalese over this specific thread, and "rules and guidelines" nit-picking is getting a bit too -eh- much. For me at least.

As the only alternative would be if I really start to think about making these instructions and guidelines watertight. I think I make people suffer enough as it is.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Visit site
I have a question about just one thing. It shouldn't take up too much time.
JRTinMA said:
I never addressed any single poster, I referred to the greater clinic.
What does that mean? Are blanket accusations somehow off limits to replies?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Francois the Postman said:
Doc, gimme e break. You're starting to pick words apart to a level that is insane, all the more if you want me to do shorthand too. I already try to over-explain things to avoid most easily understandable internet-confusion, and people can place my words in a context that is mine, rather than theirs..

I'll make one insertion in red into that quote. Don't expect me to check that with my legal team too to see if it covers all bases.

Seriously - what words did I pick??

I assume you are referring to the post where I quoted the OP to the LA thread?
If so - I though it was a humorous way to show how a well meaning thread had strayed off topic even after clear instructions.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
I took your post as a justification of you opening a new thread, but more as a protest about it still being closed, despite my own instruction-words. It looks you have a different angle.

The word-picking and legalising is still starting to get to me. You aren't happy with a poster saying something and not backing it up. Fair enough. You made that point. You also seem to think that that means it should be retracted.

In a murder trial, sure. On a cycling site where people speculate and voice all sorts of stuff. Nah. Sorry. We share opinions and facts. There is no requirement for anyone to argue why they arrive at an opinion. Or dig up the bodies when someone demands an autopsy. It can be nice if they do, it might say something about the opinion if they don't. But if it they duck it, or ignore it, just find way to deal with that, as here it's fine.

And it is not as if he had levelled a far out claim with real-life consequences to anyone either. He said that in his mind the folk in the Clinic were a bit x,y and z. People have made the general sweeping cases about fans and posters there for ages, and I have never seen you rip up the turf like this. Something about this particular statement got under your wig, and I think you should just let it fly.

WE (as mods) just expect it to be honestly held. I think JRT does. He went out of his way not to insult, or finger-point. That makes sure it is even more likely to remain. That post will stay.

Feel free to question it. But like this? It's a bit much, and getting a bit too much rapidly, IMO.
 
Granville57 said:
I have a question about just one thing. It shouldn't take up too much time.
What does that mean? Are blanket accusations somehow off limits to replies?

Of course not, however I have no obligation to him to link posts or provide names. Even though I was not obligated I offered to debate him under a certain set of rules and he chose to engage other tactics.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
I like the idea, but would also request this: (and I am not joking) You start a sticky called "Fight Club Thread." An un-moderated place where brass knuckles and circumnavigation of the language filters are allowed. You get two people who are going after each other, you come in and say "I am moving your posts to Fight Club Thread." If they don't move, you ban them. You could put a disclaimer telling all who venture in that they are accepting the probability that they will be offended. Then, you just never go there. The only thing I can see that might be an issue is if there are actual physical threats conveyed.

Yes, I know that my idea will go over like a lead turd with the mods but I bet it would work. If you actually want to fix things, then sometimes you have to embrace that you will not be able to control it (and provide for it in a limited manner) no matter how hard you try, how many people you punish, or how many rules you make. There are a plethora of examples throughout society that show this. It isn't giving in to the terrorists, it is making a reality based decision. I think you would find it would free up some of your time.

Bump.............
 
Dr. Maserati said:
We discussed this at the time that you threw in the rules

Your "one or two" rule was based on that you didn't have 'unlimited time' - and I was actually thinking abut asking you to address the first 2 points.
However as you continued posting throughout this time frame and you racked up 17 posts throughout the day then this 'rule' appears nothing moe than to avoid answering any questions.


Also - why should I (or anyone else) have to adhere to your rules?
The rules of this forum are the only rules one needs to adhere to.
I have not set any rule or condition for you to answer or for any of the numerous questions that you have asked.

If you wish to address this issue - then request the Mods to reopen the other thread and we can discuss it there.



You didn't answer my question regarding this - again can you point out what I was engaged in?

You are under no obligation to adhere to my rules. However, I have seen you pick words apart to an inane level and I set rules to debate you. This is my prerogative since I am not obligated to engage you. On the flip side if you don't like it you can choose to pass me by. I'm not trying to be difficult I'm trying to save my sanity.

How many times I posted yesterday plays no part in this discussion. What matters is if I debated you on all 5 questions it would have been a HUGE time commitment. One that would have ended with me giving up. So I said lets break it down and see how it goes, I felt confident I could commit enough time to debate you on a single question but you didn't like that idea. This is why I made the rule which has only been substantiated for ME in this very thread.
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Bump.............

Sorry TFF....I know this looks like stalking....


I like this idea....only problem is the one you pointed out. Physical threats. At some point if you moderate at all, a line is drawn, and someone has to enforce that line. Then people interpret decisions made..."that wasn't a threat....he only said I bet I could f*ck you up in a fight you fat ***********r...not I am goint to f*ck you up" yadda yadda yadda and so it starts all over again.

If we had a fight club option....which I thought in BPC's case was usually referred to as "the PM", you either let the chips fall as they may, and have to accept whatever unsavoury behaviour happens....like over at 4chan as I have mentioned elsewhere....and honestly it pretty rapidly becomes unreadable....or you draw some lines, ban transgressors and get folk like me and you who have a sense of humour whining when we get banned for posting "money" links. It aint perfect, but at least it saves some of us from only being allowed to post in one thread!

If you do consider it though Francois....could we amend it slightly....make it like celebrity death match?....arrange some one on ones? Invite Bucky back and get him and Chris E together to go over the space shuttle thing uncensored?.....TFF versus Cal Joe?....Flicky versus....well, kind of anyone?....Doctor Maserati versus....himself? I'd pay to watch, honestly!:D
 

TRENDING THREADS