Subject: discussion board policy changes

Date: Sun Jan 25 20:45:13 2009
User: mickyiw
Message:
To answer your question, SG, moderators can delete individual posts or entire threads. Firenze, so far olblue and myself haven't had the need to delete any posts or threads and we're hoping it remains that way. mickyiw

Date: Sun Jan 25 20:48:03 2009
User: firenze
Message:
It appears mickyiw just deleted herself.

Date: Sun Jan 25 20:49:53 2009
User: mickyiw
Message:
Wow, when did the pages happen? will make finding as post in a particular (long) thread much easier. Nice change.

Date: Sun Jan 25 20:50:27 2009
User: The_Longhorn
Message:
>>>Snowguy: By the way, I claim victory in the "Last to Post" thread!<<< ):D I was wondering about that. But I guess we'll never really know. ):D Oh, & now that politics is (are?) off-limits, will certain people no longer have any reason to hang around? ):o Moo.

Date: Sun Jan 25 20:51:04 2009
User: itdontmatta
Message:
what the...............

Date: Sun Jan 25 20:52:50 2009
User: firenze
Message:
So, mickyiw, it was Denny who deleted the offending threads, including the last post?

Date: Sun Jan 25 20:53:06 2009
User: StarGazer
Message:
Denny, thanks for the answer. I really have tried to keep my posts PG. However, I am not innocent of never getting out of hand. I had pretty much decided to skip any more political threads for that very reason. Thanks again for a great site to play freecell. As it is one addiction that doesn't hurt my body. *grin* SG

Date: Sun Jan 25 20:56:32 2009
User: The_Longhorn
Message:
>>>StarGazer: As it is one addiction that doesn't hurt my body.<<< ):o After awhile, it does tend to get a little taxing on the eyes. ):o Moo.

Date: Sun Jan 25 21:09:30 2009
User: StarGazer
Message:
Have I been censored already?!?!?! I am gonna repeat my last post....that mysteriously disappeared. Thanks Denny for answering my question. I rarely engage in posts that seem controversial to me. Although I am not innocent. I did raise questions. I appreciate the great site to play freecell. SG

Date: Sun Jan 25 21:21:05 2009
User: StarGazer
Message:
mickyiw, ahh thanks for the explanation. Longhorn, and the thumb. working that mouse. But I don't play near as much freecell as I have in the past. Blaming the grand-daughter....seems a reasonable blame SG

Date: Sun Jan 25 21:26:03 2009
User: mabb
Message:
Denny, this beef burgundy entree is delicious! So melt-in-your-mouth, fork tender....my compliments to the chef. I hope we can have an entree to suit our <deleted> vegetarian friends tomorrow....we don't want to be intolerant! ;) Pass the pepper, please. ps - firenze, FWIW, you're one of MY favs, (IF we're allowed to have favorites, that is... otherwise, I don't "officially" have a list of favorites, you understand.)

Date: Sun Jan 25 21:30:35 2009
User: firenze
Message:
.e hugs mabb .e wipes speck of dust from eye.

Date: Mon Jan 26 06:43:09 2009
User: parapraxis
Message:
Date: Tue Dec 30 20:07:22 2008 User: Denny Message: Man, that Blagojevich is something, huh? I wonder what alternate universe he's living in. Mabb Wrote : I do believe that politics has been discussed by Netcellers for as long as I can remember, or at least one side of it has. Denny himself began a political thread recently about Blagojevich. So I don't think it's entirely about the subject matter. What I think is relatively new is the amount of push-back from the "other" side, and the increasing tone of animosity. Push-back doesn't have to lead to rancor, and I think there have been some excellent "controversial" threads that haven't become rancorous. But unfortunately the nasty tone sneaks in too often, resulting in a level of "discourse" that is not conducive to the fun atmosphere Denny has in mind. I have to agree with that. I started playing Freecell on this site about 4 months ago( bought a mac, and missed the built in freecell in windows). I didn't contribute to the threads till late November, 2008 and as a newcomer my contributions reflected the atmosphere of what was being said. I was under the impression that political talk was acceptable and as adults we should all realize that political talk can become heated.( Geez, politics have a tremendous effect on our lives, do they not?) Anyway, unless I'm reading this incorrectly, I believe Mabb pointed out the real problem here. The "Pushback" from the "other" side. There have been some excellent "controversial" threads here and regardless of what side you are on, when the facts were presented it only led to constructive conversation. The problems only began when opinion was presented with no facts to back up said opinion. I'm very happy that Denny has provided this site for people who enjoy Freecell, and I will continue to play here. But I am saddened that discussion here will be censored due to the postings of a limited few.

Date: Mon Jan 26 08:56:57 2009
User: ThePope
Message:
"Gov. Blagojevich isn't a political figure these days so much as just another celebrity staging a particularly interested self-destruction." This highlights exactly how difficult it is to determine what is political and what is not. People like The_Longhorn will be ecstatic that they get to trash such "non-political figures" as a Democratic governor undergoing the implosion process, while those on with different viewpoints will wonder why they can't do the same when it comes to Bush or similar Republican imploders. Of course, since mickyiw and olblue will be calling the shots, there won't be any chance of biased decisions on their part, so it probably won't become an issue.

Date: Mon Jan 26 11:09:23 2009
User: ImGainin
Message:
I'm probably in the minority - it won't be the first time not the last. What follows is my opinion not 'gospel' (non religious). As a web developer I'm torn with "an open topic" discussion board vs. a "targeted topic" discussion board. When a website is targeted toward a particular audience or constituency (non political) the owner of the website should be able to govern the content of the board. The only caveat would be to let the 'offending' poster know their post is inappropriate and why. It would also be helpful to let the original poster delete their own topic once it has 'served its usefulness'. Now, do I support your decision to monitor (not sure whether this one will make it on the board) I definitely do and believe it is long overdue. By the way, wasn’t I the last one to post on ‘Last One” topic before it was deleted? Never mind, don’t want to create a controversy (neither political nor religious).

Link: Quiltin' Time

Date: Mon Jan 26 11:11:07 2009
User: FilthyMcNasty
Message:
Will individual posters be banned under the new system? Can we make suggestions about who to ban? If so, I nominate myself.

Date: Mon Jan 26 14:04:52 2009
User: nug
Message:
The notion of limiting us to x posts per day seems not to apply: that doesn'r bother me and I expect I'm in the majority there. Thread hijacking hasn't been mentioned. That can bother me, depending on the nature of the thread and I expect I'm in the minority there.

Date: Mon Jan 26 17:05:05 2009
User: webbwoman
Message:
I'm still kind of a newbie in here, and spent very little time in DB. I found the endless bickering monotonous, and quite tedious, and for that reason stayed pretty much out of it. Thank you Denny for 'cleaning' it up. I totally agree that this is for FUN!!...that's why I'm here..for the fun. We all have thoughts and opinions and ideas, but the brutality is uncalled for between the opposing sides of a topic. I appreciate diversity and individuality, but consideration and etiquette must be maintained. Afterall, we're HUMANS..not apes. We shouldn't be fighting over a particular branch when there's a whole tree available.

Date: Mon Jan 26 22:45:22 2009
User: mabb
Message:
from parapraxis: Anyway, unless I'm reading this incorrectly, I believe Mabb pointed out the real problem here. The "Pushback" from the "other" side. There have been some excellent "controversial" threads here and regardless of what side you are on, when the facts were presented it only led to constructive conversation. The problems only began when opinion was presented with no facts to back up said opinion. from mabb: I was not implying that the problem was the "pushback" itself. I was implying that when only one side of an argument is being presented (in the main), there is little need or opportunity for contention. It amounts to everyone giving each other a "high-five" over their shared opinions and presuppositions. Preaching to the choir, as they say. Also, the secondary issue you raise about fact vs opinion is much more complicated than your summary. Occasionally items presented as "facts" are really opinions masquerading as facts. We all know this. Our respective worldviews, our "truth tunnels", impact not only the conclusions we might draw from the facts, but also impact which "facts" we accept as facts in the first place. Again, in a group of posters who are mostly on one side of the spectrum, there will be no need or motivation to challenge these so-called "facts". Additionally, even the inclusion of indisputable facts does not axiomatically improve matters in a conversation. One of the last interactions I had with birdhaus was a good demonstration of this point-- I presented some very factual "pushback" to the story she provided, and it did not lead to "constructive conversation", as you say. Every now and then, a reaction of anger and/or defensiveness occurs when people have their masquerading "facts" corrected. And that happens on both sides. In other words, I don't believe either side of an argument has a lock on consistently presenting accurate facts, vs. presenting opinions masquerading as facts. Therein lies the "rub". --------------------------- Denny, your table centerpiece is magnificent tonight! I must have the name of your florist. And this vegetable stir-fry --oooh la la! How thoughtful of you to be so inclusive of our vegetarian friends! Is there any more wine?

Date: Mon Jan 26 22:56:02 2009
User: xeena
Message:
None of that has much to do with what happened here to move Denny to close the discussion page, in my opinion.

Date: Mon Jan 26 23:27:50 2009
User: mabb
Message:
It has to do with the origins of the rancor that led to the decision, xeena. And it has to do with providing constructive clarification to parapraxis, who seems to have misinterpreted my earlier post.

Date: Tue Jan 27 00:17:17 2009
User: Snowguy
Message:
I have the impression that, had the discussions remained rooted in ideas, rather than swerving into attacks on the "messenger", there may have been no problem at all. Frankly, it was getting pretty bad. Really, something had to be done. But I hope the board will osmose into a totally diversified board again. A civil board, but a diverse one just the same.

Date: Tue Jan 27 07:24:53 2009
User: The_Pope
Message:
>>>ThePope: This highlights exactly how difficult it is to determine what is political and what is not. People like The_Longhorn will be ecstatic that they get to trash such "non-political figures" as a Democratic governor undergoing the implosion process, while those on with different viewpoints will wonder why they can't do the same when it comes to Bush or similar Republican imploders.<<< Maybe it's because Bush didn't "implode". But hey, I thought we weren't supposed to be discussing this.

Date: Tue Jan 27 14:02:49 2009
User: McTex
Message:
Glad you opened the board again. Gives me a chance to apologize. I am the culprit and apologize for speaking the politics. Anyone like me already is on many political boards and doesn't even need political boards listed here. I'd also hate to see people listing all their political boards and trying to get people to go to their sites here and there. Anyway, I really mean it and won't let my mistake happen again.

Date: Tue Jan 27 17:22:06 2009
User: bu11sgits
Message:
The_Pope wrote, "Maybe it's because Bush didn't 'implode'." Could someone PLEASE delete this post-in-violation from The_Longhorn/ThePope, so we could get back to discussing THE MIGHTY PITTSBURGH STEELERS?

Date: Tue Jan 27 19:00:20 2009
User: The_Pope
Message:
That's fine. Delete it. But also delete the one to which I was responding. Fair's fair.

Date: Tue Jan 27 19:54:00 2009
User: parapraxis
Message:
Geeezzz

Date: Tue Jan 27 20:15:02 2009
User: mabb
Message:
McTex, your apology is curious, as I don't believe I've ever seen your posts before, much less in political threads. What did I miss? ---------------- Denny, the chicken cordon bleu is fabulous! How do you keep up such standards night after night? May I suggest a fish entree soon? I've been recently reading about the benefits of the omega-3 oils. Time to refresh my lipstick.....please excuse me for a moment....

Date: Tue Jan 27 20:22:17 2009
User: hotnurse
Message:
Hmmm, is McTex = the Longhorn family??? KMc

Date: Tue Jan 27 20:27:05 2009
User: parapraxis
Message:
Oddly, Hotnurse, I was thinking the same thing, however, the two sides here are contradictory . Anyone watching The United States of Tara? Apparently, now, we won't have to.

Date: Tue Jan 27 20:34:35 2009
User: The_Longhorn
Message:
):o No, McTex is not a member of The Longhorn Gang. ):o Moo.

Date: Tue Jan 27 20:43:01 2009
User: The_Longhorn
Message:
):) Hint: All 12 members of The Longhorn Gang have achieved 8x3 best streaks of at least 35. ):o Moo.

Date: Tue Jan 27 21:15:56 2009
User: Mistiq
Message:
Hey long, that site you recommended won't approve me already so I can post!

Date: Wed Jan 28 07:19:32 2009
User: The_Longhorn
Message:
):o If it's the first one, I'll tell the admins. ):o Moo.

Date: Wed Jan 28 07:43:54 2009
User: The_Longhorn
Message:
):) Go ahead & try now. ):o Moo.

Date: Wed Jan 28 12:02:55 2009
User: Mistiq
Message:
Now it is saying my username of password is invalid when I try to login and I know it's correct.

Date: Wed Jan 28 18:49:39 2009
User: SirPape
Message:
Dear Denny, if I were you, I would do it like this: I would provide people here with a button [push thread away from main discussion] and I would think about a criteria (e.g. 80% of the users and at least 20 voters in total) for automatic removal a thread from the main stream discussion into a parallel freecell forum "unpopular discussions".