Posted on 08/03/2002 10:16:57 AM PDT by justshe
(Regarding the answer to stopping the 'in-house wars')
The answer is for everyone to just stop doing it.
I know that is hard for some, because things have gotten to the point where now things are personal. There are wounds in some cases, and in others there is anger. Makes it really hard for people to stand down. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure it has been planned this way.
Earlier tonight thanks to a tip from someone who I wish I had listened to earlier, we discovered someone who had at least 8 different accounts. One bashed Horowitz, Swaggert, and Art Bell. Another bashed Keyes. Another posted as a rabid Keyester. Another posted as a Klayman basher. Several seemed to have a thing for mocking Registered.
What was the guy's game? Here is a graphic and caption off of the profile of one of them:
Yes, he wanted to get people fighting to where they would walk away.
One of this guy's incarnations posted a piece or two from anarchist website strike-the-root, which to me hints to what his ideology is. It would also explain why he had a knack for going after the DC chapter folks. I recall nrkybill (anarchy Bill) had some issues with you all. They are not the same people, I don't think, but if their ideology is the same and their main targets are the same, then it is possible that there is some connection.
Obviously, the goal is to drive people away. This is not happening on just one side, it is happening on all sides. It is a form of disruption that relies on the cover of good people engaging in flame wars with them so that the disruptors seem part of the mass rather than the agent provocatuers that they are.
There are two options, really. People can help us out in finding them by refusing to take part in the flame wars and being understanding when a person gets sent to the cooler, so that eventually the real problem children are rooted out.
And the other option is to let them win by letting them drive you away- with you being people from every single conservative faction we have. Rest assured though, if that one happens, if you make another home and it starts being successful, they will come there and do it to you there.
I've asked this before. I'll ask it again. (And this is not aimed at you, ... but at the forum). Please stop it with the personal attacks. One can have a rip-roaring take-it-to-the-mat political debate with someone without getting personal, without resorting to childish taunts, and still not have it be bland.
And the best thing that one can do otherwise is to use a little self-enforcement. A Bushie telling a Bushie to knock off the insults is going to probably work better than a Keyester telling a Bushie to knock off the insults, and vice versa.
My flame suits are back on, so everyone have at it again. But please at least think about it. Thanks, AM
Never suggested that one stay there.
Just long enought to make it clear that we know what we're dealing with.
Then ignore them.
Try reading 163. A little closer this time.....
I think at times the mods have been too quick to ban on the first or second offense. Sometimes people get heated and post things they wish they hadn't and we may have lost some people who could have become active chapter members or leaders. At worst, they get mad and become antifreepers. Of course, with FR's easy registration process, reregistering under a new name is a problem.
Antie Mame had a good suggestion earlier that is similar to something I proposed to Jim at Fresno. Expand the mods to 25-30, rotate duties and institute internal controls and review by the group itself. I would suggest an internal "review board", made up of 3 or so rotating members, for bannings that allow a bannee a chance at appeal and have his situation looked at by others. Jim could still retain ultimate control and this may lessen some of the pressure and time committments of the existing mods. It will also allow for internal oversite of the members themselves.
I would even go farther and allow members of this mod board to be nominated and voted on by the Forum members themselves, once per year. Who wins could be kept confidential and assigned a mod #, much as you do know, to maintain anonymity...which I think is critical to the success of the program.
Why did you bother to ask me a question on 163, and then when I respond at 165, you don't bother to answer? What's up with that?
I think this is excellent advice.
Oh, and that's another reason why I answered 164, as their was not response to mine.
And no, no offense taken. I have a very thick hide......
Regarding the posting of personal information, that shouldn't have been done and a suspension was given. That said, there is no question that the poster in question had said he was going to post some proof, and the injured party had pretty much said go ahead. This may have been misconstrued as permission to post what he did. In any case, it was against the forum guidelines, the post removed, and a suspension given.
And the removal of all of a person's accounts when many have been found has always resulted in the removal of the accounts. That isn't new, and it has been meted out in many cases. We have some people who have more than one account, due to having a spouse. We have had people sign up obvious joke names which have been used once or twice. Those don't generally get the death penalty. But when we see 8 accounts, most with 200-300 posts, that is not a person playing a joke. That is a person trying to make himself look like more than one person, and regardless of ideology it is dishonest and isn't going to be tolerated.
Thanks, AM
Rip-roaring, take-it-to-the-mat debate is okay.
Personal insults and email full of words you can't say on television is *not*.
Unless your goal is indeed to drive people away and silence debate.
One of this guy's incarnations posted a piece or two from anarchist website strike-the-root, which to me hints to what his ideology is. It would also explain why he had a knack for going after the DC chapter folks....Obviously, the goal is to drive people away.
If this is the thread you're referring to...you can see in post #3 that he/she found the article at the Declaration Foundation website.
He got the article from *GASP* Dr. Alan Keyes' Declaration Foundation site? OH MY!
I didn't know they were anarchists, but I knew Dr. Keyes and his followers were trying to divide Conservatives when I first saw Dr. Keyes' article I am not a Bush Republican!
Yes, this poster was surely a dangerous character. Definitely needed to be banned! (I don't understand why he would disagree with the D.C. Chapter, though.)
If you're a QA person who's disagreeing with a dozen developers on a fine point of OS design, as in that thread, the question of experience is highly relevant.
That's not personal, it's part of the 'rip-roaring' debate.
But calling me personal names, and sending filth-laden emails insulting and threatening *is* personal.
You must see the difference?
Should I post the email you sent me?
Or perhaps forward it to the admin moderator?
You'd get banned if they saw that. Just be aware that I'm not the only one who thinks that kind of personal flaming is off-limits.
Calling me names you wouldn't let your 8 year old use *is* a personal insult.
Now I don't want you banned.
Please try and take my advice and learn the difference before you send a note like that to someone who won't be as patient.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.