Ken's board has turned into the psycho board. Yesterday Skye & I had a peaceful exchange, commenting on the oddity of being unable to mention the major news event of the day and basically noting that in place of that we had JB's barely coherent ravings. Today I find our peaceful little thread has disappeared. Hell, I even had commented that the absence of pure politics was a net benefit, but Ken's apparent insecurity can't seem to handle the slightest suggestion of a critcism.
What is wrong with him? He talks about the risk of lising poster if he goes to registration and at the same time totally fails to grasp how many people probably avoid the board because of Gog and JB.and the fact that their disappearance would likely turn into a net gain.
  When I was an absolute newbie on Woodbine's (?) board (maybe a month later) I posted a question asking what, if any, positive contribution Gog made to the board. Within hours, a survey went up asking basically the same question and two days later Gog was gone. It dawns on me that Ken has no respect for the posters on his board...all he wants is to avoid making any real decisions and uses his ability to delete any post he doesn't like. It happens elsewhere, sadly, even when one isn't cursing or calling names but merely taking a strong position, but the bit with Ken is totally different and a detriment to his board.

See, though, that's what DNR was SUPPOSED to do - and never has.  It was supposed to prevent posters from being trolled or harassed by other posters and cut down on the job the Mod(s) had to do.  Instead, it's the opposite - they have to not only moderate everyday stuff, but DNRs, too! Did someone's get violated? Did they e-mail me? Now I have to answer them! More time out of my day!

Delete TWO posters and half of this goes away. But he lacks the courage.

greenman wrote:

Pikes Peak 14115 wrote:

Blue is the only board in the system of boards here with any sense of peace, rationality, and member respect for each other. That is due to registration that identified problem children from boards of other colors. They were all given chances here at first, and could not contain themselves. Their complaints and disparagement about blew board are due to their own misconduct, which continues unchecked where ever they are now. 

Ken has his hands full, dealing with them, and he really doesn't have time for it. Trish fills in the gaps admirably, but they're more than even two people can manage. Manage GOG or jb? Time tested impossibility. They aren't the only cogs to require management. Ken tries to keep everyone in the same room, and relatively happy. The DNR list is strong evidence of that success. When one of the psycho posters latches onto you, they can and will harass you right into a DNR. 

With all due respect, the DNR list is not evidence of the discussion board's success, but its failure.

That is exactly what I meant. It is an ugly "success" only a mother could like. 
 

SJW wrote:

Ken's board has turned into the psycho board. Yesterday Skye & I had a peaceful exchange, commenting on the oddity of being unable to mention the major news event of the day and basically noting that in place of that we had JB's barely coherent ravings. Today I find our peaceful little thread has disappeared. Hell, I even had commented that the absence of pure politics was a net benefit, but Ken's apparent insecurity can't seem to handle the slightest suggestion of a critcism.
What is wrong with him? He talks about the risk of lising poster if he goes to registration and at the same time totally fails to grasp how many people probably avoid the board because of Gog and JB.and the fact that their disappearance would likely turn into a net gain.

SJW / Muqwump violated the DNR rule.  That's why the thread was deleted.

The DNR rule was first suggested and used by some of the people who post here.  Now there are posts here complaining about the DNR rule.  I added the DNR rule for people like Amadeus, Poppet and Trish.
 

At MSNBC we would delete without commentary. There were rules and moderators followed them (five people to be exact). If we lift the DNR what you are seeing now is only going to get far worse. It will become an all-out fire fight (hum...maybe we need a thread sticky just for that - post your fights here)

Poppet wrote:

As I've mentioned in the past, the  DNR rule arose as a response to some very serious, obsession-level stalking/trolling on the part of some bad actors. Their victims would find their every post targeted with multiple personal attack replies, usually with no content relevant to the subject of the thread. Literally EVERY post...and other posters on the board would (understandably) steer clear, having no interest in getting spattered - or possibly themselves drawing the attention of the stalker. The victim would quickly find themselves isolated, unable to participate fully in the forum.

The DNR was instituted to prevent this behavior. It couldn't actively prevent it (since it's not a register-to-post forum), but it made it possible to ban a stalker and even block their IP. It pretty quickly became a way to simply end direct communication between two posters who were never going to get along and whose interpersonal bickering might otherwise become "board cancer."

Unfortunately, the DNR system has also had its share of abusive use, with some posters requesting a DNR solely for the purpose of either a) reducing at least in some small way their voice on the board, b) obtaining the DNR, then posting "hot button" posts that the other person will be unable to resist responding to...hoping to get them banned (this works perfectly against bauer, btw), or c) blanket DNR'ing a whole list of posters, usually ones of a different position on American party politics (*sigh*).

It's an imperfect system, but without it it's worse...by a lot. It would take migration to a more advances platform and registration to have a simpler, less obtrusive system (a user block function, that is) to deal with abusive posters. 

=======

EXACTLY!

Encouragement of different opinions and views is one thing. Encouragement of THOSE opinions and views is another. JB and GOG are trolls who still violate the DNR when convenient, and then claim forgetfulness when called or caught, and beg for reconsideration. 

IMO neither they nor SES, Deanna, Observer know what conservative means, what a conservative is, and they don't represent it well. Same goes for their perception of religion and Christianity. 

All in all they're a remarkable gathering of mental illness in different and incurable stages. Ken is stuck with them in his bed. 

Sia, I'm disappointed that you seem to endorse the individual board operator as God philosophy., Seems to me a board is ultimately what a group of folks make it. It's obviously Ken ignoring what people appear to want rather than his standing for some honorable position. I've written him. He ignores or sidesteps what is said. There are times when it appears that he's incapable of grasping the issue--Again, this is a person who banned a subject for months because he was personally inconvenienced by some protestors. Is that defensible? Rational?

SJW I am not sure how to unpack your post, but the overall idea is that it's Ken's house... Ken's rules. Now, I do not always agree with him. I would love to have registration. It would alleviate a TON of problems, but I do not have the power to change the page as it stands. Sia created a space that's thriving BECAUSE of registration. 

PIKES I suppose a FB group could be created (it would need a catchy name because religion and ethics pages and groups are numerous). OR, there's always the option of creating an R&E type board here WITH registration allowing those of us who want some form of real discussion a place to do so.

I am open to ideas here. I  have been trying to keep up with JB's recent manic state. You can say "limit" x topic to X times daily but even then people sneak it in by using innocent subject titles. URGH. 

What do we want? A FB page/group? A moderated group here (kind of a sister board to Sias)? Or just keep trying with things as they stand

SJW wrote:

Sia, I'm disappointed that you seem to endorse the individual board operator as God philosophy., Seems to me a board is ultimately what a group of folks make it. It's obviously Ken ignoring what people appear to want rather than his standing for some honorable position. I've written him. He ignores or sidesteps what is said. There are times when it appears that he's incapable of grasping the issue--Again, this is a person who banned a subject for months because he was personally inconvenienced by some protestors. Is that defensible? Rational?

====================================

That is not at all what I wrote.

Since you've clearly misunderstood my meaning, I'll be more clear in this post.

The board owner(s) control the board and make the rules according to their vision of what the board should be.  That doesn't make them "gods" and I certainly don't see it that way as you've suggested.  It simply makes them in charge of the board, the rules, and how it runs. 

The members are NOT in charge of those things.  Boards are not democracies nor run by member votes. It doesn't work that way nor can it without constant strife, endless complaints, and the board owner ultimately shutting the whole thing down because it becomes not worth the bother... (which is what Woodbine eventually did, which I don't blame him for given the crap and ruthless complaints that he was putting up with by then).

Anyone who doesn't like the owner(s) vision or the rules is free to suggest ideas to the board owner(s), preferably privately via email, OR to leave the board for greener pastures if they feel that it does not meet their needs and wants. 

What they aren't free to do is to incessantly hound the board owner(s) to change things to suit them or to disrupt the board with endless (public) complaints after making suggestions privately that are rebuffed (or ignored) --- because the board owner(s) will eventually boot them. 

Board members are guests in the board owner(s) "house" and they don't enjoy specific rights nor votes on how the board operates.  There is no "member union" where member votes can overrule the board owner(s).  Members don't have the right to demand that other members be banished nor that the rules be changed to suit them.  They DO have the right to ask and should understand that the answer they get is the final answer. They should not petition the board to vote on it.  As before, members don't have to stay on any board if they don't like things.  Everyone is free to stay or leave according to their own feelings.

They DO have the right to suggest and ask for consideration of their feelings on it, preferably PRIVATELY.  Board owners should hear out their member's concerns if for no other reason than their board may wind up being abandoned if enough members are upset about things that happen there.  However, the members DON'T have the right to DEMAND that the board owner(s) change anything to suit them.

Running a board is an unpaid, sometimes annoying chore, particularly when member(s) relentlessly complain even after being heard and their ideas rebuffed.  Members need to respect the board owner(s) right to run their board as they see fit even if they disagree.

As I said above, if a member doesn't like how a board is run they can leave.  There are many thousands of other boards they can go to OR they can create their own on Boardhost and run it as they see fit.  The sister boards, Blue and Yellow, typically allow advertising for new boards created by members to assist any new boards to be successful.

That is what I was trying to convey in my post. 

That said, yes, you are correct that the members ultimately make up what the board represents in practice. As our headline says "The character of any board is determined by the posters themselves". This place will be as good as you participants make it". 

I firmly believe that, which is why I kept it as our statement after the dissolution of the original "Civilized Discussion Board" that I ran with Merlin and Aay Jay.  That is why we demand civility from posters.  That is also why some posts are deleted when they are not civil a/o contain unnecessary personal insults.  Those things damage the tone and character that we WANT for our board.  Those things drive away most posters who are constantly attacked in personal terms a/o pig-piled by multiple posters rather than discussing each others' views. Freely attack ideas and opinions in harsh terms, but do NOT personally attack other people.  That expectation is how we keep the character of our board as friendly, courteous, and FAIR.

As for your comments on Ken's specific choices on how to run his board and what topics he limits for whatever reasons that he has, I can only say the following:

I could see for myself how much work deleting endless and vicious personal attacks within certain topics were causing him and Trish --- PLUS how UGLY the TONE of the board was getting. 

Certain topics were setting their board on FIRE and were drowning out the ACTUAL purpose of the board...  which is the discussion of Religion and Ethics... and POLITICS was inevitably invading the discussions, which is another reason why so many were deleted and ultimately restricted.

Yes, they allow other topics (except politics which is excluded now for GOOD reasons), but ONE issue that is off-topic should not dominate R&E. 

Plus, causing either Ken or Trish to have to spend HOURS deleting violations all but guarantees that the topic will become restricted until tempers simmer down. 

Blue allowed unlimited discussion of all of those topics so there WAS somewhere to debate it, but just not with the posters on R&E who aren't on Blue. 

That's life.

(Sorry for the rambling and repetition.  Trying to do two things at once and just not feeling well enough to go over it all to slim it down.)
 

Trish wrote:

SJW I am not sure how to unpack your post, but the overall idea is that it's Ken's house... Ken's rules. Now, I do not always agree with him. I would love to have registration. It would alleviate a TON of problems, but I do not have the power to change the page as it stands. Sia created a space that's thriving BECAUSE of registration. 

PIKES I suppose a FB group could be created (it would need a catchy name because religion and ethics pages and groups are numerous). OR, there's always the option of creating an R&E type board here WITH registration allowing those of us who want some form of real discussion a place to do so.

I am open to ideas here. I  have been trying to keep up with JB's recent manic state. You can say "limit" x topic to X times daily but even then people sneak it in by using innocent subject titles. URGH. 

What do we want? A FB page/group? A moderated group here (kind of a sister board to Sias)? Or just keep trying with things as they stand

==============================

There is already an R&E board within THIS FORUM for anyone who wants to use it.  It requires registration as does ALL of this forum.  If you and/or Ken want to moderate it, I will give you that authority in a heartbeat as I'd created it for Ken to run when I built this board.  Each board within this forum has the ability to assign ANYONE to run it with full authority to moderate as they please.

As you know, registering here is an easy thing. 

-----

I'm not sure that Pikes was suggesting a Facebook page.  I think he was saying that losing 2 people on a Facebook group would barely register while losing 2 members on one of these boards is a big deal given the limited volume of members.

--------

Simply limiting how many posts that jb can make daily worked before and it will work now, IF Ken chooses to put it in place.  Because members are so fed up with him, many will count the posts and report him if he goes over, making it much less work for either you or Ken since members will point it out for you. LOL.

I suggested that long ago and remember that Ken decided to do it.  It worked.

 

I do not know how to reply to a specific post. I see it done here "Trish wrote", "Sia wrote" etc, and would like to know how that is done in the contexts of this type board.
To Trish. I know how hard you try and I've seen Ken appear to simply ignore what you have to say re JB.
To Sia: I thought Woodbine aged out and never saw him having any real problems of suffering any attacks.
To Ken: I used to called your board "The Hate Board". Now, b/t Gog, JB & the occasional mutterings of Devo. I think of it as The St. Mary's of Bethlehem Board (Popular known as Bedlam in it's time and now if I'm not mistaken ,appropriately enough the site of the Imperial War Museum.(according to my Dad). I just think you don't want to listen to what anyone has to say.
Yes, I can be harsh, even mean-spirited at times. If someone puts me in a spot where I can't respond, I will return the tactic, but I don't curse and I don't call names. I just say what I think
 

Here is how to do it...
=======================================

Siagiah wrote:

Ken C wrote:

I want people to share the R&E forum.  I will put a limit on posts by jb (or anyone else who posts too much on repetitive topics).  I'm still planning what that will be.

SJW, you seemed kind of angry and hostile.  That's why I sometimes avoid you.  I was not ignoring you.

============================

I guess I should read everything before responding to anything.  I see that you've already decided to put a limit on jb's posts.

 I just counted 128 posts by jb within the last 6 1/4 days at this very moment in time Forum time: July 25, 2024, 9:45 am 

128 posts! since July 18th.

That's a LOT of posts for one person and far outweighs every other individual's posts.

Were it up to me, I'd suggest allowing him to start a maximum of 2 threads a day and up to 8 inside posts a day. Delete everything else after that. That would cut his posting down to 10 posts maximum a day, which is about half of what he posted in recent history.

Then see how that goes.  At least he'd be forced to start considering whether he wants to "waste" a post so he'd give more thought to what he posts.

Just a thought.





 


 

He just posted his FOURTH DNR violation against Muqwump.

There are NEVER any consequences to him for violating DNR, because he's Ken's pet.  He just lies and claims 'Oh, I didn't  mean to!' and it goes away.

If DNR isn't even being enforced, it has no meaning!

Trish wrote:

I am aware of the religion aspect of this site. It hasn't been used since 2022. I feel like people are not really "getting" the whole idea of forum posting. Your threaded board illustrates that, I think. It's also out in front of folks where they can see it. Is there any way to bring the R&E element to the forefront?

======================================

All that is necessary to quickly find the R&E board within this forum is to go to the INDEX which is readily available with a single click on every page of the forum no matter where we are. 

I built this forum so that members would go to the index upon arrival, choose a board, and be able to see every discussion going on with new posts highlighted inside of them or to click on "show new posts" or "active posts" (upper right when on Index page) to quickly find EVERY NEW POST on every single board in one spot. 

I built in a ton of conveniences for members thinking posters would really like how EASY it is to navigate here and created detailed "how to posts" to teach anyone who needed help.  No one seemed to care, so I haven't kept up with the tutorials since it's a waste of my time to bother when no one cares. 

If you want to run the R&E board on this forum as well as moderate Ken's R&E, just say the word.  I'll put you in charge of it.