A new Board? Any interest?

haven't seen it either. by the way. who won

Not trying to rock the boat right over, just trying to make us talk.

Please don't kill the courthouse. Please treat it like one where respect is demanded. I think perhaps not using sources is fine here, but others may shoot it down, not using good sources is ok here (as we know a source is not a source is not a source).

If something in tone or wording would likely not fly in a US courtroom (or a real tv drama courtroom, because that is all most of us really know of courtrooms besides that one jury case right?) move it to the boxing ring.

I also still think that Soulshiner may be hinting in the right direction with self moderation infrastructure where we are kept honest. Without making more work for the mods unless things get extreme.

Perhaps I should just be hitting report post, but that feels like calling the cops, so I hesitate.

12 pages of reasonable civil discussion, there must be at least something here.

akilina wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: You really need to get over yourself. This is simply an internet forum with maybe a dozen to twenty posters. Why don't you just place LJ and others on ignore rather than pontificate about how great and reasonable you are and how terrible LJ is. LJ is an honest poster which is more than some of your "supporters" can claim. Put on you big boy pants and have some fun. Quit taking yourself so seriously, no one else does.

Well said....

See that's the problem. There are only a dozen to twenty posters and there would be a lot more if there was a place to have some decent discussion. LJ in her responses doesn't provide that. Put it in the ring where it belongs and then others can have a free for all there.

I disagree and feel that LJs response that she agrees that I should get over myself was quite reasonable, (though I disagree) if you want more information or detail, you can ask her. I don't think many would push to make people answer questions with more description, there seems to be some agreement with a desire to stay on the topic (or start a new one) and to not insult in the process of trying to make a point. I may want more than this, but I feel these two things are reasonable to ask for.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Raees wrote:

Jekyll wrote: You REALLY can't see that posters "like" yourself do it all the time as well?

I give back in kind when it's dished at me or my friends. I got it as soon as I returned.

I agree, this is partially true for all, you forgot one though, sometimes people get their heads bit off just for expressing themselves and you do this, essentially starting it, we all do, you stood out as doing it more, I am trying to diminish it all around.

I think soulshiner had it right, when it gets dished at you, lets repost that as an offensive comment and try to move the topic to the ring and start a new one in the courthouse where we don't dish at each other but try to get back to the understanding of the issue and those perspectives we are discussing.

I think this is turning the other cheek.

Jekyll wrote: And as far as businesses leaving? Who cares if there are? The site is booming.

I care because I know the site is not as sustainable without sponsors and without SC feeling a warm fuzzy feeling.

As SC said, business is actually growing. I pushed a conceptual point pretty hard, perhaps too hard.

Despite this, perhaps business could grow more, in fact this is certain. And the site could boom more, those that have limited interaction due to insults, etc. may post more if we are more civil to each other.

I still find it interesting how many people posted about how someone was trying to limit a "side's" perspective when that was not the stated goal by just about anyone, including myself. Why do people keep defaulting to that defense even when it is not needed. Everyone seems pretty unanimous that we want all perspectives, just not all attitudes.

we want all perspectives, just not all attitudes.

nailed

frogger wrote:

we want all perspectives, just not all attitudes.

nailed

You can't have it both ways you know.

CinnamonGirl wrote:

frogger wrote:

we want all perspectives, just not all attitudes.

nailed

You can't have it both ways you know.

Unless you are in an actual courtroom.

CinnamonGirl wrote:

frogger wrote:

we want all perspectives, just not all attitudes.

nailed

You can't have it both ways you know.

Not always, but I have seen some perspectives that did not have (harsh) attitude. One can substitute sources and logic and kindness in order to win someone over.

I do think we all want perspectives and I think we want to be won or to win others over in the end. That is where the insults kind of pull the plug on the tub, no one can take a bath after that, no one that cares will be won over, no one that cares will be open minded.

Great read but not convinced that anything will change. This has been hashed out before. Until there is some type of reasonable solution it will continue as it has. Self moderation on this site doesn't work and it affects SC business.

Who is going to fling all the crap into the ring? It is a full time job.