New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
A Question ? Can An Orger be banned for posting things that are refuted by others ? | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
An answer:
huh? Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
What do you mean by 'refuted', Mach?
Proven wrong about something? I'm not sure I understand... |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mach said: Can An Orger be banned for posting things that are refuted by others ?
No way, man! That would leave us without any Republicans at all!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
2the9s said: Mach said: Can An Orger be banned for posting things that are refuted by others ?
No way, man! That would leave us without any Republicans at all!  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Mach said: Can An Orger be banned for posting things that are refuted by others ?
No way, man! That would leave us without any Republicans at all! And the problem with this is...?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: What do you mean by 'refuted', Mach?
Proven wrong about something? I'm not sure I understand... yes | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: An answer:
If a poster posts wrong info
huh? perhaps on a more consistant note then the next orger | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Mach said: Can An Orger be banned for posting things that are refuted by others ?
No way, man! That would leave us without any Republicans at all! That is what I assume though I wanted other opinions too  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
Mach said: sosgemini said: An answer:
If a poster posts wrong info
huh? perhaps on a more consistant note then the next orger welllll.... fake tracklists are a definite no-no. I guess I'd need to understand the context of what we're talking about. If someone knowingly posts misinformation repeatedly after warnings not to, then yes, I can see banning them. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mach said: sosgemini said: An answer:
If a poster posts wrong info
huh? perhaps on a more consistant note then the next orger isn't that censorship though? Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: Mach said: If a poster posts wrong info
perhaps on a more consistant note then the next orger isn't that censorship though? Yes That is why I am asking ~~ I am not talking "Prince" info being a Prince site I can understand why facts should be facts more like ... lets say GD forum someone posts wrong info on a topic about food or sex or anything . [Edited 4/18/07 11:22am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mach said: sosgemini said: An answer:
If a poster posts wrong info
huh? perhaps on a more consistant note then the next orger I have NO idea what prompted this. Just want to say that up front. But it's posted here publically so... If by this question you mean that you think a poster might have a malicious intent in posting wrong or deliberately misleading info about, say, mental health issues or something, with the intent of causing harm, then perhaps the mods should get together and agree on a course of action. But to include in the already lengthy rules something to the effect of what you said above -- "An Orger can be banned for posting things that are refuted by others" (I'm not saying you said that) -- would be a mistake. For one thing it would be reactive to a particular and most likey isolated case; and the best rules or policies, while certainly being flexible, need to emerge from an overall sense of the welfare of the majority. If someone persistently engaged in the kind of behavior and, again, if it could be determined that there was malicious intent (admittedly a judgment call) then there is already a mechanism in place where they could be dealt with (policy against trolling). Instituting a rule like that would make the wrong people be cautious for the wrong things and further mystify the relationship between mods and posters. Also, mod decisions would then possibly dwell on the minutiae of "is this or is this not an infraction of this particular rule," while possibly ignoring larger issues. . [Edited 4/18/07 14:15pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Booyah! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
2the9s said: Mach said: If a poster posts wrong info
perhaps on a more consistant note then the next orger I have NO idea what prompted this. Just want to say that up front. But it's posted here publically so... If by this question you mean that you think a poster might have a malicious intent in posting wrong or deliberately misleading info about, say, mental health issues or something, with the intent of causing harm, then perhaps the mods should get together and agree on a course of action. But to include in the already lengthy rules something to the effect of what you said above -- "An Orger can be banned for posting things that are refuted by others" (I'm not saying you said that) -- would be a mistake. For one thing it would be reactive to a particular and most likey isolated case; and the best rules or policies, while certainly being flexible, need to emerge from an overall sense of the welfare of the majority. If someone persistently engaged in the kind of behavior and, again, if it could be determined that there was malicious intent (admittedly a judgment call) then there is already a mechanism in place where they could be dealt with (policy against trolling). Instituting a rule like that would make the wrong people be cautious for the wrong things and further mystify the relationship between mods and posters. Also, mod decisions would then possibly dwell on the minutiae of "is this or is this not an infraction of this particular rule," while possibly ignoring larger issues. . [Edited 4/18/07 14:15pm] Agreed!  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: 2the9s said: I have NO idea what prompted this. Just want to say that up front. But it's posted here publically so... If by this question you mean that you think a poster might have a malicious intent in posting wrong or deliberately misleading info about, say, mental health issues or something, with the intent of causing harm, then perhaps the mods should get together and agree on a course of action. But to include in the already lengthy rules something to the effect of what you said above -- "An Orger can be banned for posting things that are refuted by others" (I'm not saying you said that) -- would be a mistake. For one thing it would be reactive to a particular and most likey isolated case; and the best rules or policies, while certainly being flexible, need to emerge from an overall sense of the welfare of the majority. If someone persistently engaged in the kind of behavior and, again, if it could be determined that there was malicious intent (admittedly a judgment call) then there is already a mechanism in place where they could be dealt with (policy against trolling). Instituting a rule like that would make the wrong people be cautious for the wrong things and further mystify the relationship between mods and posters. Also, mod decisions would then possibly dwell on the minutiae of "is this or is this not an infraction of this particular rule," while possibly ignoring larger issues. . [Edited 4/18/07 14:15pm] Agreed! If you agree, just say "Booyah!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Booyah!
i miss you...  Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
for example, ED and creationism?
Although he's very consistent in getting it wrong, i'd say he should be able to post his misconceivings. Slippery grounds, Mach. An honest effort to protect the gullible will be seen as censoring. I think the org community is large enough to make sure every viewpoint is discussed. You don't scare me; i got kids | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlfofMelmak said: for example, ED and creationism?
Although he's very consistent in getting it wrong, i'd say he should be able to post his misconceivings. Slippery grounds, Mach. An honest effort to protect the gullible will be seen as censoring. I think the org community is large enough to make sure every viewpoint is discussed. In other words...BOOYAH!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: AlfofMelmak said: for example, ED and creationism?
Although he's very consistent in getting it wrong, i'd say he should be able to post his misconceivings. Slippery grounds, Mach. An honest effort to protect the gullible will be seen as censoring. I think the org community is large enough to make sure every viewpoint is discussed. In other words...BOOYAH!! don't you have better things to post about?  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18214909/
[Edited 4/20/07 10:23am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlfofMelmak said: for example, ED and creationism?
Although he's very consistent in getting it wrong, i'd say he should be able to post his misconceivings. Slippery grounds, Mach. An honest effort to protect the gullible will be seen as censoring. I think the org community is large enough to make sure every viewpoint is discussed. Yep!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mach said: sosgemini said: An answer:
If a poster posts wrong info
huh? perhaps on a more consistant note then the next orger When a member does so, all credibility is lost. The person does him/her self in and looks foolish. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
xplnyrslf said: Mach said: If a poster posts wrong info
perhaps on a more consistant note then the next orger When a member does so, all credibility is lost. The person does him/her self in and looks foolish.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mach said: xplnyrslf said: When a member does so, all credibility is lost. The person does him/her self in and looks foolish. I think that's enough of a punishment really.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Teacher said: Mach said: I think that's enough of a punishment really. but what if the person continues to post the same false information again a few days later in a new thread, and the process repeats endlessly? [Edited 4/24/07 14:20pm] Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator
|
cborgman said: Teacher said: I think that's enough of a punishment really. but what if the person continues to post the same false information again a few days later in a new thread, and the process repeats endlessly? Then an orger should notify us and explain in detail what's going on. I completely agree with 9's on this... However, let me say this: I don't care for blatant censorship as a rule in life - unfortunately, this site does require some censorship and we have never offered free speech on this site as a rule. That being said, we can and do take matters into our own hands. Sometimes it's at the expense of free speech. We need to do what's best for this community. I say let the jackass make an ass of himself... people will call him/her out on it. If it continues and becomes a problem for him/herself and others, then we need to step in. My  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderatorJune7 said: cborgman said: but what if the person continues to post the same false information again a few days later in a new thread, and the process repeats endlessly? Then an orger should notify us and explain in detail what's going on. I completely agree with 9's on this... However, let me say this: I don't care for blatant censorship as a rule in life - unfortunately, this site does require some censorship and we have never offered free speech on this site as a rule. That being said, we can and do take matters into our own hands. Sometimes it's at the expense of free speech. We need to do what's best for this community. I say let the jackass make an ass of himself... people will call him/her out on it. If it continues and becomes a problem for him/herself and others, then we need to step in. My i agree with you and 9s Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
cborgman said: Teacher said: I think that's enough of a punishment really. but what if the person continues to post the same false information again a few days later in a new thread, and the process repeats endlessly? [Edited 4/24/07 14:20pm] If the poster continues posting the same info, knowing full well that it's wrong, wouldn't that kinda be like trolling? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nikster said: cborgman said: but what if the person continues to post the same false information again a few days later in a new thread, and the process repeats endlessly? [Edited 4/24/07 14:20pm] If the poster continues posting the same info, knowing full well that it's wrong, wouldn't that kinda be like trolling? that would be my assumption, but as mach has pointed out before, the definitions of trolling and baiting are really vague. but my thought is that the clause of the rules that says basically 'what the mods say goes' trumps all.  Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Even in the science community data is refuted. As the saying goes: You're entitled to your own statistics. How questions are asked in polls, how a study is done, results interpreted, etc, all affect the conclusion that is drawn.
Be that as it may, for someone to post information that is generally not proven or truthful, the best approach is to ask what the orgers resources are. "Post a link that substantiates the statement." Or a book and author, magazine article, documented study from a professional journal. If the source is from "The National Enquirer", wellll then..... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |