banning policy

If you're having any problems with the site, please post here and a site administrator will respond.

Postby Cece » Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:25 pm

What I get from Jimmylegs's reposting is that banning is not the first step. The first step, if five well-documented pms came in, is for the member to be informed and asked to make a public response. Only if members continued to object past that point would banning become an option.

So has anyone's behavior here made us sufficiently uncomfortable or had a negative effect on the tone of the site that we'd want him to not be banned but to answer publicly for such behavior and be asked nicely to change?

That is a different angle on the question. I'd ask too that since concerned spoke up here and explained himself, that he be given room to follow through on his offer to post his skepticisms in the manner in which people with MS deserve. It seemed to me to be a good offer.

TMRox, your experience with being banned definitely adds to the discussion here, thank you. I'd forgotten about that.

Scorpion, thanks for that list of healthy/unhealthy ways to deal with conflict.

I am still thinking about CenterofGravity's post....
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby scorpion » Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:50 pm

Cece wrote:What I get from Jimmylegs's reposting is that banning is not the first step. The first step, if five well-documented pms came in, is for the member to be informed and asked to make a public response. Only if members continued to object past that point would banning become an option.

So has anyone's behavior here made us sufficiently uncomfortable or had a negative effect on the tone of the site that we'd want him to not be banned but to answer publicly for such behavior and be asked nicely to change?

That is a different angle on the question. I'd ask too that since concerned spoke up here and explained himself, that he be given room to follow through on his offer to post his skepticisms in the manner in which people with MS deserve. It seemed to me to be a good offer.

TMRox, your experience with being banned definitely adds to the discussion here, thank you. I'd forgotten about that.

Scorpion, thanks for that list of healthy/unhealthy ways to deal with conflict.

I am still thinking about CenterofGravity's post....


I think each of us would come up with a different name and I am not keen with calling people out like this. I really do not feel that maintaining control of this forum has to be as difficult as it is being made. There are a list of rules to follow and when they are violated the moderators should step in and address that specific post. Instead of relying on the moderators maybe we as a a group need to start moderating each other. If we all feel a post has turned into nothing more than a pointless back and forth banter between two or three people, maybe we need to step up as a group and tell them to knock it off. That said if we "choose" sides in the argument and try to silence the person we disagree with it will not work.We all get carried away sometimes and a friendly reminder by others might help to remind us to keep it above the belt. Just a thought.
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby Cece » Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:06 pm

scorpion wrote:I think each of us would come up with a different name and I am not keen with calling people out like this.

This is true, I did not mean this as a call to name names here in this thread.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby Cece » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:00 pm

CCSVIhusband wrote:Absolutely. That's why my wife won't personally post about her results. There are about 5 or 6 people who she says would make her cry if they even responded. They don't make me cry though ...

This fits with what was said on the previous page, about the tone of some posts making a new poster uncomfortable enough that he considered not joining. I take that seriously.

I can see too that different people have thinner or thicker skins. From scorpion's list of conflict resolution tactics, it stood out to me that the potential that CCSVI holds is something that some of us care very deeply about.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:22 pm

TIMS will only ever be what we, collectively, make it.

cece you are certainly right about variable skin thickness!
my approach: no meds so far - just nutrient-dense anti-inflammatory whole foods, and supplements where needed
info: www.whfoods.com, www.nutritiondata.com
User avatar
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 8944
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby Cece » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:43 pm

jimmylegs wrote:TIMS will only ever be what we, collectively, make it.

Back to the group hug? :)
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:26 pm

sounds like a plan. now where is that mushy smiley i need.... :wink:
my approach: no meds so far - just nutrient-dense anti-inflammatory whole foods, and supplements where needed
info: www.whfoods.com, www.nutritiondata.com
User avatar
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 8944
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby newveins » Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:50 pm

ccsvihusband I have been on this forum for years I just have a posting burst now and again when I am house bound and bored and if it has been months since the last time I logged in I forget my login so I create a new one.

I know who you are talking about, but again it does not bother me. If I don't care about a "poster" I don't have to read it, I don't consider that big deal, but judging from all the posts here, I guess others do. Again I have no problem with people questioning posts. There are loads of people who endlessly post anecdotal stories and opinions as facts which I don't care for but which I can easily ignore the same thing too negative too positive. I don't care for censorship except for mean blatant personal attacks.
User avatar
newveins
Family Member
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:08 pm

No doubt I'm also indulging in selective editing when it comes to the rules but I think the restrictive aspects of the thisisms rules have been pushed a little too hard recently and the relaxed aspects of thisisms policy (which initially drew people here) have been entirely overlooked as of late.

RULES wrote:There are no corporate overlords, and thus no agenda and no strict censorship.

RULES wrote:Everything is fair game, assuming it is correctly classified and within good taste.

RULES wrote:Off-topic subjects are encouraged! This is a site for the MS community, which is comprised of vibrant people, who don't necessarily just want to confine themselves to discussing narrow topics. Again, please keep things in good taste and you won't have a problem.

RULES wrote:Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they should be prevented from posting.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby dreddk » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:38 pm

IMHO, the forum would benefit from sub forums for CCSVI topic. Say Theory, Research, User Experience, General Discussion.

Most of the heated discussion is rightly around research and theory. Those who wish to focus more on user experiences and general discussion may feel less inclined to view the tit and tat over research etc.

Anything that proposes a shift in paradigm will and should attract vigorous debate but it may well be more aesthetically pleasing for some people if it was covered in its own area..
User avatar
dreddk
Family Elder
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: South Pacific

Postby dunkempt » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:58 pm

I grew up in the USENET days when we used flamewars to make our morning toast, but not everyone is comfortable with that. And anyone who's been on the TiMS CCSVI forum a while knows people have left because of how unpleasant it gets - which is sort of the opposite of a safe and supportive environment.
So I would rather the moderators err on the side of civility. No one's civil liberties would be abridged. There are lots of places where people can be unpleasant on the Internet, though there may not be as many places where anyone wants to listen.
-d
dx rrms august 2009 (dx CFS spring 1988) off avonex after 3 months
treated katowice 24-25 march 2010 - best thing that ever happened - check tracking thread
dunkempt
Family Elder
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Heart of the Continent

Postby CenterOfGravity » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:19 pm

Cece wrote:
CCSVIhusband wrote:Absolutely. That's why my wife won't personally post about her results. There are about 5 or 6 people who she says would make her cry if they even responded. They don't make me cry though ...

This fits with what was said on the previous page, about the tone of some posts making a new poster uncomfortable enough that he considered not joining. I take that seriously.

I can see too that different people have thinner or thicker skins. From scorpion's list of conflict resolution tactics, it stood out to me that the potential that CCSVI holds is something that some of us care very deeply about.

I think that was me you were talking about, and I'm a she :D . Yes, I thought about not joining. I do tend to read the CCSVI facebook more regularly, it just has a more positive attitude there. But I like the format of a forum better. I just don't get how intentional negativity (not educated and inquisitive questioning) helps people (as witnessed by what CCSVIhusband posted).
User avatar
CenterOfGravity
Family Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby Cece » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:23 pm

I stand corrected! Welcome to the forum. :)
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby Beaner » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:44 pm

I'm new to posting but have been reading all posts for sometime now.
Here is my opinion about "Banning"

Don't ban people for having opposing opinions, a banning should only happen if there are direct personal threats.

Currently the MS Society Facebook page has now started banning people from commenting soley based on them not keeping with the spirit of their current theme of "100 Days of Celebration" The MSSC is trying to santitize their page so CCSVI advocates cannot post the truth and ask questions. This is wrong.

So I urge you to not fall into the same trap but on the reverse side. We cannot expect everyone to agree with CCSVI, however they are entitled to their opinions and comments. We all learn by different perspectives and must not get sensitive just because someone doesn't like what we like.

I personally have not found the negative comments to be that offensive, more humorous than anything.

I believe in Free speech and lively conversation and have enjoyed this forum based on that principle.
User avatar
Beaner
Newbie
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby CureIous » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:18 pm

Beaner wrote:I'm new to posting but have been reading all posts for sometime now.
Here is my opinion about "Banning"

Don't ban people for having opposing opinions, a banning should only happen if there are direct personal threats.

Currently the MS Society Facebook page has now started banning people from commenting soley based on them not keeping with the spirit of their current theme of "100 Days of Celebration" The MSSC is trying to santitize their page so CCSVI advocates cannot post the truth and ask questions. This is wrong.

So I urge you to not fall into the same trap but on the reverse side. We cannot expect everyone to agree with CCSVI, however they are entitled to their opinions and comments. We all learn by different perspectives and must not get sensitive just because someone doesn't like what we like.

I personally have not found the negative comments to be that offensive, more humorous than anything.

I believe in Free speech and lively conversation and have enjoyed this forum based on that principle.


It's not just the MS society that is sanitizing stuff, but I get the point. CCSVI is politicized now, there is little grassroots left to the thing so we are arguing over crumbs at the bottom of the food chain.
RRMS Dx'd 2007, first episode 2004. Bilateral stent placement, 3 on left, 1 stent on right, at Stanford August 2009. Watch my operation video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwc6QlLVtko, Virtually symptom free since, no relap
User avatar
CureIous
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Riverside, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Site Support

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users