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....
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users