Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:12 pm
"Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."
Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche.
Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche.
Welcome to This is MS, the leading forum for Multiple Sclerosis research and support. Join our friendly community of patients, caregivers, and researchers celebrating over 20 years of delivering hope through knowledge.
https://www.thisisms.com/forum/
I would definitely have to lay down the pitchfork, if we're going for a group hug. No hidden knives?concerned wrote:I'll make a concerted effort not to respond to the responses that my posts generate which are simply attacking me and not what I posted, I swear.
Also, jimmylegs is doing a good job. She doesn't often remove the point, if any, of the offending posts, just the personal attacks. If people could just stop attacking other posters every time they say something they disagree with (and I mean attacking the poster personally, not attacking what they say, which is fair game in my opinion, and that works both ways too...) then I think all would be fine. And, although I would like to never read the comments of some posters on this forum ever again ever in my life ever( except maybe for comedic reasons), I don't think bannings are the way to go.
EDIT: That post seemed like I was trying to skirt responsibility. I do get angry at things people say and respond in really stupid ways, that I think are sometimes kind of funny, but not what people with MS, like my mother deserve. From now on I will only post my skepticisms, not my beefs.
Group hug?
Lone Watie wrote:"I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender. They have him pulling a wagon up in Kansas I bet."
by and large, messages arrive in my inbox at a slow trickle.we cannot and do not monitor every posting for content-- all problems should be reported to the moderator(s); otherwise assume we have not seen the offending posts.
HappyPoet I do not think the answer is more moderators. One thing to keep in mind is the ONLY forum where there are complaints,generally speaking, is from the CCSVI forum. Maybe a moderator just assigned to this forum would help? Although there has definitely been a need for some reminders to some of the members about forum rules I really have not read anything that would justify banning someone from Thisisms. If people are really looking to work through disagreements here is some tips from conflict resolution 101:HappyPoet wrote:For Arron:
I'm wondering why the number of moderators hasn't increased in relation to the growth of TIMS since the appearance of CCSVI?
Increasing the size of the team of moderators would take off pressure from current moderators, provide for better coverage of all forums, increase respect for all moderators, decrease moderator mistakes, and increase member satisfaction.
I can think of two people who would make excellent additions to the team of moderators.
Looking forward to your reply,
Respectfully,
~HappyPoet
well said!CenterOfGravity wrote:I am a new poster here on TIMS but I've been reading for awhile. I will say that some of the naysayers do make me uncomfortable, because it's obvious they only want to stir up trouble. I don't see a problem with skepticism, brought with intelligence and data, but it isn't usually that way. It's more often snide or rude comments that appear to be intended to derail the conversation (and I can say it did create an environment where I was uncomfortable even joining). I also do find myself wondering how anyone with MS or knowing someone with MS isn't at least open to CCSVI as a possibility, let alone wanting to come in here and shoot down anybody who believes strongly that CCSVI has a major role in MS (whether causative or not). Yes it is important to have rigorous studies, and for the quantity of time this has been out there, I think the studies are happening, and over time, we will continue to learn more and more about what i believe is an amazing discovery. I did think this message board was supposed to be a supportive place for the discussion.
Yes, this is a helpful post.L wrote:well said!CenterOfGravity wrote:I am a new poster here on TIMS but I've been reading for awhile. I will say that some of the naysayers do make me uncomfortable, because it's obvious they only want to stir up trouble. I don't see a problem with skepticism, brought with intelligence and data, but it isn't usually that way. It's more often snide or rude comments that appear to be intended to derail the conversation (and I can say it did create an environment where I was uncomfortable even joining). I also do find myself wondering how anyone with MS or knowing someone with MS isn't at least open to CCSVI as a possibility, let alone wanting to come in here and shoot down anybody who believes strongly that CCSVI has a major role in MS (whether causative or not). Yes it is important to have rigorous studies, and for the quantity of time this has been out there, I think the studies are happening, and over time, we will continue to learn more and more about what i believe is an amazing discovery. I did think this message board was supposed to be a supportive place for the discussion.
So he is distinguishing between skepticisms and beefs and you are distinguishing between skepticisms and rude or snide comments meant to derail.concerned wrote:EDIT: That post seemed like I was trying to skirt responsibility. I do get angry at things people say and respond in really stupid ways, that I think are sometimes kind of funny, but not what people with MS, like my mother deserve. From now on I will only post my skepticisms, not my beefs.
Effective immediately, if I recieve more than 5 PMs from established posters (registered for over 1 month, with more than 10 posts) complaining in detail-- with examples-- about a particular member, I will put the member on notice of the complaints and ask them to provide a public response. If after posting the defense, those same complaints are upheld, the member will be banned. If no defense is provided, the member will of course be banned.
Reinstatement will be on a case-by-case basis, run through me.
Sounds fair to me as long as the "complaints" are due to violations from the "rules of the board".jimmylegs wrote:http://www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-1964.html#1964
Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:05 pm Post subject: Banning Policy
Posted by: Arron.Effective immediately, if I recieve more than 5 PMs from established posters (registered for over 1 month, with more than 10 posts) complaining in detail-- with examples-- about a particular member, I will put the member on notice of the complaints and ask them to provide a public response. If after posting the defense, those same complaints are upheld, the member will be banned. If no defense is provided, the member will of course be banned.
Reinstatement will be on a case-by-case basis, run through me.