banning policy

[Cece]

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....

[scorpion]

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.

[Cece]

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]

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.

[jimmylegs]

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

cece you are certainly right about variable skin thickness!

[Cece]

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

Back to the group hug?

[jimmylegs]

sounds like a plan. now where is that mushy smiley i need....

[newveins]

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.

[Lyon]

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.

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

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

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.

Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they should be prevented from posting.

[dreddk]

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..

[dunkempt]

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

[CenterOfGravity]

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 . 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).

[Cece]

I stand corrected! Welcome to the forum.

[Beaner]

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.

[CureIous]

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.