Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Your Thoughts About Forum Flamewars


Guest TCMWebAdmin

Recommended Posts

> So if TCMAdmin strictly enforces all the rules, all the time, so that nobody is offended by anything, then this board will become pretty boring, pretty fast.

Dahling, that's stretching it a little.

 

#1 Were TCMAdmin to strictly enforce all the rules, someone would still be offended by SOMEthing ...

 

#2 ... the board would not necessarily become "pretty boring, pretty fast" -- unless it's only by misconduct that people are entertained.

 

I don't understand why the concept of personal restraint becomes warped into supposedly Stalin-esque censorship.

 

I don't understand why asking people to be considerate of one another and to behave by a posted Code of Conduct amounts to heresy these days.

 

But then I don't understand what all the buttons on my TV remote do.

 

I hate being old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These threads can be anything you want them to be. In the last day, I have been able to discuss:

 

Subtext in movies

Labor Day

Unions

Theology

Tennessee Ernie Ford vs. Leon Ames

The effect of sound relative to your body

Eyebrows on 50's actresses

and Rare Earth's rocking sound

 

And it can be done without picking a fight. An argument ceases communication, doesn't enhance it. Only one side wants illumination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}But I've been attacked worse in PM's than I ever have on the actual boards. In fact, the person is still posting here under their third or fourth name. It got so bad that I had to leave for a few months. There's no reason that needs to happen, and if there's vigilant moderation, then more people would feel comfortable participating.

 

That's outrageous and is what TCMAdmin should be dealing with... Sounds like the person attacking you needs help and shouldn't be on the message board... And how to prevent banned people from simply reregistering countless times??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, Dargo.

 

Hey TCMAdmin, notice how much 'nicer' posters have been since you asked the question?

 

Well, with the exception of that thread.

 

So the consensus seems to be:

 

a. more moderation,

b. the same moderation,

c. the thread insulting George Brent is just fine and dandy. So be it.

 

That about sum it up? Yup, thought so.

 

Good job, TCMAdmin. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how to prevent banned people from simply reregistering countless times??

 

a. more moderation.

 

More work on the part of the moderators. They have to rule with a fisted glove, a la TWOP and CHOW, and take note of ISPs if an offender re-registers.

 

There is no other way of which I am aware.

 

But I agree, using PMs to harrass a poster is cowardly and underhanded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValeskaSuratt wrote:}{quote}

>

> Dahling, that's stretching it a little.

>

> #1 Were TCMAdmin to strictly enforce all the rules, someone would still be offended by SOMEthing ...

>

> #2 ... the board would not necessarily become "pretty boring, pretty fast" -- unless it's only by misconduct that people are entertained.

>

>

> I hate being old.

 

 

 

Yes, you're right, Valeska... But the Code of Conduct seems all encompassing... I meant that users would probably be so worried about what they wrote potentially being deleted that they wouldn't bother commenting in the first place... People would be wary and more concerned with potential offence to anybody and thinking about that, rather than thinking about movies...

 

And you ain't old... What is being old, anyway?? Just a number...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point C in your list shows I was wrong about something. I haven't gone into the "George Brent" thread, because the subject doesn't interest me, but I assumed it was a thread that was COMPLIMENTARY to his rear end, not insulting!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}

> I haven't gone into the "George Brent" thread, because the subject doesn't interest me, but I assumed it was a thread that was COMPLIMENTARY to his rear end, not insulting!

 

It's like one of those Friar's Club roasts -- poking fun in a good natured way. (I'm not calling it a **** Roast, but that's the idea.) Some of what's said would be insulting in other contexts.

 

Apparently, it's caused several people to take a greater interest in some of his movies when they aired, so it can't really be called a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*The level of vitriol and ugliness around here is a bit high.*

 

Thanks, Michael, for starting this discussion. I've been really interested in reading the comments.

 

Without wanting to be too specific, recently I've been increasingly bothered by a certain poster's oft-repeated opinions on the same subject in multiple threads, which on the surface seem like innocent statements, but increasingly (to my mind) seems a lot more like a veiled attack on certain other posters. Of course, since we are mostly strangers to one another I have no way of knowing how this poster really feels and what he/she is saying, and if I'm provoked it's my own problem.

 

I've been posting here a little over a year now and I think I'm more easily riled by posts and posters than before, and it's made me decide that sometimes I need to take a break and step back, and not get so "emotionally involved". Some posts and threads are obvious attempts to get a strong reaction, but with others you can't really know what that person is thinking. I think increased board moderation is one answer, but we are all ultimately responsible for how we react. We can't really know what the poster is saying, his or her background, etc. We should also have "self-moderation". :)

 

On a completely different note, as one of the past contributors to the George Brent thread, I apologize to everyone who might have been offended by my posts. I really meant no harm.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wanting to be too specific, recently I've been increasingly bothered by a certain poster's oft-repeated opinions on the same subject in multiple threads, which on the surface seem like innocent statements, but increasingly (to my mind) seems a lot more like a veiled attack on certain other posters. Of course, since we are mostly strangers to one another I have no way of knowing how this poster really feels and what he/she is saying, and if I'm provoked it's my own problem.

 

Go ahead, be specific, and name me, it's okay. If you find the thread 'funny', okey dokey, and thank you for the nice words. Truly.

 

And yes, I was being sarcastic with my oft quoted additions to the insulting thread in other threads, *but* since the consensus now seems to be that the insulting George Brent thread is okey dokey with all my worthy opponents, I concede - seriously, enjoy! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=EugeniaH wrote:}{quote}

>

> Without wanting to be too specific, recently I've been increasingly bothered by a certain poster's oft-repeated opinions on the same subject in multiple threads, which on the surface seem like innocent statements, but increasingly (to my mind) seems a lot more like a veiled attack on certain other posters. Of course, since we are mostly strangers to one another I have no way of knowing how this poster really feels and what he/she is saying, and if I'm provoked it's my own problem.

>

 

 

 

I hope that's not me... But then that could be anybody on the message board doing repeated opinions in different threads... Why don't you PM the user??

 

Anyway, this probably belongs in the movie subtext thread, but I referred to the novel "Fahrenheit 451" below and in the film version there's a good scene where "The Captain" explains why book must be burned. It's because books, and all the various opinions contained in them, provoke people and make various people unhappy about various things. So the solution is to burn all books, no exceptions.

 

As the Captain says, when referring to some books about to be burned, in the film clip below:

 

"The Captain: Go on, Montag, all this philosophy, let's get rid of it. It's even worse than the novels. Thinkers and philosophers, all of them saying exactly the same thing: "Only I am right! The others are all idiots!"

 

Sound familiar? The "I am right and all others wrong" attitude is common on this message board.

And it does upset people and causes uproars.

 

Anyway, the book and the film are more about political correctness and dumbing down of society than state censorship as it's the people themselves who want books banned because they don't want offensive opinions to make them feel bad or get them upset...

Bradbury commented on this himself in an interview I saw...

 

Anyway., something to think about and here's the film clip (the explanation by the Captain about why books are banned starts at 2:30 into the video):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghANkWNG-r4&feature=relmfu

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pick a topic in these forums. If we held the discussion at a round-table in a big restaurant, it would be vastly different. First off, truly malevolent folks simply wouldn't show up.

 

Then, with the rarest of exceptions, people would know when someone was trying to be funny or sarcastic. People would ask if they weren't sure before make negative assumptions. There would be disagreements, and they might get heated, but because of the context, they wouldn't get out of hand and shut down the entire discussion. Some of you would bring your massive George Brent photo collection, but might be a little embarrassed to hold them up in public. Even better, a bunch of round tables. When you get bored with discussion in one place, you go to the next table. You know, the one with the George Brent pictures.

 

With the rarest of exceptions (I'm enjoying that phrase today), you all have something unique to bring to the table here, contrarians and comedians and historians alike. Most of you are not the problem. And of the rest, with the rarest of exceptions (I'm done with it now), are completely capable of adjusting to a slightly different perspective on participating.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}

> They have to rule with a fisted glove, a la TWOP and CHOW, and take note of ISPs if an offender re-registers.

 

I'm an on-again, off-again mod in a forum for a group I belong to. It's limited to members and their dependents, so we know who the users are.

 

That didn't stop a nice little war earlier this year. We have a Let's Step Outside board (the rules against politics, sex, and crude references don't apply there), and things went so ballistic, a few users, after they were suspended, starting logging in under their kids' names, their relatives' names, and two even started digging for the member numbers of friends so they could establish accounts in the names of people who've never used the Internet!

 

It stopped only when our top mod mandated their local chaplains talk to them about their behavior. Oh, and fines. Lots and lots of fines (surcharges for extra services attached to their yearly dues).

 

If we had that much trouble with our people, I can't imagine what the mods of an open forum can do to prevent banned users from returning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}

> Pick a topic in these forums. If we held the discussion at a round-table in a big restaurant, it would be vastly different. First off, truly malevolent folks simply wouldn't show up.

>

> Then, with the rarest of exceptions, people would know when someone was trying to be funny or sarcastic. People would ask if they weren't sure before make negative assumptions. There would be disagreements, and they might get heated, but because of the context, they wouldn't get out of hand and shut down the entire discussion. Some of you would bring your massive George Brent photo collection, but might be a little embarrassed to hold them up in public. Even better, a bunch of round tables. When you get bored with discussion in one place, you go to the next table. You know, the one with the George Brent pictures.

>

> With the rarest of exceptions (I'm enjoying that phrase today), you all have something unique to bring to the table here, contrarians and comedians and historians alike. Most of you are not the problem. And of the rest, with the rarest of exceptions (I'm done with it now), are completely capable of adjusting to a slightly different perspective on participating.

>

 

 

Yep, best to hold your tongue and move along to another thread that you like...

Move to another table, so to speak... Without leaving a stink bomb behind as you left too...

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Capuchin wrote:}{quote}

>

>

> That didn't stop a nice little war earlier this year. We have a Let's Step Outside board (the rules against politics, sex, and crude references don't apply there), and things went so ballistic, a few users, after they were suspended, starting logging in under their kids' names, their relatives' names, and two even started digging for the member numbers of friends so they could establish accounts in the names of people who've never used the Internet!

> If we had that much trouble with our people, I can't imagine what the mods of an open forum can do to prevent banned users from returning.

 

 

 

Just have to use self-control, I guess, and ignore that which you find provocative.

It's really not worth it on the message board otherwise...

Pointless really to get involved in endless debates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capuchin wrote:

<< What's worse, those people who think they're always right really upset those of us who are! >>

 

But what if one is *factually* right? Sometimes I feel like a lone wolf George Mueller during the early 1960's talking to NASA and Wernher von Braun (Braun being compared some of the TCM posters) stating only the lunar rendezvous concept would work.

 

Only to be proven right later on, but posters don't fess up (you were right) like von Braun when Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

 

PRIDE??

 

p061.jpg

 

Best case was the common sense post I made sometimes back saying what Kenneth Arnold saw was a flying wing NOT a saucer.

To others it was a saucer, case closed. Yahoo_Bang_Head_Emoticon_by_WhiteDragon1

 

kenneth-arnold-horten.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}

> But what if one is *factually* right?

 

This is a bit of a drift (apologies), but this issue came up for me recently.

 

I'm a writer. I was having a plot problem with my work in progress, so I posted about it in a writers' forum. The majority of responses weren't about the plot, but that the story included serfs. Many said it was outlandishly wrong for the time and place.

 

When I pointed out the setting was lifted out of historical records (a family died without clear heirs, so the king had to decide who should get the land and the serfs on it), they backed off (they're a mostly reasonable group).

 

The consensus, however, is it looks so wrong, it should be changed (which meant changing "serfs' to "families" in 3 places in the half-completed ms.).

 

Being right doesn't mean being believable, and vice versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It stopped only when our top mod mandated their local chaplains talk to them about their behavior. Oh, and fines. Lots and lots of fines (surcharges for extra services attached to their yearly dues).

 

Holy moley! That would be, to me, a fate worse than death! Not the fines, the other.

 

I forgot another method used on another forum - the posts are not immediate (and we here complain about a slight delay!), and are screened before they are posted. If the mods don't like the posts, they never get posted.

 

I don't envy Michael his job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...