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

Your Thoughts About Forum Flamewars


Guest TCMWebAdmin

Recommended Posts

RM, did you not hear about the horrible shooting incident that occurred right while Pauline Marois was giving her victory speech? Two people were shot, one of them died, and the gunman then set a fire, before he was arrested.

We seem to be becoming more like the States all the time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, Michael posted this announcement in the Announcement Forum a few days ago:

 

 

"Discussion of modern political topics is strictly forbidden on the Turner Classic Movies Message Boards.

 

There are no circumstances in which modern political discussions on these forums will lead to anything but problems. There are an enormous amount of forums available for such discussion elsewhere on the internet. And if you must discuss modern political topics with other users of this forum do so via PMs.

 

If you see such a thread appear, please report it. If you begin such a thread or post, you will find your posting rights restricted. This includes direct or indirect references, and will be strictly enforced.

 

If you have questions or comments about this policy, feel free to contact me via PM."

 

 

Politics is politics whether its American or Canadian or European and this is a forum dedicated to classic movies not politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good point, RM. Two solutions used over the last, what, 10 years to deal with problems here: severe and liberal.

 

Neither worked. People are what they are, and they're not nice, cynicism admitted and enjoyed.

 

Know what PBS did with their message boards when things got out of hand? They shut them down.

 

I don't have the answers, but I don't want that here.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That said... why do you think *you *should be able to be rude, mean, cruel, flippant, disrespectful, etc. about other users?

 

In keeping with the situation.............never mind.

 

Oops, almost forgot - :)

 

 

 

 

 

What I'd like to see - posters not standing in judgement on other posters, and that includes those who think they are right, think they are more right, think they have the right to correct the grammar and spelling of other posters, think they are the smart, smarter, smartest posters on the Internet, think they can change the minds of other posters, and just in general think they have rights in this world, real life and in an anonymous online message board, that they DON'T HAVE.

 

 

What I'd like to see - posters, including me, thinking of this first: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

 

Don't bait, don't incite, don't think you're more clever or smart or brilliant or educated than the other posters and then feel the need to share it.

 

 

Finally, allow all the posters the right to have their OWN opinion, without trying to CHANGE their opinions.

 

 

I know, none of this is likely to happen. As Michael said, imagine if we were all in a room, talking to each other. There are some we wouldn't like and wouldn't want to talk to, and some to whom we would instinctively warm. But I'm guessing that no one, NO ONE, on this board, were George Brent at one of the tables, would walk up to him and say some of the things people have said about him.

 

 

Do what you will, people always do anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, what it all ends up coming down to is how someone interprets or reads something in their own mind. This always happens no matter what or how someone posts...unfortunately. No matter how plain or innocent, there's always the possibility that someone is going to read the post or comment the wrong way...unfortunately. :(

 

Almost worst than that is when the original poster then has to try and defend himself/herself and explain what they originally meant...which I think is really sad. They shouldn't have to. Even so, the misinterpreter can still see it as something negative or out of place. Unfortunately. :(

 

Even after that is when the moderator of a forum (and I mean other places...not just referring to here) PM's the "questionable" original poster and asks them...even if nicely so...to "be careful" how they word things, and the poster then has to end up feeling as if they're walking on eggshells or becoming slightly paranoid about "what did I do wrong?"...even if they did nothing wrong. Unfortunately. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}RM, did you not hear about the horrible shooting incident that occurred right while Pauline Marois was giving her victory speech? Two people were shot, one of them died, and the gunman then set a fire, before he was arrested.

> We seem to be becoming more like the States all the time.

 

 

No, I wasn't aware when I wrote my post. Very unfortunate.

Not sure of all details including what shooter was up to?

First reports indicate he was wearing a mask and costume?

Anyway, very unfortunate and there are sick people everywhere, not only in Canada and US...

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:

>

>

>

> }{quote}There's a big difference between the question that Michael asked regarding the level of vitriol and unhappiness we are currently experiencing and the age old problem of banned users returning other monikers.

>

>

>

> Michael has addressed that issue in the past and while not everyone agrees with Time-Warner's stance, they are the ones paying for the party.

 

 

Sorry if I upset you, Lzcutter... You come across as being very defensive...

And I did mention past vitriol and unhappiness in my post below. Hamster was referring to flamewars in the past and in particular, to an extremely nasty one in 2007.

And if you do a search of forums, as I have, you'll see many references to deleted threads and people being banned, etc., due to them... I just meant that it's a longstanding problem and nothing new.

And I wasn't attacking Michael. I have no idea how long he's been around? In the search I mention above, I think there were other names attached to the TCMAdmin in the past??

 

> We have never had a WebAdmin as hands-on as the one we currently have nor have we had a Web Admin that has actively asked our for input the way Michael has.

>

 

I'm not attacking Michael... I'm sure he's doing the best that he can.

 

 

> It's really easy to Monday morning quarterback and tell people how they should behave but the truth of the situation is that people aren't always going to do the logical thing.

>

>

>

> If they did, we wouldn't have the current level of discontent, unhappiness and people constantly sniping at one another.

>

>

>

> Michael is asking for input. Perhaps in an attempt to make it better.

>

>

>

> Considering where we have been and where we are right now, that's not such a bad thing.

>

>

>

> BTW, there's a report button on every post in every thread. If you read something you feel is inflammatory, racist, harassing and/or abusive, you can click on the Report button (the yellow triangle to the left of the reply button) and fill out the form.

 

 

Yep, no problem with Michael. I just gave my opinion on his comments.

As for the report button, I wasn't aware of that. And I'm a person who will never contact TCMAdmin UNLESS it is a problem bordering on something illegal, or is illegal.

 

We can't expect Michael to solve all our problems for us. We need to exercise some self-control and deal with this ourselves on the message board, with the exception of severe cases...

 

For an example, if you look in the "Freedom of Expression" thread and at some of the recent comments, some are rather bizarre and refer to other users (who's the spell-checker guy?)... I was going to wade into the muck and have at it, but decided to simply ignore the comments...

So there you go... I ignored it, made no comments in reply, and moved on...

Peace in our time...

 

But I hope I didn't make you angry Lzcutter. That wasn't my intent. And I certainly wasn't attacking Michael...

 

Edited by: RMeingast on Sep 5, 2012 9:06 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

>

> Politics is politics whether its American or Canadian or European and this is a forum dedicated to classic movies not politics.

>

 

 

Thanks Lzcutter... I'll have to read the "Message Board Announcements" thread more often...

 

Maybe they should post a copy to all forums so nobody misses anything...

 

Anyway, I was merely using it as an example that things are not so bad in America compared to other places. And that's all. Didn't mean to bring it up for discussion or anything... Just an example.

 

But I'll knock it off and won't mention it again...

 

There are some classic films that are political in their subtexts and involve politics directly and guess we have to be careful about them too... Many old films concern propaganda or the director and screenwriters have a political slant or bias or behind the scenes a film may have caused political protests or the actors had political beliefs, etc.... I understand that all people can't look at it with academic detachment and find the discussion interesting and that's unfortunate.

For example, films about wars, political leaders, political regimes, environmental issues, religious films, slavery, portrayal of blacks in films, women in films, gays and other minorities in films, etc.... Those all concern politics.

 

"Citizen Kane" is an example of a film that has political subtexts. William Randolph Hearst, the film is based on his life, was so enraged he did all he could to get the movie banned.

As the Wiki article on "Citizen Kane" states:

"Following lobbying from Hearst, the head of [Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer|Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer], [Louis B. Mayer|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_B._Mayer|Louis B. Mayer], acting on behalf of the whole film industry, made an offer to RKO Pictures of $805,000 to destroy all prints of the film and burn the negative."

But TCM airs "Citizen Kane." Guess we're allowed to discuss many things about the film, but not all things about the film (no politics?)...

Oh well... I'm just a simple movie fan and will try and stick to what's allowed on the board...

No problems...

 

And sorry if I offended you Lzcutter. I didn't intend to...

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Sorry if I upset you, Lzcutter... You come across as being very defensive...

 

RM,

 

I wasn't upset and sorry if I came across as defensive. I was just trying to offer another perspective to the history of these forums and the WebAdmins we have had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> And to continue with your analogy quoted above about

> calling the cops/sheriff, you then state that you can't

> deal with everything and that you may do nothing anyway

> because you may not believe the person asking for your help,

> so really that's like going to get the Sheriff and the Sheriff

> can't or won't do anything...

 

Not what I said and not what I meant. I wrote the following:

 

> I can't be everywhere all the time and even when

> pointed out, I might not agree that the insult was

> intended or as severe as you might.

 

"I can't be everywhere" means I'm not able to read everything that is posted. "I might not agree" has nothing to do with whether I believe someone has a problem. If they've reported a post or PM'd me, it's because the do have a problem. Whether or not someone sees me take action depends on a number of things, not the least of which is that I do a lot behind the scenes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:

> }{quote}I wasn't upset and sorry if I came across as defensive. I was just trying to offer another perspective to the history of these forums and the WebAdmins we have had.

 

 

Thanks. Yes, reading some of the old posts is very illuminating... Some very nasty stuff on the message board in the past... I don't know what the answer is??

I know there is the Classic Film Union? But I don't know much about IT??

Maybe TCM should shut down the message board and stick with the Union??

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:

>

> }{quote}Not what I said and not what I meant. I wrote the following:

>

> > I can't be everywhere all the time and even when

> > pointed out, I might not agree that the insult was

> > intended or as severe as you might."I can't be everywhere" means I'm not able to read everything that is posted. "I might not agree" has nothing to do with whether I believe someone has a problem. If they've reported a post or PM'd me, it's because the do have a problem. Whether or not someone sees me take action depends on a number of things, not the least of which is that I do a lot behind the scenes.

 

 

Fair enough. Thanks for explaining. That was simply my (mis)interpretation of what you wrote.

But whatever... I guess it comes down to if people don't like the rules here they can go elsewhere...

 

And I just think it would be better for you regarding workload if people saved the most severe things for you to deal with... But that's just my opinion.

 

Nice to see you're an Andy Taylor AND a Barney Fife combined... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> There are some classic films that are political in

> their subtexts and involve politics directly and guess

> we have to be careful about them too...

 

This is not correct. The prohibition against political topics specifically states:

 

"Discussion of modern political topics is strictly forbidden on the Turner Classic Movies Message Boards."

 

I used the word modern specifically. "Modern political topics" does not equate to Turner Classic Movies in any way, shape or form. If it's part of the current political "discussion" in the real world, it's not for discussion here. There are any number of places you can go to discuss it. But, not here.

 

And, it's not up for debate. If I see it, I delete it. If someone can't stop posting it, I can stop them from posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I don't know what the answer is??

> I know there is the Classic Film Union? But I don't know much about IT??

> Maybe TCM should shut down the message board and stick with the Union??

 

They are two very different audiences and serve two different purposes. The message boards have been in existence for over twelve years, the CFU is only about three years old. There's not a lot of crossover.

 

Given human nature and the diverse personalities here,there are no easy answers, no quick solutions. Why? Because we're discussing human nature and everyone is different and approaches the situation differently. What works for you may not work for someone else and visa-versa. That's why I think it's nice that Michael has included all of us in the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> There are some classic films that are political in their subtexts and involve politics directly and guess we have to be careful about them too...

 

It's my opinion we should freely discuss the politics within a film and between a film's contents and the world at the moment the film was made.

 

Problems usually arise when people make connections between a movie's political statement and what's happening now.

 

I'm also leery, very leery, when people start talking about the subtexts in a movie. Unless they're social norms (the model of car indicating a character's status) or clearly established by accounts from the participants (ala' Citizen Kane), it's all guesswork.

 

That'd be fine, if discussed that way, but posters usually assume the subtexts are actually there and were put there on purpose.

 

> Many old films concern propaganda or the director and screenwriters have a political slant or bias or behind the scenes a film may have caused political protests or the actors had political beliefs, etc.... I understand that all people can't look at it with academic detachment and find the discussion interesting and that's unfortunate.

 

Personally, I give all propaganda a pass because, in my opinion, it's in absolutely every movie ever made. Every writer and director are pushing their beliefs in what's tragic, humorous, sexy, etc., and we can only enjoy a film if we, at least temporarily, buy into those beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things I think people should keep in mind . . .

 

"A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few." Judge Learned Hand

 

Freedom means, you're free to do

just whatever pleases you;

if, of course, that is to say,

what you please, is what you may.

Piet Hein

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> The problem with political discussions is when the politics moves away from the film relevancy and the discussion turns into only the politics, with the film seemingly forgotten in the replies.

 

I'm not sure I understand your position.

 

What I'm trying to say is I think politics is fair game, even if the discussion is only about politics.

 

Take for example the movie Caveman (1981). We might comment on how one tribe is a monarchy and the other is a democracy. We might further elaborate on how the effectiveness and efficiency of each is presented. I can foresee, and would not object to, the thread drifting into the political differences between tribes and clans.

 

It'd all come to a screeching halt, for me, the first time someone relates a scene to how a government somewhere in the world today is trying to use the "conquer the dinosaur first" approach in hopes to gain advantage over their opponent.

 

Are you saying a discussion shouldn't be only about politics, even when it's the politics in the movie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

> > The problem with political discussions is when the politics moves away from the film relevancy and the discussion turns into only the politics, with the film seemingly forgotten in the replies.

> I'm not sure I understand your position.

>

> Are you saying a discussion shouldn't be only about politics, even when it's the politics in the movie?

The Kubrick/2001 thread cited below, as I already said down there, is a perfect example. It was deleted because it not only became a flame war, but it TOTALLY moved away from the subject of the movie and became nothing more than a political discussion which lost any references to the movie. People were ONLY talking about the politics/politicians.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capuchin wrote: It'd all come to a screeching halt, for me, the first time someone relates a scene to how a government somewhere in the world today is trying to use the "conquer the dinosaur first" approach in hopes to gain advantage over their opponent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Aah, BUT Capuchin, IF dinosaurs DID exist in today's world, well in America anyway, wouldn't that fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of the Interior???

 

(...hey, jus' askin'!) ;)

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...