Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll Poll
Question: Should the global mods be more strict or less strict on suspending people for personal insults directed at other forum users?

more strict    
  14 (29.8%)
less strict    
  13 (27.7%)
undecided    
  2 (4.3%)
do it differently    
  11 (23.4%)
status quo    
  7 (14.9%)




Total votes: 47
« Last Modified by: freediver on: Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:16am »

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
banning people (Read 3416 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
banning people
Apr 17th, 2017 at 9:58am
 
Should the global mods be more strict or less strict on suspending people for personal insults directed at other forum users?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #1 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 10:00am
 
poll added
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #2 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 10:46am
 
I voted "Do it differently."  Other than in the most outrageous event which would be obvious, (real names, porn etc) I reckon there ought be public warning first  (with copy sent via PM,) and then a ban if the person persists, with public explanation left (could start a Thread in Relationships for that) as to why and length of ban.

You could also use at least one more GMod to help Setanta who seems to be the only GMod regularly here (Thursday night through to Sunday night.)  None of the others are pulling their weight.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 15370
A cat with a view
Re: banning people
Reply #3 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 11:10am
 
For myself......

This is a public forum.
IMO, its purpose [in being here] is to allow people to express and exchange ideas and opinions on differing topical subjects.
IMO, persons who do not contribute to the open debate on any issue should be warned and then..... ?

What am i going on about ?
Someone(1) can present or refer to an incident that has occurred, and invite discussion and debate.
But some of the people(2) who appear here, in this forum, clearly are trying to derail any discussion and debate on said topic or issue.
Though reasonable arguments and evidences are presented, some(2) will simply denigrate any person(1) who presents a proposition, with which they(2) strongly disagree.

They(2) refuse to engage in 'argument'.  [....though they will sometimes utter absurd and wholly unsupported counter statements]
They(2) often refuse to try and mount a counter argument, to the argument and evidences already presented.
Rather, they(2) will simply engage in verbally denigrating the character of any person(1) who agrees or argues in support of a proposition, with which they(2) disagree.


If those people(2) are simply going to try to disrupt the flow of the debate here, with personal abuse and with absurd and 'distracting' and wholly unsupported statements, then i'd like to see some sanction against them.

If those people(2) want to make a statement, of their opinion/views, i'm happy for them to do that, to the best of their ability.

But if they are going to simply 'interject' in the debate with absurd,  and 'distracting' and wholly unsupported statements, then.......... what can be done ?





Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10255
ACT
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #4 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 12:25pm
 
Generally I feel the bannings I have had a role in have been reasonably fair.

The most frustrating thing about being banned is not knowing for "how long" and "what for" in some cases. With that in mind I think another board (Banning Notifications) needs adding that is visible to all but can only be posted on by Gmods.

Mods would use this to advise bannings and unbannings and reasons why.

A link to the actually offence(s) could be posted when the ban is applied.

This would also show the minions that action is being taken and also that the gmod is being fair and not targeting individuals or types of posts that he/she disagrees with.


Ordinary members would not be able to post on the new board to prevent it turning into a dogs breakfast of arguments. (ie. No correspondence would be entered into)

Warnings could also be put on this board.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2017 at 12:34pm by Redmond Neck »  

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10255
ACT
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #5 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 1:41pm
 
Come on you lot!

Has the cat got your tongues?

You all have plenty to say about this on other occasions!

Let rip!  Wink
Back to top
 

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
Unforgiven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I have sinned

Posts: 6830
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #6 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 1:56pm
 
How about more equitable and just. Freediver's redneck mates get more latitude than others.

Denizens like Yadda should be banned for being obnoxious hate propagators and propagandists.
Back to top
 

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 5400
Australia
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #7 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 2:07pm
 
Forum is for debating topics.

Personal abuse has no place.

Having said that I've been banned for calling some people names, in the end we're just people and sometimes we do get out of control when we debate topics we're passionate about............ Huh
Back to top
 

1. "There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax." Ajax
2. “Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile" Kevin Bishop (homosexual)
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 15370
A cat with a view
Re: banning people
Reply #8 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 2:20pm
 
Unforgiven wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 1:56pm:
How about more equitable and just. Freediver's redneck mates get more latitude than others.

Denizens like Yadda should be banned for being obnoxious hate propagators and propagandists.




If i make an accusation against a moslem, or against a group of moslems, i should be able to substantiate my opinion with evidences and/or reason.

And i believe that i can.



IN A FORUM DEDICATED TO FREE AN OPEN DEBATE;

It is up to people such are yourself, to present facts and arguments and evidences, which prove that i am an unreasonable person, and that i am making an unreasonable or false argument.

Anyone at all can come to this online forum, and they can view the posts,      and they can read the arguments which i [or anyone else] make, and they can read any counter-arguments which people like yourself care to make.

And, those visitors who read our posts can make up their own mind, as to the validity of the arguments which have been presented here.


That, is the point, of free and open debate.

Free and open debate is a contest of ideas.       ------    where both truth or falsehood [on any particular matter or topic] can exposed to general scrutiny - BY ALL PERSONS.


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
bogarde73
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Bogarde Contra Mundum

Posts: 15931
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #9 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:05pm
 
Well I think being provoked to retaliation ought to be considered in any court of law.
Back to top
 

The self-styled liberal progressives of today are people who have not outgrown the rubbish fed to them by ill-educated, semi-literate and politicised teaching & academic professions.
 
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10255
ACT
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #10 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:12pm
 
bogarde73 wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:05pm:
Well I think being provoked to retaliation ought to be considered in any court of law.


Thats my excuse with a certain.....err lady... err woman ... err women on here and elsewhere!

Grin
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:21pm by Redmond Neck »  

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6260
Gender: female
Re: banning people
Reply #11 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:25pm
 
Redmond Neck wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:12pm:
bogarde73 wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:05pm:
Well I think being provoked to retaliation ought to be considered in any court of law.


Thats my excuse with a certain.....err lady... err woman ... err women on here and elsewhere!

Grin



What an "amusing" male person you are, BS.

Do you "control" your wife? 
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10255
ACT
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #12 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:47pm
 
Neferti wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:25pm:
Redmond Neck wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:12pm:
bogarde73 wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 4:05pm:
Well I think being provoked to retaliation ought to be considered in any court of law.


Thats my excuse with a certain.....err lady... err woman ... err women on here and elsewhere!

Grin



What an "amusing" male person you are, BS.

Do you "control" your wife? 


No need to she has a brain!  Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
Vic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5618
Mornington Peninsula, Victoria
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #13 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:30pm
 
There should be a vote option for " keep the status quo"
Back to top
 

Football, Meat Pies, Kangaroos and Liberal Lies
Football, Meat Pies, Kangaroos and Liberal Lies
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #14 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:39pm
 
Vic wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:30pm:
There should be a vote option for " keep the status quo"


Fair enough.  But.....what is it?  What is the current Policy, Vic?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Vic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5618
Mornington Peninsula, Victoria
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #15 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:45pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:39pm:
Vic wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:30pm:
There should be a vote option for " keep the status quo"


Fair enough.  But.....what is it?  What is the current Policy, Vic?



I am merely suggesting that the poll does not cover all bases.  The addition of keeping the status quo rounds it off.   I don't understand the purpose of it in any case as it will be personality and "what happened to me" driven.  To make the poll valid, FD may like to expand on his thought processes and other material that drive a GM decision.
Back to top
 

Football, Meat Pies, Kangaroos and Liberal Lies
Football, Meat Pies, Kangaroos and Liberal Lies
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #16 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:48pm
 
Vic wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:45pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:39pm:
Vic wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:30pm:
There should be a vote option for " keep the status quo"


Fair enough.  But.....what is it?  What is the current Policy, Vic?



I am merely suggesting that the poll does not cover all bases.  The addition of keeping the status quo rounds it off.   I don't understand the purpose of it in any case as it will be personality and "what happened to me" driven.  To make the poll valid, FD may like to expand on his thought processes and other material that drive a GM decision.    


Agree 100%.  It is high time we all understood what he expected of you GMods.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #17 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:08pm
 
I expect nothing from the Gmods.

The purpose of the poll is to get feedback that is not dominated by the most vocal.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #18 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:16pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:08pm:
I expect nothing from the Gmods.

The purpose of the poll is to get feedback that is not dominated by the most vocal.


So.....how can Members respond credibly to your Poll, if you have zero expectation of the GMods.....who.....presumably you have appointed to do something, Effendi.  What is that something?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #19 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:33pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 10:46am:
I voted "Do it differently."  Other than in the most outrageous event which would be obvious, (real names, porn etc) I reckon there ought be public warning first  (with copy sent via PM,) and then a ban if the person persists, with public explanation left (could start a Thread in Relationships for that) as to why and length of ban.

You could also use at least one more GMod to help Setanta who seems to be the only GMod regularly here (Thursday night through to Sunday night.)  None of the others are pulling their weight.


I agree with a warning first, but only if the offender is persistent with his abusive name-calling.

I ticked the box for 'More Strict' - but only with those who are in the habit of almost always including a personal insult in every post.

I'm not surprised the 'Less Strict' mob is way ahead of the rest.  Grin The Usual Suspects otherwise known as the 'Gang of Four'.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:38pm by Lord Herbert »  
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #20 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:36pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:33pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 10:46am:
I voted "Do it differently."  Other than in the most outrageous event which would be obvious, (real names, porn etc) I reckon there ought be public warning first  (with copy sent via PM,) and then a ban if the person persists, with public explanation left (could start a Thread in Relationships for that) as to why and length of ban.

You could also use at least one more GMod to help Setanta who seems to be the only GMod regularly here (Thursday night through to Sunday night.)  None of the others are pulling their weight.


I agree with a warning first, but only if the offender is persistent with his abusive name-calling.


Fair enough.  Before it gets all formal, the GMods can always send an informal request via PM which I often do in Relationships.  If that is ignored, then make it formal in public.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #21 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:42pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:36pm:
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:33pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 10:46am:
I voted "Do it differently."  Other than in the most outrageous event which would be obvious, (real names, porn etc) I reckon there ought be public warning first  (with copy sent via PM,) and then a ban if the person persists, with public explanation left (could start a Thread in Relationships for that) as to why and length of ban.

You could also use at least one more GMod to help Setanta who seems to be the only GMod regularly here (Thursday night through to Sunday night.)  None of the others are pulling their weight.


I agree with a warning first, but only if the offender is persistent with his abusive name-calling.


Fair enough.  Before it gets all formal, the GMods can always send an informal request via PM which I often do in Relationships.  If that is ignored, then make it formal in public.


That sounds okay to me. I don't agree with jumping on people for making the occasional "f-ck you" remark or calling someone 'idiot' and 'stupid' from time to time. It's the persistent and routine insulting and abusing in almost every post that should be acted upon.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #22 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:47pm
 
Unforgiven wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 1:56pm:
How about more equitable and just. Freediver's redneck mates get more latitude than others.

Denizens like Yadda should be banned for being obnoxious hate propagators and propagandists.


Grin Grin Grin

How about Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Would you be happy to have her as a member here? You won't be happy until OzPolitic resembles the ABC's Q&A with a stacked panel and a stacked audience all mouthing Leftwing platitudes.

F-ck you!  Cool
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:58pm by Lord Herbert »  
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6260
Gender: female
Re: banning people
Reply #23 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 9:40pm
 
Seems that some people need some heavenly assistance in deciding who should be banned.  Grin

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Gordon
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 10823
Gordon
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #24 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 9:58pm
 
Personal abuse and vandalising thread
Back to top
 

Wokka Wokka Wokka
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11459
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #25 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 10:58pm
 
Sorry, I have been a "bit busy" recently, so not much posting from me.

That said, there are some Rules which should be kept in mind, when posting here or just doing things in general and if anyone steps over the line, then there MAY be consequences.

In terms of site Rules, the following are some of those which should be kept in mind -
1) Personal criticism
Do not post personal criticism of other members.
Do not respond to personal criticism.
2) Privacy
Do not post personal information about other members.
3) Pornography
Do not post pornography.
4) Racism
Discussion of racism and race related political issues is encouraged. However, politically correct language should be used when making criticism of racial policies or groups.
5) Swearing
We have a swear word filter activated.
Please do not try to bypass this filter by misspelling swear words.
6) Signatures and avatars
No external links or URLs are allowed in signatures.

Suspensions
If you break the rules, you will be suspended. Warnings are rarely given.

Remember that children also view and use these boards & recognition of that, of the standard site Rules & of normal "Discussion Manners", should always be born in mind!

That said, different Global Moderators will have "somewhat" different views and their reactions MAY WELL VARY FROM TIME TO TIME & that is to be expected. Even the site owners reactions MAY change, from time to time, on some issues.

However, the site reactions to the standard Rules & to normal "Discussion Manners" appears reasonable on most occasions & I for one would prefer to "ALLOW THE STATUS QUO TO CONTINUE, at the moment!


Cheers & Happy Easter!!! 

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #26 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 11:10pm
 
Quote:
However, the site reactions to the standard Rules & to normal "Discussion Manners" appears reasonable on most occasions & I for one would prefer to "ALLOW THE STATUS QUO TO CONTINUE, at the moment!


There are so many questions I could address to you......but I'll just ask this one for now.

Why did you spit your GMod dummy?  Was the job too hard?  The Rules not clear enough?

Huh

Cheers & Happy Easter to you as well!!!
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6260
Gender: female
Re: banning people
Reply #27 - Apr 17th, 2017 at 11:24pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 11:10pm:
Quote:
However, the site reactions to the standard Rules & to normal "Discussion Manners" appears reasonable on most occasions & I for one would prefer to "ALLOW THE STATUS QUO TO CONTINUE, at the moment!


There are so many questions I could address to you......but I'll just ask this one for now.

Why did you spit your GMod dummy?  Was the job too hard?  The Rules not clear enough?


Huh

Cheers & Happy Easter to you as well!!!

Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8953
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #28 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 12:14am
 
perceptions_now wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 10:58pm:
Sorry, I have been a "bit busy" recently, so not much posting from me.

That said, there are some Rules which should be kept in mind, when posting hr the line, then there MAY be consequences.

In terms of site Rules, the following are some of those which should be kept in mind -
1) Personal criticism
Do not post personal criticism of other members.
Do not respond to personal criticism.




The forum advice appears to be ignore the trolls.

Those who vandalise threads with personal abuse while making no contribution to thread topic should be banned.
Back to top
 

If you speak of the harms of 1-2 centuries of European imperialism but ignore 1-2 millennia of Turk-Arab imperialism you are the problem.
 
IP Logged
 
Wolseley
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1357
Sydney
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #29 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 12:48am
 
Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 12:14am:
The forum advice appears to be ignore the trolls.


Probably the best thing to do. If you call them out for the liars that they are and post proof of this by pointing out that they are misquoting what you said, you post will be deleted, and their insults will be allowed to remain. Better to ignore them than stir them up.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
red baron
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8431
Blue Mountains
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #30 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 4:29pm
 
I believe in Freedom of Speech. Other than insulting people with heavy duty swearing at them I can't see the problem. If you can't handle an insult on a site like this, you shouldn't be here.

I abhor censorship
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Unforgiven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I have sinned

Posts: 6830
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #31 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 4:39pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 8:47pm:
Unforgiven wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 1:56pm:
How about more equitable and just. Freediver's redneck mates get more latitude than others.

Denizens like Yadda should be banned for being obnoxious hate propagators and propagandists.


Grin Grin Grin

How about Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Would you be happy to have her as a member here? You won't be happy until OzPolitic resembles the ABC's Q&A with a stacked panel and a stacked audience all mouthing Leftwing platitudes.

F-ck you!  Cool


Thank you for the kind offer. However I must respectfully decline.

Try Denizen Bobby.
Back to top
 

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3774
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #32 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 5:26pm
 
There should be another category with the poll choices:

"Don't give a rat's arse."
Back to top
 

Philosophically opposed to ritual, superstition,religion, and secret ju-ju. Not big on flying saucers either.
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 49411
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #33 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 6:41pm
 
Vic wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 7:30pm:
There should be a vote option for " keep the status quo"


The current status quo is to completely ignore the thread and only appear after some dobber or sissy-pants has a cry-baby fit. Then they can unilaterally rule or ban or whatever with complete disregard, disinterest and ignorance on the context of the thread.

Of course Light should be the first to go for a total complete ban simply because he spams so many threads with massive amounts of garbage, usually the exact some conspiracy nonsense every time.

But no... Mods are ineffective because they are largely never around. At all. Ever.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 11156
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #34 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 7:06pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 9:58am:
Should the global mods be more strict or less strict on suspending people for personal insults directed at other forum users?

I've noted on other forums with strict controls, the quality of posts and discussions are greatly improved.
Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #35 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 7:50pm
 
The "more strict" vote has suddenly lept ahead.

I have added a "status quo" option
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10255
ACT
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #36 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 8:30pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 7:50pm:
The "more strict" vote has suddenly lept ahead.

I have added a "status quo" option


Bit late for that for us that have voted unless change is an option!
Back to top
 

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #37 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:09pm
 
Gordon wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 9:58pm:
Personal abuse and vandalising thread


I suggested this to Freediver ages ago to act as a cess-pit for all the tiresome pillow-fighting that leaves so many threads depleted of any further interest.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #38 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:10pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:09pm:
Gordon wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 9:58pm:
Personal abuse and vandalising thread


I suggested this to Freediver ages ago to act as a cess-pit for all the tiresome pillow-fighting that leaves so many threads depleted of any further interest.



So, I guess you voted that the GMods be more strict?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #39 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:12pm
 
NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 7:06pm:
I've noted on other forums with strict controls, the quality of posts and discussions are greatly improved.


Well, durrrr ....  Grin Grin Grin

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #40 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:18pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:10pm:
So, I guess you voted that the GMods be more strict?


I voted that the mods intercede where someone is obviously mainly interested in baiting and heckling the effortful members of this forum board as an idle amusement to pass away the time.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #41 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:24pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:18pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:10pm:
So, I guess you voted that the GMods be more strict?


I voted that the mods intercede where someone is obviously mainly interested in baiting and heckling the effortful members of this forum board as an idle amusement to pass away the time.



Which Poll option was that?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
philperth2010
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 10777
Perth
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #42 - Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:44pm
 
Let people say what they want....It is not like we really care what anyone else thinks anyway!!!

Smiley Smiley Smiley
Back to top
 

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
 
IP Logged
 
AiA
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Freediver's other forum:ozpolitic.com/
polanimal

Posts: 3855
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #43 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 1:43am
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 10:46am:
I voted "Do it differently."  Other than in the most outrageous event which would be obvious, (real names, porn etc) I reckon there ought be public warning first  (with copy sent via PM,) and then a ban if the person persists, with public explanation left (could start a Thread in Relationships for that) as to why and length of ban.

You could also use at least one more GMod to help Setanta who seems to be the only GMod regularly here (Thursday night through to Sunday night.)  None of the others are pulling their weight.



In addition to "real names and porn" Aussie, how about adding your chronic baiting of certain members here with your innuendos and blatant lies to your list of offences? Then, of course, with Aussie, one has to consider what a "real name" is:  Aussie has claimed 4-5 first names as "his" as well as at least two surnames ... Furthermore, Aussie has labelled art, in a museum, "filth" and "porn." So, whatever you do, don't let Aussie have a say in anything and please do not "start a Thread in Relationships" as it would give him the opportunity to abuse and threaten members even more than he does now.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2017 at 3:35am by AiA »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #44 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:33am
 
AiA wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 1:43am:
In addition to "real names and porn" Aussie, how about adding your chronic baiting of certain members here with your innuendos and blatant lies to your list of offences? Then, of course, with Aussie, one has to consider what a "real name" is:  Aussie has claimed 4-5 first names as "his" as well as at least two surnames ... Furthermore, Aussie has labelled art, in a museum, "filth" and "porn." So, whatever you do, don't let Aussie have a say in anything and please do not "start a Thread in Relationships" as it would give him the opportunity to abuse and threaten members even more than he does now.


Aussie? - consider yourself busted!  Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 13912
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #45 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 8:58am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 9:58am:
Should the global mods be more strict or less strict on suspending people for personal insults directed at other forum users?

Redmond Neck wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 12:25pm:
Mods would use this to advise bannings and unbannings and reasons why.

I have posted these to clarify the terminology. Some people are using the terms "suspend" and "ban" interchangeably and this is not correct.

IMO, a suspension is distinct from a ban. Suspensions are temporary. Bans are permanent.

Now, in light of that clarification, here is my view on the matter. To clarify, I voted for the more strict option.

There should be a distinction between someone who calls someone some kind of mild insult as a part of an on-topic post, and someone who posts a more substantive personal attack as their entire post. The latter does not advance the topic of discussion and should attract a suspension at the mods' discretion.

The period of suspension should initially be short, say a few days or one week. Further suspensions should be for longer terms, increasing with each suspension. Records need to be kept so the repeat offenders can be identified more easily.

Anyone who is proven to be disruptive by repeatedly posting personal attacks even after multiple suspensions should be upgraded to a ban after receiving one warning that this will occur. The warning would most likely be given when they are suspended for an infraction. This needs to be consistent, but could be as few as two or three (such as a "three strikes" rule).

Anyone whose sole contribution to the forum is personal attacks (with none of their posts making an attempt to address the topic) should receive an immediate ban after 20 posts or some other similar threshold of posts without any substantive contribution, regardless of warning history.

Anyone who is spamming should be banned immediately, without a warning, and all of their posts and threads deleted. The forum does not allow the posting of links for new accounts, but one kind of spam that is sometimes seen is the copying and pasting of text that is obviously posted from elsewhere and is offtopic. A simple internet search can identify such spam. This is posted for completeness; the forum rules are not well defined on this topic.

All bans should include a ban by IP to make it harder for them to create a sockpuppet account so they can continue their disruption.

One final point, these suggested rules are still very lax compared to the rules on some sites. BigFooty (an AFL discussion forum) has very strict rules that sees their mods handing out bans very liberally. Any infraction that would attract a warning or suspension here would attract an immediate ban there. The forum is a popular forum so such bans do not make a material impact on the traffic volume.
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #46 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 10:08am
 
What really scares me are the 'Undecided' people. The 'Don't know' people. I don't know how these people manage to stand up straight without a backbone.

Invertebrate people who can't decide which side to butter their toast should be put out of their misery.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #47 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 10:35am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:33am:
AiA wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 1:43am:
In addition to "real names and porn" Aussie, how about adding your chronic baiting of certain members here with your innuendos and blatant lies to your list of offences? Then, of course, with Aussie, one has to consider what a "real name" is:  Aussie has claimed 4-5 first names as "his" as well as at least two surnames ... Furthermore, Aussie has labelled art, in a museum, "filth" and "porn." So, whatever you do, don't let Aussie have a say in anything and please do not "start a Thread in Relationships" as it would give him the opportunity to abuse and threaten members even more than he does now.


Aussie? - consider yourself busted!  Grin


Feedback is not the place for personal attacks like that Herbert, so there will be no response from me here.

A very clear trend is emerging, undeniably.   As at the time of this post, 28 Members want there to be a change (either more or less strict or done differently.)

28
want change, Effendi, only 1 supports the status quo.

Of that 28, 39.29% want more strict, 32.14% want it done differently,  28.57% want less strict.

Not a landslide, but a very obvious preference for more strict and ~ that things be done differently.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6260
Gender: female
Re: banning people
Reply #48 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 3:40pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 10:08am:
What really scares me are the 'Undecided' people. The 'Don't know' people. I don't know how these people manage to stand up straight without a backbone.

Invertebrate people who can't decide which side to butter their toast should be put out of their misery.


LOL I voted "more strict".  Wink

I thought somebody mentioned having a thread somewhere announcing who was "suspended" and for how long, that ONLY GMods (and Freediver) can use?

Some GMods do PM you with the reason and for how long you have been suspended but .... you don't have that information until AFTER you can log in again.  A great idea but rather useless.

Searching your last 10 posts, once you can log in again, is pretty useless too.  I have mostly received a suspension for calling Aussie "Santa Clause" or "The Jolly Green Giant" (he'll claim both as his REAL NAME), believe me!!!  Grin

C'Est la Vie.  Roll Eyes


Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #49 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:07pm
 
Just looking at the figures as at the time of this Post, Effendi ~ A total of 33 Members have voted, and only 3 made a vote consistent with leaving things as they are.  A whopping 91.91% of your members who have voted so far want change, and the great majority want things to be more strict (the Rules enforced more strictly) and the method of bannings made different to the current system.

Quite a dramatic outcome so far, Effendi.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6260
Gender: female
Re: banning people
Reply #50 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:43pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:07pm:
Just looking at the figures as at the time of this Post, Effendi ~ A total of 33 Members have voted, and only 3 made a vote consistent with leaving things as they are.  A whopping 91.91% of your members who have voted so far want change, and the great majority want things to be more strict (the Rules enforced more strictly) and the method of bannings made different to the current system.

Quite a dramatic outcome so far, Effendi.



WHY don't you start your own Political Forum, Arsie, and get everyone from here to join up.  Then you can be Hitler and Lord it over all and sundry?
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10255
ACT
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #51 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:53pm
 
Neferti wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:43pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:07pm:
Just looking at the figures as at the time of this Post, Effendi ~ A total of 33 Members have voted, and only 3 made a vote consistent with leaving things as they are.  A whopping 91.91% of your members who have voted so far want change, and the great majority want things to be more strict (the Rules enforced more strictly) and the method of bannings made different to the current system.

Quite a dramatic outcome so far, Effendi.



WHY don't you start your own Political Forum, Arsie, and get everyone from here to join up.  Then you can be Hitler and Lord it over all and sundry?


Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 11156
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #52 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:02pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:12pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 7:06pm:
I've noted on other forums with strict controls, the quality of posts and discussions are greatly improved.


Well, durrrr ....  Grin Grin Grin


Yes, you'd think it wouldn't have to be said... Or even need a thread to discuss it...

But there's no guarantee the quality of posts on this forum would improve.

Not sure this forum would survive stricter controls... Many posters here seem to be posting angst...

You'd have to say that it's more about the limbic system here than the cerebral !

Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #53 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:19pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:07pm:
Just looking at the figures as at the time of this Post, Effendi ~ A total of 33 Members have voted, and only 3 made a vote consistent with leaving things as they are.  A whopping 91.91% of your members who have voted so far want change, and the great majority want things to be more strict (the Rules enforced more strictly) and the method of bannings made different to the current system.

Quite a dramatic outcome so far, Effendi.


The majority have indicated a preference for either one of those two Aussie, but not necessarily both. I anticipated the "do it differently" vote would mostly be from people who don't really want it more or less strict.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Gordon
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 10823
Gordon
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #54 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:24pm
 
In the last hour a poster had accused 3 people of being excited by sex between a grown man and a 9 year old girl,  and accused one person of being investigated over child porn. 

Surly that's ban worthy?
Back to top
 

Wokka Wokka Wokka
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 31631
Here
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #55 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:31pm
 
I am somewhere between status quo and do it differently.

There is so little information about who is banned and why that an intelligent assessment is difficult, we seem to have had examples of people who have been banned and others let off based on their political persuasion.

All in all it would be better is nobody needed to be banned.

Banning in my view should be fair, transparent and little used.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #56 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:39pm
 
NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:02pm:
Yes, you'd think it wouldn't have to be said... Or even need a thread to discuss it...

But there's no guarantee the quality of posts on this forum would improve.


It would guarantee that the small gang of graffiti artists wouldn't keep arriving in threads to harass, heckle, insult-and-abuse, and generally vandalise and derail threads in which people are making a real effort to express an opinion on serious issues.



NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:02pm:
Not sure this forum would survive stricter controls... Many posters here seem to be posting angst...

You'd have to say that it's more about the limbic system here than the cerebral !


Grin Grin Grin

The primary structures within the limbic system include the amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus, hypothalamus, basal ganglia, and cingulate gyrus. The amygdala is the emotion center of the brain, while the hippocampus plays an essential role in the formation of new memories about past experiences.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #57 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:40pm
 
We don't make it transparent for privacy and to stop it becoming a dramafest with people campaigning to get certain members banned.

I am open to the idea of making it public. Perhaps that's another poll idea.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #58 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 8:25am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:19pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:07pm:
Just looking at the figures as at the time of this Post, Effendi ~ A total of 33 Members have voted, and only 3 made a vote consistent with leaving things as they are.  A whopping 91.91% of your members who have voted so far want change, and the great majority want things to be more strict (the Rules enforced more strictly) and the method of bannings made different to the current system.

Quite a dramatic outcome so far, Effendi.


The majority have indicated a preference for either one of those two Aussie, but not necessarily both. I anticipated the "do it differently" vote would mostly be from people who don't really want it more or less strict.


How did you come to that conclusion.

In any event, the pattern is clear, so what will emerge now from your Thread and your Poll?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Peace \/ man

Posts: 10423
Northern NSW
Re: banning people
Reply #59 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 8:39am
 
How about you make it so people can change their vote FD?
Back to top
 

nu ninda an ezzateni watar ma ekuteni
 
IP Logged
 
The Mechanic
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 7569
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #60 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:14am
 
why fix something that aint broke?

don't give in to the people who bait others to get a response so that they can then run to the mods to get that person banned...

you know the ones I'm talking about..
Back to top
 

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #61 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:15am
 
Quote:
In any event, the pattern is clear,


No it isn't Aussie. Using your slippery logic you could also misrepresent it as saying a majority want it less strict. If you stick to what people actually say with their vote, there is no clear majority support for any option.

Quote:
How about you make it so people can change their vote FD?


I don't think that is an option.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #62 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:17am
 
I have allowed people to remove their vote. You can change it by removing your vote then voting again.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #63 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:49am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:17am:
I have allowed people to remove their vote. You can change it by removing your vote then voting again.


If I had the option, my vote would have been more strict and do it differently.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #64 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:24pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:49am:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:17am:
I have allowed people to remove their vote. You can change it by removing your vote then voting again.


If I had the option, my vote would have been more strict and do it differently.


The 'Do it differently' clause means what exactly? With flowers and chocolate?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #65 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:27pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:24pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:49am:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:17am:
I have allowed people to remove their vote. You can change it by removing your vote then voting again.


If I had the option, my vote would have been more strict and do it differently.


The 'Do it differently' clause means what exactly? With flowers and chocolate?


I explained that up there ^^^^^^^ somewhere.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6260
Gender: female
Re: banning people
Reply #66 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:38pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:17am:
I have allowed people to remove their vote. You can change it by removing your vote then voting again.


It works.  I changed my vote from "more strict" (shouldn't that be "stricter"?) to "undecided", in other words "fence sitting" or "swaying in the breeze".  Wink
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6260
Gender: female
Re: banning people
Reply #67 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:41pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:49am:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:17am:
I have allowed people to remove their vote. You can change it by removing your vote then voting again.


If I had the option, my vote would have been more strict and do it differently.


Why not just vote "undecided"?  Tongue
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #68 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm
 
Neferti wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:38pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:17am:
I have allowed people to remove their vote. You can change it by removing your vote then voting again.


It works.  I changed my vote from "more strict" (shouldn't that be "stricter"?) to "undecided", in other words "fence sitting" or "swaying in the breeze".  Wink



Jesus Christ.

Come on Neferti! - 'undurcided' is very Low Vibration for wanting others to decide the poll's outcome for you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #69 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:49pm
 
So, Effendi, do you agree that according to your Poll (and you can see if has been impacted by socks....you know who voted for what) that 89.47% of your Members want the current position to change?

Where to from here, or was there some other reason you arranged the Poll of the Members?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6260
Gender: female
Re: banning people
Reply #70 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 4:10pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:49pm:
So, Effendi, do you agree that according to your Poll (and you can see if has been impacted by socks....you know who voted for what) that 89.47% of your Members want the current position to change?

Where to from here, or was there some other reason you arranged the Poll of the Members?


I wish to advise that I DID NOT vote with one of my dozens of "socks" ... nor did IQ. Did anyone check Aussie's multitude of "socks"?
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6260
Gender: female
Re: banning people
Reply #71 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 4:12pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm:
Neferti wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:38pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:17am:
I have allowed people to remove their vote. You can change it by removing your vote then voting again.


It works.  I changed my vote from "more strict" (shouldn't that be "stricter"?) to "undecided", in other words "fence sitting" or "swaying in the breeze".  Wink



Jesus Christ.

Come on Neferti! - 'undurcided' is very Low Vibration for wanting others to decide the poll's outcome for you.


There wasn't an "I don't care" one to tick, Herbie. Life goes on, regardless.  Wink
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #72 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 8:15pm
 
Neferti wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 4:12pm:
There wasn't an "I don't care" one to tick, Herbie. Life goes on, regardless.  Wink


If you durn't care, then tick the 'status quo' box or be accused of being a low vibration egg-laying reptile sleeping on a warm rock in a semi-comatose state of DUR low energy complacency.  Tongue

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #73 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:13pm
 
Is anything to come out of this Thread/Poll, Effendi?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #74 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:26pm
 
Yes Aussie. The members have given their feedback on how strict they think we should be.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #75 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:28pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:26pm:
Yes Aussie. The members have given their feedback on how strict they think we should be.


So.....what changes do you have in mind now, Effendi?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #76 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:30pm
 
None, as a result of the feedback anyway. It looks like an almost exactly even split.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #77 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:37pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:30pm:
None, as a result of the feedback anyway. It looks like an almost exactly even split.



Did you not notice the 10 votes for 'do it differently?'

How about you Poll those, and ask them something specific?

.....and only FIVE want things to stay as they are.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #78 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:44pm
 
Quote:
.....and only FIVE want things to stay as they are


So you keep saying Aussie, but you are yet to make a point. Even if 100% of respondents wanted a change, it would not be a mandate for change if they had mutually exclusive views on what the change should be.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #79 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:46pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Quote:
.....and only FIVE want things to stay as they are


So you keep saying Aussie, but you are yet to make a point. Even if 100% of respondents wanted a change, it would not be a mandate for change if they had mutually exclusive views on what the change should be.


Correct Effendi.  We agree.

So what was the point of you, the Owner here, commencing this Thread/Poll if it was not to have any impact whatsoever?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #80 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 7:57pm
 
Neferti wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 3:38pm:
It works.  I changed my vote from "more strict" (shouldn't that be "stricter"?) to "undecided", in other words "fence sitting" or "swaying in the breeze".  Wink


'More strict' is better English as spoken by the more educated middle classes.

And that should be 'swinging in the breeze'.

Tongue
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #81 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:08pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:46pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Quote:
.....and only FIVE want things to stay as they are


So you keep saying Aussie, but you are yet to make a point. Even if 100% of respondents wanted a change, it would not be a mandate for change if they had mutually exclusive views on what the change should be.


Correct Effendi.  We agree.

So what was the point of you, the Owner here, commencing this Thread/Poll if it was not to have any impact whatsoever?


Do I really have to explain it to you Aussie?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #82 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:11pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:08pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:46pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Quote:
.....and only FIVE want things to stay as they are


So you keep saying Aussie, but you are yet to make a point. Even if 100% of respondents wanted a change, it would not be a mandate for change if they had mutually exclusive views on what the change should be.


Correct Effendi.  We agree.

So what was the point of you, the Owner here, commencing this Thread/Poll if it was not to have any impact whatsoever?


Do I really have to explain it to you Aussie?


Why just to me?  42 of your Members co-operated with you in this Thread/Poll.  Where to from here?  Does anything change even though only five of them want to keep things as they are?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #83 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:13pm
 
Go on - spoil him. Taxi drivers are people too. Taxi drivers matter.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #84 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:39pm
 
Aussie, none of those 42 others need this explained to them. There will be no action because the outcome was split so evenly, not because the poll was pointless. If it makes you feel better, the result did have an 'impact' because it corrected a misconception I had that there was strong support for a certain change. This poll was not the start of a committee, it was just a poll to get some feedback.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 28317
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #85 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:43pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:39pm:
Aussie, none of those 42 others need this explained to them. There will be no action because the outcome was split so evenly, not because the poll was pointless. If it makes you feel better, the result did have an 'impact' because it corrected a misconception I had that there was strong support for a certain change. This poll was not the start of a committee, it was just a poll to get some feedback.


Last from me, Effendi.  Five members want things to stay as they are and you are smart enough to just ignore that.

Cheers.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35947
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #86 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:45pm
 
Yes Aussie I can see the results myself. Still waiting on you to make a point.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 28706
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #87 - Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:47pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:43pm:
Last from me, Effendi.  Five members want things to stay as they are and you are smart enough to just ignore that.

Cheers.


Grin Grin Grin

....  and at THIS point Aussie drives off with a squeal of tyres and a hand out the window with his middle finger fully erect.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
bogarde73
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Bogarde Contra Mundum

Posts: 15931
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #88 - Apr 27th, 2017 at 3:22pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:37pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 6:30pm:
None, as a result of the feedback anyway. It looks like an almost exactly even split.



Did you not notice the 10 votes for 'do it differently?'

How about you Poll those, and ask them something specific?

.....and only FIVE want things to stay as they are.


That's SIX now. As a conservative, I usually vote for the status quo
Back to top
 

The self-styled liberal progressives of today are people who have not outgrown the rubbish fed to them by ill-educated, semi-literate and politicised teaching & academic professions.
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6260
Gender: female
Re: banning people
Reply #89 - Apr 27th, 2017 at 3:56pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:45pm:
Yes Aussie I can see the results myself. Still waiting on you to make a point.


The ONLY point Ozzie has is at the top of his head.

...
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print