Honestly, something needs to be done about this spamming.
Honestly, something needs to be done about this spamming.
Originally posted by: Mark
Honestly, something needs to be done about this spamming.
Mark hates the truth , especially truth that he can not disprove. Poor Mark, he has nothing to say except to besmirch the messenger. Get used to it, cry baby, there is more to come as the corrupt DemocRAT party gets exposed by their own past deeds.
I don't think LVA has the desire, time, or resources to moderate this section of the forum. I suspect that's why this section of the forum was created in the first place.
With other forums I've been on, even the "kitchen sink" type area had some rules. Generally no topics were off limits but there were still rules against spaming and against ad hominem attacks.
I wouldn't want to see much content moderation in the sink but I would like to see a few rules.
1) Each poster is limited to starting two threads per day. (No post limits just limits on starting threads)
2) No starting multiple threads about the same topic in the same month. Also If there is a thread older than one month but it is active then a new thread cannot be created about that same topic.
3) All posts should be within the spirit of the topic about which the thread was started.
4) No ad hominem attacks.
I have mixed feelings about number four as I I'm really hesitant to advocate for content moderation however ad hominem attacks don't add anything to the discussion and violate the rules of rational argumentation.
I think these rules, especially the first two would really help a lot. I don't think any of the rules will be implemented though because LVA doesn't really have much incentive to dedicate time or resources to this portion of the forum.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
I don't think LVA has the desire, time, or resources to moderate this section of the forum. I suspect that's why this section of the forum was created in the first place.
With other forums I've been on, even the "kitchen sink" type area had some rules. Generally no topics were off limits but there were still rules against spaming and against ad hominem attacks.
I wouldn't want to see much content moderation in the sink but I would like to see a few rules.
1) Each poster is limited to starting two threads per day. (No post limits just limits on starting threads)
2) No starting multiple threads about the same topic in the same month. Also If there is a thread older than one month but it is active then a new thread cannot be created about that same topic.
3) All posts should be within the spirit of the topic about which the thread was started.
4) No ad hominem attacks.
I have mixed feelings about number four as I I'm really hesitant to advocate for content moderation however ad hominem attacks don't add anything to the discussion and violate the rules of rational argumentation.
I think these rules, especially the first two would really help a lot. I don't think any of the rules will be implemented though because LVA doesn't really have much incentive to dedicate time or resources to this portion of the forum.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You have 3 choices- (1) accept what is, (2) block those who you don't want to see, or (3) don't access the forums. The ONLY proposal worthy of being implemented "All posts should be within the spirit of the topic about which the thread was started." would never work because the liars would not be able to twist the truth or change the focus of the original topics that they can't lie about.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You have 3 choices- (1) accept what is, (2) block those who you don't want to see, or (3) don't access the forums. The ONLY proposal worthy of being implemented "All posts should be within the spirit of the topic about which the thread was started." would never work because the liars would not be able to twist the truth or change the focus of the original topics that they can't lie about.
I'll take the 4th choice. Accept what it is, while also thinking on and expressing opinions on how it could be better.
Whether or not such rules are worthy of implementation is not up to me or you. It is up to LVA.
I find the "liar" "lies" etc. accusations tiresome, juvenile. IMHO most if not all posters post something they believe, whether cut and pasted from a publication, obtained from academic study, heard on the the evening news, taken from a tabloid, overheard in a bar, from CNN, PBS, Facebook, etc.
If the poster believes it, whether correct or incorrect, it doesn't meet the meaning of "lying" "lie" or "lies".
Lying is making an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
Or, to say or write something you know is false to mislead someone.
"The dog ate my homework."
"I've only had two beers, Officer."
Those are lies.
Candy
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
I find the "liar" "lies" etc. accusations tiresome, juvenile. IMHO most if not all posters post something they believe, whether cut and pasted from a publication, obtained from academic study, heard on the the evening news, taken from a tabloid, overheard in a bar, from CNN, PBS, Facebook, etc.
If the poster believes it, whether correct or incorrect, it doesn't meet the meaning of "lying" "lie" or "lies".
Lying is making an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
Or, to say or write something you know is false to mislead someone.
"The dog ate my homework."
"I've only had two beers, Officer."
Those are lies.
Candy
Agreed
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
I find the "liar" "lies" etc. accusations tiresome, juvenile. IMHO most if not all posters post something they believe, whether cut and pasted from a publication, obtained from academic study, heard on the the evening news, taken from a tabloid, overheard in a bar, from CNN, PBS, Facebook, etc.
If the poster believes it, whether correct or incorrect, it doesn't meet the meaning of "lying" "lie" or "lies".
Lying is making an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
Or, to say or write something you know is false to mislead someone.
"The dog ate my homework."
"I've only had two beers, Officer."
Those are lies.
Candy
Obviously you must never read the posts that Lewis makes, otherwise you would know that what you have posted here -"Lying is making an untrue statement with intent to deceive. Or, to say or write something you know is false to mislead someone." - is EXACTLY what he does ALL the time.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
I don't think LVA has the desire, time, or resources to moderate this section of the forum. I suspect that's why this section of the forum was created in the first place.
With other forums I've been on, even the "kitchen sink" type area had some rules. Generally no topics were off limits but there were still rules against spaming and against ad hominem attacks.
I wouldn't want to see much content moderation in the sink but I would like to see a few rules.
1) Each poster is limited to starting two threads per day. (No post limits just limits on starting threads)
2) No starting multiple threads about the same topic in the same month. Also If there is a thread older than one month but it is active then a new thread cannot be created about that same topic.
3) All posts should be within the spirit of the topic about which the thread was started.
4) No ad hominem attacks.
I have mixed feelings about number four as I I'm really hesitant to advocate for content moderation however ad hominem attacks don't add anything to the discussion and violate the rules of rational argumentation.
I think these rules, especially the first two would really help a lot. I don't think any of the rules will be implemented though because LVA doesn't really have much incentive to dedicate time or resources to this portion of the forum.
I'd be happy with rule one. I suspect it would be difficult to implement without human monitoring which means it won't be implemented. If David can't behave himself he should be removed as that is the option that doesn was the LVAs resources. David can say whatever he wants and I am fine with that. What I am not fine with is his spamming so users can't see the active topics. He is trying to drown out everyone else's discussion.
Originally posted by: Mark
I'd be happy with rule one. I suspect it would be difficult to implement without human monitoring which means it won't be implemented. If David can't behave himself he should be removed as that is the option that doesn was the LVAs resources. David can say whatever he wants and I am fine with that. What I am not fine with is his spamming so users can't see the active topics. He is trying to drown out everyone else's discussion.
I don't really know what the forum software they use is. But it certainly seems pretty limited compared to other forums. I can't even find a section with forum settings. I don't see a way to manage a list of blocked users so I'm not sure if I could unblock someone once I block them.
Not sure if blocking would solve anything anyway as I suspect one would still see started threads from blocked users.
Someone with admin powers may be able to change a setting that limits how many threads a user may start in a certain time period. However I suspect that this forum does not have such a setting.
It appears to me the folks at LVA work hard enough on other things. I don't expect them to spend much time with forum moderation.
