Thread Reopen Requests

can you debate rationally with someone who keeps misrepresenting your position and then insisting that you are wrong?as noted several times now: all I ask is that he be required to substantiate his claims.last time I checked that was one of the forum guidelines that everyone was supposed to follow.if he cannot do that then he is not debating in good faith, nor complying with the forum guidelines.should I allow that? should you?

when the whole argument becomes an endless stream of answering misrepresentations, as happened on the {clothes} and is now happening on the {fundamental atheist}, there comes a point when action needs to be taken.that action is to have the person accused of misrepresentation substantiate his claims.this then interferes with the topic of the post as it becomes the dominant issue.I have asked contracycle several times to do this and all he has done is post more misrepresentations.

Other forums have the option of ignoring whoever you want to ignore. Is it possible for us to have such an option here? What the ignore option does is it blanks out all posts made by the person being ignored.

Contra was suspended at the same time you were.
Message 65As far as I can see no one member can be chastised alone. All parties to the threads are guilty of one or more forum violations. If any one of the parties want another one suspended for violations, I would have to suspend all major parties. This was done previously and nothing came of it. (see above link)My STRONG suggestion to all involved parties is to drop it totally. If the other admins are in situations like mine, we can't all read all the threads all the time. Sometimes we need road signs to follow to offending posts.When a poster is in violation and no admin seems to be around, PLEASE leave a message for us to look at a particular thread or post. When it is left to go one for several pages of back and forth taunting it has progressed too far.

​ When offended parties resort to offense themselves then it becomes hard to pass out suspensions without holding all participants guilty.

I am going to do nothing at this time. Any of the participants who want to continue taunting the others on the subject will be suspended. All relevant threads will be closed and the only discussion of the issue will be done here with admin staff.This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-25-2005 02:31 PM

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

sadagain instead of taking action admin closes the thread, not because the thread needs to be closed but because they don't take the step of telling people to substantiate their claims and because there is no forum to do that which doesn't also get immediately closednuff said for now, but it aint over.

ignoring someone doesn't stop someone from posting lies about what you said

how about a "Got a Beef?" thread that allows people who are frustrated by the behavior of others to vent.admin can monitor it to see if a particular person keeps turning up as the miscreant and also require people to substantiate their claimsit would also allow a place for a "spat" between two posters to be carried out in a place that does not affect the other threads

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

If I had been called in when you first had a complaint I could have done something. As it stands this was brought to my attention after you yourself were just as guilty of guideline violations. You want Contra suspended for his violations but it will get you suspended again also. You want Contra called on a lack of substantiation then let us know when it is happening.It seems to me that the only action you would deem as justice would be Contra called on the carpet or suspended again.If, during a debate with anyone, you feel that they are violating guidelines then, by all means, put up a quick thread asking for moderator assistance. This is not what was done. You started a thread for the sole purpose of dumping on your opponant.At the risk of dropping any objectivity I may still have, I do agree with much that you and Arach have been arguing. With that said, you are not asking me to be objective, you want me to take your side. I could have done this at the start of the difficulties if I had been informed, but not now.All I can offer is objectivity from now on if I am kept informed as to possible problems. Anyone who wants to keep a bug up his/her butt is welcome to it but don't cry foul if that bug is smashed where it liesThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-25-2005 05:06 PM

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Just a quick observation,If you are making your case well no one will believe any lies / misrepresentations about what was said. Also, someone keeping their cool comes off as an adult and their argument will be given more credence (witness Sylas).

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

that's three thread where the net sum of contracycle's contribution was to get the topics closed. only if people let him get away with it.

I've bookmarked this

the problem with that, is that the thread then becomes consumed with answering the falsehoods that contracycle posted and the topic gets derailed entirely.or you don't answer, and the lies win?

are you counting the recent "in case anyone was curious" thread? because if so, i'm sure that was mostly my fault and brenna's fault.see, she called me an asshole, and i called her a bitch. classic one-two ad hominem return blow. they don't like that here. although if i really wanted to hurt brenna, well, i'd turn around and smack her. however, contracycle did not contribute anything but needless argument to thread. you are correct. in this case, he argued the authority of an open source online encyclopedia against the expert opinion of oxford faculty, stating the prof had missed something that anyone actually reading the post would notice that he had not.and then, of course, the argument spiral out of control, as usual. seems kind of par for the course. is this the kind of debate we want here?

---

אָרַח

lol yes I was.and that on top of his claiming that refering to a dictionary was an appeal to authority while his own private definition was valid.ah well maybe next time.what do you think about a "Got a beef?" thread? Seems to me we've had several thread dedicated to certain posters pecadillios.maybe I should propose one, I'm getting good at {closed out at the starting gate} posts ....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

i think it would spiral out of control within the first 3 posts, be a breeding ground for hate, and result in several of us getting banned.however, i do wish that certain posters would engage in good debate habits. admit their mistakes when they make them, argue the points instead of resorting to name calling when they can longer defend their argument. admit when the other side has a good point, and, you know, has actually posted evidence. it can't be that hard.my problem is that i'm just as stubborn as they are. i'll keep posting good clean arguments, and usually end up going circles. sometimes when the fail to see the laughably obvious, i let the occasional "ok, now you're being an idiot." slip.this, of course, is hardly the same thing as some of the wonderous masteries on language i've seen fly on this board.however, i don't have several new favourite quotes. i'll leave out the personal insults, although those ARE pretty funny. and i plan to use these at every opportunity available. * this of course after posting page upon page of evidence from several different angles to defend the academic standard opinion, while he posted nothing substantial except two reports about the wrong subject set in the wrong age of history, to argue his indefensible point contrary to even the archaic scholarly work. it's neccessary to fully understand the irony here.

---

אָרַח