Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:Freedom of speech includes the right of the writer to write where he wants.

Your interpretation of Freedom of speech is perhaps your ideal,
yet it is obviously wrong when we compare it to reality.

We could collect numerous examples where it is even forbidden to say
'everything what we want' 'everywhere we want' (= in any location).

Having clarified that, we still must evaluate the pros (friendliness was mentioned) and cons (annoyance by derailed threads).
Hence, Robert, we are still discussing the rules which we (including you and me) prefer for this forum.

I do not like to see so many threads derailed.
If I was filtering some 'derailer' I would still see so many posts replying to the derailer.

Hence, I like the software mentioned by Bill Spight.
It would not be censorship, but moderation in my interpretation.
The right of the owner/starter of a thread to undisturbed discussion weighs very much.
We kick out spam as well.

Tommie wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:Freedom of speech includes the right of the writer to write where he wants.

Your interpretation of Freedom of speech is perhaps your ideal,
yet it is obviously wrong when we compare it to reality.

We could collect numerous examples where it is even forbidden to say
'everything what we want' 'everywhere we want' (= in any location).

By citing me while restricting the context, you create a wrong impression of what I have said. I have also said: "Freedom of speech for everybody (incl. you) subject only to laws and forum rules."

The right of the owner/starter of a thread to undisturbed discussion.

Somebody wishing to discuss undisturbed should discuss privately. Somebody discussing publicly (in a forum) agrees to the (forum) public joining discussion.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Tommie wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:Freedom of speech includes the right of the writer to write where he wants.

Your interpretation of Freedom of speech is perhaps your ideal,
yet it is obviously wrong when we compare it to reality.

We could collect numerous examples where it is even forbidden to say
'everything what we want' 'everywhere we want' (= in any location).

By citing me while restricting the context, you create a wrong impression of what I have said.

Well that's silly. It's in the context of this thread, and it is almost the entire content of your post #12. Indeed, even taken in context, by excluding the words "in an online forum" your statement actively invites misinterpretation.

Tommie wrote: Hence, I like the software mentioned by Bill Spight.
(...)
We kick out spam as well.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IMO, it would also reduce volume in our forum.
Now we have many threads e.g. with topics N, M, O, P, Q, R etc. which might derail into one of the following three:

• it is about some theoretical aspects of ko, you have no clue, and I know ko better
  
• some rules question and why the others are wrong
  
• petty arguments about semantics and I will teach you mother-tongue speakers !

Some people interested in the original, main topic of the thread, might want to get it back on track
by arguing against the newly created meta-level (e.g. in the third example comprising semantics).
However, with derailing contributors of the category 'I am not a troll and I will prove you all why',
this attempt is utterly in vain and as counter-productive as opening extensions in SPAM-mail, wanting to 'un-subscribe'.

The main advantage (for ALL/majority minus OT contributor) of a moderated OT-contribution thread-shift would be, that this new topic would get its
proper, appropriate attention (like a separated bacteria without its host-cell, it could die a fast death by underfeeding, though).
Especially the OT-thread starter is always allowed to have his/her last word and no one would care. (q.e.d. here ? )
Let's see and wait for a paradox?)

All the wasted entries just reacting to OT entries (OT in a Main thread), requesting to stop posting OT,
could then be saved (volume, time , annoyance), as it is ok to be OT in the new OT-thread.

Alles klar ?

Just a few thoughts on the matter.

I really only read a couple of the forums here.

To be precise, I read any threads that interest me, in Off Topic, and 'mark all read' on the rest, and then I read Malkovich. If work is particularly mind numbing, I'll poke around the rest of the forum with a long stick, and try to ignore all the arguments and rules lawyering I encounter.

I don't particularly like the thought of moderators 'splitting' every time a thread goes off topic. It cools contribution to a thread. Someone may feel they have a valid point, and, if others agree, then it's on topic, but if a moderator disagrees, it could well become a seperate thread, and spam up.. Off topic. Which is all I really cared to read in the first place.

If I have to sort out every fight and argument that starts on the forum, because it's suddenly in off topic, I'll likely stop even reading that much, since that's why I pretty much don't read the rest of the forum anyway.

You're going to have people starting arguments. You're on a forum. There's an ignore button, if you don't like what TrollaX is saying, ignore him, and continue talking on topic.

Stop feeding the trolls, stop even acknowledging their contribution to the thread, and guess what? It won't be a problem. Mods aren't needed to settle every semantics argument, or even split up threads every time it happens. If people want to hang out and debate what the definition of Is is, senator, LET THEM. Just don't make them do it in off topic, so I can keep reading the one place on the forum that is largely BS free.

Thanks.

CSam