PRP Issues

[Dante]

1) I'll stop calling you a racist when you stop being a racist, deal? :)

2) See, everyone? This is what we get. Wolf is displaying an awe-inspiring degree of patience with this numbskull and what is he getting for his efforts? Prevarication and a complete disregard for the "how to make a point" explanation so kindly provided. Now, while Wolf may be charitable enough to work on the assumption that eracist understands our points and chooses to ignore them, I'm not so kind. I long ago came to the conclusion that he simply lacks the mental capacity to understand what we're saying (Wolf, you're using too many long words and complicated punctuation), and from the look of things I'm absolutely right. Even a parrot can repeat what it's told, but we're not even seeing that.

3) If you "understand what you are trying to say," eracist, then why don't you demonstrate it? Paraphrase the argument for us, or even find a counterpoint if you don't agree with it. Saying "I understand" is not the same thing as demonstrating comprehension. Wolf explained to you exactly where you're going wrong and your reply was "I understand" which in itself demonstrated a complete lack of understanding. Do you get that? Can you repeat it back to me? Or should I use smaller words?

This is just another opportunity for you to prove that you aren't a dribbling moron, feel free to fail it as you did all the others.

[Andrew]

So there's like 5 active posters here recently and this is all we can think of discussing. The same thing over and over. Stop name calling, won't you think of poor Andrew having to spend spare time moderating that stuff? I'm handing out warnings for it.

EDIT: I should clarify that I understand these conversations need to be done, just keep name calling out of it as it is against forum rules.

[Wolf]

I do really feel for you, Andrew--you get to witness & (try) to sort out the insanity. Fundamentally, there's no need to regulate this nonsense if it's just the five of us, but Dante's right--people did come here because this was nominally the "official" Dune forum, and people may come here again. If the forum ever does pick up again, It'd be good to have some ground rules for PRP that would prevent its abuse. It clearly can't just be flamesylvania, but it also can't devolve into one dedicated user's personal (and, in my opinion, terrifying) RSS feed.

[Edric O]

As you noticed, I was away for a long while again.

So... remember when I tried to solve the problem by creating new rules, and that failed completely, in part because I'm simply not around often enough to properly enforce said rules?

Well, how about something else instead... what if we had no rules at all? That is to say, what if you were allowed to say anything you wanted in PRP, no matter how inflammatory? Would that help? This is an honest question, I'm trying to figure out the best way to get people back. I can't really ban Eras and Ath for being unpopular, so help me find the next best option.

[ErasOmnius]

In my opinion, not locking threads where debate is occurring. No name calling allowed, or the post is deleted; and then possibly the Thread itself. Edric, I am glad that you are back.

[Dante]

A curious notion, but ultimately an unattractive one. While I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy immolating my foes, I am quite aware that it presents a less than positive view of the board to outsiders, and is, short of the satisfaction derived, mostly pointless. It's an action borne of frustration. I don't want to be frustrated all the time, and I certainly don't want to deal with eras'... suppositions all the time. Basically, as much as I enjoy it, I recognise that what I'm doing is bad for the board. I do it anyway because I see no alternative and because it would look equally bad for them to go unanswered. eras cannot be reasoned with. Wolf thinks he's a professional troll, Dragoon thinks he's he's just unreasonable, I think he simply lacks the intelligence to properly debate. Yet he just keeps spewing and spewing, we have to do something. Like Dragoon says, look what happens when we don't.

I wonder how attachments work in this new forum. Trying it out now.

Edit: Oh, that's how it works. Ok then.

[Andrew]

As you noticed, I was away for a long while again.

So... remember when I tried to solve the problem by creating new rules, and that failed completely, in part because I'm simply not around often enough to properly enforce said rules?

Well, how about something else instead... what if we had no rules at all? That is to say, what if you were allowed to say anything you wanted in PRP, no matter how inflammatory? Would that help? This is an honest question, I'm trying to figure out the best way to get people back. I can't really ban Eras and Ath for being unpopular, so help me find the next best option.

I think need to follow forum rules at minimum.

http://forum.dune2k.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

[MrFlibble]

Well, how about something else instead... what if we had no rules at all? That is to say, what if you were allowed to say anything you wanted in PRP, no matter how inflammatory?

How about this: people have a nice discussion on a topic, and just ignore whatever irrelevant, unrelated posts that might occur? Instead of going into great detail to analyse how irrelevant and unrelated to the topic at hand those posts are, which ultimately ruins the conversation that was there in the first place.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, nor criticizing anyone here. Just an opinion, no offence guys! :)

[Dragoon Knight]

Well, how about something else instead... what if we had no rules at all? That is to say, what if you were allowed to say anything you wanted in PRP, no matter how inflammatory? Would that help? This is an honest question, I'm trying to figure out the best way to get people back. I can't really ban Eras and Ath for being unpopular, so help me find the next best option.

[colour=#005FFF]We need the rules. I agree to the looser implementation in PRP, but there has to be a greater depth to the moderation. Following the letter of the law isn't going to help, here. Anyone who has read these threads (as I have constantly implored others to do) will realise that the "flaming" and "name-calling" these... people complain about is not only justified, but accurate. If someone is being called a racist, it's because they've exhibited racist attitudes and failed to defend themselves (if such a defense even exists). If I say someone is an idiot, it's because their behaviour and debating ability (or lack thereof) demonstrates this time and again. When someone either can't or won't respond to logical criticism, it stops being a debate.

THIS is where moderation should happen. A post saying, for example, "Eras, you have constantly failed to justify / answer / address X, Y and Z. Either do so or stop posting in this thread, otherwise you will face a 2-day posting ban." If this sort of thing were to occur, it would force these low-content trolls to actually form thoughts. When our points are then addressed, or their own views backed up by something - anything - tangible, we can then proceed with the debate. When there are issues actually being discussed, the only "name-calling" around will be the stuff of old; "hypocrite", "straw man", "dense" and the like. More important will be disproving the opponent(s) argument.

As it stands, this does not happen. Every single thread in PRP where Eras "participates" and puts forth his unsubstantiated and un-educated (often hateful) views eventually boils down to him not addressing the points put to him, whether these be calls to back up his own points of view or to respond to criticisms of the same. If you don't have time to moderate, then it's time to get more moderators, because PRP is horribly, horribly active.[/colour]

In my opinion, not locking threads where debate is occurring. No name calling allowed, or the post is deleted; and then possibly the Thread itself. Edric, I am glad that you are back.

[colour=#005FFF]Stop brown-nosing. You get to have an opinion on things when you start respecting that of others, you two-faced sycophant.[/colour]

I think need to follow forum rules at minimum.

http://forum.dune2k.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

[colour=#005FFF]Agreed. See above for a few suggestions on the matter.[/colour]

How about this: people have a nice discussion on a topic, and just ignore whatever irrelevant, unrelated posts that might occur? Instead of going into great detail to analyse how irrelevant and unrelated to the topic at hand those posts are, which ultimately ruins the conversation that was there in the first place.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, nor criticizing anyone here. Just an opinion, no offence guys! :)

[colour=#005FFF]I'm sorry, but this view is both incredibly naive and has already been addressed at least twice in this thread alone. Ignoring doesn't work. I encourage you to read the threads that Eras and ath have posted in and gain a greater understanding of the levels of intolerance and sensationalism (respectively) we're dealing with here.[/colour]

[MrFlibble]

[colour=#005FFF]I'm sorry, but this view is both incredibly naive and has already been addressed at least twice in this thread alone. Ignoring doesn't work. I encourage you to read the threads that Eras and ath have posted in and gain a greater understanding of the levels of intolerance and sensationalism (respectively) we're dealing with here.[/colour]

Ignoring does work if pulled off properly. The more you draw attention to "dealing with" "the levels of intolerance", the more substantial the problem becomes. How many threads have already been derailed by a couple of nonsensical comments that were far below what has been the standard for conversation here for many years? Were those comments left alone, the

discussions could continue in the normal direction, but instead they grew into heated disputes over whose opinion is just better.

I'm not talking here about threads that were, from the start, mostly about "dealing with" various opinions (like the Homosexuality or Creationism threads). I'm talking about reasonable conversations that just died out or transformed into bloated, > 10 page exchanges with little or no sane argument at all. If your opponent in a discussion repeatedly shows a lack of desire to respond to your points or produce counter-evidence, how many more times do you need to repeat those points you expect to get response to over and over again? This is what many threads turned into, if memory serves.

[Dante]

Except that our argument isn't confined to that. It covers visitors to the site who won't know who to ignore, a belief in basic standards of debate, the simple fact that ignoring problems doesn't make them go away (you did see those pictures I posted, right?), the me-too spamming that's been going on in PRP and lately in General, the creation of banal threads which in themselves aren't so bad but taken together are... if not yet a flood then at least a wave. That and of course we shouldn't have to. This place has rules, polite society has codes of conduct, when they are violated we are not supposed to turn our heads and pretend it's not happening.

And by the way Edric, your inbox is full. :P But I'd be happy to speculate somewhere else. Thought that occured to me for the first time on Monday: the Baron might not survive this.

[ErasOmnius]

Dante, I fail to see anything in your circling of posts that I put forth on the PRP. It is not always debate that occurs on the PRP, sometimes it is information sharing.

Canada's Election - Am I interested in Canada's Federal Election, yes; I have lived less than 25 miles from Canada my entire life. Am I interested if Mr Harper acquires a Majority? Yes, for one, he is pro-2nd Bridge between Detroit and Windsor; but the trade off is that he seems to be in favor of over-involving Canada in Middle Eastern Wars. I am happy about the Thread, because God knows the truth won't be covered in the American Media.

Middle Eastern Wars - Why is it bad if I post about the Wars in Libya and Afghanistan? Do you want to post? Please do! I find the 2 Wars timely and containing the ability to be filled with debate and discourse. Others are posting, as well.

In General Discussion - Britney, Lady Ga Ga, Stevie. It is General Discussion, and it is okay to talk about such things. You had a very strong opinion about the Girl from New York, and I had a strong opinion about the Girl from Louisiana. I'm am simply glad that you gave your viewpoint.

Dante, once again, I have said in the days past that I am sorry that a 'personal tone' occurred in talking about topics last summer, but those days are in the past.

All of us, in conclusion, we have to separate out views that we may not agree with, and not let any of us resort to near-automatic name-calling. Our national and regional legislatures are debating many of these various issues that we ourselves are talking about, and these bodies of government are better for it. If they can move forward after having rigorous discussion about such topics, then so can we all. We have to be careful that we don't say there is a lack of data or proof, just because we may disagree with something someone is posting.

So let us all start posting and re-posting again, because times of introspection and inward-looking times are great, but let's move forward, there are a great deal of issues to discuss and become informed about.

[Wolf]

You find the wars... timely? As in, they happened at a time most convenient for you? That's an odd choice of words given the subject.

Eras, it's clear that you'd like to move on and have substantive conversations. But you have never had a substantive discussion on this forum. Never. Not once. Not a single post of yours has ever offered an original, well-reasoned argument or rebuttle. As I once said years ago, these are not insults: they are merely accurate descriptions. When this has been pointed out to you, you have ignored it. That's the problem. Your posts are the type that Flibble wants to ignore, Dante to mock, and Dragoon and I to regulate thoroughly. I tried explaining--in great detail--precisely why your posts do not constitute substantive discussion, and, unsurprisingly, you ignored me. Unless you learn to debate with some basic skill, then you really shouldn't be posting in PRP. It places an unfair burden on the people who do wish to have substantive conversations. Do you see why? Have you ever thought about the possibility? Have you ever taken the criticisms the rest of the forum has leveled at you seriously?

The forum won't take you seriously until you take it seriously. It isn't hard, and I tried explaining in detail before, but that failed. I'll try again with simple bullet-points:

1. Always question whether what you're saying is accurate and fair to your knowledge.

2. Evaluate comments and arguments in light of the evidence provided.

3. If someone criticizes one of your comments or arguments, try to understand their criticism from their point of view.

4. When responding to criticisms, explain why your arguments are reasonably supported by the evidence.

5. Do not drop issues. If you feel like you cannot respond to an objection or criticism, admit that you might be wrong.

6. Do not repeat your thesis without explanation.

7. Do not respond to comments with irrelevant material. (Examples: unnecessary personal exhortations, e.g., "we can be friends"; appealing to the personal characteristics of posters, e.g., "a young Athenian and a middle-aged teacher"; etc.)

8. Do not start threads consisting solely of links you found on the Internet with one-sentence introductions. This is an old rule: PRP is a debate forum, either you make an argument out of that link (which should serve merely as evidence), or you shouldn't start the thread at all.

9. If you make assumptions, state what and why.

10. Tolerance should not tolerate the intolerant: if someone finds your views offensive, you should not claim that that is offensive in and of itself unless you have a very strong independent basis for saying so. You should drop that line of discussion completely. (Hint: religious belief does not count).

EDIT: I wanted to explain something in Point 7 in greater detail. Eras does it often, and is generally the only poster who does it consistently, though, many of us are guilty of it (including myself), and we could all benefit from an understanding of why appeals to personal characteristics (of either ourselves or others) is inappropriate. On the one hand, it only confuses the issue and tends to draw debates toward ad hominem reasoning, which is perhaps the oldest logical fallacy. On the other, and more importantly, one's personal characteristics should never have a place in a debate unless they are independently relevant to the issue being discussed. When you bring up your age and Ath's, and your profession and Ath's, that does not and has never had independent relevance to... anything. The wars, homosexuality, Christian dogma, etc. The only way it could is if there was something specific about you, biographically that rendered the information relevant. If that was the case, then all other parties to the discussion would have the right to ask for your actual biographical information--in other words, your real name, your bibliography, your work history, etc., because it would be the only way to verify and evaluate your claims. You, obviously, are smart enough to realize that your views are offensive and don't want your name attached to your words. That's fine. But anonymity is a tradeoff. If you claim it, then who you are doesn't matter. I don't care. I highly suspect that you are some 16 year-old on assignment from 4chan (I don't have the bowels to dive into /b/ and check, but I suspect it). Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter, because even that fact wouldn't "magically" impart sense into your posts where there was none.

[ErasOmnius]

Wolf, I do not find the wars timely at all. Should have said our discussion could be timely. My mistake.

I know my friend Curt is joining up today. He's got a lot of good things to say.

Wolf, there are a lot of good things in your list of 'cures' for the PRP. I would definitely add a Number 11, which is already a policy of the PRP - No name calling.

I would also like to add Number 12. No over-nit-picking about grammar, or sentence structure. It is a type of attack, that solves nothing.

Finally, the whole 'substance' argument is a 'red herring', and depends upon one's point of view. I have offered a great of substance on various issues, which has been completely ignored and overlooked. Once again, I'm not going anywhere, and I haven't broken any policies of this Forum, or of any government entity in North America. My viewpoints represent the views of almost 2 billion people world-wide, and they are good viewpoints. I've said my apologies for over-stridency, and I would hope that we can all move onward.

I'm glad that my good friend of 20 years is hopping on board, and I know ath will be back soon with constructive, organized information to post.

[Edric O]

eras cannot be reasoned with. Wolf thinks he's a professional troll, Dragoon thinks he's he's just unreasonable, I think he simply lacks the intelligence to properly debate. Yet he just keeps spewing and spewing, we have to do something. Like Dragoon says, look what happens when we don't.

Well, as I said before, we've had much worse posters here in the past. *cough* Emprworm *cough* By comparison, Eras is really rather harmless. Do I really need to go find some old Emprworm quotes to prove my point? Eras does post a lot, but that's only by the current low-posting standards of the forums. If everyone else posted more, the problem would fix itself, no? I don't think anyone needs to post less, I think everyone needs to post more.

But my long-standing belief that you should just ignore Eras obviously isn't going to lead us anywhere, so I am open to suggestions - any suggestions - about how to solve this dispute. My suggestion that we could waive the rules has been discussed and found inadequate. Let's move on to others. Dragoon has one:

If someone is being called a racist, it's because they've exhibited racist attitudes and failed to defend themselves (if such a defense even exists). If I say someone is an idiot, it's because their behaviour and debating ability (or lack thereof) demonstrates this time and again. When someone either can't or won't respond to logical criticism, it stops being a debate.

THIS is where moderation should happen. A post saying, for example, "Eras, you have constantly failed to justify / answer / address X, Y and Z. Either do so or stop posting in this thread, otherwise you will face a 2-day posting ban." If this sort of thing were to occur, it would force these low-content trolls to actually form thoughts. When our points are then addressed, or their own views backed up by something - anything - tangible, we can then proceed with the debate. When there are issues actually being discussed, the only "name-calling" around will be the stuff of old; "hypocrite", "straw man", "dense" and the like. More important will be disproving the opponent(s) argument.

As it stands, this does not happen. Every single thread in PRP where Eras "participates" and puts forth his unsubstantiated and un-educated (often hateful) views eventually boils down to him not addressing the points put to him, whether these be calls to back up his own points of view or to respond to criticisms of the same.

I think your standards for debate in PRP are too high. Years ago, when the Fed2k forums were more active, we had large numbers of people acting precisely the way you describe, and most of them never got banned. They all eventually left, and those of us who remained raised the standards of debate, largely as a result of the fact that we ourselves got older and more educated over the years.

But let's be clear: the only reason PRP ever achieved the high standards of debate which you wish me to enforce is because it just so happened that we got a core group of people here who held themselves to those standards. It was never enforced before. It's not part of the forum rules. Everything Eras is doing, has been done before in PRP. You've just grown less tolerant of it.

Having said that, I can't change your mind, so let's talk about your suggestion. You think the moderators should ban people from threads if they fail to provide logical arguments to support their views. It's worth trying, although what constitutes an adequate defense of one's views is an inevitably subjective matter.

Let me make another proposal, inspired by yours: What if Eras were simply forbidden to post in threads started by you, Dante, or Wolf (but we made no new rules about posting in other threads)? Would that be satisfactory?

Except that our argument isn't confined to that. It covers visitors to the site who won't know who to ignore...

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. Unless or until there is some big Dune news, I don't think our public image is much of a concern. There is no public to look at the image.

[bullet-point list of how Eras could improve his posts]

That is very good, and of course I would love it if Eras (and everyone in general) followed those guidelines. So, should we consider this suggestion #3 on the table right now, after Dragoon's and mine? A negotiated settlement in which Eras agrees to follow the list you provided?

To recap, the suggestions on the table right now are:

1. Moderators should give people temporary bans for repeatedly failing to back up their claims with reasoned argument.

2. Eras should not be allowed to post in threads started by Dragoon, Dante, or Wolf.

3. Eras should agree to follow Wolf's list of guidelines.)

[MrFlibble]

Except that our argument isn't confined to that. It covers visitors to the site who won't know who to ignore

Are you implying that visitors who read posts in PRP are unable to make judgements for themselves, without you having kindly explained them who's right and who's wrong here?

the simple fact that ignoring problems doesn't make them go away (you did see those pictures I posted, right?), the me-too spamming that's been going on in PRP and lately in General, the creation of banal threads which in themselves aren't so bad but taken together are... if not yet a flood then at least a wave.

Well, your proposed (and enacted) countermeasures don't make problems go away either, or did I miss something?

Let me make another proposal, inspired by yours: What if Eras were simply forbidden to post in threads started by you, Dante, or Wolf (but we made no new rules about posting in other threads)? Would that be satisfactory?

[...]

That is very good, and of course I would love it if Eras (and everyone in general) followed those guidelines. So, should we consider this suggestion #3 on the table right now, after Dragoon's and mine? A negotiated settlement in which Eras agrees to follow the list you provided?

To recap, the suggestions on the table right now are:

1. Moderators should give people temporary bans for repeatedly failing to back up their claims with reasoned argument.

2. Eras should not be allowed to post in threads started by Dragoon, Dante, or Wolf.

3. Eras should agree to follow Wolf's list of guidelines.)

Since I'm trying to be objective here, I cannot but notice that the "PRP Issues" boil down to concerns related to a single person in question, not some general following of the rules etc. etc. Surely, this could be settled in some other manner than modifying the rules or making agreements that seem rather humiliating to at least one of the supposed sides involved.

In fact, the real issue with PRP as I understand it is that the whole situation slipped out of control due to temporary lax moderation (or outright absence of it, even), and now you're trying to fix it up with some rather crude (in my opinion) methods.

It is not to say that I act in support or defence of Mr. ErasOmnius; the issues Wolf has pointed out are undoubtedly an adequate description of the whole situation. It is just that there's something about way you've summed all up in the quoted passages above that just isn't right. I think it's specifically point 2. ("should not be allowed to post in threads started by Dragoon, Dante, or Wolf") that is the problem in my opinion. It seems like an equivalent of a ban, only that no legitimate causes for a ban were found, so it's disguised as a "negotiated agreement" of sorts.

The only thing I really fail to understand is why Mr. ErasOmnius is determined to participate in discussions in this rather non-friendly environment.

To sum up, I can't think of a solution for the situation that would be decent and acceptable for everyone. At the sate time, I can't get off that feeling that PRP discussions have, in fact, been entirely replaced by these personal exchanges that really aren't about any opinions or any argument on some subject pertaining to politics, religion, or philosophy.

[Anathema]

Since I haven't visited this site for some time, I missed out on a lot of....discussion with Eras and athanasios. For what it's worth, I agree with MrFlibble. Quasi-banning someone when he hasn't broken any rules would be wrong.

To be honest, sometimes I miss emprworm...

[TheCurtOne]

Hi. This is my first day, and my first post. I want to start out in defense of my best friend who is Erasomnius. I'm not sure how it came to be talked of, of actually banning or censoring the man. He has tried to bring me up to speed on this forum over the past couple of weeks but reading all of the posts he though were important was too much time consumed. So I decided to just jump in and give my point of view about what's going on.

People have spent years posting here, OK, that's good. But I read it that some of you are trying to get rid of a view that you may not agree with. I get right to the point, it's a quandry. How do we talk about gay rights effectively, when someone who is posting is gay? How do we talk about abortion effectively, when someone may have had an abortion, or encouraged their girlfriend to have one? Someone has to be big about the whole thing and say something like: I'm a guy who talked his girlfriend into an abortion, and I know I'm right. I'm not gonna call you insults, not gonna try to censor you. But I'm secure, I'm just gonna ignore you.

Because I read some pretty harsh words being thrown around here. Some words that would get people thrown off in a heartbeat in other places, but nobody's talking about those words. Why, let's talk about those harsh words, or we're not? Because insults are a big deal on the net. How can you talk about banning someone like E/O who has never called anyone a name? Back to my first point, what exactly, what post, has this man done that is wrong? Skimmed everything he wanted me to read from last year, and from the winter this year. Typical EO, trying to be friends with everybody, trying to save the world. But the trash talk and the insults of him, people should be embarassed. Let's talk about proof and constructs. He doesn't give the best proof, he never has, and he never will, cause he's a salesman, salesman want you to like them for who they are. But proof is thin on both sides of the aisle on this forum, don't kid yourselves.

Back to me, I'm a Christian, who tends to like socialism. I feel like I already know everybody, because I've been hearing my friend talk about "the forum" for the past year. Glad to be here.

[ErasOmnius]

Why am I here? Because this is a Forum. Honestly, if one looks at the situation objectively, I am right now the sole survivor. Hwi is gone, driven out because she couldn't take the constant derision and name-calling. Servant is gone, tried to post, tried to participate. Others as well. But I am different, I believe I have something to contribute, and I also believe that the Forum is an information-sharing center. Andrew gives great updates about Canada and the Election. Edric is a good clearinghouse of info about Socialism world-wide. Dante, you obviously know a lot about genetics. Everyone contributes something.

But it seems not to be about having new people come to the Forum, and post viewpoints that are unique and diverse. It seems to be that only allowing people to post info that Dante/Wolf/Dragoon agrees with is the real issue. Is there a specific post that Dante/Wolf/Dragoon is concerned about? No, not a specific post. Is there a specific viewpoint? No. The real issue is this. I have withstood the test, withstood the onslaught, and I won't leave. I guess the FanFic story from last late Summer about me wanting a homeless man to <blank> in my mouth was supposed to drive me away, but didn't. The constant name-calling was supposed to cause me to feint and lose heart, but didn't. Over 75 nit-pickings about my grammar and alleged sentence structure over the last 49 weeks was supposed to get me to duck and run, but had no success. So here I am, the survivor.

I will be that someone present to represent the viewpoint of almost 2 billion people world-wide. We deserve to be heard. I will be that someone who will talk about the circumstantial evidence that points to a Creator. I will talk about healthy boundaries in sexual relationships, because the viewpoints of over a billion committed Christians and Muslims deserve to be expressed. But, as I expressed earlier this week, I will not dwell on it. And yes, a story from the Shelter is in order once in a while, so that we all know what The Powers would like to do to us, if they had complete and free reign.

So let's turn the page, and move on.We have been talking about this now, for what, 5 weeks? 5 weeks of hand-wringing, nail-biting, and wondering 'What shall we do with ol' Uncle ErasOmnius?" Dante, what do you think is going to occur? C'mon, give the whole thing another chance. Wolf, I like your viewpoints sometimes [would really like your opinion about the US Senate]. Dragoon, it is admirable that you want to defend your friend. But onward we should go.

[Edric O]

Well, I agree with MrFlibble and Anathema. Eras has done nothing against the rules. Posting a lot (by the low standards of the forum right now) is not against the rules. Making claims that are not supported by adequate arguments is certainly not against the rules. We've all done it in the past.

Yet here we have three long-standing members of the forum whom I value a great deal, saying that they have stopped posting because of Eras. This is bad for the forum, bad for those of us who are friends of Dante, Dragoon and Wolf, and presumably bad for Eras, too - since he doesn't really have anyone to debate with any more. What am I to do? If the three and Eras cannot be reconciled, it seems the only solution is to keep them apart - hence my idea about granting them the ability to post threads in which Eras is not allowed to reply. To be fair, I could also forbid them from posting in threads started by Eras...

On the other hand, if the three and Eras could be reconciled, that would save us all a lot of trouble.

[ErasOmnius]

Edric, I want anyone and everyone who wants to post replies on a Thread that I begin, to post when ever they would like -- but it would have to be without name-calling, and no over concern about nit-picking about grammar & sentence structure, etc. So please, if you must, only ban me from their Threads if that is what they, and you, would like. I am saddened that you did not mention a fellow Christian Socialist as myself as your friend, as well, as I have been around for 2 years. Well anyway, I am not sure how you would treat athanasios when he comes back, or TheCurtOne, my friend who joined and posted today.

This issue is really between Dante and I, and I know that it can be worked out. But I can't PM him, because his inbox is full; and I refuse to talk about his life in this Forum anymore.

[Edric O]

Eras, if I did not call you a friend, that is because we do not know each other that well. I don't think we ever had a PM conversation or any other kind of talk in private. And I have not been very active in posting on the forum over the past two years...

I strongly suggest you do not talk to Dante about his life anywhere. Nothing good can come of it. Just talking about ways for both of you to post in the same thread without it degenerating into a shouting match would be great progress. Don't bring up personal matters, just talk about your respective views.

[Dragoon Knight]

[colour=#005FFF]Lots of posts, but what it all boils down to is either an outside view from someone who can't fully grasp what's going on, a good-natured (albeit approaching desparate) attempt to stick to the rules without upsetting people and more of the same from you know who.

First, I shall address Edric's points. To be frank, proposing that Eras be forbidden to post in threads we start is an empty gesture of placation. It does nothing to address the core issue, and would inevitably be followed by a vice versa rule ("to be fair"), thus achieving your goal of us being unable to cause hassle by posting in the same threads.

My original suggestion wasn't simply a mandate to monitor how logically watertight a person's argument is; every one of us is guilty of using subjective opinions in our debates. That's just part of what the board is about. The real goal is to tackle the sort of behaviour exhibited (of late) by the likes of Eras, ath and Hwi. Each have a similar, but unique way of methodically ignoring or twisting arguments or posts. Some of Eras' countless failings were bullet-pointed in Wolf's latest post. athanasios has a habit of posting sensationalist nonsense in a foreign language, giving the impression of someone who runs around in circles with a tinfoil hat on, throwing newsletters everywhere and reciting the Greek alphabet. Hwi's special ability was powered by bitterness over a personal grudge, coupled with blind obstinance.

Tackling this requires an individual approach, but it can be enforced by a broad style of moderation. If an argument is turning into another debacle, with Eras describing the male anatomy in what he laughably considers a "graphic" manner and talking about being friends and reading Dune, etc. then a suggestion to remedy this would be thus:

- One (or more) posters who feel that Eras isn't addressing points / offering valid arguments makes a post highlighting each of the points that he has fallen down on.

- This post is then reported using the forum software, with the reason being "PRP dispute - *nature of failing*".

- A moderator comes in, reads the complaint post (and quite possibly a good portion of the last page or so of posts) and can then - without taking sides in the argument - see objectively that Eras isn't addressing the issue.

Effectively, it would be a sort of chairperson's role. If someone can't debate properly, then they don't deserve to be on the team. They certainly don't deserve to continue shouting their ignorance from across the table while the grown-ups are trying to talk.

Now Flibble; have you gone back and read any of the threads, like I asked you to? It's all well and good trying to be objective, but there's a difference between objectivity and being completely disconnected. Someone who reads through the threads we've participated in over the last year might not develop the same level of utter disgust towards Eras that I have, but they would certainly pick up on the key failures mentioned so very many times before. He is incapable of having a rational debate on a matter.

As of right now, no counter-measures suggested by anyone on this board have been implemented, so yes, you seem to have missed something. But even if we had suggested something and failed, it would still be moot, because we've also tried ignoring him. Saying "well your plan didn't work and neither does mine" isn't constructive.

Anathema, hello. Yes, I agree that banning someone who hasn't broken the rules would be wrong. This is why I'm suggesting that closer attention be paid to these threads. If the issue of arguments not being addressed / points not being substantiated is nipped in the bud before the thread devolves into namecalling, then we either end up with Eras being forced into making cogent arguments or being suspended / banned for not following the instructions of a moderator.

TheCurtOne; I'm going to do you the favour of first of all assuming that you're not simply Eras posting under another account. Such things are presumably detectable by the forum software and visible to moderators. I'm also going to give the benefit of the doubt to you for an extended period, because I need to assume that you are an intelligent person. That you don't necessarily hold to Eras' beliefs, and you will be able to see where he fails to provide valid reasoning. Perhaps you will even grow to understand why all the "trash talk" and insults are being levelled at him, and see through his thin "trying to be friends with everybody" façade. I understand that you will have heard one side of the story for a long time. I understand that you will want to stand by your friend. I hope that you will come to see him as he truly is; a horrible human being.

Or perhaps while you're here, he'll simply stop posting his hate speech. Either way would be good. Regardless, you get a tentative welcome from me. But if your views are on par with Eras', I warn you that they won't be welcomed here.

And we come to Eras.

- Yes, there are a myriad of specific posts we have problems with. Would you like me to hunt them down? Because I will. I'll go through every single one of the threads you've posted in and pick up every single post that you failed to answer a point in, then I will post it here. Just say the word.

- Yes, there are specific viewpoints we have issue with. Chief among them is your inability to provide any justification for your arguments, regardless of subject, but your stance on homosexuality is up there as well.

- No, you don't grasp the real issue, no matter how many times we try to tell you. You have failed every test. Every chance. Every olive branch. Every single time we try and explain. EVERY TIME. You have consistently failed to present your arguments properly, back them up when challenged, or provide logical counter-points to others' criticisms of your hate-filled bile.

- Everything we have done has been attempts to try and make you see sense. To try and ask yourself, "Wow, I wonder why I'm getting called an idiot so much?"

- See a psychiatrist about this martyr complex of yours. You are no more a survivor than limescale under a lavatory rim. All it takes is the right sort of bleach.

Just so it's clear, both Dante and I have been very vocal on what it would take to "reconcile" with this creature. Nothing less than what I've suggested above (i.e. adherence to standards of posting and debate which allow for it to actually take place, rather than devolving into us shouting at him for being an idiot) will go any way towards that outcome. I don't presume to talk on Dante or Wolf's behalf, but I gauge that the moderation style I've proposed (and the changes that Wolf bulletpointed) would at least be a step in the right direction.[/colour]

[ErasOmnius]

CurtOne - I am a Marketer, not a Sales-man. I appreciate almost everything else that you said, but I have offered alot of proof in the past year.

Dante - My friend Curt has pointed out to me 'the problem', and here is my apology, part 2. So, here it goes...

We heterosexuals can 'rack up' women, and everybody is applauding. Secretly patting us on the back, and giving the 'thumbs up'. If two males do it, then they are castigated, spit upon, and segregated, even if they are monogamous, which isn't fair. I'm sure than you did not have the easiest teen years and early twenties, so I'm sure than this Forum was a 'welcome home' for you in the last decade. If I posted replies in 2010 and early 2011 which made you feel unwelcome, I am sorry. I always hope that you feel that this is a place that you can call home, and a place where you can feel safe. Obviously, some of us cannot change our core beliefs, because we would feel like we are choosing between your viewpoint and God. But once again, my promise is this. I will not dwell on the issue like I did last Summer and in February. I hope that we can get along in the same Forum with two very different world-views.

EDIT: Dragoon, I just had the chance to read your long diatribe. What do you hope to accomplish by asking my friend of two decades to see me as a horrible human being? Always jabbing with the sword you are, very sad. I have told you that I am most likely not ever going to discuss homosexuality again. It is a lose-lose for me. As far as all of your points of advice for me, once again 'no thanks'. As a perfectly well-adjusted 47-year old, father of four, living in a nice house, married to a beautiful successful woman, co-owning a business with her, & spending 90-120 minutes a day on fitness, I can say that I am happy the way that I am. I also like to part-time lecture at the local community college, and volunteer twice a week at homeless shelter. Also in my spare time, I like to post about religion and philosophy on science-fiction and political forums.

[Edric O]

But once again, my promise is this. I will not dwell on the issue like I did last Summer and in February.

Yes. Do that. Stop dwelling on it. Your post didn't exactly help with this goal... So yes, stop bringing it up from now on, ok?