Concerns Members Have About Enforcement of Forum Rules

[Brian En]

I have no idea who the trolls are here, so I have to rely on the mods to moderate the boards. I like that these boards are here for me to learn from youse that have been at this a lot longer than I have. I'm all for tossing out the trolls, they do little for the fuctionality of any board. I used to be a member of another board that was totally overrun by an invasion of trolls that attracted even more trolls which led to the deletion of that board.

[New Age Messiah]

Originally Posted by Brian En

I'm all for tossing out the trolls, they do little for the fuctionality of any board.

I think the OP was trying to address regular posters who are drawn to the site for the right reasons, and then personality things or whatever come up, and then it's "forum rules".

All subjective rules can be perverted or misused depending on "who" someone is or whatever. There are always clique type forces and emotional bonding and groupthink type things, that cause some people to be protected and others to be rejected.

[Brian En]

The trolls I'm referring to the ones that come here for the sole reason to cause trouble. As for everything else, that's up to the people involved. If they can't come to a resolution then maybe a mod should step in. We're adults who agreed to the forum rules. We may not agree to the rules, but by clicking that submit button we have agreed to follow the rules.


I'll know more if and when I get into a dispute here.

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by Brian En

I'll know more if and when I get into a dispute here.

Uh-oh.... but you are from Canada - so at least you'll be nice about it

[Brian En]

Originally Posted by Anchor

Uh-oh.... but you are from Canada - so at least you'll be nice about it

Yah. I'm always nice during disputes. It's the Canadian curse.

[Seashore]

TtC published a private message from BROOK on a thread, did he not? What happened there?

[Anchor]

Seashore - I remember that. Brook actually made some comment about it at the time.

The issue was not pressed.

The forum's treatment of Ttc - another dark episode of our history. Within two or three posts he was accused outright of trying to start a cult.

A..

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by Anchor

Seashore - I remember that. Brook actually made some comment about it at the time.

The issue was not pressed.

The forum's treatment of Ttc - another dark episode of our history. Within two or three posts he was accused outright of trying to start a cult.

A..

My point in raising the issue is to open a discussion of banning francie for posting an email but not banning TtC for posting a private message. Not that I want TtC banned. That's not the point either!

What about the fact that TtC posted a private message on a thread - which is grounds for banning - not banning him - but banning francie? What's the rationale?

[Anchor]

Seashore,

the moderators are not consistent. You can work hard at prooving that but you dont need to, I will admit it right up front.

What we do, is try our best.

What's the rationale? Probably context and what was disclosed and what else was happening at the time.

A..

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by Anchor

What's the rationale? Probably context and what was disclosed and what else was happening at the time.

My response to your answer is to say that the context of the banning of francie was not just, and she should be re-instated.

[Luana]

What was disclosed was the Truth. It's really time to let this rest and allow Francie back.
Please

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by Luana

What was disclosed was the Truth.

So what?

I am sure there are lots of private messages that contain "truth".

I get told the truth a lot in private messages. I just had quite a lot of that today - unpleasant truths. I won't be making any of this truth public just because its the truth.

The system we operate in deserves us to respect that PRIVATE MESSAGES are private unless permission is given to make it public.

A..

[tacodog]

Originally Posted by Seashore

My response to your answer is to say that the context of the banning of francie was not just, and she should be re-instated.

I know the Mods are overworked and under appreciated, but I have to agree with Seashore on this one. Truth and disclosure comes in a variety of ways...if it didn't, there wouldn't be any.

Originally Posted by Anchor

What we do, is try our best.

To make what you do more easier:

- forum membership becomes invite only
- it is still free to join
- it is still read-only to non members
- if the invitee fails to comply with forum guide-lines 2 people get banned = the invitee and the inviter

Implementing this might help...but it will reduce the "diversity"

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by Luana

What was disclosed was the Truth.

Project Camelot and Project Avalon are initiatives that exist for the purpose of establishing the truth about public issues.

The subject matter contained in the email posted by the banned member in question was alluded to by Bill Ryan as justification for his position taken in a debate on a thread. Debates have two sides and do not get resolved if only one side is fully presented.

Shutting out the other side is not going to end this debate.

[truth and integrity]

Originally posted by seashore
Debates have two sides and do not get resolved if only one side is fully presented.
Shutting out the other side is not going to end this debate.

Exactly. It is so sad that franciejones can not speak up for herself and present her point of view. Secondly, it maybe justified that mods removed an e-mail that Bill’s sent to her. However, why they removed her post where she requested her name to be removed from The Round Table. This action can not be justified at all.

Best regards,

[suricatt]

Interesting debate... I haven't read anything posted by Francie, so I can't comment on those issues. However, being an unfortunate (or maybe not) participant in the Tokyo Rose paedophilia thread, I would like to commend the quick action taken by Karen and Anchor.

This being said, I'm quite dubious the 7 day ban is sufficient. My point being someone like Tokyo Rose who so openly condemns/judges others living by different rules will most probably strike back in one form or another once he/she returns.

The debate on so called trolls is important for the future of this forum. Do we want to allow hatred of others and preconceived ideas to pollute our conversations here? I.e. do we really want to talk about separation? Wasn't the creation of this area initially motivated by the concept of togetherness?

Everyone is entitled to their own ideas, however no one wants/deserves to be slapped and kicked in the face because of who they are, how they live, or what they believe. The moderators are a primordial part of this forum.

It's not acceptable to me to ignore blatant hatred and disrespect. I like to stand up for myself, for who I am. Don’t you like doing the same for yourself? Should we not stand up for what this forum is all about?

Well, that's my 2 cents worth. ;-)

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by Seashore

In my opinion, Project Camelot and Project Avalon are a part of alternative journalism. Therefore, I feel that those who are in decision-making functions at Project Camelot and Project Avalon have a responsibility to protect free speech.

In my opinion, the banning of franciejones is a free speech issue because the sequence of events leading up to the action taken against her involved a very public issue of importance: is Dr Bill Deagle a paid disinfo agent?

This post on my part is to register my protest for what I feel is improper stifling of healthy debate about an important public affairs issue.

I do not believe franciejones fits into the category of "troll" as you lay out here and I repeat my protest - for what it's worth.

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by Seashore

TtC published a private message from BROOK on a thread, did he not? What happened there?

Trolls are one thing. The banning of franciejones is something else.

This issue has not gone away – despite the deafening silence.