"Serious Discussion" forum Poll

No, Jillian, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not people agreed with the idea of a "serious discussion" forum, despite Enabran and others trying to turn it into that.

coco

P.S. I'm going to the store.

Ll....

Mob rule. *shrugs. No reason or logic there.

Every thread is supposed to be serious. I'm against other users editing/deleting posts they didn't write.

And left me without any idea of what you see as the real reason.

It will have to wait.

coco

Ah, the court jester makes one of his Shakespearian gestures.

You cannot post anything, not even a poll, on a *discussion* forum and expect there to be *no* discussion whatsoever. If you want a Yes or No poll option without the ability for people to discuss the issue at hand, then perhaps that is a proposal you should put in feature suggestions and see if others would like to have that option as well.

I don't know what your talking about, that quote doesn't say that I am against a discussion.

catherine, i'm trying to understand what you are seeking. is it a forum where one can say whatever one wants and noone is able to point out the usual hypocricy?

It is because you reposted it twice. It gave me the impression that you were trying to say you just wanted a yes or no answer. Sorry for misinterpreting.

It wouldn't matter if you had a "serious discussion" area.

It would be moderated.

By the individuals who own the message board. Or the creator(s) of the message board.

It doesn't matter if that discussion area is here, there or over *there* -- somehow, someway, it will be moderated to one or two individual's taste of what is right and what is wrong.

It's no different from what you have here. If the message board was created on another url so that various members of could use their *alts* or use the message board for their own soapboxes -- it would be moderated -- by them.

If they want that so badly, create a forum off of the SL websites that the users can control. BTW, by creating a message board on another server, the owner/creator and moderators can pick up IP addresses, so I'm sure quite a few high-profile individuals will not be participating as *someone* could sit there for hours and match their accounts based on IP.

But I warn you -- someone has to spend hours to keep the message board moving along, edited, and to keep the spam out of it. So I ask you. Would you rather spend three hours a day on administrative functions of a serious discussion forum, or would you prefer to create and socialize in SL?

You brought this on your self is not a reasonable excuse for a personal attack. I am not necessarily saying personal attacks were made, but the notion that someone can "bring a personal attack on themselves" is silly. If someone insults you teh proper remedy is ar, not a return insult. If we are to ever have an environement that goes beyond the tit for tat of the 1st grade sandbox we need to escape the "but teacher, he did it first" logic.

i voted & i wanted 2 post my thoughts pls dont edit my post cat!!

We also need to escape the "but teacher.." concept in the first place.

loll tit fic hahaha

I agree seth. Somehow in all the notion of "Janet is angry about disagreement" we lose sight of the fact that janet never complained about people disagreeing with her, just about people attacking her.

Except for the fact that no one attacked her. They just disagreed with her and she took it as an attack. As well as taking statements about an issue and people in general as a personal attack.

Just because a person says that people are attacking them, does not make it true.

Absolutely.

But there is a difference between saying "I did not see any attack" and going on with the substance of the debate, and saying "there was no attack, you are just being hostile because people disagree with you."

The latter statement is intended and often does incite hostility.

I'm not in either camp, Jake. My point to Enabran was about judging people by inconsistant standards. It undercuts credibility to the point where you really can't state that "Martin" or "Janet" (or their alts) are "reasonable" or "logical" - only that people like them and like what they say, or don't.

What if you perceive their hostility to simply be caused by someone disagreeing with them. It is a pattern I have seen a lot. Posts to the contrary of the original idea are viewed as personal attacks. Are you not allowed to express this opinion? I see it a lot in cases where someone says on one side of the equation they want free speech and the freedom to speak their opinions, then post about different ways they want people's speech limited.

I'm not either. But I think the original post contemplates the need for a "serious discussion" forum. I disagree, thinking we need to police ourselves in this forum, and eliminating the "I disagree with you so you must be a hostile, sacrastic, insane, antagonistic moron" line of thinking would go a long way to cleaning up the forums.

I mean really so Janet likes blue berry muffins and I like chocalte chip. Does the fact that I despise blueberry muffins mean I should say " janet you are a moron for likeing blueberry muffins and I am right about chocolate chip, and further more when ever you post about anything I am going to disagree with you becuase you like blueberry muffins."

I am just saying I can see why some people feel persecuted on here, and that feeling of persecution goes a long wat to creating the hostility. Part of having a serious discussion fourm is learning that its ok to disagree, but not ok to call somone a hypocrite, no matter how convinced of the fact you are.

the point is not to win a discussion like this, the point is to inform the readers and advocate your position so the a reader is able to make an informed decision of thier own.