Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Promote
Bogdan Fiedur

7073
4624 Posts
4624
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 50 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: POLL: Should personal attacks be allowed? Anonymous vote.
10/1/2006 12:32:12 PM

Hello Linda and everybody following this thread.

Everybody here seems to understand the basic principles of conversation which applies everywhere else.

Yet, there is quite different story when it comes to exchange of information on the forums. There is quite different mentality there. People usually would not say things as directly to their friends in an offline world. Because people are so far from each other geographically, they feel less responsible for what they say. At least they believe that consequences are not going to be as painful as in an offline world this would be. You can leave community or change your identity but you can't leave the place of work or your home that easily.

Linda you said

 

====

If every forum member, from regular members to power members to group leaders and ambassadors and interviewers and everyone else here enforced the terms and conditions, the problems would not exist. Abuse is the easiest to control. Delete it. Immediately. No wavering. No bending the rules. If a personal attack is posted, it should not stay up longer than it takes the forum owner to see it and delete it. Period.

===

Here is the controversial part of it.
I have deleted post of one member just three days ago. That member posted in my discussion confrontational note towards other participant.

http://community.adlandpro.com/forums/thread/473845.aspx

The forum was about how to avoid conflicts.
This member instantly removed himself/herself from the forum, blocked me as friend and started removing himself/herself from all other forums in a protest.

The member stated that I'm siding with other participants and the member didn't believe this post was inappropriate.


The question is; what is appropriate, what is not and when we believe that rules are broken.

What is the balance of right of speech and when we should step in and decide that enough is enough.

Are the rules to be enforced when incident is happening or they should be applied once you see the consequences of it and you can analyze who broke the rules first and if they were in fact broken.
Maybe breaking the rules by one member, could prevent much larger chaos in the long run.

When do you know that what is being said is a fact or fiction?

How do you guard other members from engaging in scam business opportunity if you can't point your finger to where scam is being promoted without affecting the other person or without implying that person?

Is the role of administration to police forums and stop conflicts in their beginning?
Will be then administration considered as neutral body if one of the conflicting parties will be slapped on the wrist without considering all the facts?  Because you can't do that if you have limited information.

These are the kind of questions I'm facing now. 

Your thoughts.

By the way here are the terms and they are accessible from each page on our site.
http://www.adlandpro.com/terms.aspx

 

Bogdan Fiedur

Be a victor not a victim. Simply be responsible for what happensin your life.
Truth can only be found by those who have the humility to consider what they do not prefer.

Facebook | YouTube | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn | Tumblr | My Blog

+0
Re: POLL: Should personal attacks be allowed? Anonymous vote.
10/1/2006 4:04:44 PM

Hi Bogdan;

you said...
===========
there is quite different story when it comes to exchange of information on the forums. There is quite different mentality there. People usually would not say things as directly to their friends in an offline world.
===========
 
That is very true. Sitting in front of a keyboard instead of face to face makes some people ruder. I think there are also people who are equally rude online and offline. Many people seek friendships online because they do not have many friends offline. And, to add it it, a post on a forum does not have the verbal inflections that talking face to face has.

When I speak to someone, they can see my smile and they can see my eyes twinkle, so they know when I am teasing. They can not see those online. When I am serious, they can see that, and when I am concerned they can see the look of concern on my face. The internet offers none of that. It is easy to read words more harsh than they are meant, and to type them that way, too.

To me, the line of what is and is not acceptable is any public attack that names another person. That is simply not appropriate. Period. In my forum, I use the guideline that if a name is used, it may not be to publicly ridicule or attack the person named. Period.

It is possible to debate issues and programs without stooping to criticizing people by name. More folks need to learn to think before they hit the post button. If their posts were deleted they would learn to think first. Or they would leave.

If they choose to leave, it would probably benefit Adland in the long run more than allowing it to continue, because each time a public bashing takes place, more and more members stop recommending Adland to non-Adland friends. I know of several members that stopped recommending this site because of the last couple of bashing incidents. The public bashings are harming Adland more than losing a member or two would.

And while I am speaking my mind anyway, I also think that

a) Allowing separate groups (such as the one run by a previous advisor) to exist at Adland does not do you any good in the long term. There is a lot of animosity between those that belong and those that do not - and that's not to the long term benefit of Adland as a whole. Just as one example, when I see them working together to vote in 'their own' in the POTW, it makes it hard for new members to feel like they will ever win that honor. I have actually had newer members tell me that, so I'm not pullng it out of thin air.

b) While it was nice of members to suggest a mediator, if there is anyone to mediate member disputes, it should certainly NOT be someone who has been party to mud flinging on more than one occasion. If anything, it should be a member of Adland administration. That is why other forums appoint moderators that are chosen for their even temperament and problem solving ability.

Just my two cents!

: )
Linda

+0
Gary Simpson

113
557 Posts
557
Invite Me as a Friend
Re: POLL: Should personal attacks be allowed? Anonymous vote.
10/4/2006 5:43:57 AM

Hi Linda,

I wish everybody at Adland had your set of values and ethics. I must admit I have lost a lot of patience and interest with Adland because of the way some other people choose to conduct themselves.

I feel as though I have a big target painted on me for people to send all their scummy, scammy, rubbishy, trashy junk to. I know that everybody cops it but I don't have time or patience any more to ignore it. Even the Personal Messages are nothing more than a plunderous quagmire of endless "opportunities." I thought the PM facility was to contact somebody about something that wasn't necessarily appropriate to put in a forum.

I also have issues with the POTW and have aired those and other issues to the annoyance of Bogdan previously. I note that others have since mentioned the very same things.

The best thing for me to do is to make an occasional visit and, if I feel it is warranted, to make a post - as I am doing now.

This site could be a wonderful place but the rabid marketeers (well, they think they are marketeers) destroy it by annoying the living be-Jesus out of people.

Best Wishes

Gary Simpson

+0
Ricardo Alcaraz

289
203 Posts
203
Invite Me as a Friend
Re: POLL: Should personal attacks be allowed? Anonymous vote.
10/10/2006 2:47:33 AM

Frankly, I believe that our forum should be free from presonal attacks. This
Should raise and maintain the level of our forums where a conducive
atmosphere is preserved for creative and profitable areas.

Part of being able to hone and shape ideas is in being able to discuss them
openly. And yes, sometimes there is a clash of ideas. But we should be able to
do that without personally attacking each other.

Now how do we achieve such a balance?

Ah, that's the question, isn't it?

Cheers!
Ricardo

 

+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!