I suggest we:

1. Give everyone every gun they desire, no matter how dangerous or illogical it may be for a citizen to own,

2. Give them all a healthy dose of fake-white-guilt and privileged-white-person-proletariat-sympathies to really get their blood boiling, and finally

3. Hold a cage match somewhere, and donate half the gate to charity, and half to finding a way to finance the site to better design the Forum so as to be able to have semi-closed chats...or at least have that "Mute" Button exclude people from threads started by someone that has muted them (myself included, if that be the case, fair is fair.)

Because, honestly--

I AM SICK of these threads being completely derailed because of a few absolutists who simply clutter the thread and make it impossible for it to go on...and thus ruin the greater discussion for all.

A thread can only become hijacked if you allow it to be.

lol.

@Nigee:

I don't have to name names--everyone can think of at least a couple of those I'm referring to, and at least a few of their own.

To be clear--

I AM NOT saying we shouldn't have lively, and even controversial chat and conflict--that's fine.

It's those who derail every thread they enter so that, if they can't be heard, NO ONE can, and thus ruin the thread who need to be dealt with...



We could always take Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal, of course...though I expect from all the Flame Wars these people start, they'd taste rather burnt and are already spoiled rotten as it is...

@abgemacht:

It's rather hard to ignore someone when they post two or three times for every post that someone else posts, and often just to derail the thread...

The sad truth is, mute or no mute, someone WILL eventually answer them, and the thread then just slowly but surely becomes Godwinned or Stalinized or what have you into submission.

I think it's a reasonable extension of the Mute function to keep those muted by the starter of the thread "muted" from the thread entirely...

That way, said people can have a discussion without uninvited guests barging in, as it were, and crashing and ruining the party.

If you mute individuals do you see their contributions/posts?

Talking about contributions and donations how much have you paid for the privilege of using this site and sharing your vast expanse of knowledge with us.......?
What was that ......, oh nothing, oops, he's all gone quiet on the money front

I certainly disagree with the last suggestion. Allowing the thread starter the power to censor would make threads essentially just tools for one-sided sermons. It would substantially harm the conversation.

@semvk83 - you'll pay for that comment, hopefully one day when you stop being so tight !!

A serious reply to Putin (or, as I love to call him, the Stalinist) already makes you an idiot. Learn never to give serious consideration to what the "absolutists" say. Either ignore them or deride them. You know which option is my favorite. They'd never admit it, but they hate being derided as much as anyone, so they either give up or make a fool of themselves.

Nigee, I meant obi's last suggestion, not yours. Certainly I look forward to the day when my disposable income suffices to help support the site. Sorry for the cross post.

One way to keep Putin quiet, ask him for some money to pay for using this site.....

It's about time Putin was asked to put in

we're all socialists when someone else is paying :-)

As more and more people force Putin to mute them (as he is prone to do, apparently), he will become more and more "deaf". In the end, he won't be able to understand what's going on in a thread because he won't be able to see half the posts. Oh happy day...

@semck:

Fair enough objection--what would you propose?

I just think that threads are increasingly getting hijacked (not just by Putin, if--for whatever reason, since he doesn't extend the courtesy both ways--I was to be fair to him, there are others as well who do the same thing as him) and that that's just as harmful to the integrity of these conversations (when they just become flame wars) as the idea of limiting who can respond in them.

I again see the problem with limiting who can comment, I just think that something needs to be done to help keep the forum clean, something besides just the old "good example/ignore them" routine, as that doesn't really work when they post anyway...

@abge - its bloody hard to re-rail a thread. I tried pretty hard to get Obi's thread back on track but it just keeps sliding back into the muck.

Obiwan, I actually don't really think there's a better solution to the problem. Censoring is always worse than allowing a din, imho. At most, maybe add an option for "Mute in thread," that mutes somebody, but only in a single thread. (Only for the player muting, though). The status quo detracts, sure. Allowing thread-starter moderation would kill, imho.

On the other hand, obi loves to post interminable essays. Should we restrict the number of words, too? Hmmm.

As a counter--perhaps we can do what Facebook WON'T do...

Have a "Dislike" button or, if you will, a "-1" to go with the "+1s," and at a certain "-X," you are then blocked from commenting on the thread?



That'd remove the monopoly over speech that having the thread starter control it all would have, as multiple -1s would have to come from multiple people (since we can only all +1 a comment once as it is, so same principle) and thus, say, once someone gets to -5 or -7 or whatever number it is, CLEARLY they're just dragging down the conversation, as there's enough here that, generally, a +1/-1 along party lines would break about even, and so even if you got a few -1s just for being a Democrat/Republican or theist/atheist, it still wouldn't be enough to push you ever the threshold...

It'd take BOTH SIDES and thus the MAJORITY giving you -1s to get to a -5 or -7 or -10 or whatever, and THEN it seems fair to "kick" someone from the discussion...at that point, they're clearly just flaming the thread, and both sides agree to that...

@Zmaj:

LOL...I could always pull a YouTube then and just have 10 posts of 500 words. ;)

But restricting via words, parody aside, really isn't the issue, it isn't density of posts but quality of posts, their actual relevance, and thus the overall quality of the thread that's the issue here...

So I'd rephrase my idea with adding the -1 to the +1, and again, since we all can only vote ONCE...

If someone got to -10, that'd mean a net10 PEOPLE in the discussion think said poster/post is inappropriate...and in almost any discussion we have here, 10 people is likely to be at or near the majority of active posters in any given thread (excepting ones like the Last Post Wins thread, of course.)

Um...I can easily think of people who would always be blasted down to -10 no matter what they posted...

-10 as a balance?

I honestly don't think even Putin or krellin (or myself, since I'm floating the idea) could get busted down to -10 without first saying something stupid or offensive or flame-worthy or all three at once.

We have enough liberals and conservatives and atheists and theists to give enough of a balance to prevent that, I think.

Yeah, I think we should just stick with free speech. We have some pretty sweet discussions from time to time. That's more than you can say for most sites. Why screw around?

Alright, if that's your view...I just think it gets bogged down a bit too much right now with threads getting hijacked when the audible groan goes up as They Who Shall Not Be Named enter in and start to derail it...

Just an idea.

(Though I still think the Cage Match Idea holds merit.) ;)

Oh, it does. I just think it's an issue of the cure being worse than the disease.

If Stalinist gets interested in a topic, it's often a sign that the topic was stupid in the first place.

As I start many of those topics, from politics to literature, gonna have to beg to differ with you on that last one, Zmaj, :p

Oh right, I forgot you're smart.