jmo - No, it wouldn't be an awkward conversation at all. I'd sit down and have a conversation with them about it - really wouldn't be that big a deal.

If you're that concerned why active members don't use the forum why not send a mass email asking them? I suspect that the answer is simply that the forum really isn't all that important. Even if it was perfect I doubt there'd be many more people.

There are things I am *much* more concerned about other than Maplepoo's obvious trolling, or my use of "foul language" or other people "obviously" offensive language.

For example, I am *much* more concerned with my kids reading what appears to intelligent discourse by people professing themselves to be "experts" in a field, whom are, in fact, ignorant douchebags spewing like retarded parrots the Libtard claptrap they just heard their teacher say, or read in Mein Kampf. I'm far more concerned with a bunch of people that appear to be intelligent enough to recognize their lack of knowledge spewing nonsense about the dangers of capitalism, or advocating other nonsense such as Communism as a valid form of government, even though it has been an utter an abject failure.

And yet....idiots that post *truly* destructive ill-informed bullshit are allowed to post their radical idiocy freely, without fear of banishment.

I would be *far* more likely to advocate bannishment of politic asstards than I would ever be of banning maplepoo (or myself) because we like to mock you assclowns with foul language.

I don't want any censorship.

You know krellin, it's great that you police your little world, I respect you for that, as I do the same in my house. There are not enough that do this, and I'm not here to be anyone's parent, but that doesn't change the fact, that some things are not for everyone's ears.

HATE BREEDS HATE

If some impressionable people listen to this shit completely unregulated, they might feel it's socially acceptable. iTS NOT. Sometimes standards must be set by people so the right thing can be done.

Hate doesn't breed hate. Hate is human. Hate is good. Hate keeps you alive.

You know what breeds hate? Ignorance and arrogance.

ssssssoren....and as I stated above, I think it is **far** more hateful for some ill-informed radical lazy piece of shit to post about the merits of socialism, because he's too fucking lazy to get a job and wants to dig his handin to YOUR pocket to feed his own fat fucking face. Teaching your kids that socialism is a valid solution is FAR more hateful than me calling you a cum-dripping festering pussy.

Truthfully, I just mute about a two dozen users and all that's left after that are game-related threads. If anyone else is really offended/not interested they can easily do the same and this becomes a pure Diplomacy website.

Chaqa....actually I think the line is hate keeps me warm at night.

Also....it is complete bullshit that "hate breeds hate". Obviously there is some amount of "hate" supposedly being tossed around webdip....if this is true, then by now we shold *all* have been converted to hate, correct? That we have NOT all been converted to hate clearly indicates this statement is false.

The hate of Hitlet didn't inspire global hate....it inspired a world to rise up against him.

THEREFORE....if we want more righteousness on WebDip, we need to allow more hatred.

There. Now piss off, eh.

Hate is not human, it's a learned trait.

The fact that hitler was annexing lands that were not his and killing millions of people inspired the world to rise up against him, his hate actually rallied the idiots of the country around him

ssorn - BULLSHIT. If you are an Evolutionist, then "evil" behavior is present everywhere -- animals killing their own kind, stealing and hording food, etc. That humans do the same is a simple fact of evolution.

If you are a religious person, than man is inherently evil - either through the fall of Adam, or through whatever other story that explains why man is so fucked up and can't survive without his/her god.

No....sorry, pal, but you are just dead wrong on this: Man's natural state is wickedness.

ssorenn -- Hitler's hate may have inspired a few local idiots to join his cause....and for the vasy majority it inspired them to rise up against him.

I'm fairly fucking certain that if FDR had gotten on the batphone and called up Adolph and said, "Dude! Righteous wickedness, bro!!! How can I get in on this deal??"

And we would have had Swastika's flying form the White House as we joined Hitler in his wickedness.

I like you ssssssoren, but you are ass-fucking-backwards on all this. Shit...for a second, if I didn't know better....I'd have thought you went Libtard on me!!

We can agree to disagree. I'm an evolutionist, and animals kill there own kind because as Darwin called it,"survival of the fittest". That's not hate. That's survival. Stealing and hoarding of food can be interpreted in the same manner. Survival in this over populate world we live in. So again, agree to disagree.

One thing I can say is I'm no libtard. Ha ha.

Oh, I lie you too, buddy

FUCK. "Like"

ssoren - I don't know, if I use my powers of language to chase you away, diminish you, and somehow this furthers my stature in my own eyes (whether or not it raises me up in reality), then I am being *very* Darwinian-survival-of-the-fittest.

If you are such a weak ass pussy that you can't handle a few foul words, and go crying away to mommy (not you, but they know who they are), then I have "won", and I have increased my "stature" by eliminating the pussified dissenting voices.

Awwwww...the lovely Mrs k. just gave me a chocolate mint. I'm better than you. :P

So lets see, I believe what you have been trying to say in your last 20 or so posts Krellin is:
Option 1

Thanks, you're welcome to take a step back now.

I'm more than happy with option one, though I personally don't have any issues with the option 2 setup either. I'm fairly content with the way the forum works, and I mkae liberal use of the "Mute thread" function even if I don't usually mute users.

Three comments from me:

Point 1:
@ jmo: "no one has emailed Kestas"

That is not correct. I copied Kestas into my email complaint regarding Lord Baldy calling for people to be murdered. Kestas took no action.

I also emailed Kestas this week about your conduct - but you're aware of that. I just want it to be clear that this is the *second* time I have specifically included Kestas in an email regarding the lack of moderation on the forum.

Point 2:
I vote for Option 2 as originally presented. More moderation of the forum, when it's obviously required, please.

Point 3: "If you are one of the people who doesn't use the mute feature then please tell us why you choose not to use it."

I'll happily explain. In my experience, if you use the mute function to avoid having to see forum posts from obnoxious members, this quickly leads to many threads becoming incomprehensible - because you can still see the thread, and you can see other users's *responses* to the muted person's comments - but you can't see what it is they're responding to.

For example, a while ago, I had Krellin and Emac muted. Then I had an experience where someone *else* (I think it was Yellowjacket) started a thread about a political issue I was interested in. I made some comments. Krellin and Emac replied to my comments, and then, in turn, other people responded to what Krellin and Emac had said. Instantly, although I could see that some of the ideas I'd introduced to the debate were being bounced around, I had literally no ability to follow the debate because I could not see all the posts.

I ceased using the mute function at that point.

Does that make sense?

Yep, thanks for weighing in.

Just as an example, imagine the following discussion:

ERIC: I think Snoop Dogg is the greatest musician ever.

BOB: I prefer Eminem.

ERIC: He is my favourite white rapper.

===================

Okay, now imagine how that would look if you had BOB muted because he'd previously said something offensive. It would look to you as if Eric thought Snoop Dogg was white.

That's what's wrong with the mute function.

I largely agree with jamie here.

Option 2.

I completely agree with Jamiet's Point 3.

Perhaps an alternative would be to blot out the messages of a muted person, with the option to reveal them upon clicking on them. That way, you have the option to regain an understanding of what is happening in a thread, but don't have to see the 'junk posts' that you don't want to see...

So a muted post would look something like this, except in a light-grey font, perhaps: (see below post)

** You have muted PSMongoose. Click to see this post **

I agree with others have been saying. I really only use mute on forum members who have already decided to mute me. (Which at the moment is nobody).

A large part of that is the reasons others have already mentioned, namely its hard to have a logical conversation when you miss big chunks. The other is that I'm rarely offended enough to feel its worth muting someone. Especially since if they are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me I like to test myself by debating with them. I actively enjoy arguments.

That's why I haven't been using the mute function very much. And why I haven't email Kestas. This shit doesn't bug me.

-totally unofficial post-