Lavi said:
If people really wanted to do away the FB so much, why do 90% have a majority of the posts in the FB? If you had felt it was so detrimental to the community, you should have stopped posting. If I wanted to boycott a porn shop or strip joint because it lessens the value of the neighborhood, I don't use it's services and then complain it's a problem. You send one message with your posts which suggests to everyone that your behaviour is ok and then you say the opposite, that the FB is inappropriate and detrimental to the community. Really, which side are you on? Or parhaps you are just a bandwagoner? I just want the people who are complaining about it and used it regularly to shut up. Damn hypocrites.
Admittedly, I started at least one FB post that belittled a person who may not have deserved such an attack (Bumblebetuna). That particular post almost directly provoked Bumble to respond in ways that would engender more flames toward him, as previous flames toward him on the flameboard caused him to err toward a strongly defensive response to the post, which people then attacked. The original intent of the thread wasn't really inflammatory, but it certainly became that way because Bumble had already been attacked before on the FB.
Other than that, I, for one, though admittedly juicing up posts and having fun with the FB's lack of significant moderation, still stuck to flaming facts, not people.
I don't even know if you could consider this a flame. On one hand, I am stating hurtful words inciting comtempt from my fellow members, but on the other hand, my words are entirely truthful. The truth hurts. No matter how you candy coat it, people are always going to be hurt. People will always take offense to it even if it's the truth. So why not have a place where people can take out these angry words without worrying about reprisals from admins or mods? We could call it the Flame Board even... And to keep the FB from spreading to other areas, we could have admins willing to do what it takes to keep the content of the FB in the FB. That doesn't mean slapping people's wrists, it means banning and read only access when rules are broken. No exceptions.
And when Sculli tried to assign a lot of moderators to police peoples' actions, in exactly the way you say they should have, they did not do so.
Could we really have expected a different reaction from Sculli? "Oh, let's assign more moderators who will also more than likely do nothing!"? Or how about demoting some people because of their lack of commitment to their position?
Odon, for one, received a PM from Sculli stating that his Moderator position was removed for various reasons, and he posted the most natural response - a Flame on QCNN directed toward Sculli for removing his position of authority... which he wasn't even using the way his "boss" intended.
Which way is the right way?
, can I say that? Here?
