Administrative Decisions

[TotallyOz]

You are all boring me to death and I'm banning the lot of you under the theory of Home Court Advantage.

 

Jomtien, I know you like sex but you don't always have to have the home court advantage.

[Guest fountainhall]

I thought you were talking about this kind of home court advantage

 

[Guest timmberty]

well i would still like to differ .. tho i dont know what im differing from ( to many long posts again)

my idea would have been to have left said poster on here .. but just have everyone ignor him

theres nothing worse than being ignored if you think you are a big man !!.. and no im not talking from experiance ..

*dear lord please let someone reply to this post amen*

[Guest jomtien]

Not that I'm replying to the previous post, but I will have to agree. Ignoring someone ends it. However, that has never worked anywhere. There always seems to be someone that has to reply. And someone else that replies to the reply. And on and on.

[Guest timmberty]

bugger .. now i have to go to church on sunday for a few hail maries .. i much prefer them at the t.v. club....

[Guest fountainhall]

I respectfully disagree with timmberty about the ignoring bit. Perhaps when a thread has just a few posts it works. But when it gets longer, and other posters are responding to what an ignored poster has written, the 'thread' in any discussion gets disjointed and points often lost. Why should all the other posters have to put up with this?

 

I also think ignoring a poster who consistently decides to go against the Board regulations (and many it seems maintain that HeyGay breached these over a period of time, as I have pointed out earlier) and not taking any action renders rules virtually meaningless! You end up with a free for all - and some of us have seen what that nearly did to at least one other Board, and now seems in the process of doing to yet another!

 

So either there are rules and posters abide by them, in which case any poster who chooses consistently to ignore them gets warned and then banned. Or you throw out rules (which effectively means there is no requirement for moderation) and get ready for the fireworks that will inevitably follow. I don't think on a Board like this there is a half way house.

[Guest]

I respectfully disagree with timmberty about the ignoring bit. Perhaps when a thread has just a few posts it works. But when it gets longer, and other posters are responding to what an ignored poster has written, the 'thread' in any discussion gets disjointed and points often lost. Why should all the other posters have to put up with this?

 

Exactly. Someone starts a good thread, then some irrelevant trash gets posted and sooner or later the half the tread is full of responses to the trash.

Ultimately it's better to cull a few troublemakers than have members migrate to boards that don't have the troublemakers.

As for the people who like to write trash, well there are boards that cater for that.

[KhorTose]

I agree ignoring does not work. I do remember when LMTU was banned and when he came back as heygay I just assumed that Michael wanted him back on as a poster. I did agree with the first ban--although I forgot the reason. I am fine with banning a returning poster who was once banned, especially when it will keep Beachlover off the board. That does not mean I ever think it is proper to ban one poster for what happens on another board. Having been the victim of what I can only call a terrible tactic because I use the same name on every board, I will always consider that terribly unfair thing to do. Some board owners and moderators are great and others are..........better left unsaid.

In the final analysis I have to agree that this board has some of the finest moderators of any board. If nothing else this discussion proves it, and I am glad to be a member here.

[Guest fountainhall]

I'm trying to reduce the length of my posts - so I split my response into 2!

I mentioned "a Board like this." Unlike several other Boards, this one is part of a larger entity that seems to be moving in the direction of a more comprehensive site for gays visiting and living in Thailand. Maybe that is what it was always intended to be. But if it is moving back in that direction (I did say "if"), then it is in my view understandable that it cannot become a Board where anyone can say anything. Presumably the hope is - and it has often been expressed - that more posters will join this section. Again it's only my view, but when someone sees the sort of posts which have been commented on enough above - especially if they are from overseas or new to any gay thailand Message Board - selfish, stupid posts like these are probably totally off-putting.

 

If anyone wants to use stronger language or make irrelevant or idiotic posts in mangled English, as z909 said, there are other boards they can join and where they will probably be welcomed.

[TotallyOz]

it is in my view understandable that it cannot become a Board where anyone can say anything. Presumably the hope is - and it has often been expressed - that more posters will join this section. Again it's only my view, but when someone sees the sort of posts which have been commented on enough above - especially if they are from overseas or new to any gay Thailand Message Board - selfish, stupid posts like these are probably totally off-putting.

 

I agree.

[ChristianPFC]

I am on friendly terms with with LMTU/HeyGay both online and personally. That does not mean that I think all his posts added value to the forum, on the contrary, many didn't.

 

He brought some life into this forum (and all other forums where he participated).

 

With a bit of effort, I could understand his posts, so you can to (but I have to agree that many of his posts are not worth putting in effort to understand them).

 

then some irrelevant trash gets posted and sooner or later the half the tread is full of responses to the trash.

 

You always need two people to have a quarrel, if he posts irrelevant trash, others have to reply, and that is where the thread is dragged of topic. It needs some self-restraint not to answer these posts.

 

My advice for those who do not like him would be to ignore his posts.

 

There comes a point when an admin has to make decisions to allow the board to move forward. Of our last 50 reports on threads, 42 have been about one poster. The moderators and I have read each one of them and discussed them and found few of them had any real issues other than anger and hatred for one poster. The vast majority of these "reports" were without merit and from a few posters with an agenda to get rid of a poster.

 

This basically means that there are some members who don't like LMTU/HeyGay posting here. Maybe you should start a poll about the matter?

[Guest thaiworthy]

This basically means that there are some members who don't like LMTU/HeyGay posting here. Maybe you should start a poll about the matter?

 

Now I know what Jomtien means by boring.

 

Stitch one, pearl two. I may join his knitting circle soon. Yawn!

[Guest]

Actually there are quite a lot of members who don't like reading childish insults and trashy gossip. Ignoring this only works if everyone does it, if not good threads get ruined.

 

Of course, if you enjoy that, there are other boards around that cater for it. This board has tried to keep a relatively civil standard of debate.

[TotallyOz]

Of course, if you enjoy that, there are other boards around that cater for it. This board has tried to keep a relatively civil standard of debate.

 

I hope this board actually tries to cater to everyone and not telling others there are other board options if they disagree with one decision. IMHO this board is the most inclusive of all the boards and tries to be the least controversial.

 

To be sure Heygay/LMTU was controversial but I hope that a "civil standard of debate" allows for ALL points of view and not just your own.

[Guest]

To be sure Heygay/LMTU was controversial but I hope that a "civil standard of debate" allows for ALL points of view and not just your own.

Permitting ALL points of view is going too far when we permit members to insult others. Thankfully action has now been taken.

[TotallyOz]

Permitting ALL points of view is going too far when we permit members to insult others. Thankfully action has now been taken.

 

I was referring to you and not LMTU. You seem to be suggesting that the poster should go to other boards: "Of course, if you enjoy that, there are other boards around that cater for it." My point was that this board caters to all points of view whether or not we disagree with the poster. In other words, just because one poster or more likes LMTU's posts and did not have a problem with them, we do not show them the door just because you didn't like his posts. All are and should be welcome here regardless of what one thinks of a banned poster.

[Guest fountainhall]

You always need two people to have a quarrel, if he posts irrelevant trash, others have to reply, and that is where the thread is dragged of topic. It needs some self-restraint not to answer these posts.

 

My advice for those who do not like him would be to ignore his posts.

 

Sorry Christian but I take completely the opposite view in this issue. To begin with, in this case it was not two people having a "quarrel" (although I would use a different word); it was virtually one against many.

 

Secondly, you imply that if someone posts trash, then every other poster should ignore it by using self-restraint and not answering his posts! That is is surely nonsense, with respect! Why should that one poster have free rein to continue posting "trash" (your words) and yet other posters must continue to sit on the sidelines and let that "trash" continue?

 

As I said earlier, the Code for posting on this Board is very clear.

 

"That Message Center members shall be expected to behave as adults is not an undue burden. The expected conduct standard for the Gay Thailand forums is the same as that observed everyday in society by adults in our neighborhoods, towns, and cities. It is based on straightforward mature behavior, civility and courtesy that you find in a neighborhood Pub or Tavern where neighbors and acquaintances joined by occasional strangers come together to socialize in good temper, to share conversation, and to hoist, in moderation, a glass of favorite beer or wine or a cup of coffee or tea. These forums are NOT presented for abusive arguing and name calling, score settling, thread stalking, or general cyberspace blood sport for the chronically bored. As in any Pub or Tavern, an egregiously abusive or chronically problematic customer (member) shall be banned from further post participation"

 

Until these rules are changed, I cannot see that one person not obeying them can continue to be tolerated when it causes so much ill-feeling amongst those posters who do follow them. Or do you not agree?

[TotallyOz]

It is funny as this week I was out with the boys late at night and in both "bars" we went to there was a drunk there. He was causing a bit of a problem but the staff and the customers simply ignored him. He was not thrown out and he was served more drinks. In one bar I asked about him and was told that he was a regular and he meant no harm. He was loud and obnoxious (hooting and hollering) and did cause others to glance his way and laugh a bit. But, for the most part, everyone just ignored him. It was easy for me to ignore his silliness. It was also easy for me to ignore LMTU. But, I have a high level of tolerance for all things.

 

Don't worry, I do not bring this up to debate any further on this. I just found the analogy interesting and thought I'd post it in this tread. I think we have all seen similar things in pubs and bars and taverns. (and on boards)

[Guest fountainhall]

He was loud and obnoxious (hooting and hollering) and did cause others to glance his way and laugh a bit. But, for the most part, everyone just ignored him . . .I think we have all seen similar things in pubs and bars and taverns. (and on boards)

 

Well, I for one don't see how that fits in with "mature behavior, civility and courtesy". But then, surely much would depend on what that drunk was hollering about. Was he giving his latest scoops, some of them slanderous and some of them just plain wrong? Was he affirming that he was always right, when it had been proved he he was wrong, several times? If he was English, was he hollering in a drunken gobbledygook which was often incomprehensible? Were people trying to interpret what he was hollering about for the benefit of the others so that a reasonable conversation could be conducted with him as on a Board like this? Was he name-calling? I very much doubt it.

 

And how would his being drunk fit in with the "moderation" qualification which is another part of the Code. Frankly, it doesn't! If I'd been in that bar, I'd have walked out.

 

I really do not think you can elect to isolate one part of a posting Code and omit the others. After all, didn't you write it?

[Guest thaiworthy]

If I'd been in that bar, I'd have walked out.

 

I was just about to write that very sentence. I'd also like to know the name of that bar, so I can avoid it altogether.

[TotallyOz]

I'd also like to know the name of that bar, so I can avoid it altogether.

 

Now now, if I gave you the name of the bars, it would be a scoop. I would not want to upset you.

 

[TotallyOz]

I really do not think you can elect to isolate one part of a posting Code and omit the others. After all, didn't you write it?

 

Yes, and like all "laws" they can be interpreted in many ways. But, since I wrote it, I can tell you the meaning behind it. But, when I do, you will continue to argue it as it does not help your theory.

 

So, it was written to be just like a regular bar in which people come together to share and have fun and enjoy the company of others. I go to these bars in the USA often and having been in many in NYC, I can tell you that I often had people I did not want to speak to in the bars. In fact, one bar had a guy that stalked me for years. I still went to the bar and I avoided him if he was there. I also did not interact with people I did not wish to interact with. If I didn't like a show that was going on stage, I would move to another area of the bar. That did not mean that I got upset that some people enjoyed the show. To the contrary, I always wished them well and hoped they enjoyed it. I didn't need to watch it and I didn't. I would start up a conversation with someone else or I would spend time talking to the bartender or the manager or I would find me a gogo boy and start tipping him.

 

The paragraphs were never intended for much other than to say that the Moderators and Admins have all rights to make decisions. I think a lot is often interpreted of other parts but that is the main jist. They have made a decision in this case and while I don't agree with the outcome, I go along with it as it is their right to make those decisions. It is also within my right to state my opinion and while I don't agree with others regarding the outcome, we all seem to accept it and agree that the site did everything it could to be fair and just.

 

I also will defend to the end anyone's right to speak positively of LMTU or any other poster. It does not make sense to me to tell someone that if they want to hear this gobbley gook to go to another board. IMHO, that is just rude. It is common sense to see that if a poster is not allowed on the site that he will be on another site and to be rude and tell them to go elsewhere is just not needed. IMHO

 

And, in the end, "mature behavior, civility and courtesy" is needed by all. So, as a courtesy, I'll leave this thread for the rest of you to argue about. I have said my peace and have no desire to keep saying the same things over and over as it will not change the outcome or the opinions of others. And, as is also my right, I'll not read other posts in this thread as a way to show how easy it is to ignore a thread.

 

And, to all a good night.

[Guest jomtien]

there was a drunk there. He was causing a bit of a problem but the staff and the customers simply ignored him. He was not thrown out and he was served more drinks.

 

 

 

And you didn't come over to say hello to me? Bah!

[Guest fountainhall]

since I wrote it, I can tell you the meaning behind it . . .

 

1. So, it was written to be just like a regular bar in which people come together to share and have fun and enjoy the company of others. I go to these bars in the USA often and having been in many in NYC, I can tell you that I often had people I did not want to speak to in the bars. In fact, one bar had a guy that stalked me for years. I still went to the bar and I avoided him if he was there. I also did not interact with people I did not wish to interact with. If I didn't like a show that was going on stage, I would move to another area of the bar . . .

 

2. The paragraphs were never intended for much other than to say that the Moderators and Admins have all rights to make decisions. I think a lot is often interpreted of other parts but that is the main jist . . .

 

3. I also will defend to the end anyone's right to speak positively of LMTU or any other poster . . .

 

4. in the end, "mature behavior, civility and courtesy" is needed by all.

 

Many thanks for the background. However, I really have to come back on a few points, if only because, with respect, that is not what is written! If it was indeed the intention, then whoever drafted it did not do a very good job at interpreting your intentions.

 

For example, Point 1 which I highlight. The Code doesn't mention "bar". It says very specifically "pub" or "tavern". Now these are very English words. I have perhaps once in over 30 visits to the USA (all of which included time in NYC) heard them used to refer to a bar - although never in New York. Of course there are a few places which include these words in their title - like Tavern on the Green or, very specifically, Irish Pubs. In my book, the NYC bars I have visited have few similarities to English-style pubs. Some of the latter will have shows, but taken as a whole, the number will be extremely small - and often only on a Saturday night. Most taverns/pubs just do not have shows. So maybe this is one of the first misconceptions re the Code.

 

Point 2. If the intention was quite simply that the Mods and Admin have the final say, then the whole rigmarole about pubs and taverns etc. is a horribly wordy way of going about it. Why not be much more specific? In my overall experience in most walks of life, the more general a regulation is worded, the less effective it is and hence the more difficult it becomes to enforce it!

 

Point 3. Agreed.

 

Point 4. Also agreed.

 

Looking back over the last half dozen years, I think the Code as presently worded has worked pretty well for this Forum. The number of posters who have abused it to the point where they have been denied further posting privileges is, I believe, very small. Less than a handful? If, for any reason, the new owners are unhappy with it, then it is their prerogative to change it. If they do, I hope they will permit members the opportunity to comment on the new Code before it is up and running.

 

PS: I suggest to Scooby that the Terms and Conditions page revert pack to the paragraph-style it used until quite recently. Having just one huge block of text as it is now with no breaks at all makes it extremely hard to read.

[Bob]

I'll leave this thread for the rest of you to argue about. I have said my peace and have no desire to keep saying the same things over and over as it will not change the outcome or the opinions of others. And, as is also my right, I'll not read other posts in this thread as a way to show how easy it is to ignore a thread.

 

Lol. I might have bought that theory (that it's somewhat fruitless to keep expressing the same opinion in the face of obvious disagreement) had you not one more time expressed the same opinion before announcing that you weren't going to read any replies. Kinda reminds me of the nephews and nieces on occasion getting the last comment in and then covering their ears as they walk away.

 

Some obviously disagree with your spirited defense of allowing LMTU to continue to roam the halls. I could be wrong but wasn't it you who booted him out of here the first time? (and, if I recall correctly, you were pretty much universally praised for doing so).