Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michelle Anderson
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: 11/03/2003 - 1:01am
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to point out that the AMG policy allows those who start a thread to have control over the direction of the thread.

You can set guidelines for your own threads. You can decide who gets to take part in your discussion - and who doesn't. The rest of us are expected to respect your wishes.

So, for example, if I wanted to start a thread about the intelligence of fish, but did not want the thread to devolve into what Scott Fish's IQ is, or the fact that trout have no cause-and-effect thinking, I might say:

[quote]Please limit the discussion to the intelligence of fish, not their cause-and-effect thinking. Also, please do not bring up Scott Fish's IQ.[/quote]

This control is something that we would like people to realize they have, and hope it might keep rudeness to a minimum.

Thank you.

Robert
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/01/2005 - 1:01am
Re: Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

[quote="Michelle Anderson"] You can decide who gets to take part in your discussion - and who doesn't.[/quote]

:shock: That would be kind of boring wouldn't it. No opposing views. :shock:

So if I started a thread about vehicle inspections, I could bar any view that I disagreed with. Interesting.

knucklehead
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 02/13/2004 - 1:01am
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

Robert - you mischaracterize the statement - stating the desired discussion boundaries is intended is to keep threads from devolving. Endless arguing and thrusting skeptical comments into a conversation is NOT intelligent and NOT always an opposing view. Negativity is not creative thinking - this is the great lie of liberalism, skepticism, or whatever narcissistic moniker with which the negativists choose to adorn themselves.

If someone wants to discuss Biblical ideas, it is not helpful to have to constantly deflect the unending blows of pseudo skeptics filling page after page with loftily written critiques of the efficacy of the Word of God that they find on the internet.

If you wanted to contrast communism with free markets (aka capitalism as it is called by commies), it would be likewise tedious to hear people endlessly accusing you of being un American for talking about it.

That be the point, Bob - to keep conversations on track and not always hijacked by grandstanders with nothing to contribute but tiresome barbs.

Robert
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/01/2005 - 1:01am
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

Knucklehead, I did not you mischaracterize the statement. Michelle stated, I could decide who gets to take part in my discussion - and who doesn't.

knucklehead
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 02/13/2004 - 1:01am
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

She should have said what types of contribution are made, not who takes part.

You are unAmerican for pointing that out. :D

Robert
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/01/2005 - 1:01am
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

Agreed. :)

Michelle Anderson
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: 11/03/2003 - 1:01am
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

While I am happy that you two agree about what I meant to say, I have to point out that you are both wrong. I said exactly what I meant to say, and for good reason.

It seems that all too frequently, threads come down to homosexual marriage and/or whether it is a sin to engage in such activity, or to abortion.

Obviously, this is not conducive to discussion in many cases.

Now, if I were discussing a Christian tenet, for example, the term "born again," and what it means to Christians, I might bleieve that the discussion would take a turn to whether or not the is a God, whether Buddhism is the only religion which allows rebirth, and how stupid people who believe in God are.

Obviously, that would not be the reason I started the discussion, so I would ask that athiests not respond.

Cuz
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 05/08/2005 - 12:01am
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

Yet there is no means to stop them from doing so, the originator of the post cannot delete the irrelevant posts, nor can they block posts from repeat offenders...at least by their own means.

Editor
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/18/2009 - 3:43pm
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

Michelle is highlighting here a policy in play for awhile. AMGers should expect to have discussions here without their threads getting highjacked by posters looking to detract from, not add to, the threads. To do that, all any AMGer has to do is establish their thread guidelines right up front.

As an example, read Dan Billings's [url=http://www.asmainegoes.com/node/26705]first post[/url] in his 2009 Maine Local Government Crime Thread. Dan is very clear about what he wants/doesn't want on his thread.

As a common courtesy AMGer's are asked to respect the guidelines. If not, I ask the thread starter to PM me or email me and we'll deal with it.

Thank you.
skf

Robert
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/01/2005 - 1:01am
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

[quote="Michelle Anderson"] I have to point out that you are both wrong. I said exactly what I meant to say, and for good reason.[/quote]

How am I wrong. Did you not say,
that the author of a thread can decide who gets to take part in that discussion - and who cannot?

I understand exactly what the Editor is saying. But how am I misunderstanding your quote.

Michelle Anderson
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: 11/03/2003 - 1:01am
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

This was what I was referring to:
[quote="knucklehead"]She should have said what types of contribution are made, not who takes part.

You are unAmerican for pointing that out. :D[/quote]
to which you said:
[quote="Robert"]Agreed. :)[/quote]
If I misunderstood, it's not big deal, but I will offer this:

Robert
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/01/2005 - 1:01am
Re: Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

[quote="Michelle Anderson"] You can decide [b]who[/b] gets to take part in your discussion - and [b]who doesn't.[/b][/quote]

Michelle, I have a fairly good grasp of the English language and the meaning of words. How am I misinterpreting the above statement? Help me out. What am I missing? :?

Example: As I understand the Editors position, I may start a thread about Darwin's Theory of Evolution, in which I could set guidelines that would prohibit the thread from veering off into a religious discussion. Am I correct on my take?

Add your comment above, I may also prohibit John 3:16 or Bob Emrich from taking any part in the discussion? That is the way I understand your quote. If I am interpreting your rule as written, it is a slippery slope that makes us no better than DU. :(

knucklehead
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 02/13/2004 - 1:01am
Threads, Control, and the Editor's IQ

Robert and I are messing around - but we are both pretty sure you did not intend to suggest barring [b]individuals[/b] from contributing - just certain tangents to ideas.

Log in to post comments