Flooding and off topic Posts

meditraitor wrote:

You must be joking :rolleyes:

So ""for instance if four people of boards(ISS members?) get together and decide an opinion is wrong they form a coalition and have someone warned about not agreeing with them?

give it up, doesnt impress anyone..
Ironic That is ad hominal

Look, dont want to sound abrasive but this is another thread with the subject matter being used to effectively have someone banned(we know who they are, and if I was them I would inform mods and admins of these repeated attemts to block free speech, people get banned for being repetative on other forums),

No we dont know who they are. And I dont intend to go into that since YOU are now being ad hominal.
The moderator asked for a thread about flooding etc. I began one. what is your problem with that? If you have a problem about that post something to this thread. contribute to the subject or go elsewhere.

This is the worst case of a bad looser I have ever seen, you were trounced in previous debates, and now you are restarting another thread with basically the same topic,,

I refer you to above. It was SUGGESTED nmy Davros that a flooding thread be started. As to your opinion and personal attack on me with regard to any debates I was in in other threads let others go and check out your unsupported allegation in those other threads.

Who's the mod in here? Please look at this repeated calls for the banning of people and either advise Isaw and whoever else(you know who you are) to stop or ban the people they want gone!!

Apparently YOU are NOT the mod. And you are accusing me of recommenfing we ban someone. Where did I do that. I am suggesting some general pointers as to a protocol for this group. If you have a problem with that please state what that is. and dont try the "anything is allowed because it is free speech" line as that has already been dealt with.

(actually now that I think about it, maybe this thread should be sent to the cuckoo nest)

Whatever do you mean by that remark?

Myksyk wrote:

snip
I would be very slow to hand out bans if people are interacting reasonably and courteously. The nature of their views is important but secondary. Difference of opinion is surely to be expected. This can't become a closed shop.

I too would be slow. But not static.
I find all this odd since PSI came here and had a poke a davros and left. I took a look at PSI. I found he moderates Paranormal and SCI. I took a look and those forums found them interesting and posted some messages to them.
PSI then PMd me and suggested that Paranormal was a believers forum and that I would be banned if I asked believers for evidence for their belief. Apparently one can do this.
So if you think Irish Skeptics is a bit harsh hop over to Paranormal and try your free speech argument on them and see how far you will get.
As far as the door I would think.

Furthermore difference of opinion is acceptable. It is SPAMMING UNSUPPORTED opinion and disregarding standards of debate I don't accept.
I also dont accept that freedom of speech means freedom to have an audience. Finally some opinions are NOT acceptable. If someone suggested that pederasts should be given equal time and are worthy of equal status would you accept their position?

If threads go on ad nauseum and most relevant points have been deemed to have been made then the Mod can always close the thread in the same way a radio interviewer might close an interview if it has become crashingly boring and repetitive. I don't think either side should whine about thread closures in these circumstances.

No I dont. Nor do I think it is acceptable for a new thread on a different topic to start and the trolls start reposting all the same unsupported arguments again.

You may agree medi that it is more difficult to mod those forums where contentious issues are going to be discussed and where emotions are likely to be high at times. I understand from this forum's Mod that there is a concerted effort to facilitate wide-ranging and free discussion of issues with an avoidance of personal attacks. This can be almost an impossible task at times. Banning is a last resort but IMHO should never be simply because someone disagrees with you. However, it is also difficult to stop the forum being rendered useless by iterative flooding from certain sources. After all, this is a skeptics forum and presumably will be Modded with that bias, as some other forums are (e.g. Christianity, paranormal, paganism etc). I don't see anything wrong with that.

I have two points here. First I actually advocated all the above (except the modding bias)
Second I do not think there has beeen ANY modding bias which has someone banned. Should we be attacked by trolls then we should have a policy for dealing with them. A fair and transparent one. That is what I am suggesting.

meditraitor wrote:

Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and—with the possible exception of Undistributed Middle—the most familiar logical fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate.

The phrase "ad hominem argument" is sometimes used to refer to a very different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the person accepts—whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective.

your boring me now,

Tu Quoque

meditraitor wrote:

:rolleyes: Flooding

Lucky nobody agree's with your argument or you would be banned yourself brother..

over and out...

meditraitor wrote:

LOL @ your logic