Suggestion: Posts

[Stewart]

I think it has to do with the whole "inane comments" line. Remember that it came first before any words such as "elitist" or "pretentious. Being someone who enjoys general chat and who thinks that it is just as worthy of any other thread, I take exception to it's categorization and people who post in it, of being of limited intelligence.

Bear in mind that I also post in the General Chat forum so, by your logic, I am categorising myself as someone of limited intelligence. While I know a number of topics in that forum are not inane there's a high degree that are. The following come to mind:i'm drunk, How old do you have to be, what's everyone up to today...

I've never said anything about intelligence. I don't think my suggestion is elitist. But, if you want to bandy comments about intelligence and elitism about, when nobody has mentioned them, then that reads more like a product of insecurity or discomfort with your own abilities than any notion of superiority on my part.

Anyway, my post was in the Suggestions forum; that means it is for Darren to consider. I don't believe your opinion is what I was seeking.

 

[Motokid]

Stewart, would it be out of line for me, and completely hypocritical of me to ask that you ask the mods to close this thread until Darren can look at your request?

I feel that everything that could be said, has been said, and that since this is a decision that only Darren can make, only bad things can happen by keeping this thread open.

If Darren and/or the mods need more feedback they can open the thread back up when they are ready to consider this proposal.

Just a suggestion, and I'd appreciate your thoughts on closing this thread.

 

[Peder]

Anyway, my post was in the Suggestions forum; that means it is for Darren to consider. I don't believe your opinion is what I was seeking.

Stewart,
Well then I'm totally baffled as to why you posted in a public thread. Isn't there a direct way you could have gotten to Darren or any mod with your thought without opening it up for general comment in a open thread?
Peder

 

[Stewart]

Well then I'm totally baffled as to why you posted in a public thread.

It's a suggestions forum.

 

[Peder]

It's a suggestions forum.

meaning suggestions only and no comments welcome?
Peder

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

MC,
Ignoring the use of 'the masses' as inflammatory, I'll simply say that we seem to have different experiences of the matter. My own background has been to regard "separate but equal," as really "separate but unequal," but I recognize that things are easily viewed differently elsewhere. The back of the bus is really no different than the front of the bus -- except that it is.

I am sorry to carry this on when it all seems over and done with, but I cannot ignore /this/ statement.

How dare you parallel me with racism? When have I /ever/ indicated that I thought myself above another person on this board? I am aware of the injustice in the "seperate but equal" idea, and am staunchly against any kind of seperation regarding minorities.
So, please, enlighten me. How have I in any way indicated that there are certain people on the board who are of more worth and above others?

Sorry about this, but this post really got me angry.

 

[Peder]

I am sorry to carry this on when it all seems over and done with, but I cannot ignore /this/ statement.

How dare you parallel me with racism? When have I /ever/ indicated that I thought myself above another person on this board? I am aware of the injustice in the "seperate but equal" idea, and am staunchly against any kind of seperation regarding minorities.
So, please, enlighten me. How have I in any way indicated that there are certain people on the board who are of more worth and above others?

Sorry about this, but this post really got me angry.

MC,
Very sorry to have gotten you angry, and I should not have used the example I did, because I certainly never intended to characterize you as racist in any way. I chose it as perhaps the most widely known example of differentiation between people, even in a situation where it might be argued by some (but not by me) that equal was equal and the differentiation was really minor. My imagination failed me for finding a better example and one as easy to understand. So I regret the unintended implication and I sincerely apologize to you.

What made me think that you might think "there are certain people on the board who are of more worth and above others" is not the phrasing I would use, and I don't think I did. I thought it was very clear, though, by your repetition of the thought that certain kinds of posts not be counted, that 'there are certain kinds of posts which are of more worth and above others.' And I personally don't think we should institutionalize any ideas that certain people post inane drivel.

I am glad that we both seem to agree that differentiating between people is inherently discriminatory, and therefore highly undesirable. I also think the same applies to differentiating between the messages that people post, and I am a little surprised that you don't seem to see it that way. So we differ. And neither of us is a racist.

Just to make my feeling a little clearer, I hope, I think that telling a person "That was stupid post" is pretty close to having the person feel that you told them "You are a stupid person." Even though the one is clearly directed to the content of the post while the other is clearly an ad hominem insult. And that is why I think we should not characterize posts any more than we characterize people.

Sincerely sorry to have offended you,
Peder

 

[SFG75]

Bear in mind that I also post in the General Chat forum so, by your logic, I am categorising myself as someone of limited intelligence. While I know a number of topics in that forum are not inane there's a high degree that are. The following come to mind:i'm drunk, How old do you have to be, what's everyone up to today...

I can certainly see your point here. I'm still livid about losing a great member of this forum over a thread which shouldn't have been posted at all, and I do agree, some threads make me shake my head and think: "Who in the hell would post that!?" With that being said, how in the world will the post count matter? If a newbie sees a weird-@^% post, that person will make the judgment themselves. People are smarter than what they are given credit for, just let them prove it.

Anyway, my post was in the Suggestions forum; that means it is for Darren to consider. I don't believe your opinion is what I was seeking.

It wouldn't have been hard for Darren to just allow every member's post to be locked and/or asked that other members not comment upon them. Sense he hasn't, it's clearly within the rights of members to post regarding proposed changes.

 

[SFG75]

I am sorry to carry this on when it all seems over and done with, but I cannot ignore /this/ statement.

How dare you parallel me with racism? When have I /ever/ indicated that I thought myself above another person on this board? I am aware of the injustice in the "seperate but equal" idea, and am staunchly against any kind of seperation regarding minorities.
So, please, enlighten me. How have I in any way indicated that there are certain people on the board who are of more worth and above others?

Sorry about this, but this post really got me angry.

That is a bit of a stretch. He is speaking of the proposed post-count change and it's similarity to segregation. That doesn't equate to "Monkeycatcher is a racist"

 

[Jemima Aslana]

there are those who would use this count as a way to judge the 'real members', as a means to classify people. The reasoning behind this seems to be intellectual elitism.

Having a forum called The Book Forum intended mainly for discussion of books is intellectual elitism. So in order to be completely fair to everyone who may or may not stop by here I suggest we get rid of all seperate fora and lump it all together in one mish mash. There are to be no differences made between anyone.

Whether or not the original intention, it comes across as something highly snobbish. Either way it is explained, it is still explained as means to classify members.

As others have already pointed out: Having a post count at all classifies members as well. When I see people who top out on posts far above other members I always think "wow, what a spammer", sue me for it why dontcha? This is no more seperating people than the other way of counting posts is. I have yet to see why it is such a crime to count what's relevant to the forum and only that. You check in when you arrive at work and you check out when going on break. No one's interested in knowing where you go when you're on break, but checking in when you get back from it is mandatory.

The General Chat is our coffee break, it's not a part of the main focus of the forum, it's a 'side', it's an extra, it's an added bonus for those who are interested. It is not as such a part of the book discussion and though a part of the Book Forum it's not a part of the book forum. And I have yet to see anyone produce any examples of what horrendous consequences it would have to exclude General Chat from the post count.

Segregation? More than therr already is? Oh you mean some people will no longer earn the title spammer, based on their public post count? Well that's a horrid thought, how *will* they ever endure...

 

[SFG75]

Segregation? More than therr already is? Oh you mean some people will no longer earn the title spammer, based on their public post count? Well that's a horrid thought, how *will* they ever endure...

So before, it was to ensure that people would not be tricked into asking bad advice from someone with a high post count, now the proposal is about protecting spammers from themselves?? Once again, people are smart enough to see who posts and what the quality of the given posts are. Trust people to make the right decision(and don't presume to know more than them by doing things for them) and they won't disappoint you.

 

[Stewart]

I'm still livid about losing a great member of this forum over a thread which shouldn't have been posted at all.

Who would that be?

 

[SFG75]

Who would that be?

Robert. But no post count limiting would've saved him.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

Why, on book forums, is everyone's first line of defense when they disagree with something to call the other party elitist?

Because among us elitists the most important thing is to prove that we're not elitists by fooling the enemy by saying the others are elitists

As for the rest:
I have now noticed once again how people think a forum should reflect how everyone is worth equally much - out in the real world.

Well I've got a bit fo news for y'all: This forum is not the real world, it's not even a representative view of a given population.

Let me ask a related question: If you got into a Literature club out in the real world, got together with the other members to discuss the books you've read, and then in the coffee break that you usually take suddenly twice as many people show up, they drink the coffee, eat the Danish bread and generally take up all the room, they are members of the club, but never ever show up for the book discussions. Would *you* invite any of them when you held a little get-together for the people in the Literature Club? Would *you* put *their* portraits and get *their* signatures for the 10-year membership jubilee t-shirt?

Once again on segregation:

By getting online you're already actively segregating people. How dare you have internet when others don't? How dare you eat steak when the children of Africa... yada yada? How dare anyone suggest that The Book Forum cater more to book discussions than to anything else?!?!? What a preposterous idea! If you want discussions on anything and everything go to Above Top Secret, Below Top Secret and Snopes - they have hugely extensive forums that cover everything - and yes, I really do mean everything. But if you're on a Book Forum of all things then you have to expect some form of favouritism towards all things book related - as it should be. Just like Hardstyle forums will show favouritism towards all thing Hardstyle related.

Why do we have so many different educations? By golly we're seperating people. Let's all lump them into one big edu and teach religion, maths, and medicine in the same education - mind you, no one will live long enough to ever finish it, but we really can't have it that everything is not in the same place at once... "You there, don't dare skip your tango-class while doing that brain surgery!"

 

[Jemima Aslana]

So before, it was to ensure that people would not be tricked into asking bad advice from someone with a high post count, now the proposal is about protecting spammers from themselves?? Once again, people are smart enough to see who posts and what the quality of the given posts are. Trust people to make the right decision(and don't presume to know more than them by doing things for them) and they won't disappoint you.

Do try and keep my points seperate from those of others. I have earlier stated that I did not know how widely spread the PM-ing top posters was here and would this not comment on it regarding to that. I stated that if it a concern of the Mods it's a point that ought to be taken into consideration, a Mod has since stated that the PMing people in vain is not a problem here - that's good to hear, I have not mentioned that issue since - don't put words in my mouth, please, gives me such a bad taste.

People are not smart. Individuals can be smart but people, as a rule, are stupid.

Also try and look past the sarcasm and connect my point with the rest of my post. Someone please tell me what the posters who mainly post in General Chat will lose by not having the General Chat posts counted?

Someone? Please? I want to know. I really do...

 

[SFG75]

I was exactly right-a proposal to penalize members for not being "good enough" according to hte judgmetn of others. I apologize for drinking all of the coffee and doughnuts at the meeting.

 

[SFG75]

Someone please tell me what the posters who mainly post in General Chat will lose by not having the General Chat posts counted?

Someone? Please? I want to know. I really do

Well, you said it yourself by likening the post-count limiting proposal to not letting the parasites at a function sign their names on the shirt and having their portraits done. More specifically:

Let me ask a related question: If you got into a Literature club out in the real world, got together with the other members to discuss the books you've read, and then in the coffee break that you usually take suddenly twice as many people show up, they drink the coffee, eat the Danish bread and generally take up all the room, they are members of the club, but never ever show up for the book discussions. Would *you* invite any of them when you held a little get-together for the people in the Literature Club? Would *you* put *their* portraits and get *their* signatures for the 10-year membership jubilee t-shirt?

You clearly imply here that people who post in general discussion are the ones who drink all of the coffee, eat the Danish bread, and take up too much room here at TBF. In your eyes and others, you are taking something away from others here who in your eyes, have too much coffee and Danish bread on this forum. Take away the post count to punish them, it IS a penalizing thing and your post that i quoted defending it and comparing it to revoking some celebration at a party proves it.

 

[Peder]

P. S.

PS: Please allow me to say I am truly sorry to have used an example that has injected the words segregation or discrimination into this forum. They already have specific meanings which are quite different from what we are talking about, so I invite any and all to think of better less derogatory terms for this discussion.
Peder

 

[Stewart]

Robert. But no post count limiting would've saved him.

He stormed of because he couldn't win an argument. Very immature.

 

[SFG75]

He stormed of because he couldn't win an argument. Very immature.

Perhaps so-but that is another issue.