Should people who don't live in Brixton be banned from posting in this forum?
- Thread starter Domski
- Start date
There has been unpleasantness from a good number of posters in this debate, across more than one thread, and also a good and healthy pinch of humour. Sorry to hear that the latter has gone over your head. I recall also what AK said about eggshell personalities.miss minnie said:
The dynamic of a thread like this changes all the time. One minute it's all spikey and next people are laughing. Personally, I think that's great. As much as one might like to, you can't control the way an argument is going to go.
You usually elect people when you want someone to actively go round doing things - hence having a manifesto and getting a 'mandate' to take certain actions. However, moderating a forum is a more like the judiciary - trying to have a fair and agreed set of rules that can be applied impartially, keeping a stable and consistent environment that people can choose to come and use, having a designated person who has a general responsibility for policing the place and settling disputes. This isn't really a role that lends itself to competative and "sectarian" (ie party political) elections and the position isn't really the same kind of 'decision making power' that members of a legislative or executive have. People should be careful when talking about democracy to not forget the importance of fairness, impartiality and justice - and never forget that to even have elections you will always need someone to organise and oversee the elections in the first place.Gramsci said:
Wooo - I am having "theory" withdrawal symptoms... better get back to the right folder eh?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
TeeJay said:You usually elect people when you want someone to actively go round doing things - hence having a manifesto and getting a 'mandate' to take certain actions. However, moderating a forum is a more like the judiciary - trying to have a fair and agreed set of rules that can be applied impartially, keeping a stable and consistent environment that people can choose to come and use, having a designated person who has a general responsibility for policing the place and settling disputes. This isn't really a role that lends itself to competative and "sectarian" (ie party political) elections and the position isn't really the same kind of 'decision making power' that members of a legislative or executive have. People should be careful when talking about democracy to not forget the importance of fairness, impartiality and justice - and never forget that to even have elections you will always need someone to organise and oversee the elections in the first place.
Wooo - I am having "theory" withdrawal symptoms... better get back to the right folder eh?
Top post
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
miss minnie said:
Funnily enough did not cross my mind when I posted up-but I did remember later on .Fair enough comment-you know how some of those groups we were involved fell apart under what were basically personal animosities and all the power struggles that did go on in groups.
I think the experience of that affects my posting style.I havent survived in groups without unconsciously learning how to deal with them.My posting style whilst opinionated and argumentative rarely ever goes into "shouting" mode.I just get on with my job in my group and in the long run people see that.
Ive seen in groups people "savage" each other.I make up my own mind on the situation.I support one or neither or let them get on with it.In the case of HB I agree with Intostella that it comes across as a lynching-so Ive made it clear I want him to stay.
