New rules

[srb7677]

But the point is, if you made offensive comments to someone in a bar and got your face punched, it wouldn't necessarily be because you'd won the argument

For sure. If I did that I'd be asking for a smack in the mouth. Though when it comes to debate - whether in a pub or otherwise - stooping to insults is often a sign of someone becoming heated and wound up. This can be because he is himself losing the argument, or it could be in response to provocations.

In the same way someone acting like a **** on an internet forum is not necessarily winning an argument either. Some posters on here are not interested in debate, intelligent or otherwise, they are playing immature games

I agree. But though you and I often disagree I hope we can both acknowledge each other to be generally honest debaters when it comes to saying what we genuinely think. I like to think I don't play immature games for the most part and if I ever behave badly it is usually due to deliberate wind ups and provocations, which some specialise in as a form of politically loaded trolling. I have one particular poster in mind as I say that

[DeppityDawg]

In circumstances like that probably not, but in any fight originating from a heated debate it usually is.

Luckily then, this is an internet forum, so any fisticuffs are only going to be virtual ones

But the point is, if you made offensive comments to someone in a bar and got your face punched, it wouldn't necessarily be because you'd won the argument

In the same way someone acting like a **** on an internet forum is not necessarily winning an argument either. Some posters on here are not interested in debate, intelligent or otherwise, they are playing immature games

[srb7677]

Resort to violence or the threat of it is usually a sign of loss of cool due to loss of argument.

So, if a person made offensive comments about someone else to their face in a pub, and a fight broke out, that would be due to a loss of argument?

In circumstances like that probably not, but in any fight originating from a heated debate it usually is.

[papasmurf]

So, if a person made offensive comments about someone else to their face in a pub, and a fight broke out, that would be due to a loss of argument?

The last time anything like that happened to me other people in the pub threw the nasty person out of a window in the bar out into the street, before I had time to react.  (The window was open.)

[DeppityDawg]

Resort to violence or the threat of it is usually a sign of loss of cool due to loss of argument.

So, if a person made offensive comments about someone else to their face in a pub, and a fight broke out, that would be due to a loss of argument?

[Borchester]

I've said I'm in favour of less rather than more rules, and I'm not in favour of rules that shield the type of immature wanker I was referring to from getting back what they are only too happy to dish out

Reminds me of a union meeting some years back when a member of Militant, or whatever it was in those day, was having a row with another member. Finally the latter said right, you, me, outside on the stones. We all gathered round and calmed things down, but afterwards the militant asked why the other chap had acted the way he did. And someone said, welcome to the real world 

Resort to violence or the threat of it is usually a sign of loss of cool due to loss of argument.

That is pretty much what the Militant said, but he was still lucky to get away without a smack in the gob 

[srb7677]

I've said I'm in favour of less rather than more rules, and I'm not in favour of rules that shield the type of immature wanker I was referring to from getting back what they are only too happy to dish out

Reminds me of a union meeting some years back when a member of Militant, or whatever it was in those day, was having a row with another member. Finally the latter said right, you, me, outside on the stones. We all gathered round and calmed things down, but afterwards the militant asked why the other chap had acted the way he did. And someone said, welcome to the real world 

Resort to violence or the threat of it is usually a sign of loss of cool due to loss of argument.

[Sheepy]

You have let me down BYT, the place is falling apart without you.

[Borchester]

I've said I'm in favour of less rather than more rules, and I'm not in favour of rules that shield the type of immature wanker I was referring to from getting back what they are only too happy to dish out

Reminds me of a union meeting some years back when a member of Militant, or whatever it was in those day, was having a row with another member. Finally the latter said right, you, me, outside on the stones. We all gathered round and calmed things down, but afterwards the militant asked why the other chap had acted the way he did. And someone said, welcome to the real world 

[DeppityDawg]

No I am not referring to your obvious caricature of liberals and lefties, but to thoughtful members right across the political spectrum. And I could never describe this forum as an echo chamber as it is. Both left and right post freely, as exemplified by both you and I. A separate section where all are free to troll and insult the f**k out of each other serves little useful purpose and would generate feuds and animosity that would not be limited to that section. How would this forum or the cause of intelligent debate benefit from that?

I was referring to an actual poster on this forum, by example to illustrate my point (no, not you). And tbf, if he is a caricature, then they are not exactly uncommon across the political spectrum are they, since many posters are guilty of lampooning their opponent with unkind characteristics or descriptions, you included - what is wrong with caricatures of "lefties" when caricatures of Brexit voters are routinely and sneeringly offered about by the usual ("oh I am sooo much better educated than you...) suspects?

I've said I'm in favour of less rather than more rules, and I'm not in favour of rules that shield the type of immature wanker I was referring to from getting back what they are only too happy to dish out

[srb7677]

I very much doubt whether most thoughtful members want an anything goes subforum either. It is logically obvious that such a subforum would encourage the generation of animosity that would spill over onto the rest of the forum, as well as unhelpfully creating a venue where those who don't go there can be insulted and slandered behind their backs. A paradise for bullies too. You may yearn for that. I suspect that most do not.

By 'thoughtful' members, do you also include the sneering, post and run type individuals who only come here (by their own admission) to make disparaging comments aimed at others class, ethnicity or heritage?  A nice, safe little space where privileged liberals are able to talk down to others without fear of any comeback? Because without a proper gloves off right of reply, that's what these places become. Little echo chambers for snooty c**ts and elitists

You may yearn for that, but I "suspect" most do not. Not the posters who are worth reading anyway

No I am not referring to your obvious caricature of liberals and lefties, but to thoughtful members right across the political spectrum. And I could never describe this forum as an echo chamber as it is. Both left and right post freely, as exemplified by both you and I. A separate section where all are free to troll and insult the F@@@ out of each other serves little useful purpose and would generate feuds and animosity that would not be limited to that section. How would this forum or the cause of intelligent debate benefit from that?

[Nick]

How about a section where you can say what you like and if other posters don't like it then they can do the other thing?

There's not a single admin or moderator in favour of a "The other Place" on this forum, Borchester, so it's not happening.

So the forum is run for the benefit of the admin and the moderators and the ordinary posters don't count?

Fair enough, as long as we have that settled.

It's run in a manner as to have as little Mod intervention as possible. The rules are there to aid that, unfortunately things don't always go to plan.

[Sheepy]

Really? You're saying I'm allowed to advertise a forum if I create one?

No. I did not say that and I think you know that.

I think you are making mischief knowing there is another rule about that.

I have been internet-connected since the days when compuserve used id's along the lines of 200173.1855 and you had to pay to receive email

I had a web presence (velvetwd.demon.co.uk) in the days when naming conventions restricted you to eight characters max per subaddress

Therefore I recall usenet, and its FAQ's, as if it were yesterday. And first among its FAQ statements, on the subject of upstream service provision, was the fact that The Internet was *NOT* "fair", and that if your internet provider chose not to pass down the particular usenet group you wanted,your options were to put up and shut up, to find a different usenet feed (which would almost certainly cost you money) or create your own usenet feed (which definitely would)

Whilst openly posting links to other fora was a breach of the former site's rules and might be a breach of this one (i have not looked that hard) if you wish to create your own private hell PM me and I will pop over and clog it up with babble and shite for a laugh if you wish ... But if you are going to put it on tapatalk, count me out,. Bloody horrible place, and far to intrusive. I deregistered as owner of the forum created there for me and handed it over to others when we were migrated from the zetaboards site i created.

No not trying to be mischevious - I was taking you at your word. And I have.

I will take a look later.

[Nalaar]

Regarding the blasphemy rule, it was something I gave a lot of feedback about previously, as I am a staunch anti-theist, however it has absolutely not been an issue in the time I've been a member or moderator, and given the discussions that have been had in the religious forum on the board I doubt it will be an issue going forward unless someone was determined to make an issue of it, which would probably involve breaking other forum rules anyway.

[Borg Refinery]

Really? You're saying I'm allowed to advertise a forum if I create one?

No. I did not say that and I think you know that.

I think you are making mischief knowing there is another rule about that.

I have been internet-connected since the days when compuserve used id's along the lines of 200173.1855 and you had to pay to receive email

I had a web presence (velvetwd.demon.co.uk) in the days when naming conventions restricted you to eight characters max per subaddress

Therefore I recall usenet, and its FAQ's, as if it were yesterday. And first among its FAQ statements, on the subject of upstream service provision, was the fact that The Internet was *NOT* "fair", and that if your internet provider chose not to pass down the particular usenet group you wanted,your options were to put up and shut up, to find a different usenet feed (which would almost certainly cost you money) or create your own usenet feed (which definitely would)

Whilst openly posting links to other fora was a breach of the former site's rules and might be a breach of this one (i have not looked that hard) if you wish to create your own private hell PM me and I will pop over and clog it up with babble and shite for a laugh if you wish ... But if you are going to put it on tapatalk, count me out,. Bloody horrible place, and far to intrusive. I deregistered as owner of the forum created there for me and handed it over to others when we were migrated from the zetaboards site i created.

No not trying to be mischevious - I was taking you at your word. And I have.