Re. blockagesPosted by Dorothy on 7/31/05 at 01:59 (179509)
For the record: I do not think Elyse should be blocked. I did not vote for or against Elyse or anyone else to be blocked or not blocked. I would not vote for blockage of anyone. I would solicit the owner and/or moderators to stop the nastiest of the posts that have occurred. The rules should be clear and then fairly enforced. Robert B. makes an excellent point about the questionable integrity of the 'voting' process. As for the content of Elyse's posts, no I'm not a fan at all, but so what? Her posts - the most virulent of which were directed at me - were annoying, tedious and relentless, IMO, but I don't think they warranted her being blocked. There have been posts/posters whose posts were beyond the pale, but they weren't blocked. I hope she will be unblocked, not because I enjoy her posts but because I think fairness is important. Then I hope that the voting thing will be eliminated. Then I hope that the moderators or the owner will be more diligent and fair and logical in the deletion of posts based on clear and consistent guidelines. Then I hope Elyse and Susan will find new outlets for their rancor. But blocked? Nah. There have been obscene, ugly, foul, lyin', cheatin', hatin', mean, dirty nasty posts/posters that should have been blocked, but for some unknown reason they weren't. I don't 'get' the rules. I think 'be nice' is a laudable instruction, but its enforcement is not evenly applied, and 'nice' is way too open to interpretation. So on that basis, as well as on Ralph's points and DavidW's points and Robert B's points, I hope that Elyse will be unblocked. If she's ever unblocked, I hope that she and Susan can direct their energies to doing some good in the foot-health world and stop gnashing their teeth about Dorothy, doctors, ESWT, orthotics, and what-all. I think that having the option of voting against another poster will only have a suppressive effect on other posters who will either not post at all or will severely modify their posting style, out of fear of 'the vote'.
Yes, most posters here would like for posts to be more constructive and helpful than they have been in recent times, but maybe a critiquing system such as the one that some commercial sites use could be considered - one that allows for readers to click on 'this post is offensive...' kind of thing. That allows for critiquing the post, rather than the poster. Seems more humane somehow. The punishment seems rather harsh just for being annoying. I think that immediate blocking should occur for the obscene, or hateful posts or those advocating violence, but maybe there could be some other way to address the merely maddening posts.
Re: Re. blockagesLiboralis on 7/31/05 at 06:58 (179514)
Maybe the webmasters doesnt have the time and energy to keep having to come out to the sandbox and yell at adults to stop throwing sand in peoples eyes.
I dont like to censor either but my bet is Scott could make a board category called Everything About Foot Pain By Elyse and she would have spent more time chasing some docs on the ESWT board. If you make a few Docs leave then the eswt board would become a bunch of un-answered questions about it or answers to people by non-medical folks with an axe to grind.
One example is a great site http://www.doityourself.com it has a huge forum for everything you can think of for home garden car repair etc. There are people on there that are experts in given fields. If I go to pool and spa section and ask, how do I remove a jacuzzi pump to replace it I will get some great answers in a short time. What I wont get is someone saying Jacuzzi sux, I bought one and the guy was a crook.....dont buy from them
See what I mean?
Re: Re. blockagesSuzanne D. on 7/31/05 at 07:59 (179516)
Hi, Dorothy! I am going to start a new thread to chit-chat with you after I write this. I have wanted to say 'hello' to you since I first saw your post the other day but have been trying to stay out of controversy. However, this morning I have decided to put in my 2 cents worth on the subject of banning.
I compare this board to my classroom (I compare everything to my classroom!), and with that comparison, I see ScottR initiating the new features to try and help the board function better. Sometimes I have to initiate new rules in my classroom when the 'normal' procedures aren't working, and things are getting out of hand. I would prefer to exert less control, but if I do not feel my class is receiving the best education under the present situation, I will make changes to assure that they will.
Scott rightfully could (and has in the past) just shut the board down for awhile, so I appreciate that he is attempting a new system to try to make things better. I was a little taken aback by the button for 'vote to block this poster' (and haven't used it), but I think, unfortunately, that it may be necessary. I try to ignore and ignore diesagreeable posts, but it's hard to maintain the flow of conversations without reading an entire thread. And the disagreeable posts just make for a negative environment in which to post and discourage many from doing so. I know I have posted far less in the past several months because I have grown weary of the often negative atmosphere.
I don't mind at all for someone to disagree, but it always seems to get so personal. It's like the little children at school who follow one another around to say mean things. I tell them, 'You don't have to play with that person. You don't even have to like them. But you will treat them with respect, and you will not follow them around and mistreat them. Leave them alone'.
Just my opinion,
Re: Re. blockagesKathy G on 7/31/05 at 10:27 (179531)
The way I viewed the 'voting' part was that if Scott got enough people voting on one particlular person, he would probably get in touch with that person and ask him/her to tone it down. I've never watched any of the reality shows but I didn't think it was akin to voting to what I believe 'voting someone off the island' is.
I hadn't read any of Elyse's posts because as Suzanne said, it's just too tiresome and I was also away. I like a lively discussion as much as the next guy, but I also believe that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all when it comes to message boards where one's body language and voice tone can't be seen.
I think Scott's searching for a way to keep his boards open and encourage all of the former posters to come back and welcome the new ones and I am pleased with his attempt. It sure beats taking the boards down.
Re: Re. blockagesScott R on 7/31/05 at 15:25 (179546)
Dorothy, she had warnings. I spelled out rules just for her and Dr. Ed to keep them out of trouble. But she continued to goad Dr. Ed and posted some bad stuff when Dr. Ed was no where around in response to someone besides Dr. Ed. You don't want blocking, but you want me to stop the nastiness. What exactly are you proposing me to do to stop the nastiness without blocking the nasty people? Constantly following them around the message board deleting posts i don't like?
Re: ScottR I have a ?marie on 7/31/05 at 22:59 (179589)
So what if someone has a grudge against someone........say it's a difficult poster to begin with.......how would you, (Scott) know that the vote was for legitimate reasons and not someone goofing around hitting the buttons? What if lets say, Ray starting voting every nice person off the island.........how will you (Scott) know it's him for sure or someone else?
Re: ScottR I have a ?Scott R on 8/01/05 at 09:33 (179631)
Marie, i am only considering votes from people and their computers that I can recognize. The button tells me 4 pieces of information that are unique to that poster.
Re: ScottR I have a ?marie on 8/01/05 at 12:26 (179648)
Re: Re. blockagesEd Davis, DPM on 8/01/05 at 22:08 (179690)
Elyse, unlike any people here who have trouble walking across the street, had a major issue with her anger at not being able to tun the New York Marathon. I was forced to chase here around the site as she spread 'medical' information which she knew was not accurate and refused to look at evidence that showed her to be wrong. She was wronged, based on her history, by several podiatric physicians and seemed to use that as a reason for providing readers/posters with misifnormation and continued hostility toward myself and Dr. Z. I am here as a volunteer because I enjoy helping people. I don't get paid for being here and don't expect financial renumeration. Several doctors inclduing Dr. Wander simply don't want to be looked on as the site 'physician' because that places a burden on us, that, as people who we feel are concientious, placing us in a position to chase a person spreading innacurate medical information and seemingly doing so volitionally throughout the site.
Re: Re. blockagesEd Davis, DPM on 8/01/05 at 22:12 (179691)
No question, trying to moderate a site this size is a difficult proposition. I don't know any was to do it outside human effort. I don't think one can buy softwear that can do that type of work.