Should people be allowed to start threads attacking a person that's not allowed to post in that thread?

This is what Keeed's question should have been, since people already have the ability to respond to personal attacks in other threads.

yall postin in a troll thread yall

"No" voters love to be chained.

Keeed is SO mad. So, so mad.

Background reading for anyone interested, for whatever reason:

Paul D started a thread to "rank the PU tards" and excluded spank and Alex, because their combined whining tends to overwhelm any thread.

#dudebitterly was so furious about being listed that he created his own thread to complain about all the people who've ever been mean to him, while excluding any of these people from the thread for no reason other than that they've made fun of him.

Arguments from keeed to jj have been that this shouldn't be allowed because it too closely resembles the forum rule that we are not allowed to attack people who don't post in unchained. In essence, if you can't defend yourself, it shouldn't be allowed. JJ responded that you can defend yourself, just by taking the posts from one thread into another thread.

The rule allowing one or both threads may be changed as a result of this poll, so ask questions now and vote if you care. Ironically, #dudebitterly cares so much that he's following this issue like a hawk and trying desperately to troll anyone who responds, saying that they're mad because they're following the issue at all.

Go read the mod thread, by all means! Keeed's incessant whining speaks for itself and, quite frankly, on its own makes my thread totally worthwhile.

Why I voted no: mostly because it makes my life easier.

Also, because I think it detracts from the forum - leading to lots of stupid threads with no substance.

The excluding of posters from a thread makes a lot of sense when it's used to keep the discussion on an issue that that poster would otherwise detract from. But when that poster is the subject it's hard to argue that their presence would detract from the argument.

Yeah man he even made a thread about how everyone is mean to him!

You could always unilaterally say that those kinds of threads are not allowed. Or that we don't need more than one thread about posters we don't like.

Plenty of options.

I think this is the best case scenario, whereas the worst case is just people setting up literal echo chambers. Also (and more on topic) I think it's a pretty lame possible outcome where you have a bunch of threads with people dissing posters and high-fiving each other without any repercussions. I can't really articulate why, but if I showed up and saw a forum like that, I'd lol and leave immediately.

I think your idea is really cool in general jj, but I think it's fairly likely that it will end up being 'this is why we can't have nice things'. DiB is predictably starting the decline. Whatever though I'm sure that soon enough you'll get tired of all the modding requests and can the whole thing.

BTW DiB, your thread is pathetic. You know that kid in the playground who will shout at other kids from behind the teacher because he knows otherwise he can't be a douche without getting his ass beat? That's you

I don't care.

I could. It may be the 'this is why we can't have nice things answer'.

I have some other ideas for how to deal with this crap that I'm sure many of you will find ******ed too.

I'm serious though about trying to find a way a forum can be run without a dictator. Which is why I refuse (at this point) to just do what I want.

But some things are just fundamental. Like, "You have the right to confront your accuser." This isn't a concept I've just made up. It's a basic, fundamental concept in debate. It's just basic fairness. You don't need to be agnostic on common sense stuff like this. You know that I'm right. Why wait for the vote?

My thread turned a fully grown man into a sniveling baby (Keeed), got JJ to threaten to ban Goofy, and has pissed off most every respected reg ITF.

As one of the forum's most detested heels, that thread is on my top 5 list of greatest forum accomplishments.

Unless you're being tried in kangaroo court for sexual assault, amirite?

Patently flase, these don't exist

Keeed, you know there are other threads in this forum, right? Like is the misunderstanding just that you think only one thread is active at a time?

Also, it's not a debate. Someone said mean things about your anonymous internet posting. Grow a pair and get over it.

If you weren't already aware of this post:

then your post is like a million times better than it already is, smokey

In a forum like this, of course every thread can be considered a debate. What do you think debate is?

Him not growing a pair is what got this poll approved. You've rewarded his whining and, as such, encourage future whining.

If his whining was indicative of the majority opinion of forum regulars - why wouldn't I do what he wants?

You're right, you should really be THANKING him for not growing a pair. Otherwise it would have taken you much longer to #dudeliterally appease the regs.

Going down a path that creates a lot of CHAINS imo.

If you're going to do the self modded thread thing it's only fair to let it devolve to its natural conclusion. Insults are cool here, and if somebody wants to come off that weak- let 'em.

LOL. Thanks for pointing that out (and the compliment), I'm actually lolling at bitters typing that because I was really going for the most exaggerated version of what I was picturing.