[bootlegga]

Now that we've had two within a short period (about 2 weeks), I suggest that these become a reason for a short time in jail (say a week or two).

First, we had Derby's attempt to get GFPB an anti-Canuck medal, which received one vote in support and tons of commentary, which I suppose is what he really wanted. Then this weekend we had Tricks do the same to Mr. Canada. While it didn't run to 11 pages and 150+ responses, it did generate some comments. While Tricks said he did it simply to provide a counter-point to Derby's attack on GFPB, that doesn't make his thread any less offensive, after all, two wrongs don't make a right.

I avoided both threads (posting only once in Derby's saying it was moot) mostly because they both seemed childish and petulant to me. It's one thing to debate someone in the forum and call them a jackass or whatever, but to blatantly go out of your way to attack someone in this fashion is immature and IMHO, unacceptable.

I'm sure someone will say that this stifles free speech, but I would argue that everyone's actions should have consequences. If you are going to go out of your way to be an asshole, then you should be punished for it. And since this wasn't a rule or condition prior to this, neither Derby and/or Tricks should be punished for their recent threads, but I do think future offenders should.

If there are any doubts as to whether a future nomination is an attack or not, the would-be recipient would be the final authority on whether or not he/she feels it is a personal attack or not.

Hopefully this will bring some civility to the forums for a short time.

[Tricks]

bootlegga bootlegga:

While Tricks said he did it simply to provide a counter-point to Derby's attack on GFPB, that doesn't make his thread any less offensive, after all, two wrongs don't make a right.

I did say clearly to Mr_Canada that I do not wish for him to get the medal, and said I would support it if he were nominated for Uber_Canuck.

[kaetz]

ehm... i don't remember Tricks writing any real insults in that thread... and actually being immature is his own problem... if you don't like it, just ignore...

[Tricks]

kaetz kaetz:

ehm... i don't remember Tricks writing any real insults in that thread... and actually being immature is his own problem... if you don't like it, just ignore...

Well....I did say bitch...

[Blue_Nose]

Medals mean nothing to me anymore because of the garbage associated with them, like you mentioned.

There's also the case of people just nominating their so-called "friends" for various medals - I think these are just as bad and cheapen whatever honour these medals are supposed to represent.

[Scrappy]

I think this Medal should go to Maggie, she attacks for the fun of it. Or do you have a PMS Medal you could slap on her?

[DerbyX]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Now that we've had two within a short period (about 2 weeks), I suggest that these become a reason for a short time in jail (say a week or two).

First, we had Derby's attempt to get GFPB an anti-Canuck medal, which received one vote in support and tons of commentary, which I suppose is what he really wanted. Then this weekend we had Tricks do the same to Mr. Canada. While it didn't run to 11 pages and 150+ responses, it did generate some comments. While Tricks said he did it simply to provide a counter-point to Derby's attack on GFPB, that doesn't make his thread any less offensive, after all, two wrongs don't make a right.

I avoided both threads (posting only once in Derby's saying it was moot) mostly because they both seemed childish and petulant to me. It's one thing to debate someone in the forum and call them a jackass or whatever, but to blatantly go out of your way to attack someone in this fashion is immature and IMHO, unacceptable.

I'm sure someone will say that this stifles free speech, but I would argue that everyone's actions should have consequences. If you are going to go out of your way to be an asshole, then you should be punished for it. And since this wasn't a rule or condition prior to this, neither Derby and/or Tricks should be punished for their recent threads, but I do think future offenders should.

If there are any doubts as to whether a future nomination is an attack or not, the would-be recipient would be the final authority on whether or not he/she feels it is a personal attack or not.

Hopefully this will bring some civility to the forums for a short time.

How exactly can someone nominate someone else for a negative medal like annoying, flamer, A-C, etc without it being a personal attack?

I stated quiite clearly my reasons and it was supported by respected members such as Scape and Streaker not to mention the PMs I received who thought it true but felt the bashing of eastern Canada by some westerners has simply become the vogue thing to do and wasn't worth the headache arguing with them about.

A negative medal is a personal attack and with good reason.

The only other way around this is to simply put those medals (or most medals) entirely at the descretion of the mods which the forum discussed quite a while back and was supported by many.

[Hardy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Now that we've had two within a short period (about 2 weeks), I suggest that these become a reason for a short time in jail (say a week or two).

[......]

It's one thing to debate someone in the forum and call them a jackass or whatever, but to blatantly go out of your way to attack someone in this fashion is immature and IMHO, unacceptable.

[......]

If you are going to go out of your way to be an asshole, then you should be punished for it. And since this wasn't a rule or condition prior to this, neither Derby and/or Tricks should be punished for their recent threads, but I do think future offenders should.

If there are any doubts as to whether a future nomination is an attack or not, the would-be recipient would be the final authority on whether or not he/she feels it is a personal attack or not.

Hopefully this will bring some civility to the forums for a short time.

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Medals mean nothing to me anymore because of the garbage associated with them, like you mentioned.

There's also the case of people just nominating their so-called "friends" for various medals - I think these are just as bad and cheapen whatever honour these medals are supposed to represent.

I generally agree with both of those statements, although I'm a little reluctant to make the jail sentence solely a choice of the would-be recipient, mostly because I think that would lead to friends of the nominating party (wrongfully) jumping all over the person for having their pal jailed. If Trev would be willing, I think I'd prefer that no medal be awarded if a given number or percentage of parties object (either by posting or through a poll). Those who propose medals which are killed by popular acclaim could be eligible for a spanking. That would also put an end to: "I nominate X for (right-wing/left-wing/etc.)" [because they have shown poor judgement in their posts and are an embarassment to people of their political persuasion].

[USCAdad]

I'm just glad I got my spleler medal before all this broke out. Slelers untie!

[-Mario-]

USCAdad USCAdad:

I'm just glad I got my spleler medal before all this broke out. Slelers untie!

BTW Congrat

[bootlegga]

Tricks Tricks:

bootlegga bootlegga:

While Tricks said he did it simply to provide a counter-point to Derby's attack on GFPB, that doesn't make his thread any less offensive, after all, two wrongs don't make a right.

I did say clearly to Mr_Canada that I do not wish for him to get the medal, and said I would support it if he were nominated for Uber_Canuck.

For me it was the intention/rationale behind the nomination that was offensive, not the wording/tone of your nomination.

It was in essence, retribution for DerbyX's nomination instead of something you actually believed in, whereas DerbyX's was probably an honest opinion of how he feels about GFPB (right or wrong), yours was nothing more than a cheap shot on a third party.

[Dayseed]

Actually, I've got to agree with Blue_Nose.

For the most part, the medal system hasn't actually rewarded those with the goods. They seem rather to be smiley-faces heaped on people who know other people. Of all of them, the Hilarious! Medal seems to be the most abused of all.

I said before the medals are the forum equivalent of Animal Farm bottle-caps; George Orwell wrote the rest of that comparison.

Derby's right too. How could nominating somebody for a Flamer medal not be a personal attack? You've reduced their commentary to a littany of insults or baits. Shouldn't Derby be allowed to nominate people for the Anti-Canuck medal based on whatever criteria he thinks is relevant?

[Tricks]

bootlegga bootlegga:

For me it was the intention/rationale behind the nomination that was offensive, not the wording/tone of your nomination.

Intention? Of? My intention was to make a point. If Mr_C is offended I used him as a perfect example, then I apologize to him. My intent was to make a point. Clearly it was made considering the tremendous silence of the parties who supported GFPB's nomination.

$1:

It was in essence, retribution for DerbyX's nomination instead of something you actually believed in, whereas DerbyX's was probably an honest opinion of how he feels about GFPB (right or wrong), yours was nothing more than a cheap shot on a third party.

Third Party? I don't think Mr_C minds, and I believe he agrees with me. Sorry, when I see such a blatant double standard, I have to say something.

[bootlegga]

DerbyX DerbyX:

How exactly can someone nominate someone else for a negative medal like annoying, flamer, A-C, etc without it being a personal attack?

I stated quiite clearly my reasons and it was supported by respected members such as Scape and Streaker not to mention the PMs I received who thought it true but felt the bashing of eastern Canada by some westerners has simply become the vogue thing to do and wasn't worth the headache arguing with them about.

A negative medal is a personal attack and with good reason.

The only other way around this is to simply put those medals (or most medals) entirely at the descretion of the mods which the forum discussed quite a while back and was supported by many.

It's one thing to nominate someone for a 'negative' medal, but I thought it was pretty lousy for you to do so while GFPB was in jail. Had you done it while he was free, I'm sure it would have been no big deal, and probably wouldn't have sparked Tricks to emulate you with his own silly nomination. However, your timing prevented him from sticking up for himself, so others on the site felt obliged to do so, creating a partisan argument, with the righties leaping to his defence and the lefties trying to crucify someone who couldn't say anything back.

All in all, it was a bit of a farce. That was why I steered clear of it (and Tricks' thread).

It was also why I started this separate thread, to hopefully find some way to prevent these childish attacks in the future. Honestly, I don't care how the situation is resolved, just so long as it is, otherwise the medal forum will need to be monitored every minute to prevent others from engaging in this silliness.

[Tricks]

bootlegga bootlegga:

and probably wouldn't have sparked Tricks to emulate you with his own silly nomination.

Still would have. Timing is not a factor. It was why he was nominated.