Conquer Club

I don't know if I'd be accepted in such a group but I'd like to try. Perhaps you'd let me in on a probationary status. I think it's a fantastic idea. Chatter Box has been going downhill for quite awhile.

I recommend an invite-only group... ie you contact who you shows themselves to be "civil". Otherwise, as has been stated earlier, you're just going to wind up with the same problems that already exist in the chatterbox.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I recommend an invite-only group... ie you contact who you shows themselves to be "civil". Otherwise, as has been stated earlier, you're just going to wind up with the same problems that already exist in the chatterbox.

One step ahead of ya!

I've been contacting members during the last couple of weeks who share our sentiments. Most of the time the response is positive. We'll start with that invite-only group as you mentioned. Nice to have you on board, Ambrose!

Wow, great idea

I've been waiting for someone to step up and suggest something like this. Chatter Box is just lame with all the insults and stuff. Please add me to the list of people interested in joining.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I recommend an invite-only group... ie you contact who you shows themselves to be "civil". Otherwise, as has been stated earlier, you're just going to wind up with the same problems that already exist in the chatterbox.

not so... since this would be a clan forum, he would have the ability to toss anyone that showed a disdain for the rules and a propensity to break them. sounds easy enough to moderate. the real issue would be with how/when a person is deemed to have crossed the line far too many times, and how that person was removed/voted out... that could cause some serious division.-0

owenshooter wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I recommend an invite-only group... ie you contact who you shows themselves to be "civil". Otherwise, as has been stated earlier, you're just going to wind up with the same problems that already exist in the chatterbox.

not so... since this would be a clan forum, he would have the ability to toss anyone that showed a disdain for the rules and a propensity to break them. sounds easy enough to moderate. the real issue would be with how/when a person is deemed to have crossed the line far too many times, and how that person was removed/voted out... that could cause some serious division.-0

Gee, that sounds familiar.... There isn't a more public version of what you've just described, is there?

In there like swimwear.


In other words, I would like to join your clan. Pl0x.

I'd be willing to join this. I've never actually contributed to the discussions in the chatter box, but that is mainly because I always see how closed-minded most of them are to other points of view. If this debate forum could remain calm and sensible, I would be glad to share my views.

owenshooter wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I recommend an invite-only group... ie you contact who you shows themselves to be "civil". Otherwise, as has been stated earlier, you're just going to wind up with the same problems that already exist in the chatterbox.

not so... since this would be a clan forum, he would have the ability to toss anyone that showed a disdain for the rules and a propensity to break them. sounds easy enough to moderate. the real issue would be with how/when a person is deemed to have crossed the line far too many times, and how that person was removed/voted out... that could cause some serious division.-0

i think this should ba a zero tollerance( how ever you spell it... )
you cross the line once, you're ousted. it would be better that way i think.
people know what the rules are and what the " clan" is for, thats why they join. if they break the rules once, then they dont really care about it...

Mr. Squirrel wrote:I'd be willing to join this. I've never actually contributed to the discussions in the chatter box, but that is mainly because I always see how closed-minded most of them are to other points of view. If this debate forum could remain calm and sensible, I would be glad to share my views.

ditto

xerro wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I recommend an invite-only group... ie you contact who you shows themselves to be "civil". Otherwise, as has been stated earlier, you're just going to wind up with the same problems that already exist in the chatterbox.

not so... since this would be a clan forum, he would have the ability to toss anyone that showed a disdain for the rules and a propensity to break them. sounds easy enough to moderate. the real issue would be with how/when a person is deemed to have crossed the line far too many times, and how that person was removed/voted out... that could cause some serious division.-0

i think this should ba a zero tollerance( how ever you spell it... )
you cross the line once, you're ousted. it would be better that way i think.
people know what the rules are and what the " clan" is for, thats why they join. if they break the rules once, then they dont really care about it...

i'd go more with a 3 strike rule because if someone is having a bad day and someone hits that spot that sets them off then it should be a strike not an automatic ban we all have the days were everything goes wrong so i think the 3 strike rule would be a better way to handle it

Smokingdude420 wrote:

xerro wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I recommend an invite-only group... ie you contact who you shows themselves to be "civil". Otherwise, as has been stated earlier, you're just going to wind up with the same problems that already exist in the chatterbox.

not so... since this would be a clan forum, he would have the ability to toss anyone that showed a disdain for the rules and a propensity to break them. sounds easy enough to moderate. the real issue would be with how/when a person is deemed to have crossed the line far too many times, and how that person was removed/voted out... that could cause some serious division.-0

i think this should ba a zero tollerance( how ever you spell it... )
you cross the line once, you're ousted. it would be better that way i think.
people know what the rules are and what the " clan" is for, thats why they join. if they break the rules once, then they dont really care about it...

i'd go more with a 3 strike rule because if someone is having a bad day and someone hits that spot that sets them off then it should be a strike not an automatic ban we all have the days were everything goes wrong so i think the 3 strike rule would be a better way to handle it

I agree with smokingdude, zero tolerance is a little harsh. Even Twill tends to warn people before he bans them.

Grooveman2007 wrote:

Smokingdude420 wrote:

xerro wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I recommend an invite-only group... ie you contact who you shows themselves to be "civil". Otherwise, as has been stated earlier, you're just going to wind up with the same problems that already exist in the chatterbox.

not so... since this would be a clan forum, he would have the ability to toss anyone that showed a disdain for the rules and a propensity to break them. sounds easy enough to moderate. the real issue would be with how/when a person is deemed to have crossed the line far too many times, and how that person was removed/voted out... that could cause some serious division.-0

i think this should ba a zero tollerance( how ever you spell it... )
you cross the line once, you're ousted. it would be better that way i think.
people know what the rules are and what the " clan" is for, thats why they join. if they break the rules once, then they dont really care about it...

i'd go more with a 3 strike rule because if someone is having a bad day and someone hits that spot that sets them off then it should be a strike not an automatic ban we all have the days were everything goes wrong so i think the 3 strike rule would be a better way to handle it

I agree with smokingdude, zero tolerance is a little harsh. Even Twill tends to warn people before he bans them.

I think it would depend on how bad the statement was and if it was directly against the rules outlined, if something sets you off you don't have to post on it. I think it is a great idea and would like to join.

Thanks to Fuzzy Penguin for giving me the heads up on how to proceed with this officially. The positive pm's coming into my inbox supporting this have also been appreciated.

trapyoung wrote:amen. wwjd, obviously create a new forum.

uh huh?
I can't get past your sig trap, what were you guys talking about?

Smokingdude420 wrote:

xerro wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I recommend an invite-only group... ie you contact who you shows themselves to be "civil". Otherwise, as has been stated earlier, you're just going to wind up with the same problems that already exist in the chatterbox.

not so... since this would be a clan forum, he would have the ability to toss anyone that showed a disdain for the rules and a propensity to break them. sounds easy enough to moderate. the real issue would be with how/when a person is deemed to have crossed the line far too many times, and how that person was removed/voted out... that could cause some serious division.-0

i think this should ba a zero tollerance( how ever you spell it... )
you cross the line once, you're ousted. it would be better that way i think.
people know what the rules are and what the " clan" is for, thats why they join. if they break the rules once, then they dont really care about it...

i'd go more with a 3 strike rule because if someone is having a bad day and someone hits that spot that sets them off then it should be a strike not an automatic ban we all have the days were everything goes wrong so i think the 3 strike rule would be a better way to handle it

That's not surprizing coming from you.

I think there should either be zero tolerance or 1 strike you're out.

Gregrios wrote:

Smokingdude420 wrote:

xerro wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I recommend an invite-only group... ie you contact who you shows themselves to be "civil". Otherwise, as has been stated earlier, you're just going to wind up with the same problems that already exist in the chatterbox.

not so... since this would be a clan forum, he would have the ability to toss anyone that showed a disdain for the rules and a propensity to break them. sounds easy enough to moderate. the real issue would be with how/when a person is deemed to have crossed the line far too many times, and how that person was removed/voted out... that could cause some serious division.-0

i think this should ba a zero tollerance( how ever you spell it... )
you cross the line once, you're ousted. it would be better that way i think.
people know what the rules are and what the " clan" is for, thats why they join. if they break the rules once, then they dont really care about it...

i'd go more with a 3 strike rule because if someone is having a bad day and someone hits that spot that sets them off then it should be a strike not an automatic ban we all have the days were everything goes wrong so i think the 3 strike rule would be a better way to handle it

That's not surprizing coming from you.

I think there should either be zero tolerance or 1 strike you're out.

do you have anything better to do then to follow me around and comment on my comments? I think the 3 strike rule would be a great idea because some people are annoying and just don't get it.

Smokingdude420 wrote:

Gregrios wrote:

Smokingdude420 wrote:i'd go more with a 3 strike rule because if someone is having a bad day and someone hits that spot that sets them off then it should be a strike not an automatic ban we all have the days were everything goes wrong so i think the 3 strike rule would be a better way to handle it

That's not surprizing coming from you.

I think there should either be zero tolerance or 1 strike you're out.

do you have anything better to do then to follow me around and comment on my comments? I think the 3 strike rule would be a great idea because some people are annoying and just don't get it.

How is any of that relative?

Gregrios wrote:

Smokingdude420 wrote:

Gregrios wrote:

Smokingdude420 wrote:i'd go more with a 3 strike rule because if someone is having a bad day and someone hits that spot that sets them off then it should be a strike not an automatic ban we all have the days were everything goes wrong so i think the 3 strike rule would be a better way to handle it

That's not surprizing coming from you.

I think there should either be zero tolerance or 1 strike you're out.

do you have anything better to do then to follow me around and comment on my comments? I think the 3 strike rule would be a great idea because some people are annoying and just don't get it.

How is any of that relative?

well that doesn't surprise me that you don't get it. (Everyone loses patients with comments being made. So that's why i think 3 strikes is better then 1 because people put stupid comments and its hard to not be rude.)

Smokingdude420 wrote:(Everyone loses patients with comments being made. So that's why i think 3 strikes is better then 1 because people put stupid comments and its hard to not be rude.)

I appreciate your comments. I think most of that can be avoided by the type of people we allow in. Since it's going to be a private & voluntary type of forum, we're all interested in actually listening to the other people and their opinions. That's something I see lacking in Chatter Box.

Just to add something funny and I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I believe you meant to say patience (not hospital patients)

your right i did i figured gregrios would have pointed that out because i noticed he put relative which means they're related i think he meant to say relevant. But thank you protected your right i did mean patience.

Hooray for civility!

yeah, when you start a thread about a place for civil discussion, and the civil discussion ends after a few pages, i hope you realize it is doomed to fail!!-0

Smokingdude420 wrote:your right i did i figured gregrios would have pointed that out because i noticed he put relative which means they're related i think he meant to say relevant. But thank you protected your right i did mean patience.

Yes I did mean relevant. In the process of trying to think how to spell it I somehow ended up with the spelling of another word. Go figure.

owenshooter wrote:yeah, when you start a thread about a place for civil discussion, and the civil discussion ends after a few pages, i hope you realize it is doomed to fail!!-0

not at all

I think the fact that smokingdude and protectedbygold just had a civil conversation proves that it can take place

Perhaps people thought I was being sarcastic. I was really saying Hooray because they were both being civil.