'Idiot' when used on forum usually means that the person using it disagrees vehemently with the person being accused of idiocy, but has no argument, couldn't be bothered with argumentation, or offers very flimsy argument, to support that disagreement.

Pied Piper welcome back.

If I'm understanding it correctly Graham is working to lift the tone of discussions. From my view too many thread's were getting bogged down in pointless personal battles between the same set of combatant's. Some like that stuff, others don't and as moderator Graham has to work out if that's what he want's the site to be.

He made the point recently that it can be difficult to get people to write quality material for the site and that's made more difficult if author's are subjected to abuse rather than genuine discussion of their articles (or so I interpreted his comments).

I'd prefer Lexi's approach and hope that Graham is successful in his efforts to clean up some stuff.

There does need to a differentiation between rebutting idea's and arguments and attacking people, no point posting here if having idea's criticized will get someone all bent out of shape but people should not have to toughen up regarding abuse to be able to take part as some have suggested when the topic has been raised previously.

R0bert

This is just another thread to criticise and undermine the moderation of the site.

It is inconceivable that any of the posters in this thread, all of whom would appear to be seasoned users of the Net and apparently active on more than one forum, could ever be ignorant of the definition of flaming and the necessary steps taken by moderators to control it.

OLO would have to be one of the most flexible and permissive forums I have come across insofar as allowing personal abuse and rants is concerned. By way of example, what other forum would ever allow the insulting labelling of article contributor and members alike as racists, xenophobes and religious nuts? Where else are names changed to insult the owner? The sole purpose of being here for a few is to set up and play destructive parlour games, especially 'let's you and him fight'. Personal attacks discourage others from participating and there is at least one long thread on OLO where that very subject has been discussed. At the time, members volunteered to assist in ensuring the rules and intent would be upheld.

Forum rules exist through public demand, to ensure that people participating in these forums are treated with respect and enjoy a positive experience. On all sites the rules are incontestable. It is usual for people found in violation to have their names removed from the database. It is usual for repeat offenders to be unable to make future contributions or visits.

Moderators strive for fairness and objectivity. However it is a subjective process that is not perfect and even Solomon would seem to be flawed and inconsistent in the eyes of some who would very much prefer to fight instead of having a reasonably polite, informative discussion.

All agreed to comply with the rules before being given approval to post and it is damned poor form to squib on that agreement or attempt to circumvent. Sledging the moderator is especially gutless. A more honest approach for the disaffected would be to leave quietly to find a site more suitable to their taste elsewhere.

But George saying “idiot” in reply to a post could actually be the readers digest version of a well thought out and intelligent response explaining in various ways why the person is an idiot, said something idiotic or/and is idiocy personified.

It is precise, succinct and to be appreciated for its mere simplicity in a world gone mad bloated with double meanings, excessive punctuation and spin. Idiot could show the person replying has no reason to show case their intelligence or grandstand at this point.

They did not feel the need to impress others with their grasp of the written word or even want to donate the time to educate someone who they considered really too stupid to grasp anything beyond a few suitably placed together letters.

In one small uncluttered declaration you will find the collective written works of man if you take the time to step back and let your imagination soar.

Idiot it is a towering inferno of text, it is a burst of literary lightening that becomes the firestorm, and idiot clasps a power in its tiny little fist that when wielded at the right time has all the potential to transcend mere flaming with the heat of a thousand suns.

Out of curiosity… was it you George, did Pelican call you an idiot?

Hey R0bert, always good to see you. I agree people shouldn’t have to toughen up to contribute or be heard but then we have to set some kind of toughness bar to begin with?

So there has been a change… I should have stopped and read for awhile first and I might have worked it out instead of stepping back in to what I recalled as the assassin infested corridors of OLO.

I will miss the challenge though, reasoned and well thought out conversations on a comfortable bench in the hallway are one thing but a sudden attack launched from behind a coat rack encouraged one to be alert when walking alone.

TPP, "I will miss the challenge though, reasoned and well thought out conversations on a comfortable bench in the hallway are one thing but a sudden attack launched from behind a coat rack encouraged one to be alert when walking alone."

Maybe so, depends on your personal preference, but the discussions have improved noticeably since moderation returned to the site rules. More members volunteered comments outside of the 'regulars' and there were new people joining and coming forward which was a pleasant change.

It was recently implied in a post addressed to yours truly (by a clownfish who shall remain nameless), in the course of a mere line and a half, that I was naive (I inferred this, the least of my personal failings), "full of it" (one hesitates ask of "what" exactly), a "w@nker", a "fool" and/or a "deceiver".
Of course I was very grateful to have had these gratuitous attentions lavished upon me, and didn't realise I ought to be taking offence until I happened upon this thread.
After consideration, however, I'm inclined to think the tone is hypersensitive at times on OLO, and that if the flame is unjust it stands as an enduring reproof against the flamer rather than he/she who remains chaste and unblemished.
On the other hand, I have to confess that at one time and another I have indeed been guilty of all those abominations named by that canny clownfish, ergo I hardly think there's occasion for me to take offence when a kindly old trout takes an interest in my moral and intellectual development.
Certainly we have to have rules. But occasionally they have to be broken, on passion or principle. My own proud moment of self-immolation occurred early on in the course of the Great Monkton Purge, alluded to above, and I reflect on my my time in purgatory with self-esteem.
My kids, btw, are terribly conformist! (they must have got it from their mother). Despite frequent admonishments on my part, urging them that rules must on occasion be broken, sometimes for no good reason, they seem bent on disappointing me and continue on compliantly obeying all the rules!