We seem to have entered the serious advice-giving phase of the thread. (sits here smiling, because he's been waiting for it).
I'd like to take this opportunity to boast I can solve every problem that's been mentioned on this thread with one simple sentence. "Support your arguement".
If you agree with something, say why. If you disagree it isn't enough to tell someone he or she are wrong and present the statement as if it's correct because you just said it, and therefore came straight from God. Tell them what makes your arguement better. Post your references.
This is such a basic debater's and essay writer's tool, it shocks me it's never mentioned. Supporting your arguement leads to something called intelligent conversation.
Supporting your arguement has spin-off effects. Watch I'll show you what I mean. I said earlier it could solve all the problems previously mentioned.
I have to support this by bringing up One-Eyed Xander's concern a draconian banning of all bashing threads could create intolerance for intelligent critiicism as well as the brainless stuff. (One-Eyed Xander is now officially drawn into the conversation. See what I mean. Welcome Noob.)
OEX has a valid concern. The kind of thing he suggests could happen, does happen. The first example that jumps into mind is George Bush using 9/11 as an excuse to quash people's right to privacy. Now people in his cabinet are suggesting stuff like the government should know what Mp3s are in your private collection.
Excessive rule-making can create more problems than it solves, so don't do that. Here's the solution. Support your arguement.
If you're going to tell me you don't like pennies, tell me why.
If I say Jordan Levin is a dick (and he is), that's brainless bashing, but if I say Jordan levin has done some things that are, wrong, tell you what they are, and what makes them evil, no-one can say I've done anything except offer intelligent criticism. They can disagree with me of course. If they do they should support their arguement. It won't bother me, but it will lead to a 3 page debate.
This leave's me with Rene's observation that threads such as "What BB member would you invite to your birthday party?", are exclusive, and lead to the formation of cliques. She's right of course, but how can supporting your arguement solve that one?
If I make a comment like, "I want Spangel'sFantasy to come to my birthday party", it's only supportable by the fact I like Spangel's Fantasy. It implies I like Spangel'sFantasy at the expense of say Spuffy'sRevenge. This is a bad, and unacceptable arguement on a message board, because it leads to the formation of cliques. It can be dealt with as such under a "Support your arguement" regime. Everything has to have a reason, and that reason must be supportable.
I remember another one of those BB members threads that in my mind was acceptable. It had to do with casting BB members in BTVS parts. In that case it started off fine. People were suggesting all manner of BB members; noobs, and vets for parts and explaining why that person would be good for the part. Eventually though, it degenerated into a popularity contest. People were picking members, and not saying why. Do you see where I'm going? As long as choices were supported with explanations, intelligence was in the mix, and everything was friendly.
So there you have it; my solution to all your problems - support your arguement. SYA.
