Customer Discussions > History forum

Announcement

Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 424 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 7, 2011 1:38:50 PM PDT
So that we can better communicate upcoming changes and answer customer questions about our forums, we created the Amazon Discussion Feedback Forum:

https://www.amazon.com/forum/amazon%20discussions%20feedback

The forum is designed to give customers a space to leave feedback about what they love and hate about Amazon's discussion boards (neutral comments are also appreciated!). Moving forward, we will also use the forum to announce changes in our guidelines/features so that customers are not caught by surprise.

If you have not already checked it out, be sure to stop by. We would love to hear from you.

-The Amazon Communities Team

Posted on Jul 7, 2011 4:34:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 8, 2011 2:38:24 PM PDT
A says:
The first thing you need to do is either stop banning people for ideological reasons, or admit that you do it.

Secondly, you need to tell anyone who is banned the real reason, and this includes telling which post(s) was in violation. You can't just make the non-specific, and often disingenuous claim that they were 'abusive,' ''spiteful,' or whatever, when everyone can see other spiteful and abusive posters with different views remain on the board for years.

Third, you have to reinstate all the posters who have been banned up to this point, since for the most part it has been under entirely false pretenses.

In short, just be honest, open, and accountable for your decisions to ban from now on. Something you have been abysmally lacking in up until now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2011 5:51:28 PM PDT
M's back says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2011 5:21:17 AM PDT
Jerrie Brock says:
A
Entirely false? Come on, some have been banned for just being offensively ignorant. Disagreement may be tolerable, insults and bad manners are not

If this is the correct area, how about being able to vote topics as non appropriate to a particular forum so we can get some of the political stuff off the history forum. That would be nice for the rest of us and might actually keep the need for having to boot people off this forum at least.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2011 11:04:25 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 8, 2011 11:13:56 AM PDT
Suet says:
Hey Li'l A,

You hit the spot there!

Do you recall John E. Martin? He was the most extreme Jew-hating Nazi apologist that I ever came across, and he lasted for at least eighteen months. How do you figure that?

I suspect he knew where the Amazon bodies were buried! Whaddya say, Nippon-lover?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2011 1:30:56 PM PDT
Susanna says:
LOL!! He gave Amazon quite a lashing there didn't he? He posted the same lecture on their discussion forum.

I suspect A misses John, if he isn't the old devil himself. He never would tell me where he is from :(

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2011 7:27:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2012 5:34:05 PM PDT
To Suetonius, S. Jerrems, Susanna and (reversing the alphabet) A:

As I said in an earlier thread about people getting bounced, Amazon has given us a way to marginalize these offensive, often swinish bigots: the Ignore button. As it happens, I had already blocked some of those swinish types who got banned weeks or months before Amazon axed them. Others are still around, but they don't bother me because I never read them. The only problem is that some of these folks post multiple inanities, one right after the other, often taking up 3/4 of a page on a thread that I am interested in.

(I assume they are inanities. I am well aware that a clock that's stopped is also right twice a day, but life is too short and busy to sit there staring at those clocks waiting for the two times they hit the right time.)

What I would like to see is a function whereby I can block out entire discussions that I don't like so I can quickly find the many discussions I do like. I think we're all aware that many of these threads have little or nothing to do with history.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2011 5:30:03 AM PDT
Sutekh says:
A says:
The first thing you need to do is either stop banning people for ideological reasons, or admit that you do it.

Secondly, you need to tell anyone who is banned the real reason, and this includes telling which post(s) was in violation. You can't just make the non-specific, and often disingenuous claim that they were 'abusive,' ''spiteful,' or whatever, when everyone can see other spiteful and abusive posters with different views remain on the board for years.

Third, you have to reinstate all the posters who have been banned up to this point, since for the most part it has been under entirely false pretenses.

In short, just be honest, open, and accountable for your decisions to ban from now on. Something you have been abysmally lacking in up until now.
---------------------------

Amazon is really about selling products at the end of the day. The discussion forums is just an added bonus, which amazon hoped would be further advertising, someone mentions a movie in the movie forums so people go buy said movie from amazon of course or in the history forum someone mentions a particular history book and people go buy said book from amazon. Course people slagging each other off, "you're a bigot, no you're a bigot" and so on, doesn't sell much of anything and I suspect that's what they'd like to curb, just don't have the man power to wade through 1,000+ posts a day.

Posted on Jul 10, 2011 5:22:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2011 11:12:01 AM PDT
Rachel says:
As far as I know the people who have been banned since I became part of the history community has been for good Amazon reasons.

I am sorry, Richard, I honestly do not have patience for ignorant bigots. We do not make the decisions, but yes, there must be a level of discourse in which writers can't go below that, testing the truth blatantly is one,denigrating others is next, blanketing all people of x group is demeaning. I say a warning and then if necessary a withdrawal.

I don't think you could- or should - being the person you are, approve of people who denigrate others for no real reason except their own view of themselves: that is for holocaust deniers, or Jew haters. Anybody who blankets all people as.... whatever.....yes including Muslims.

I came to Amazon to learn and make friends, not to read hatred, be humiliated, and then told That I don't know what I am talking about.

Simply said, you have already in your knowledge one or several people right here, whose ideology comes before the truth. They don't come to learn and have a dialogue,they have calculated and calibrated hatred and nothing else to do with their life.
Suetonius does know how to handle them, I admire that, but in the long run these people do in themselves and then Amazon acts not us.

I hope all is well with you and your family.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2011 4:44:31 PM PDT
R. Miller says:
Rachel writes "I am sorry, Richard, I honestly do not have patience for ignorant bigots. " and "I came to Amazon to learn and make friends, not to read hatred, be humiliated, and then told That I don't know what I am talking about." I agree with you completely. That being said, the question is why Amazon has not banned Cleo's insane and racist posts and threads. That mystifies me. Just look at the vomit she is spewing at present on several threads.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2011 4:55:37 PM PDT
Suet says:
Cleo is not personally offensive, Robert. I don't think being nuts is, in itself, against Amazon guidelines.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2011 5:16:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2011 5:18:57 PM PDT
R. Miller says:
Wrong Suetonius, she is extremely offensive. She is toxic. Hopefully you don't think racism is wrong only when directed at certain groups and perfectly acceptable if directed at Germans and Japanese.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2011 5:21:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2011 6:26:34 PM PDT
Suet says:
You mean her VIEWS are toxic, and I won't disagree with that. But Cleo is not personally offensive. I hope you can distinguish between those two things.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2011 7:51:45 PM PDT
Jerrie Brock says:
Frankly I think she is offensive and derranged, can anyone say paranoid-schizo? I mean I know she is concerned, but her concern and trying to point it out does border on a little bit of nutty. But I can ignore her (which I do), so that silences her so I do not have to be subjected to it.

However, most of what she discusses is about current issues with Japan and Germany. So I think we should have the right to toransfer her to politics, foriegn relations or some thing where it relevant. And if she continues to invade the history forum with her political points, then she should be banned. Along with most of those posting on Israel and Palastine and much of the other garbage. Throwing in a term like history in the making should be a clear sign that it needs to move.

Posted on Jul 16, 2011 11:20:55 PM PDT
On the off chance someone from Amazon is actually monitoring this thread, I'm going to add my suggested improvement.

Add an button option: I agree with this post I disagree with this post

If people want to register their approval/disapproval fine. That's what the agree/disagree buttons would be for (i.e. to record a vote).

The problem now is that the "adds to the discussion" button is being misused for this purpose. As a result, we have civil, perfectly thoughtful posts being voted into oblivion because people disagree with their content and want to register their disapproval. This becomes a censorship of ideas. It's unfortunate and unnecessary. An agree/disagree option would provide an alternative means of registering disapproval which wouldn't lead to the deletion of the post. IMO, the "does not add to the discussion" option should be reserved for posts that are extravagantly abusive and/or genuinely lacking in content.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 3:09:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2011 5:08:00 PM PDT
Suet says:
Yeah, I've been saying that for years! The present Yes/No buttons should be abolished. Hardly anyone uses them for the intended purpose.

If people want to disagree with a post, they should post their own opinion. Jabbing with a button finger is too easy.

Added: As I was saying ... :)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 7:03:23 PM PDT
Leslie Funk says:
Several years ago I blundered upon this site, and have learned much from many who post here, on a variety of topics. What I seek is an intellectual, honest exchange of ideas and opinions, based on factual history.

There are those who spew hateful and ignorant comments, many times aimed at specific individuals. I am unfamiliar with the guidelines of Amazon in dictating who is censored, and who is banned. I use my own personal judgement, and expell those who offend me and my friends.

We are all entitled to our opinions, and I am grateful for this forum to interact with many people, with many varying points of view. I have personally changed my mind on several topics, that I had my mind made up on, from interaction with informed folks on this forum. Ultimately, it is up to us, as individuals, to police ourselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 9:27:12 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
Leslie Funk makes a good point. An intelligent participant can learn a lot here, but it is always necessary to be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 9:31:07 PM PDT
Jerrie Brock says:
Expell!?! What's that mean? Are you saying that you complain against people who offend you and your friends until they are removed? that's not a very mature thing to do. Unfortunately the world is full of ignorant and obnoxious people, but I don't think they should be banned.

They should be censored, true, but that is already an option. The worse that should happen if they have complaints from say more than ten people is they are suspended for a period. Hopefully that would keep them quiet long enough to allow their brains to re-engage to civility. Too often however some people are passionate enough in their beliefs that they may be offensive, but they are not necessarily bad or have no right to their opinion, regardless of how repulsive it may seem to some of us.

Once again, I would rather have a relevancy vote so that non-relevant topics are either removed or switched to their correct sites. Let people who want to play their games with political or contemporary issues in the correct forum and leave this one to history.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2011 4:59:25 AM PDT
Leslie Funk says:
You misunderstood my point. I have never complained to Amazon to have someone banned. If I find the participant offensive, I simply ignore them...it is my choice, just as it is theirs to post an opinion. Amazon gives us this option at the bottom of each post. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

Posted on Jul 18, 2011 6:22:33 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 26, 2011 2:49:43 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2011 10:38:00 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
They make trusses for that, Joey Danelectro. Of course, a surgical repair is better.

Posted on Jul 20, 2011 3:32:28 AM PDT
I have to say I am amazed at the censorship.... when we grew up we were taught that censorship was imposed "from the top" by dictatorial or totalitarian regimes and that freedom of expression was non negotiable

This forum clearly shows that censorship actually goes "bottom up" and we have a number of people rejoicing that someone has been banned..... Although there are a number of posters who have completely insane or extremist views I dont see what is gained by banning them (or asking to ban them). Why would you want anyone to be censored ?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2011 5:59:49 AM PDT
Jerrie Brock says:
Leslie
Glad to hear. The 'expel' did throw me since ignore doesn't make them go away, just makes it so one does not have to be subjected to their ignorance. I personally prefer that since many times it is purely my own feelings that are ruffled not others. Besides, some times some of these more offensively, aggressive actually make a valid point. It is a pity that they do not realize their attitude or mean spirited comments do more to turn people off than their viewpoint. They lose more than censoring can ever accomplish.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2011 8:29:46 PM PDT
Can you please remove the YES/NO boxes.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
423 May 28, 2014
Jewish Myths and Facts - Questions and Answers About a Living History 8107 11 minutes ago
A Place For Pro-Israel Posters III 4400 15 minutes ago
History of the Palestinian Nation (Part III) 2639 33 minutes ago
Kennedy Assassination II 3994 50 minutes ago
Summer 1914 Day-by-Day Crisis Timeline 64 1 hour ago
Who killed JFK on November 22nd, 1963? What are some of your answers and beliefs? 715 1 hour ago
General Douglas MacArthur 1880--1964 35 3 hours ago
June 22, 1944 379 4 hours ago
August 6th, 2011 the 66th Anniversary of the Dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima 279 5 hours ago
General Douglass MacArthur VS General George S. Patton. ...Battle Of the Super Generals 8 16 hours ago
The Expected War and the Proposed General Strikes 7 17 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  69
Total posts:  424
Initial post:  Jul 7, 2011
Latest post:  May 28, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions