Self Editor

Forum: pol
Page 3383
Subject: The future of this forum

Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 12:49

It's clear that the tenor of this forum has evolved to a point that it no longer suits many of the past and present users. In the past, when I've taken steps to throttle back some of the harsh comments, I've generally been advised to back off and let the forum self-police. And so, I've generally taken that approach.

I don't think the issue is at all unique to this forum. Over the years, the whole tone of public political discourse has moved to one of shouting, demogoguery, & belittling, with almost no interest in listening, understanding, and constructively criticizing. So it's no wonder that this forum has trended down that path as well. And as those who found that approach to be unappealing have left, those who were willing to perpetuate that approach have become more dominant.

As you all know, the RotoGuru site was not designed to be a site for political discussion. This forum area was an accommodation to some regular users who wanted a place to discuss the presidential campaign - most likely the 2000 campaign. Following the momentum generated during that campaign, it continued as a place to delve into a wide diversity of topics - political, social, scientific, and others.

I have no interest in actively monitoring and "preserving the peace" in this forum to the extent that it would apparently be needed. That's not where my interests lie. And frankly, very little of the dwindling financial contributions that I receive to maintain this site come from the those who continue to actively post here. That's not universally true, of course. But if I were to shut down this forum area entirely, I do not think it would have a material impact on the finances of RotoGuru enterprise. And it might even help, to the extent that this forum has become an irritant to some.

So, there are several courses of action I can consider

I can simply delete forum entirely.
I can let the forum continue as it is.
We can attempt to adopt a more civil tone - perhaps a "zero tolerance" policy. Anyone message or reply which contains a personal attack, an insulting smear against a class of people, or anything else construed to be outside the bounds of civil discourse will be deleted in its entirety.

I don't know whether the latter option is feasible. I do not want to be the sole - or primary - arbiter. I'll need several moderators to assume that primary role. Frankly, I'm not sure there are enough of them still around to handle that task.

Perhaps there are other alternatives, and I'm open to suggestions. But asking me to periodically block certain people from posting is not a viable means of control in the longer term. For openers, in a forum which does not require registration for posting, the ability to block posts is limited, and clever people can usually get around it. Second, from what I've seen lately, the list of those who could legitimately be banned is not short, and I have no interest in refereeing that decision. If that is the preferred direction, then I would prefer to simply shut down the Politics forum.

Thoughts? Other viable options?

And by the way, this thread has a "zero tolerance" policy as well. I want a constructive discussion on the direction of this forum, and not a finger pointing exercise on which posters have been the most abusive.

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 13:10

0. Thanks for taking this seriously.

1. There's no point in letting it continue as it is.

2. Obviously, a system of moderation would be superior in principle to taking the machete out. as you note, there are two problems:

a) Are there enough moderators to handle the task?

b) Would those moderators be trusted to handle things impartially?

Given the current situation, I think the answer is no, at least not without significant supervision from you, and you seem (for generally decent reasons) to be unwilling or unable to provide that level of supervision.

If you cannot implement any sort of permanent banning feature, then any other level of punishment is meaningless. The same disruptors will just change their names and come back for more. There's no point in throwing out the idiots through a revolving door.

If continual provocations and disruptions to otherwise productive discussions are going to be allowed to go on unfettered, then there's no point in attempting to have a productive discussion. It's difficult to ignore someone who is shouting in your ear with a megaphone, and if the megaphone can't be taken away, eventually someone's going to punch the guy with the megaphone in the face. And that's what happens here, over and over.

Even moderation by a perfect, impartial observer won't work to change this.

So, as far as I'm concerned, shut 'er down. Which is a shame, because there are any number of interesting and valuable bits of information I have gleaned from posters here from all over the political spectrum.

SeattleZen on Vashon
ID: 2511151811
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 13:11

I would vote "Three".

In the past, when I've taken steps to throttle back some of the harsh comments, I've generally been advised to back off and let the forum self-police.

I know you have stated this many times, but the only time I remember anyone advising you to "back off" was Toral many years ago. I suspect you remember that because he was a frequent poster and perhaps one of the only who is a peer to you, at least in generation terms.

I disagreed with that suggestion by Toral years ago and still do. This is your forum, please insist upon a level of discourse that you would be proud of. Feel free to delegate that authority to people you trust. Simply erasing posts has two positive effects: it removes offensive statements and angers and discourages the authors of these statements. At some point, when the authors of these ridiculous statements realize that their words are simply ending up in the trash bin, they will move on.

I would certainly miss the Political boards, but you are correct in pointing out that we are not carrying our load with donations.

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 13:14

I would like to think that 3 would work. I really would. I would just be very concerned that the will of the disruptive forces would be greater than that of the moderators.

Wilmer McLean
ID: 271130176
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 13:18

Maybe there can be icons on each post.

1) Report Abuse Icon -- Enough clicks from various people and the moderator can choose to delete the post.

2) Rate the Post Icon -- People can rate a post on a scale of zero to ten.

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 13:22

On admittedly limited reflection, it's worth a try--if only because it leaves the most final option open for later use.

I am probably thinking more with my heart than with my head on this one, though. It is fairly obvious that at this point, there are individuals whose primary (if not only) purpose is to be disruptive, not to engage in political debate and discussions. And I suspect that the will of those individuals to continue to be disruptive is very strong.

Frankly, it doesn't even bother me in the least to be called an idiot during a political debate. Once it was even true! ;) But I'm a lot more tolerant of it when it consists of "you're an idiot, and here's why".

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 13:28

A "report post" feature would be great.

Of course, that assumes a system in place to have someone to report the post TO.

If implemented, the number of people reporting the post before a post is reviewed should be one.

Frick
ID: 9103036
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 13:40

From my perspective 1 and 2 are pretty similar. The majority of the threads here are mostly yelling, screaming and name calling from both sides. As such I will skim them at most and ignore ones that I know are nothing more.

I would like to see #3 happen, but I can appreciate why it won't due to the amount of work and headaches it will likely cause for Dave. I hope that you go with option 3, and give everyone a clean slate. Sadly I feel that a number of people from both sides will quickly find themselves asked to leave. I would love to keep this area going as it is a great resource from my perspective to get view points on widely different individuals who have no more common interest than a love of fantasy sports.

holt
ID: 308491916
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 13:46

"shouting, demagoguery, & belittling, with almost no interest in listening, understanding, and constructively criticizing."

Pretty sure that wasn't just a reference to one or two people that some of you have in the front of your mind. Virtually everyone here is guilty of these things to some degree (especially the belittling and no interest in listening part). The trolling spawns from the antagonistic attitudes (are there any examples of poli forums that aren't full of antagonism and extremism?).

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 13:53

"Virtually everyone here is guilty of these things to some degree (especially the belittling and no interest in listening part)."

I'll agree and admit to being part of that on occasion. I think most of us probably would.

Except for the no listening part. I do make an effort to read any actual, productive post, even from the people I perceive as crackpots--which of course necessitates reading all the posts, including the ones full of nothing but hateful vitriol.

If moderation is to be successful, it will be successful because right now, there is no effective way to ignore the posts which are offensive (and note: I mean genuinely offensive, not just "I disagree with your views a lot" offensive), except to not visit the forum at all. And if everyone exercised that particular option, there wouldn't be much point in having it at all.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 14:11

Given that there seems to be at least some sentiment for keeping this forum going on a more civil basis, let's assume that options 1 and 2 are off the table for the moment, and work on an approach for continuance. If it fails, then I'll simply shut it down. But we might as well give it a try.

I'm leery of a "report" button. When I've tried that sort of thing in the past ("Rate this thread", etc), it has quickly been co-opted for other purposes or agendas. I do not believe it would become a reliable indicator. I could set up a special email address - something like "moderators@rotoguru1.com" - that people could use to report abuse. That email address would be directed to all moderators. At least, that approach would have some limited degree of accountability, since the message would have to come from someone (and the credibility of the complainant could be weighed). An anonymous "abuse" button seems like a programmatic change (and more work for me) that would quickly outlive its usefulness.

To make this work, I would need a small stable of "stable" moderators. I would most likely not make those names public. I'm not sure who I would delegate for that role - but I'm open to suggestions. If you are interested, or have someone to suggest, please let me know via email. I don't want a public nomination process.

Ultimately, the moderators would have to exercise discretion as to what flies and what does not. I would ask them to err on the side of caution. If a post is considered borderline, then it probably crossed the line. Ultimately, my role would be primarily to monitor the actions of the moderators.

There will always be instances when a posting ban will have to be attempted. While the technology is imperfect, it can at least bring temporary relief when an abuser simply goes too far. That approach has been satisfactorily exercised multiple times in other RotoGuru forums, but seldom here. One occasional benefit, though, is that it has often resulted in direct email contact with the poster so that I can explain my decision, and lay down standards in a non-public format. It also gives me a way to identify and achieve a means of contacting people who are sometimes otherwise completely anonymous.

But it is not foolproof.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 14:21

My personal approach will be to just drop off the best finds of the internet and leave the discussing to others. Very hard when being baited but I'll try to leave it at that.

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 15:11

While that's probably an improvement on the current situation, I would think that if you are unprepared to defend the factual content and opinions of your posts, it would be best not to bother at all.

This goes back to holt's post #8. If there is no listening, there is no debate--there is only people shouting at and past each other.

If you want your own personal repository for what you consider interesting stuff, without audience comments and criticisms, then it would behoove you to start your own blog.

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 15:30

I think that the problem isn't how people utilize this forum in that way. It is the tendency toward non-productive personal attacks, often over perceived injustices from other members.

I'm still thinking all this over myself, and I hope that over the weekend the usual members will take the time to do so as well. This reflexive attacking that occurs simply has to stop.

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 15:34

Moderation can and would help with the reflexive attacking.

Unfortunately, I think the reflexive attacking is not the entire problem. Reflexive attacking usuall stems from something. If we are starting from a point of constructive discussion and debate, things need to go a fair ways down the road before the devolve.

Deliberate and purposeful attacking is the major problem. And I don't see how, given the tools available, those deliberate attacks are going to be stopped in a meaningful way.

I do hope I'm wrong.

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 15:41

Well, if you weren't such an idiot you would see things my way.

:)

Any personal attacking is wrong and we need to put the brakes on. The mechanism for that can be hammered out, but personal responsibility is the key to it all.

No one (even me) is compelled to respond to any post on this forum. And no one should respond to posts which are clearly made with the intention to provoke irresponsible responses.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 15:43

[14] You may be right.

When this issue first came to a head about a month ago, I started monitoring this forum more actively, just to see if I could identify (and call attention to) posts that were out-of-bounds, and also to see how widespread those tactics had become. Interestingly, for awhile I thought things had moderated significantly - to the point that I stopped the rigorous monitoring.

Evidently, it didn't take very long for the rancor to reassert itself. Calling attention to it had a short life of effectiveness. So I assume that we either need aggressive enforcement of civil standards - at least until such behavior becomes the intuitive norm - or else until it is clear that the enforcement activities are not worth the effort.

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 16:08

The posts on the political forum is a reflection on the way issues are debated in the country. There really is no debate. If someone disagrees with someone else they are attacked. That has to change.

JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 16:26

I very very rarely add my 2 cents to the political forum, though I do enjoy reading many of the threads, usually to understand other's points of view when intellegently and thoughtfully crafted.

For almost 10 years, these message boards have brought me so much pleasure in terms of having discussions on fantasy play, sports in general, and entertainment, with people around the world who I share common interests with. People do not need to join or register to participate and I think that helps people take that first step to freely participating without feeling any sort of discouragement. I hope this website and these forums stay that way for many years and years to come.

The formats of these boards are in my opinion far superior to anything else on the web, and I sincerely believe that RotoGuru.Com was ahead of it's time in terms of developing a social network and the electonic online interactivity that has been coined "Web 2.0".

I cringe to think that now things may have to be done that could adversely change the dynamic that is now in place.

I think one thing that would help remind folks in this and the other forums as well, would be a link to a 'desired code of conduct' page where the link can be placed near the "Post Now" button. It would hardly deter those who prefer to bait everyone else, but it would be a reminder for others who may rethink the tone of the post they are about to contribute.

One other thing that would help is the occasional reminder to everyone to just try their best not to address or respond to any porovacative post that they find crosses the line, you are not going to change their position and only feed into their desire for attention and validation.

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 16:33

Jeff, with all due respect (and I appreciate your opinion), I think that a "code of conduct" item woulod be pointless. Most of us already know what generally is to be expected.

The violations occur either due to some combination of blind rage, provocation, and not giving a damn what the right code of conduct is but solely posting with the intent to piss someone else off.

Also, reminding people to, essentially, sit there and take it does nothing to punish the provocateurs in the first place. It'd be like telling the pedestrian in the crosswalk they shouldn't be mad at the driver who ran the stop sign and drilled them in the back.

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 16:37

In the past, when I've taken steps to throttle back some of the harsh comments, I've generally been advised to back off and let the forum self-police.

while i believe at one point this was much appreciated, i also believe that the times, and level of discourse on this forum, have changed.

what may have been good a decade ago - in nearly anything, including the moderation of this forum - may not be good now.

in another thread, i suggested a zero-tolerance, and would love to see that put into play.

It's the personal attacks that are too much - be it mocking someone's failed marriage or repeatedly calling people idiots, morons, brain-dead, et al.

From a personal level, i think it's perfectly acceptable to call someone's beliefs asinine, provided you can explain why.

it is not ok, however, to call that person asinine. Much like Major League Baseball, where it's to say to the umpire "that call sucked!" but not ok to say to the umpire "you suck!", we need to take the personal savagery toward one or another out of this.

but with this, comes enforcement. And whether it's Guru directly, or a small council of 3 or what have you, there has got to be enforcement.

Banning someone from the board, only to allow them back, isn't going to accomplish much, other than showing the banned person there are no teeth to the punishment.

this political board is very different than other political boards, in as much as we all share a love of fantasy sports, and play in many leagues together. Both on through the political forum, and other forums.

i believe civil discourse is possible. But i think the training wheels have to be put on first to help some of us along.

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 17:32

being a former major league umpire either of those comments would be an automatic ejection :)

sarge33rd
ID: 2011371816
Fri, Dec 18, 2009, 17:37

While it does not address directly, the "how to" remedy things; I believe NG in post 17 hit the nail on the head.

Political discourse in this nation; has collapsed inward upon itself and reverted to 7 yr old playground conduct. (Yes, I include myself)

FWIW, I want this forum to continue. Any number of posts,I have found helpful/educational in the past. The problem that sometimes arises here, is the same as some of the news reports. Editorializing presented as fact; and then defended as such with no real evidence given to do so. This inevitably, leads to name calling, labeling etc.

A little self-reflection, may be what is truly called for. Perhaps a 2nd "are you sure you REALLY want to say this?" button before a post is submitted. It might give one pause to reconsider whether their post is substantive or reactive.

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 00:03

I think while the current state of this forum lends itself to little more than cheap-shots and empty dogma, it used to be a place where thoughtful research was rewarded and welcomed.

Though I don't expect it to return to that golden age, I think we can nurture that attitude with the right carrots and the right sticks.

There are still people who, if told of an effort to diminish the attacks and increase the level of discourse, might be willing to return and contribute. MITH comes to mind most prominently, but there are number of others that have contributed positively to constructive discussions, and we should attempt to reach out to them. We should also nurture new posters who are thoughtful and non-dogmatic.

On the stick side, those who have shown fairness with those who they don't agree in the past should be granted the power to delete posts, and to do so liberally, consistently and evenhandedly.

I have no interest in moderating, but I will do my best to rise to the challenge and contribute where I can and raise the level of discourse, if possible.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 00:47

I think there would be merit in rating after all.

I think a big problem is that sometimes people are in contribution mode but some people are always in chatroom mode. Thus they feel free to post endless content-free emotes and snides which beg cooresponding replies.

Sometimes chat mode can be friendly and fun. Might get dry without any of it. You'd think this crowd could handle trash talking if any crowd could.

If there was a way to remind the poster that they have not provided anything of substance in the last post or the last series of posts...

The problem is that conservatives are outnumbered 30-1 so the pure numbers of criticisms be 'fair and balanced'?

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 03:54

Would the ratpack that drowns opposing views down with booing, just be replaced with the ratpack that votes to silence opposing views?

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 05:11

Just thinking out loud here, I guess if a neutral moderator could be found it wouldn't matter how organized the fraternity of booing were at voting.

Could PD really be that neutral? I would have thot so years ago. Not so confident in that anymore.

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 08:32

It's not about booing or making a list of who's conservative, liberal or somewhere in between.

It's about respect.

Yesterday, you posted,

find me anyone here who is capable of understanding english.

which is like saying,

"I don't respect anyone on this board."

That's not a good premise for respectful dialogue. While there are posters, including myself, who haven't been disrespectful of some of your positions and statements, how are we to move beyond such disdain when just a couple hours ago you characterized those with opposing views as the ratpack?

I'm inclined to support Guru's #2:

I can let the forum continue as it is.

If that leads to #1, so be it. If we, as adults, aren't capable of maintaining the basic civility that our society mandates, then we don't deserve the outstanding forum that Guru has provided for us these past 10 years.

That would be a shame, because there remains a community and a brotherhood here which isn't easy to find in this world. That community and brotherhood includes Baldwin, Tree, Bauxman, Sarge, Jag and anyone else, regardless of how left, right or center their positions.

I would ask each poster here to look inside themself and make a committment to respect. I think that's all Guru is asking.

Building 7
ID: 43735169
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 09:55

I used to post in the political forum up until October 20, 2009. That was when I found out that apparently it is OK to insult and make personal attacks to posters in that section only. For years I tried to clean it up, and now it looks like I was just wasting my time, as supposedly it is permissible. Occasionally I would link to Dealing with Abusive Messages , which now apparently does not apply to the political section. Rarely did I return the insult or personal attack. Now, I don't think I deserve that or should have to put up with that. So I wrote some new kumbaya lyrics and left. I figured that is what the liberals would be left doing, since I am one of the few conservative posters that they had not yet runoff with their insults and personal attacks. Both sides are guilty of this, but there are about 10 to 1 liberals here. It sounds like things have further deteriorated after my leaving. I don't like either major party. I'm for smaller government. Anyways, I have a solution, but I don't know if it is do-able.

I like to post on financial topics and so-called conspiracy stuff. But for some reason they are included in the political section. This seems to be a catch-all for topics that do not have a section. Would it be possible to create a new section called: Money, Stocks, and Finance or something. Even better, if the corresponding threads could be moved there. Some others could also be created like medical, war stuff, etc. I don't understand why people who want to post on those matters have to be subject to the "insult rule" just because it got stuck in the political section. The "gaming and entertainment" and "computer forum" do not have to put up with it. If you move the non-political topics out of the political section, and put a warning about insults allowed somewhere in the new revised political section, I think it would improve matters. My guess is the new finance section will have more posts in a week than the Aussie Rules Forum will have all year. Again, I do not know if this is feasible or is a mountain of work for guru.

Or people could be civil.

Texas Flood
ID: 7101698
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 10:02

This forum serves some strange need for 10-15 users. It's a
little clique and if you don't agree with the clique you're shouted
down and chased away. Rotoguru was a great site at one time
but in all honesty its kind of "Jumped the Shark".

I still use a couple of the features but I seldom post here and I'm
hardly part of the "Community". If this forum is closed all the
garbage will just spill over into the other forum's so my
suggestion would be to leave as is and user beware!

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 10:57

[28] Setting up a new forum area is not difficult.

Moving threads from one forum to another is a royal pain. If it is important, it can be done. But it is largely a manual operation.

I guess I would raise the question - is providing more segregation of forum topics a good idea? While I admit that there are a lot of non-political discussions in this topic area, does segregating them into additional topic areas facilitate anything? Or is broader discussion more likely if active threads are all in a common place?

PuNk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 11:13

Most of the OT Topics go into the Political, is there a way to make Subforums in the Poli one?

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 11:32

The problem is that conservatives are outnumbered 30-1 so the pure numbers of criticisms be 'fair and balanced'?

Would the ratpack that drowns opposing views down with booing, just be replaced with the ratpack that votes to silence opposing views?

Guru - if responding to part of a post like what i'm doing here is not in the spirit of the discussion, please feel free to delete.

I think, in a microcosm, the above comments sum up a lot of the problems here. Granted, 30-to-1 is a silly number because that would imply close to 100 regular posters on this forum, and i don't even think we're 20 percent of that number, but the bigger picture is the sense of persecution the more conservative posters like Baldwin and Bauxman seem to feel.

Although i think it's a false sense they're feeling, the point is they do feel it, and come out swinging, and (something most of us are guilty of here), it tends to belittle their point, and considering the political "battleground" the country at a whole is in, it quickly descends in to bickering and out and out insults from all involved.

and that ruins the chance of discussion.

it's also led to the departure of other posters, which is a shame. MITH, who despite our battles on here, is one of the best posters this forum has ever seen. B7, who i actually don't think of as a conservative, just a little right of center with some whacky (in a good way. seriously) conspiracy theories to keep us on our toes. And even MBJ, who didn't really "leave", but rarely posts these days. And I used to think he was one of the most conservative posters here, and if i recollect, in my early days here, we battled pretty savagely.

I miss all those posters, and the many other who come and then quickly depart, as Doug just recently did.

I almost wonder if there's a way to self-police, with some help from moderators.

With that Zero Tolerance Policy, I don't know if the immediate punishment should be a forum banning. Perhaps a pre-cursor to that would be a sort of self-imposed one-week ban, where a moderator would say "bro, you need a cooling off period so you don't get permanently banned."

And I think almost anyone who posts here would be a perfectly fine moderator, capable of making adult decisions without a bias toward politics. I've been called out dozens of times from peopele like SZ or MITH for my transgressions here, from a simple "cool it" to a "hey, could you delete that post?"

(Heck, the 3 or 4 guys i named above who have left the forum in one way or another would be pretty solid choices for a sort of committee IMHO, folks across the political spectrum)

anyway, just thinking out loud and tossing more ideas out there.

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 11:36

With all due respect, B7, I don't buy the

I am one of the few conservative posters that they had not yet runoff with their insults and personal attacks

victimology.

If someone decides to no longer post on the political forum, it's a personal decision, not the result of being runoff.
I spent the better part of two years obsessing about the official version of the 9/11 attacks, and endured a high level of criticism and derision for doing so.
Since I had done extensive research and felt my position a valid one, I continued to post relative to my beliefs.

If a person is sincere in their beliefs, they should stand up and support them, regardless of the responses. If a person takes a controversial stand on an issue, they should expect negative responses and be willing to counter criticisms with further information/data/reports that offer support.

I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative, but I find the conservatives consistently lumping me into the liberal camp, which I find lazy and insulting. I was the only person on this board to declare my support for Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy two years ago, and Ron Paul after Romney dropped out.

But all that's irrelevant. Despite heated dialogue with others over the years, I've never felt I was being runoff, and if someone disagreed with my point of view, it didn't necessarily mean that they didn't have respect for me as a person.

B7, my memory fails me when trying to recollect insults and personal attacks directed at you.

TF - It's a
little clique and if you don't agree with the clique you're shouted
down and chased away

More with the victimology. Who chased you away? You made a conscious decision not to post for whatever reason. What ever happened to the conservative value of self responsibility?

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 12:27

I think part of the problem with the "ratpack booing" is that the people doing the booing haven't seen anything worthy of not being booed. And by that I don't mean "something they disagree with" -- there are proven examples, even recent ones, of rational discussion on a number of topics.

But PV nailed it. The persecution complex is ridiculous.

Bring facts, and you will be responded to factually.

Bring pre-packaged Ann Coulter opinion pieces, and be prepared to have them picked apart, and be prepared to defend them. Or don't bother.

Bring "But first find me anyone here who is capable of understanding english. (SIC)

Such as Obama's justification for letting granny die uncared for.

I can't find anyone here with that basic language skill."

or pointless crap like

"There is no point even debating around here. It's Babylon II and they can no longer communicate"

and, well, expect to reap what you sow.

How do you expect people to even attempt to care?

Drop the victim crap (PV said it more eloquently). If you are unprepared to defend your arguments using real, rational thought, don't bother to make them--or just go make your own blog.

This is not, I would hope, the "preach to people about their inferiority and stupidity" forum.

I find the complete inability for one half of the great divide to admit ANY culpability in where we have come to bodes ill for any future attempts at reconciliation.

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 12:53

I may just be a lurker here, but sad to say, it is actually a big part of my daily routine. The site is great, and Dave is one of the classiest guys around. I don't seem to play the TSN games as much as I used to, so the political forum is 98% of the reason I currently come here. It would be sad to have anything happen to it.

The bickering that goes beyond political beliefs is not expressed by most who post. One could call out the 4 or 5 who seem to engage in it the most, but that would just make them defensive.

Is there a possibility that someone who is respected, and who comes here daily (someone like Pancho?) might give warnings to blatantly attacking posts? There could be a running total, and if anyone were to reach a max (five?), they would agree to abstain from posting for a month.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 13:34

[31] Subforums - would require some programming, that doesn't seem warranted. Essentially, the POL forum is already one subforum of the rotoguru forums. No need to build a bigger tree.

[32] Zero Tolerance - I didn't mean to imply that any sort of banning would be the typical response to an abusive post. The response would simply be to have the entire post deleted ASAP. Banning would continue to be a last resort, to be used on repeat offenders who showed no inclination to adopt forum standards, or to address more serious threats.

Zero Tolerance would simply mean that if you cannot express your idea without adhering to standards, then your post will be deleted.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 13:54

About the term 'victimology'...

A black professor who has never experienced a racial incident in his entire professional life, wrapping himself in the flag of the victim who must be appeased, is practicing victimolgy.

Someone who has been gang-raped is not practicing victimology when they point it out.

scoobies
ID: 417302319
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 14:14

lol. Actually it appears to be neither. Perhaps the term to use is victim mentality?

dictionary.com
vic⋅tim⋅ol⋅o⋅gy –noun the study of crime victims and the psychological effects of being a victim.

or wikipedia
Victimology is the scientific study of victimization, including the relationships between victims and offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system — that is, the police and courts, and corrections officials — and the connections between victims and other social groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses, and social movements

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 14:14

It's actually pretty similar to when someone who doesn't like what someone else says on a message board compares that to being actually gang-raped, actually.

But we both digress.

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 14:22

My bad, scoobies. Please insert "victim mentality" for "victomology" in my post #33.

And please insert "verbally opposed" for "gang-raped" in #37.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 14:24

Since it's been brought up more than once recently in this thread I'll address it.

find me anyone here who is capable of understanding english.

I refer to a distinct turning point in political discussion in this country.

I posted a video of Obama proudly explaining why he is going to neglect the elderly to death. Yes her granny was generally in good shape, yes she was still a vital person with a great attitude about life, but she needed a pain pill and to be sent home to die.

Now the response to that video does not bode well for this forum.

Just a few short years ago republicans were accused of trying to starve granny when they refused to raise benefits high enuff to satisfy.

Now those same people don't care if Obama is going to pass a bill that makes HUGE real cuts in elderly benefits.

Now those same people don't care if the president comes right out and says granny needs to go off and die uncared for.

Where do you go after that?

What's left to discuss?

What more shocking thing could I show liberals?

The morlocks are sounding the siren, the eloi are marching off to the tunnel and nothing the time traveller says can get thru to their heads.

That's where I am at. I'll just post the warnings at the tunnel entrance and maybe there's an eloi left who can still read. My job is done after posting the warning.

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 14:31

It isn't a matter of political ideology. It is a matter of respectful posting.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 14:37

Did the time traveler respect the eloi?

Sorry he waved his arms a few times at first.

Sorry if he had an emotional response at first.

He's resigned to their fate. March to the tunnel head held high.

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 14:42

You know, if you've come to the point that you genuinely can't be bothered to even TRY to have a civil discussion, then I don't think I'm out of line in saying don't let the door hit you on the way out, because you're ruining it for those of us that ARE trying.

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 14:43

But you would be out of line, DW. The reason that the tone of the forum has gone into the toilet is not because of single posters, but because of the poor quality of the responses.

Sometimes, in fact, it is because people respond at all.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 14:44

That post was as civil as if H.G.Wells had explained it himself in the postscript.

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 14:56

PD, I disagree.

The problem is that when the civil discussion is attempted, it's immediately dismissed because the person initiating in the first place (by posting) isn't even interested in having the discussion in the first place--they're just there to muck things up. And when they get a response from someone they don't like, it's immediately dismissed completely. This very thread is one of many examples of it in recent months.

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 15:02

And B, I'd request that we keep on topic and not start arguments about death panels and the like in this particular thread, agreed?

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 15:06

Agreed. By the same token, appropriate examples are not out of bounds.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 15:08

DWetz

If I find an Ann Coulter column that nails an issue cold, and I post it and leave without discussion, how does that ruin the Poliboard for you?

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 15:24

That's where I am at. I'll just post the warnings at the tunnel entrance and maybe there's an eloi left who can still read. My job is done after posting the warning.

here's where i feel like i'm wading into murky water, vis a vis finger pointing.

But what you said about is the perfect example. Post the warning if you feel it is necessary. But if it's something that other posters think is ridiculous, expect to be called on it.

Simply put, the majority of posters here think the whole "death panel" issue is a scare tactic, over the top, and absurd.

And they let you know that.

Then, instead of sticking to what you said above with My job is done after posting the warning, you eventually resort to insults, calling everyone around you idiots, spawns of satan, uncaring humans who don't care if they send their own grandmother to slaughter, and so on, and so forth.

You said it yourself that you had turned this forum into your individual blog. THIS IS NOT A BLOG.

WordPress is a blog site. Blogger is a blog site.

By turning this forum into your own blog, you take to preaching, and then get more and more outraged when you are dismissed, and then continue to preach and rage.

By doing so, and by ignoring the opposing views and instead continuing to rant, you are effectively ending the option of discussion, on a discussion board.

Perhaps you could take a step back and go back to seeing this as a place to discuss, not to blog. If you want to blog, you could set one up at either of the above sites.

Heck, I could even show you how to do them. I don't work cheap on my freelance social media stuff, but i'd cut you a deal.

Anyway, think about it. You used to contribute a lot to the discussion side of things here. Why not return to that? It's a much more productive way to get your point across.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 17:30

You used to contribute a lot to the discussion side of things here. Why not return to that?

I can only ignore so many of your posts before defending myself for the benefit of lurkers. Bill Buckley could devastate lesser debate partners without them even realizing they were bleeding and without lowering himself to their level. I don't always have the time, energy, patience and discretion to do that. I do have the vocabulary and wit to do it however.

Building 7
ID: 43735169
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 17:37

#33 I am one of the few conservative posters that they had not yet runoff with their insults and personal attacks

That is my recollection. Do you have an explanation as to why there are so few conservative posters? Shouldn't it be about 50-50, like the national average. I will withdraw that statement, though, to keep the discussion on track.

So I can be minding my own business, following the rules, and someone can call me an a-hole. To point that out is....victimology. So be it.

B7, my memory fails me when trying to recollect insults and personal attacks directed at you.

A review of the threads will indicate that I have been insulted over 100 times. Most of them are over a year ago, when I started to try to clean things up. It sounds like the last person to insult me has left, so it may be safe to return for awhile.

ttz
ID: 3111421916
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 17:42

I haven't posted here much over the 10 or so years I've been lurking, but I wonder if a sort of "membership" would be appropriate now. Just sign up with a username and login. It might only be necessary to post to a thread, for example, while anybody could read a thread.

Then if a moderator is necessary, that person might have the authority to temporarily suspend a user's right to post to a thread?

I think Guru has been against having to logon to participate, but it might be worth revisiting that option.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 17:44

It sounds like the last person to insult me has left, so it may be safe to return for awhile.

Nice sense of humor, B7. 8]

walk
ID: 44111268
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 17:58

I agree with PV in #27. We try to be civil, and if we cannot, Guru shuts it down. I don't think it's really fair to Guru to have him do more work (create sub-forums, etc.) to make this work. I've posted a lot less since a recent job change, and the election, and some others have waned, too. Doing more work for less users seems an imposition, especially if revenues are down. I think it's really just a matter of folks being more topical and less personal.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 18:09

At this point I'd really get more out of it if comments weren't even allowed and we just shared the best links of the web that we can dig out.

But that's just me.

Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 18:25

I'm mostly a lurker but I read here everyday.

I'm definitely against the "only links" idea from post #57.

The amount of attacks being posted here certainly takes away from the enjoyment of the thread. In theory it would be easy enough for everyone to self police themselves and avoid the personal attacks but even the comments in this thread have made it seem as though some users are incapable of avoiding that. It seems easy enough but some users just want to attack others because they have a different opinion.

I'd love to see it a requirement that everyone is logged in when posting. Its easy enough to go through the validation page. That way posts can be attributed to the correct user at all times. And if someone doesn't login then the post can be deleted no matter what the content.

I'd hate to see the forum go away but if users can't act like adults then its only fair that it goes away. Guru doesn't deserve to deal with childish antics from adults, many of whom don't contribute financially to the forum, much less contribute with intelligent comments.

WiddleAvi
ID: 895017
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 18:26

I think progress is being in this thread. I stopped playing fantasy sports for a while and come here just for the political board. I probably come to this site more than any other site on the web.

Beck on his show will say "isn't it interesting that this group is connected to that group....." and use that assume that we are a socialist country. Stuff like that will not work on this forum. If you want to have a political discussion then you need to post FACTS. You cannot post a statement taken out of context. If both sides stick to the FACTS then a political discussion can be had.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 18:34

Postmodernists don't admit facts even exist and a healthy percentage of this board doesn't believe anything until the NYT tells them it's ok to think it.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 18:38

I wonder how many liberals would stick around if the prevailing rule was 'find that linked to in Fox News , newsmax or WND or we won't let you post it. But that is what conservatives have to deal with in reverse.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 18:40

Pretty civil of them, I would say, playing by those rules all these years. "Prove it with the news source you distrust the most or we won't listen". Phht

walk
ID: 44111268
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 18:53

I think it's okay to post opinions, too. That is what political discussion is (more so, opinions supported by facts). I don't think the mere posting of opinions sans facts are the issue. The issue is personal attacks without a consideration of the issue at hand. That's the behavior that has gotten out of hand. All of this gray, subjective and varies in magnitude. Judgment will be required, and good common sense. Folks know when they are out of bounds, and others know it, too. It's a responsibility issue cos it's hard to be held accountable on the internets. Tracking, monitoring, and holding hands is not the answer. It's personal responsibility, and if we cannot handle it, then we lose the privilege.

In my humble opinion...

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 19:20

I agree with some of the opinions above, that the problems in this forum reflect some of the coursening of the political debate in general in this country (described, to a great degree, by this great Conor Friedersdorf post)

But the perception that this forum is the place to try to right perceived sleights, or to showcase how "stupid" the other side is, is wrong. Just wrong.

How we get past this all is to (1) ignore posts which don't advance the debate or are useful only for pricking the other side, and (2) try to post meaningful items.

It is of far, far more importance, IMO, that (1) be followed more than (2). Often, when stuck in this kind of feedback loop, the best thing is just to shut up sometimes.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 19:27

If I followed that last suggestion a certain stalker would achieve his sole purpose in life by default.

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 19:35

And you wouldn't want him to "win," is that it?

We all lose when you decide (and that's what happens) to race to the bottom in an effort to "win."

By "you" I mean anyone, but certainly including you (Baldwin) if you think this is some kind of contest which is "winnable."

IMO, sometimes the best thing is to let the other guy's stupid argument just hang out there.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 20:18

One never knows when a lurker will assume a slander unanswered is a slander conceded.

WiddleAvi
ID: 895017
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 20:23

Sorry, you are correct, posting opinions are fine. I meant posting some hypothetical and then using that as fact that Obama wants to kill unborn children or something of that sort.

Frick
ID: 9103036
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 20:53

I like the idea of finding some impartial moderators who immediately remove posts that cross the line. Although I wonder how long they will last due to the inevitable backlash that will occur when they delete a post that should be deleted.

I hope this forum can improve and a respectful exchange and debate of ideas can occur. As I said earlier, I don't post often, but I liked the across the spectrum view points that were present. I often start writing a post and never hit post now. The main reason is posts (mine and others) get ignored when they are buried in 10s if not 100s of off-topic posts.

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 21:02

One never knows when a lurker will assume a slander unanswered is a slander conceded.

You mean like "commie care?"

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 23:48

Sigh.

Even in a thread about how to fix the forums, the same garbage is beginning to be spewed.

Here we go again. I'm coming back around to my original opinion in post #1.

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 00:44

You used to contribute a lot to the discussion side of things here. Why not return to that?

I can only ignore so many of your posts before defending myself for the benefit of lurkers.

i suppose this is the whole point. i make a suggestion that perhaps, instead of using this forum as a blog, you do that on a legit blog sit, and use this site for discussion.

you come back with some sort of insinuation that you've been insulted.

If I followed that last suggestion a certain stalker would achieve his sole purpose in life by default.

furthering the point.

look, here's where i'm at, and i have zero problem of singling myself out.

apparently, every "insult" and what have you, is about preserving your manhood and defending yourself.

i'm willing to re-set everything back to zero myself. what's done is over with, and in the past. since it's about winning, you win. i was wrong in every case, and you were correct.

i really would lie to see you using a blog to blog, and not this forum, because that's not what it's here for. if you insist on doing so, perhaps a "Baldwin's thoughts..." thread, you could use as your blog, and people could choose to come in and discuss, or not.

i'm extending the olive branch (offer goes to Bauxman too), and willing to reset things to zero, so we can be done with these stupid insults, and get back to the business of discussion politics, on a political discussion forum.

what do you say?

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 01:05

I hope that post by Tree is accepted and similar offers arise from everyone else, and I hope you live up to your statement, Tree.

Baldwin, do realize that if you answer these "slanders" with attacks, they will actually be erased and therefore "unanswered". You may have to be civil if you don't want someone to think that this "slander" is "conceded". I'd like to see you be a bit more Buckleyesque, it would certainly be welcome. I always enjoyed listening to him.

I'm heartened to see lurkers appear from the mist to say that they, too, value this forum. It's worth saving.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 01:48

I really was happy to mostly withdraw to my own thread...that was what the 'Not Flat' thread was all about.

I even put a link to that thread on my toolbar to remind me to keep to myself for the most part and just visit my own blog as it were.

Honestly I can go 5 days without posting anywhere else these days...

I went between 12/05 to 12/15 without posting. I'm really trying to give this habit up and withdraw to my own thread and other pursuits.

And I already offered Tree the deal he claims to be offering now.

148 Boldwin ID: 5335029 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 13:54 This thread has been sooo much fun. I really encourage all the regulars to start their own personal threads. Its like a public diary of your essential stuff. I think we could all learn more about the inner person behind the posts if we all did this.
ID: 12341213 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 16:36 Tree, really. Start your own thread. Your musical knowlege could finally tip you over to the useful category. No kidding.

That was me, trying to put some space between the two of us in this toxic relationship and give you something positive to do besides dangling from my ankle. Give up this obssession, Tree. Really.

I mean really...you don't see me chasing around the internet looking for Tree's facebook and blog. I wish I could say the same in reverse.

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 01:54

and I hope you live up to your statement, Tree.

presuming the offer is accepted, i'm willing to say that if i screw up and throw out an unprovoked insult, someone (SZ, PD, whoever) let me know, and i'll take a voluntary one week vacation from the forum.

i feel like this thread is starting to break down, and before we have any resolution, so i'm throwing these out there because i want this forum to stay around, and i want it to go back to how it was before the near-daily insults.

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 02:08

B, as long as we're throwing out examples... your post 74 was just fine until the last two completely unwarranted paragraphs. Was that particular dig really necessary to your greater point?

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 02:23

And I already offered Tree the deal he claims to be offering now.

148 Boldwin ID: 5335029 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 13:54 This thread has been sooo much fun. I really encourage all the regulars to start their own personal threads. Its like a public diary of your essential stuff. I think we could all learn more about the inner person behind the posts if we all did this.

ID: 12341213 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 16:36 Tree, really. Start your own thread. Your musical knowlege could finally tip you over to the useful category. No kidding.

that was nearly 2 years ago, and the level of discourse in this forum has descended exponentially since then.

and that's not at all the "deal" i offer. I suggested you start your own thread as a blog, since you won't start an actual one.

the deal i offered was this:
i'm willing to re-set everything back to zero myself. what's done is over with, and in the past. since it's about winning, you win. i was wrong in every case, and you were correct.

i'm extending the olive branch (offer goes to Bauxman too), and willing to reset things to zero, so we can be done with these stupid insults, and get back to the business of discussion politics, on a political discussion forum.

that's my offer. are you willing to take me up on it?

That was me, trying to put some space between the two of us in this toxic relationship and give you something positive to do besides dangling from my ankle. Give up this obssession, Tree. Really.

that, of course, is not helping. nonetheless, again, i'm willing to forget that one also.

are you willing to accept the handshake, and end the personal insults?

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 02:28

I know Guru asked us not to finger point but can we have a healthy forum without addressing that somehow? Aren't there laws against stalking for a reason?

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 02:31

are you willing to accept the handshake, and end the personal insults?

Are you willing to focus on the issues and not me?

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 02:35

How about you base your posts around links and well developed arguments? This forum does not function well as a moment by moment twitter concerning your emotional state vis-a-vis me. Can we get that deal?

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 02:38

Are you willing to focus on the issues and not me?

ummm, yea. that's kind of what i'm getting at here. avoiding the personal comments, and instead discuss the issues.

so, are you done with the insults? ready to accept my offer?

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 02:58

How about we practice this for a while before I take that offer on it's face. Trust is low.

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 03:04

practice? practice not insulting another human being? really?

i'm going to sleep before i say something i regret, but i made a peace offering. accept it or not.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 03:07

I'll believe it when I see it. I honestly believe that offer contradicts your sole reason for being here. Demonstrate that that offer is legit.

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 03:21

Jesus would not speak without an illustration and this would be a good time for one.

Imagine two schoolboys do not like each other. One has spent four years following the other everywhere he goes on the playground poking him in the ribs.

The bully then proposes a deal...'Let's play nice'.

A) The second boy does not believe the offer.

B) The second boy would counter, "How about you just stop following me all over the playground?"

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 03:32

Illustration #2

Bill Buckley is followed all over the world by a heckler booing at each and every taping of 'The Firing Line'.

Finally at the last taping before he retires the heckler shouts, "Aww c'mon Bill, let's play nice."

Bill's response would be...

sarge33rd
ID: 161128207
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 08:28

*sigh* And the very thread started by the owner of this site, to discuss incivility on this forum and whether the forum should be allowed to continue or close...gets dragged into the mire NOT by 84,85 and 86....as the poster engages in the very conduct of which he accuses another.

Guru: I love this site. I truly do. But if you opt to shut it down as being more trouble to you than it is worth, I can certainly understand how/why you could come to that conclusion.

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 09:14

I agree sarge, I was thinking about this last night after reading through post 83, 84. we are right back where we started. schoolyard playground. So I am going to suggest this, after a topic is posted, stop the post after 75. Most of the time its off subject by then anyways. you know I love this site to, I am just a lurker, but I do visit it 2 times a day at least. Hate to see it go, Just my 2 cents.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 09:41

It is most disappointing to see the bickering flare up in this thread. "Two schoolboys" seems to be an apt metaphor.

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 09:47

we are right back where we started

And things won't change as long as Baldwin clings to his victim mentality. Tree stalks me. Tree bullies me. Tree's only purpose in life is to make mine miserable. I'm completely innocent of ever responding to Tree with vile and incivility, and if I have it's completely justified. Tree is Russia and I'm Georgia.

As with any problem, unless you admit there's a problem, there's no way to resolve it.

The Tree/Baldwin war of incivilty has been a two way street. I think Tree has admitted his part and has made a diplomatic effort to improve the level of respect that this forum needs in order to survive.

If you're not capable of taking personal responsibility by admitting that you are also culpable in the degeneration of this relationship, then we're at an impasse that can't be overcome.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 09:48

I'm thinking that in the case of "frequent offenders", the standards may have to be more stringent. For those with a habit of getting into spitting battles, I can see that we are likely to have a lot of language that is couched in language that attempts to skirt around direct attacking - but with a tone the clearly conveys the intent.

I guess I'll be asking moderators to apply a "Just shut up" test as well. If you see a post that evokes a primary reaction of "Just shut up!", then nuke it.

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 09:51

Guru - i'm sorry. i don't accept at all what you're saying in post 89 and i don't appreciate it. i made an offer of peace. i reiterated my offer when rebuffed and instead of responding tit-for-tat, i opted to not post, and went to sleep.

i am more than willing to "man up" and do my part in ending the personal attacks and such that have plagued this forum for the last 18 or so months. to Re-set the counter to zero, so we can be done with it.

and now you're accusing me of engaging in the same bickering? cripes man, i'm trying to end it, at least on my part. quite honestly, i'm disappointed to see you classifying my offer of peace as "bickering".

Baldwin - the whole point of my offer is to stop the insults, and to stop the whole "well he started it" crap. i'm no longer concerned with that, i want a forum where we can discuss politics and not each other.

the offer stands, as is, Baldwin (and Bauxman). I think it's in the best interest of this forum to accept the offer, but i can't keep making it if you're not really interested.

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 10:12

Tree - Baldwin does have a point. You have hounded him relentlessly for years. He has made a good faith effort in the past to ignore you, but I can see where that would be hard. It would probably be best if you simply stop responding to Baldwin. I appreciate your attempt at an olive branch, but it's probably too late for that. Maybe in time, you can try again to reach out, but your commenting on anything Baldwin says is not going to lead to productive dialogue any time soon. For the good of the forum, I think you just need to leave him alone.

Baldwin - I appreciate your intelligence, and I think you can again be a productive member of this forum. Hopefully you continue to post and again open yourself to alternative points of view which allow dialogue instead of monologue.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 10:32

Tree - I'd like to thank you for providing a classic example of the issue at hand.

It's pretty clear that Baldwin is not going to respond well if you "hound him" about turning over a new leaf. You earn that over time by demonstrating an ability to treat him with respect, not by badgering him to make some sort of covenant with you, and then calling him out when he fails to respond in the way you are trying to push him.

It takes two to carry on a spat. I appreciate your offer to turn over a new leaf. But if it's met with resistance, someone needs to stop pushing back or the rest of us are left to witness the continuation of a childish exchange. And continuing to say "but it's his fault" does not help. Too often, when someone's irritating behavior is called out, the immediate response is "well, he's doing it too." That's not to going to fly anymore.

jedman
Dude
ID: 315192219
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 10:56

I am mostly a lurker, and an infrequent poster. I just find it
incredible that a discussion cannot be had where civility and
courtesy exist. If I express my feeling that something Pres.
Obama is doing is wrong, won't work, etc. and somebody else
feels those same things are correct and will work, then just say
that but don't try to tell me I'm stupid or ignorant for feeling
that way. Just disagree and state your point.
I just cant' believe the vitriole that is spewed at each other by
certain posters. My political beliefs lie to the right and there are
a lot of things that Boldwin and Bauxman post that after I sift
through the commie, marxist, liberal, democrats are all out to
get us stuff I can agree with, but I just find it so unnecessary to
put all those labels on it and to couch the opinion with such
hatred and insulting language. It's like the guy who has to put
an f-bomb in front of every word he speaks because he thinks it
somehow makes him sound more convincing. I think Pelosi and
Reid are making bad policy. I can say it like that and don't need
to try to put in an adjective such as liberal, marxist, commie,
etc. Somebody can disagree with me and explain why they like
the healtcare bill, for example, which has been done. If I bring
in something from the Heritage Foundation, I know for sure PD
or somebody more on the left will find something that disputes
it, which is fine and why I come here. His source isn't
necessarily going to be any more credible than mine, but at least
we can express our opinion without resorting to insults and
opinions about somebody's character or personal life.
I am with the if it doesn't change and get any better, shut it
down crowd. Guru doesn't need the headache.

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 11:05

I am wondering how many lurkers are out there. Maybe if more of the lurkers stopped lurking and started posting that would help. I think I am going to start posting more often. I dont read as much as a lot of the other posters, I get my info from TV and radio (Olberman, Shultz, Maddow, Beck, OReilly, Hannity, Rush and Quinn) I will do my part to keep this site alive with good debate. Some of this stuff is way over my head that sometimes my eyes glaze over, but will do my best.

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 11:16

It's pretty clear that Baldwin is not going to respond well if you "hound him" about turning over a new leaf. You earn that over time by demonstrating an ability to treat him with respect, not by badgering him to make some sort of covenant with you, and then calling him out when he fails to respond in the way you are trying to push him.

Guru - fair enough. i keep the olive branch extended to Baldwin and Bauxman, and will probably no longer comment on this particular topic, as i've said my peace, and am sincere about my offer.

I am wondering how many lurkers are out there. Maybe if more of the lurkers stopped lurking and started posting that would help. I think I am going to start posting more often.

i think this is pretty solid, and i'm pretty sure it's something bili (maybe?) has brought up. The more posters, the better. would love to see more contributions from you, jedman, ttz, and the few others who have popped into this thread.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 11:23

There are a lot more lurkers than you'd expect. Take a look at the stats at the bottom of this thread. It currently shows that 127 users have viewed this thread.

Now, that count is somewhat overstated, since it includes search engine crawlers, and also double counts people who approach this page from different computers. But it's still appears that there are many more lurkers than posters. And I think that's fairly normal of most forums.

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 12:58

Re: 79 -- B, if you do not admit that you are part of "the issues", then what is to discuss?

You seem to want a one-way apology for all sorts of past wrongs, both real and imagined. This implies to most onlookers that you don't think you have ever done anything wrong in this regard.

And that is very very disappointing to most of the rest of us, because the complete inability to even recognize what you, personally, have done wrong implies that the same behavior from you will continue in the future regardless of what anyone else does or doesn't do. And if that is the case, I think it is abundantly clear that the forum can't continue.

Someone please stop me if I'm out of line here.

100

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 13:00

A technical question for the Guru:

Is it possible for moderators to only delete a portion of a post, leaving the rest intact?

For instance, if someone posts a nice five-paragraph exposition on an issue, and paragraph six says "and you're too stupid to realize this anyway, so screw off"... is it workable to have a moderator just snip off that last paragraph? (Ideally, with a note from the moderator that would note that they have edited the post in question.)

If not, is this an implementation you can create without too much headache?

101

Frick
ID: 9103036
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 13:04

I lurk for the vast majority, but occasionally post. Posts by the lurkers tend to get lost in flaming, baiting, etc that happens. This thread is no different, there have been a couple of people that mostly lurk popping up to make a comment, but what are most of the posts about?

I'm that a few impartial individuals could be found that just nuked comments like the majority of comments in the 70-90 range. Hopefully fairly quickly the quality of discourse would rise back up, or at least not get lost in the background.

102

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 13:26

#100: Mods can edit any posts if needed. I really don't think that editing within a post is a good idea for mods to undertake, however.

I'm wondering if a temporary "cool off" period might be good, for both threads and posters. If a guy really goes over the line a few times, perhaps a moderator might have the ability to block them for 24 hours (such a block might be done only with an email from the mod to the person, explaining the action).

Along that line, an email address perhaps should be required to post in this forum (not for publication, but for moderator/Guru information).

Also, if a thread starts going crazy, it might be useful, as we did in the distant past, to close comments in that thread by non-mods to give another cool-off period.

103

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 13:42

Just zap the whole post.

If someone writes 5 paragraphs of value, they will be less likely to write that inflammatory 6th paragraph if they risk losing the whole thing.

104

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 13:44

Re: 102--I think it absolutely IS a good idea, if done properly and with discretion. Why do you think it is a poor idea? (I am assuming that the power would not be abused, as otherwise the moderator would likely no longer be a moderator after a few abuses.)

I don't think that a cooling off period would work as the forum is currently constructed. As has been beaten to death, you can't practically ban anyone for any period of time since they just sign up a new account immediately.

105

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 13:46

Also, if there are moderators willing active enough to do it, the punishment (losing the post) should be swift, and consistent.

If you lose an inflammatory post, even one with some good value as well, every time you post one, unless you are an idiot, you will stop posting inflammatory posts. High monitoring initially will decrease moderator work-load long term.

Zap 'em fast and zap 'em all.

106

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 13:48

I don't think any of the higher maintenance, kinder-gentler approaching are feasible long-term. Just zapping the offending posts will be work enough.

107

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 13:55

Editing within posts brings with it all sorts of contextual concerns. Much better to zap a whole post rather than pull out the "good" stuff from the "bad." Mods will have a hard enough time handling charges of bias without getting the the granular level of re-casting individual posts.

108

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 13:56

Allowing editing without full deletion would be very beneficial in that it would allow moderators to have even less leeway for the questionable part of posts.

109

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 14:00

As a mod I can only say "No way." Deciding what parts of posts are to be deleted will make the charges of bias go way up.

Better to zap them in the hopes that the poster will post again in a more acceptable way. Otherwise, what incentive would someone have to post well if the "bad" stuff will be subject to editing.

110

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 14:13

There is already in place a technical capability to make edits within a post. Some moderators have that capability, but almost none exercise it - other than to occasionally correct a spelling error, or to fix some incorrect html coding, etc.

For the purpose of the pending "Zero Tolerance Policy", I am 100% against asking moderators to delete only portions of a post. All or nothing. If a six paragraph post ends with an offending 1-word barb, then nuke the whole thing.

Currently, I am the only one who has the capability to block someone from posting altogether. Frankly, there is no convenient way to automate that process - but I don't know that I would want to automate it anyway. Different tactics are required, depending the poster. And that's all I'm going to say, as I don't want to tip off the methods that I can and do use from time to time.

111

Seward Norse
ID: 71162014
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 15:06

I've been a lurker for years. I started posting a couple of years back(maybe 4-5) and was insulted almost immediately, so I stopped. Figured it wasn't worth it. I don't lurk as much as I used to for obvious reasons. If the tenor improved I'd probably be back more.

112

scoobies
ID: 417302319
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 15:36

re: 110, Guru, I'm with you 100% on a "Zero Tolerance Policy" approach. I've been primarily a "lurker" (I'd prefer the term "reader") here since at least 1997, and if I'm convinced of anything it's that it's highly unlikely that a leopard will change it's spots. So given that, the most common sense approach is to immediately delete the offending post as soon as the behavior appears. Either the poster will get the point and change their behaviour or they will decide to stop posting and leave the board. A positive result with either outcome.

Two other things..
1. Thanks again Dave for all the effort that you put into making this a great site. I know that many others here appreciate what goes into this on a daily basis, and too often this kind of commitment can be a bit thankless. So thanks!
2. If you're traveling again for the holidays this year, please have a safe and enjoyable trip.

113

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 17:51

You seem to want a one-way apology for all sorts of past wrongs, both real and imagined. This implies to most onlookers that you don't think you have ever done anything wrong in this regard. - DWetz

Nope, I just want the cyberstalking to stop. I thot #85 was easy to understand.

114

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 18:01

Here is a first (OK, maybe second) draft of my new policy statement on civility and respect.

My plan is to post a prominent link to this in the upper middle of every page on the Politics Forum, just below the "Welcome New Users" link.

Any suggestions on additions or modifications?

115

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 18:19

I like it.

Maybe a link to the moderator email at the bottom of all posts, along the lines of

To report forum abuse, send us an email here:

116

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 19:34

114: Looks solid.

118

sarge33rd
ID: 481150216
Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 07:51

Looks solid to me too Guru.

119

Frick
ID: 9103036
Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 09:20

Are the moderators known? Regardless, language that explicitly states that harassment of them is essentially harassment of you might be helpful. The moderators are going to have a tough job initially, make it very evident that appeals can be made, but harassment will in no way be accepted.

Also, at least in the near term, having the e-mail address on every thread might be helpful.

120

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 09:40

I'm thinking that the very existence of this thread should go a long way in resolving many of the issues, at least in the short term.

While there may be those who don't respect each other on this forum, I think it's safe to say that everyone respects Guru, and those who don't will stick out like a sore thumb.

121

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 09:40

No, moderators are not publicly known. That's intentional.

122

Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 10:07

Guru - thanks. i think what you've written takes into consideration all the things that were said in this thread. looks excellent to me.

123

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 10:46

I liked the phrase "new world order". I think that says it all.

124

Building 7
ID: 471052128
Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 10:52

Looks good. Thanks for your help. It looks like its safe to return.

125

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 11:19

I'll be working on getting the various items displayed on these pages over the course of today. You'll start to notice them. Several different programs will need revisions, so some things will start to appear gradually. I'll let you know when I think I have completed the tasks.

126

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 06:54

Welcome to the paradise.

127

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 06:57

No really, I do appreciate the efforts, Dave.

Here's hoping it works out well.

128

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 09:47

[126] I like it!

129

Khahan
ID: 391582715
Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 15:44

I'll continue to post in the politics forum when I see topics that interest me. As noted, there are many topics. I'll tend to shy away from the purely political driven ones (for example, the direction of the GOP thread holds no interest for me) and will tend to gravitate towards more social threads. Other lurkers just need a variety of threads to choose from. Start your own thread lurkers. See what happens.

130

biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 15:57

126 awesome!

131

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 22:29

"Is that your answer to everything?"

132

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Fri, Dec 25, 2009, 19:29

Yeah but...he still had'ta die...*sigh*

133

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Dec 26, 2009, 15:14

Guru

Thanks for putting together the new policy. I'll do my best to adhere.

134

nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Sun, Dec 27, 2009, 17:46

Good stuff Dave. It couldn't get any worse.

135

Boldwin
ID: 5211353010
Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 19:59

Does the civility go out the door when we quote someone?

In the healthcare debate PD dismissed the pre-eminent voice of the anti-obamacare debate who does the best job of picking the actual language of the bills apart finding the devil in the details...

...simply by posting her name in scary italics as if that were sufficient answer to the exposure of those egregious provisions in the bills.

Ann Coulter gets the same treatment of course. In fact any source of information I value gets the same treatment, as if an ad hominem attack on every source I favor was sufficient coverage of the logical points raised.

This is not only rude brutish behavior and a cutting off of reasoned debate but it seems the ad hominem attackers are oblivious to the fact they have just exposed their own weakness if that is the strongest rebutal they can muster.

So what is it going to be?

Liberals don't dare answer anything that appears in the WSJ op ed page, WND, Ann Coulter?

Conservatives have to generate their own points sui generis while they are somehow obligated to lend respectablity to the ashen lady, Mickey Kaus and Paul Krugman by deigning to address their points?

136

PV in Vegas
ID: 3811431311
Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 20:19

I'm not following the logic in #135. Baldwin is perfectly free to post Ann Coulter, WND, etc., and others are perfectly free to dismiss, dispute or simply point out that the source is biased, sometimes to the point of fraud.

Is the point that these sources are to be praised regardless of the readers' reaction?

Liberals don't dare answer anything that appears in the WSJ op ed page, WND, Ann Coulter?

This is simply false. Liberals, independents and others have dared to answer numerous items from these sources. I, personally, have disected many a Coulter coulumn and WND story in this forum, practically line by line, word by word.

137

Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 20:21

i think if any credence is given to the post in 135, then we need to go ahead and shut the forum down.

there is just no way the post referenced is a personal attack, no way it is confrontional, and no way it is disrespectful toward an individual.

if we're going to nitpick every little thing, this forum is doomed. i mean, we could look at Baldwin's post 1356 in the same forum as being disrespectful.

or his post 45 aimed at SZ in the Domestic Security thread.

or, Baldwin's post 25 in that same thread, where he addressed another poster with They probed security just before a terrorist attack, but you can't connect the dots. Why am I not surprised?

it's a personal attack, but a fairly innocuous one, and one that should be gone and forgotten. but if post 135 is going to be given substance, then we need to carefully analyze every post, and just shut this thing down.

heck, i can't even believe post 135 was posted.

138

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 20:28

137-I totally agree with tree on this one. I saw what PD posted(Mary someone, not going back to look her name up) and what I did I googled her name and read about her. I learned who she was and what she stood for. AI think it was a great post. Lets not nit pick. This forum is just now being enjoyable to read and post on.

139

Boldwin
ID: 5211353010
Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 21:02

PV

As you are quick to point out, you are not the typical liberal or the typical liberal poster.

140

Boldwin
ID: 5211353010
Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 21:04

Nu Go

PD was not in any way trying to elicit the reaction you had. He was expecting the usual suspects would consider the source and refuse to debate the points raised.

141

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 21:27

135 is utterly ridiculous on its face. It really doesn't even bear an attempt at a rational response. But what the hell, I'll try anyway.

OF COURSE the source matters, Boldwin. If I tried to post an essay on quantum mechanics written by Brett Favre, we'd all laugh at it, because Brett Favre is not qualified to post on quantum mechanics.

Similarly, if Brett Favre gave his opinion of the Packers front office, I'd tend to dismiss it as not being at all objective (because you know the feuds that he had there, etcetera etcetera).

Similarly, if I came on here and posted a ten-point plan for health care by Michael Moore, I guaran-damn-tee you that you would be ripping Michael Moore a new hole in less than ten seconds flat and dismissing him as a crackpot.

And, when you have people like Ann Coulter who make their paycheck off of randomly bashing the very concept of anything that is considered rational by anyone to the left of 5% of the population base, and calls her own work satire (but only when called out for deliberately lying about things), and you expect us to treat it with anything more than utter disdain?

OF COURSE SOURCE MATTERS. And if the source is sufficiently un-credible (as it would be if I were to read Terrell Owens' astrophysics magnum opus), it's quite sufficient to say "LOL, Terrell Owens? Really?" and move on.

And if you can't see that, then I really, REALLY, don't know what the heck to tell you.

142

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 21:31

And as for this:

"In the healthcare debate PD dismissed the pre-eminent voice of the anti-obamacare debate who does the best job of picking the actual language of the bills apart finding the devil in the details..."

You must understand that in many cases, most people see her not "finding the devil in the details", but "making up crap and hoping nobody notices". And it has to be completely okay to point that out. It has to be.

If you post ten right wing crackpot bloggers who say X, and I post eleven left wing crackpot bloggers who say not X, do I automatically win unless you can come up with two more right-wing crackpot bloggers? Is this purely a "who can shovel the greatest volume of feces onto the pile" form of debating?

Because I really don't think anyone has any interest in that. Except maybe you.

143

bibA
ID: 01116297
Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 22:12

PD was not in any way trying to elicit the reaction you had. He was expecting the usual suspects would consider the source and refuse to debate the points raised.

Actually I get the most from this forum when sources are used that perk my interest enough to learn more about them or the subject being discussed.

If one poster may know just what the rest of us are actually motivated by, what we expect, and what our true intentions are; possibly we should just consider ourselves lucky to have him on board.

144

Boldwin
ID: 5211353010
Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 02:03

Well if you won't listen to Obama when he tells you to your face he intends to kill you in your old age, why would you listen to her when she finds the line in the bill where he explains how?

145

Perm Dude
ID: 431146312
Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 03:50

Heh. Clearly one of the reasons the forum has gone downhill is the quickness with which some members accept hyperbole as fact and refuse to budge from that stance--in fact, attacking other members for not agreeing.

Obama, of course, has never said anything of the sort. You are welcome to believe that (and press the point through non-personal argument). But you aren't welcome to go personal on anyone who scoffs at your arguments or belittles your "experts."

In this case, your "expert" used the same rhetorical trick of quoting page numbers out of context previously (in the Stimulus Bill, and in the House version of the health care bill ), and was slammed for lying (on FactCheck as linked, and elsewhere). Again, you are welcome to source her, but you simply should not go personal when someone like myself sees the same trick in action and refuses to be sold the bad bag of goods simply because it helps bolster my biases through vacuous ditto-ing.

146

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 06:38

Seriously? Quoting page numbers out of context?

Are you not aware that each line carries the weight of law? If line 543 sets up a death panel then any appeal to context is smokescreen because the panel gets set up.

147

Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 10:25

Well let me revise and extend that remark.

Each line that contains enabling language carries the weight of law.

For an especially valuable lesson in this point, the portion of one bill that claimed the bill did not give benefits to illegals, did not carry the weight of law. No teeth whatsoever. Might as well be declaring national 'moon is made of green cheese' week. However the lines with enabling language which put into place the same trick which has been repeatedly used in other cases to sneak benefits to illegals...those lines carried the weight of law.

But of course they were pulled out of context. PD thinks the 'statement of congressional intent' part of the bill trumps the part with enabling language.

Even Thomas and Scalia would be forced to rule that the part with teeth expressed congress' real intent and the CYA clause was just a figleaf.

148

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 10:50

Dude, since we're in the "future of the forum" thread and not the health care thread, I'd ask that:

1. You take it back to the health care thread.

2. You delete your post 144 here as violating the civility guidelines.

149

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jan 16, 2010, 21:13

150

Sludge
ID: 22043218
Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 09:43

What are these personal attacks and smears that are being spoken of here? My gosh what has become of this place??? That NEVER used to happen when I was around here!

151

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 09:45

Hey Sludge! You ol' piece of @%@$%!!! Good to see you, ya rat-bastard.

152

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Jan 22, 2010, 22:27

Reminded me of this forum. For some reason:

153

Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515
Sat, Jan 23, 2010, 02:30

Ran into that site a few days ago. Awesome. I found my self
lol at "... How did you make a backwards b?"

154

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Jan 23, 2010, 10:49

i know it's TOTALLY unrelated, but this is one of my faves in that whole failblog/lamebook genre.

155

Boldwin
ID: 2155174
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 06:33

Why are we afraid of the strong presentation?

Here is someone who hates religion including my own no doubt, and will make the case as strongly as Ann Coulter, and yet because he's intelligent I don't have any problem listening to him.

And yet he'd be drummed out of here.

Where's the courage in the marketplace of ideas? We don't dare stick our toes in the water without a lifeguard holding our hand and donning protective helmets?

I'm all for tossing trolls out on their tiny keesters but intelligent strongly presented ideas? That's just a loss.

156

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:06

Since this thread got resurrected, I have a complaint of my own.

Could I suggest that blathering endlessly about the Marxist menace doesn't actually need to be said in EVERY SINGLE DAMN THREAD IN THIS FORUM?

I mean, seriously. If you want to try to talk about the science of global warming, do that. Because, you know, that's what the title of this thread is. If you want to spew on and on about the Alinsky agenda, at least contain it someplace where those of us that want to not have to listen to it can just ignore the thread. Making its own thread where people could debate the merits of that argument would be a great idea. I'd be all in favor of it. I probably wouldn't read it but that's because I believe that it's not going to lead to anything other than a lot of people yelling and screaming at each other. But I'd rather see it there than in every single thread that I ever read on here.

And before anyone starts, I'm not trying to be a crazy-eyed PC censor here. I'm just sick and tired of having to read the exact same thing in threads where they have absolutely NO place in being. It detracts from serious discussion to have completely random, unrelated rants about nothing in particular in threads where they just don't belong.

(For those wondering, I'm referring specifically to posts 332-339 in the Global Warming thread.)

157

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:08

More specifically, I'd like to see somewhat of a crackdown on completely off-topic posts. Again, we know each other, there's no reason to go completely off, but I'm pretty sure that posts asking if I should trade Lebron James would get deleted from the Golf Forum, or for that matter would get deleted from a daily NBA thread (which is probably a fairer comparison). I don't see why we should allow similar completely off topic posts here.

158

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:17

#155: I think the reason you don't have a problem with Pat Condell is that he's describing far left, PC-oriented liberals. In England The problem isn't that these people don't exist, but that digging up the ones that do and equating that to the Administration is simply wrong, both in terms of scale and intention.

Condell doesn't hate your religion. But since he wants religion out of politics I don't think you should get too comfortable with him.

159

Boldwin
ID: 2155174
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:25

Steel sharpens steel and you can't sharpen your blade on a marshmallow. Or a troll.

I enjoy the clever and acerbic.

160

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:36

a crackdown

We don't need a crackdown. If Baldwin insists on mimicking the Joe McCarthy who was an embarrasing alcoholic instead of the Joe McCarthy who actually exposed Soviet spies in the government, that's his perogative, but I or any one else has the perogative to point out the absurdity of these attacks.

162

Boldwin
ID: 2155174
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:43

PD called Obama a liberal, in the global warming thread.

I corrected him simply.

If it was off-topic take it up with the guy who raised the issue.

163

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:43

No, you're wrong. You can respond in threads where it belongs.

Just like we need people to try to exercise self control when Person A calls Person B a #(*&$@#*&$*(@#&$(@#$&$%(*%&(#$&(%&*#@(*$&# and not allow Person B to respond (and we in turn trust the moderators to do their job and delete Person A's comments), we need to trust and empower the moderators to do their job and delete stuff that's completely off topic and not get involved in a stupid discussion that completely derails a perfectly good thread.

This really isn't rocket science.

164

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:44

The you shouldn't have responded to an off topic post, B, if you genuinely feel that way.

(I personally disagree with your assessment, but that's not really relevant.)

165

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:47

PD called Obama a liberal

I've never called Obama a liberal. You should really take off the filters when you read raw posts, Boldwin.

Using that mistake as an excuse to post more of the same isn't making the forum value-added.

166

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:51

I corrected him simply.

'Simply' does apply, though not as you intended.

167

Boldwin
ID: 2155174
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 12:00

It is funny how conservatives, faced with their own mistakes in assuming that Obama is a "liberal"

Ok, fair enuff, but you did raise the issue in a global warming thread, addressing your post has now got me accused of drifting the thread.

So PD is both going to initiate thread drift and then call out anyone who follows him.

Well that's one way to have the last word.

168

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 12:09

First of all, I hope you all realize that it's completely absurd that I of all people am trying to be the voice of reason here.

I really don't care WHO "started" it.

1. Look at the last 20 posts or so in that thread.

2. Look at the title of the thread.

3. Ask yourself why #1 and #2 are completely unrelated.

4. If you have a post in that section of the thread, ask yourself what contribution you may have had in taking the thread off track. (If you have a post there, you have some contribution. Period.)

5. Reflect that your contribution to taking the thread off track was probably unnecessary, and hopefully do what is necessary to remove said contribution.

169

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 12:11

I'll gladly side with Baldwin if he can document Saul Alinsky's position on global warming.

170

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 12:11

So PD is both going to initiate thread drift and then call out anyone who follows him.

I think, again, you are conflating two different people. It helps when posting some righteous indignation I suppose. But it makes the post look silly when the facts are otherwise.

171

Boldwin
ID: 2155174
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 13:30

The italicized sentence in #167 is your's, PD, which preceded my post about Obama.

conflating two different people - PD

I'm not conflating two different people. The person is you and you.

172

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 22:33

Steel sharpens steel and you can't sharpen your blade on a marshmallow. Or a troll.

I enjoy the clever and acerbic.

Steel certainly sharpens steel, Baldy, but that simile simply does not apply to you. In the ten years you have posted here, I have yet to see you actually debate anyone. You believe you are wielding steel and slaying fools, but to the rest of us you are waiving a stick in the wind.

I ask you, have you ever said, "that's a good point [MITH][biliruben][Perm Dude]"? Have you ever conceded that you may have been initially wrong but now understand an issue a whole lot better? I've never seen it. Name one issue where your opinion has changed due to the discussion on this board from the center or left? I honestly believe that just about every regular poster here could come up with three issues where their personal opinion has been swayed by the arguments of others on these boards.

There is no clashing of swords, boldwin. You have two moods - one - you use the boards as an attic to store links to hot topics the "MSM is afraid to touch". Two, you dismiss all those left of Dick Cheney as Marxists hell bent on destroying our country, call Tree a troll and encourage Ann Coulter fans to troll here as much as possible. Seriously, outside of the baseball thread and the Scientific Discoveries thread, you are incapable of posting outside of your hyper-partisan dialectic. You alienate, not engage.

The rest of us enjoy the new code of civility and most of us have not had mods smack our posts down. You are the sole person who feels that something has been lost with the new code. I think you are alone for a good reason... you are wrong.

173

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 23:32

Great post, Zen.

Boldwin, I never called you out for thread drift. DW did. In fact, I took some heat last week (also from DW, I believe) for saying that I saw nothing wrong with an OT post by Nuclear Gophers.

174

Boldwin
ID: 2155174
Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 23:51

SZ

1) You do not understand the term dialectic.

2) That is because I have spent a lot of time reading and forming my opinions before I ever hear yours.

3) In the twenty years I have been debating libs on the internet I have radically altered my understanding of the founding fathers, the drug war, the shadow government, the mafia, europe, Islam and Islamism, etc.

It's hard to separate what I learned on my own researching from what others found and linked to but it is weighted significantly towards the former.

175

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 00:51

1) You do not understand the term dialectic.

You are right, I was being too generous. Let me replace it with "hyper-partisan screed."

That is because I have spent a lot of time reading and forming my opinions before I ever hear yours.

Actually, I don't think you ever "hear" mine at all.

So, how has your opinion of Islam radically altered in the past twenty years you have been debating liberals? Before speaking with progressives, you used to proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace?

176

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 09:42

"Boldwin, I never called you out for thread drift. DW did. In fact, I took some heat last week (also from DW, I believe) for saying that I saw nothing wrong with an OT post by Nuclear Gophers."

Yup, that was me. I'm an equal-opportunity douchebag when it comes to that kind of thing. ;)

177

Boldwin
ID: 2155174
Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 22:59

Actually SZ, you are right. I never learn anything from liberals. Virtually everything they know is wrong.

I do however learn tons doing the research that gets spurred by debates here and that is the value of the place for me.

178

Boldwin
ID: 2155174
Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 23:08

I got pointed to a few valuable things tho. PD pulled something useful from his TPM with the Glass–Steagall Act. Years ago liberals at Salon TableTalk did gleefully enlighten me that it wasn't just Hillary looting the S&L's, it was also guys I formerly respected like Henry Hyde, and republicans I didn't respect like The Bush relative looting Silverado. The pirates are definately well dispersed and by no means just limited to the D side of the aisle. I did learn something about the power elite from that one.

179

Boldwin
ID: 2155174
Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 23:15

SZ

What liberal around here could I go to for an intelligent discussion concerning Goals 2000? No one here would read the material. I can think of tons of stuff I learned that there is just no intelligent person here to discuss it with. They don't read the material and if they do, they don't believe the literal meaning of what they just read, and if they do believe it they don't want to admit that it says what it says for strategic reasons.

180

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 00:51

Actually SZ, you are right. I never learn anything from liberals. Virtually everything they know is wrong.

So enough with the "steel sharpens steel". What right minded person would want to enter into a "intelligent discussion" with someone who thinks that they are always wrong? Your definition of an "intelligent discussion" is you telling someone all the ways that they are mistaken.

181

Boldwin
ID: 2155174
Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 04:52

Or you could always find something irrefutable and link to it.

183

Boldwin
ID: 362262121
Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 15:12

Wow.

184

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 17:46

Where's post 182?

185

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Fri, Apr 02, 2010, 22:52

butt

203

Boldwin
ID: 535651
Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 13:01

Unbelievable.

204

Boldwin
ID: 535651
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 10:26

"Every time a leftist says it's about respect, restraint and civility," [Mark]Steyn said, "the object of that is to criminalize your opinion and make conservative arguments impossible."

On Rush, possibly the greatest writer in all commentary.

206

PV in SF
ID: 2334178
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 11:01

Every time Mark Steyn says anything about a leftist, I dismiss it as the purely partisan BS that it is.

207

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 11:03

make conservative arguments impossible...

And just what valid basis would/could one have, for arguing AGAINST respect, restraint and civility? FWIW, one who would argue against such things, lacks any argument worth hearing in the first place. Do we not as parents TEACH our kids to show respect? To practice restraint? and to be civil?

210

astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 01:54

RE: 204

anything is possible

211

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 11:05

And just what valid basis would/could one have, for arguing AGAINST respect, restraint and civility?

Restraint is the only thing Sarge is interested in. He just wants to make sure the opposition is forced to shut up completely. Between Sarge, Tree, Dwetz, GO, there is no interest in civil debate. For them it is all about making debate impossibly clogged with negative cheerleading, booing, attempts at liberal bandwagon appeals, sneering...there is no interest in civility there and far less in allowing both sides to be heard. Those posters spare no effort in baiting and leading the forum onto the low road. Incivility is their hometurf and they hope to win there with their superior experience at it.

At least Hack makes an attempt at debate. I'll take a less than perfectly civil debate with him [not gonna see any respect from that quarter] over pure troll obstructionist antics.

212

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 11:13

Boldwin - I could not disagree with you more.

Between Sarge, Tree, Dwetz, GO, there is no interest in uncivil debate.

That goes for me too.

Your comments have only been throttled when they cross the bounds of civility. There has been no attempt to stifle debate.

224

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 21:12

Maybe when Guru gets out the bold, underline pen, it's time to reread the original post.

226

astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 23:45

No offense Baldwin, but I rarely see you 'debate'. That's why in another thread, I agreed with the notion that you are a bigot. When it comes to controversial topics I rarely see you waver on your points/stances (even though some of them could be deemed offensive). If someone brings up a valid rebuttal/counter you go tangential so as to avoid seemingly valuable compromise.

You may see that as being 'unflappable', but I see that as being obstinate. This is a forum after all.

227

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 23:47

Guru

From the receiving end all I see is instant ad hominem from those guys.

228

astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 23:53

I refute your claim.

All we have is what you post. It's not like I have anything else to go on besides your body of work on this forum.

229

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 00:20

Which claim is that?

230

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 00:23

Guru

Do you have access to deleted posts? Show me what was uncivil or uninteresting about the two linked posts I made in this thread that were deleted @186.

231

astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 00:41

RE: 229

This is the claim that I refute: "From the receiving end all I see is instant ad hominem from those guys."

232

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 08:10

re 230:

B, really.....just quit playing the victimized martyr role and post with some semblance of decency in the tone. That's all it calls for.

233

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 09:08

I just need to ignore you four no matter how you bait me and no matter how my silence confuses the lurkers.

234

Perm Dude in Denver
ID: 5931499
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 10:20

That is the most Christian statement you've ever made, Baldwin.

235

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 13:07

[230] Yes I do. Frankly, I was willing to let them stand at the time, although that may have been because I didn't understand your comments. One of the other moderators whacked that whole series, however.

And that was probably for the better, since you were making covert inuendos about other people's beliefs without responding to requests for your meaning. If you are going to post about other peoples' beliefs and motivations, then be prepared to explain and support your claims, or else they serve no purpose other than to confuse and/or inflame.

236

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 13:54

being a mod is a thankless job.

posts 212 and 235 deserve a big round of thank yous.

the speak a lot to my personal frustration here.

237

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 13:59

"If you are going to post about other peoples' beliefs and motivations, then be prepared to explain and support your claims, or else they serve no purpose other than to confuse and/or inflame."

Can we just, like, put this up in bold print instead of the whole yellow highlighted stuff we have now? Because this sums up the problem nicely.

238

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 15:34

The first deleted post was just insanely not qualified for deletion by any conceivable standard and the second one was a basic point about liberal tactics in the nation's political debate written by the foremost conservative commentator on the scene toady. Everyone is impoverished for not having read it. It makes a point about fundamental fairness and why it is so hard to communicate today and is the perfect post for this thread.

If the best liberals here can't read that without breaking out in hives we're all kidding ourselves thinking there is any point talking to the other side and 'we' can just rename this place liberal echo chamber, I'll turn out the light on the right side as the last conservative poster, and those remaining can raise a toast to the darkness.

239

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 15:57

the second one was a basic point about liberal tactics in the nation's political debate written by the foremost conservative commentator

and this wasn't the thread for that. i think that's the point behind the deletions.

I'll turn out the light on the right side as the last conservative poster, and those remaining can raise a toast to the darkness.

i feel pretty comfortable in saying that we'd have more civil debate and more interesting discussions if you actually do make good on your threat.

never mind the fact that many of the "liberals" here disagree on enough issues that it would make for good debate, but i think we'd also see some of the right-leaning lurkers coming out of the woodwork once you're gone.

240

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 16:10

I guess we will see if Dave Hall sees this place as the battleground of ideas where the sharpest minds sharpen steel on steel, or just a liberal bandwagon trolling for the weak-minded, unprincipled and confused. Real opposition need not apply.

241

Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 16:29

Re; 240

We've already disabused the notion of "steel on steel" Baldwin, see post 180. The only accurate way to characterize the recent posts is "insult upon insult".

242

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 16:44

How many points do you think Bill Buckley ever conceded? Do you think Firing Line was a waste of oxygen?

243

Perm Dude in Denver
ID: 1838916
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 17:08

The question isn't whether Buckley ever "conceded" anything (he did, but, again, that's not the point).

The question is whether he was ever civil. He was, nearly every single time.

You seem to be confusing "civility" with "concession" as if respecting others' beliefs taints your arguments. In fact, the opposite is the case--if you can't make an argument without insulting others, the argument is not worth making.

244

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 17:26

What he said.

245

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 17:47

How much time do you think he would have spent respecting Tree, Sarge and Dwetz if those three slipped in? He had abundant undeserved kindness but that would have been the series' shortest episode.

246

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 17:51

Probably about the same amount of time, assuming I or the others said the same things.

I think you requested the site owners opinion in 240. You now have it.

If you have cogent arguemnts to make, make them and I'm delighted to respond in kind. If you plan to make statements like "liberals don't know what evil is" and "Obama and his cronies are deliberately trying to destroy America", then you're going to get similar statements back in return about you and what you believe.

Strangely, I'm able to have pretty civil arguments with people like Nuclear Gophers, J-Bar, and pretty much everyone except you, even though I agree with pretty much nothing they think. Pretty much everyone else you cite as a troll has the exact same situation.

Perhaps it's time to realize that when ten people are in a room and you think the other nine are all crazy, that there might just be something askew with your point of view.

247

tree on the treo
ID: 287212811
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 18:22

dwetz - at this point I feel the two posts from Guru I mentioned earlier sum things up quite well.

perhaps its best to let the nice man you keep engaging continue to talk to himself, or at the very least, maybe Guru will continue to humour him.

248

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 18:41

[245] Once again, baseless accusation and inuendo with absolutely no possible basis to support your assertion.

249

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 18:58

"dwetz - at this point I feel the two posts from Guru I mentioned earlier sum things up quite well.

perhaps its best to let the nice man you keep engaging continue to talk to himself, or at the very least, maybe Guru will continue to humour him."

I partly agree. However, I think it's important to (for the umpteenth time) attempt to offer to elevate the debate. After this, if he continues, screw 'im, I'll let the boss deal with him.

Except for the smarmy British spelling! That's just out of bounds.

250

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 19:15

It's a different era.

251

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 19:24

*yawn*

About ten percent of that stuff I completely disagree with. The other 90% is half-second sound bites which are taken so completely context-free that I have no idea what the point is.

Much more importantly, none of those people to the best of my knowledge have posted on this forum, nor have any of the people that post on this forum said those things.

In other words, I don't give a crap what those people say, I'm offended that you choose their words to represent my views without even making the slightest effort to ascertain what my views are, and the entire thing is just the same BS I specifically pointed out in post 246.

Your entire argument seems to be that because a two second snippet of Keith Olbermann's show said something you disagree with, you have the right to tell everyone you don't like that they're evil and trying to destroy America. You are wrong, of course.

So I guess you've made you point, now I guess it's time to see if the moderators and the site operator are going to let unfettered hate speech by YOU continue.

252

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 19:51

I had no idea all those MSNBC people were posting on this forum. I guess this place has become more popular than I realized.

253

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 22:05

1) Why do you think that network has made such a drastic change?

2) Why do you think those forces won't manifest here?

3) Just how placid do you expect a revolution to be?

254

Perm Dude in Denver
ID: 1838916
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 22:33

You aren't fighting a revolution. You are just being insulting and casting about for a reason to continue doing so.

255

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 22:34

re 242 and 245

Are you TRULY of the opinion that your arguments are anything REMOTELY equivalent to any of Buckleys?

256

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 22:40

PD

True, I am not fighting a revolution, but there is one going on.

257

J-Bar
ID: 54334818
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 23:53

ridiculous

258

Building 7
ID: 232122716
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 09:11

DWetzel: Strangely, I'm able to have pretty civil arguments with people like Nuclear Gophers, J-Bar, and pretty much everyone except you, even though I agree with pretty much nothing they think.

Some recent DWetzel examples from the Obama 4 thread.:

#398...'Your asinine argument, J-Bar, is that because infinite amounts of something might possibly be bad, then we should never use any of it. I get your argument. I just think that anyone with a level of intelligence above the fourth grade would understand why its a stupid argument that wastes Internet bandwidth.'

#403....'J-Bar, youre really going to have to try to not make completely idiotic arguments if you want to be taken seriously..........And as long as were refuting idiotic "arguments", lets go after.....

#445...'B7, do you see the difference between "You are an idiot" and "That is an idiotic argument"?Heres a hint--since youre being pedantic (you can look it up!), "idiotic" is an adjective, which modifies a noun. It makes a large difference whether the noun it is modifying is the argument, or the person MAKING the argument.'

.......................

He thinks its OK to call someone's ideas idiotic instead of directly calling them an idiot. I don't think either one is civil.

260

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 10:27

It's all Alinski tactics

The idea here is to pound away at the target. Persistence is the key for their narrative. They’ll say we’re racists and terrorists today, and again tomorrow, and next week, next month, and all year long. They’ll say it spite of a lack of evidence, and they’ll ignore evidence to the contrary. They’ll continue to accuse us of what they do, and they will not stop until it sticks. It is the architecture of the “big lie,” and the left are experts at it.

The organized do it on the small scale and on the large scale, as they are planning against the Tea Partiers.

And if you are just an average Joe, you have no idea this sort of stuff goes on, because you don't have an agenda and you have not been organized.

261

bibA
ID: 44334109
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 10:34

Another quote of his that may also have bearing on this subject:

"I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide."

262

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 11:58

As if Alinski hadn't accepted marxism.

He dedicated his book to Satan, and seems to have learned a trick from Nero who blamed others for the fire he set to burn down Rome.

Alinski is all about rigid and iron-fisted.

263

WiddleAvi
ID: 352232517
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 12:08

Boldwin - The idea here is to pound away at the target. Persistence is the key for their narrative. They’ll say we’re racists and terrorists today, and again tomorrow, and next week, next month, and all year long. They’ll say it spite of a lack of evidence, and they’ll ignore evidence to the contrary.

How easy it is to switch that to the right: Keep repeating that Obama is a socialist, Marxist etc. without any evidence to back it up.

265

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 12:36

How many blatantly up front about it marxist mentors in his past and blatantly up front about it marxist members of his team before they count as evidence?

266

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 12:55

[258] There is a method for reporting uncivil posts to the moderators.

Those posts were never reported. If they had been, I would have seen them, and they would most likely have been deleted.

You cannot expect every moderator to notice every uncivil post in this forum. If you see something that you believe violates the policy, them you should report it.

267

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 13:14

BTW, "WWBD" (What would Buckley do?) isn't a bad standard to use as a civility benchmark. Or, since he's dead, maybe "WWGWD" (What would George Will do?)

268

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 13:23

"WWPND" (Peggy Noonan)

There's no shortage of smart and respectful conservatives to emulate.

269

Building 7
ID: 232122716
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 13:26

It was discussed in posts 409-415, and the moderator knew about it.

I would just like to get a ruling on this:

He thinks its OK to call someone's ideas idiotic instead of directly calling them an idiot. I don't think either one is civil.

270

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 14:17

If the only alternative is to agree with the idea, or ignore it, we're going to have a very silly debateless forum indeed.

ANY adjective which doesn't agree with someone else's argument is by definition disparaging to that argument. If I call someone's idea "flawed", does it mean I think they're a flawed person, and if so does that count as insulting them and I should have my post deleted? Because, other than some pretty damn precise word usage, it's exactly the same thing.

Also, other people who do not post on this forum: Alinski, Noam Chomsky, and Hitler. I'd really rather that we not say "you think this" when the simple answer is "no, I don't think that, basically nobody here agrees with about 80% of what those people say, plus or minus twenty percent depending on the subject, and I've told you this twenty times." I'm getting more than a little sick and tired of being told what my argument is and then being insulted and lied to when I say that is not it. So, Boldwin, stop doing it. Please.

272

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 14:25

[269] He is not "the" moderator. There are multiple moderators, and we do not all have the same standards. Just because one moderator has let something slide does not mean that I would. And I was never notified. And I think I would have torched all three of those posts.

There is danger in trying to draw a bright line as to what is acceptable, because I don't want people to try to wordsmith a response right up to that line. But here are some general standards that I think are appropriate:

Not acceptable
"You are an idiot."
"That idea is idiotic."
"Your assinine argument..."
"anyone with a level of intelligence above the fourth grade would understand why..."
"you're really going to have to try to not make completely idiotic arguments"

I understand the difference between a person and an argument. But if a statement would most likely be interpreted as "you're an idiot", then it walks like a duck.

An acceptable way to respond might be

"the flaw/fallacy in your argument is that it...", or
"I reject the notion that...", or
"please explain why you seem to think that...", or
"correct me if I'm wrong ,but if I understand your comment, then you apparently think that..."

There are probably ways that some form of the word "idiot/idiotic/idiocy" could be acceptably used. But in the three examples cited in [258], they seem to be carefully constructed to inflame without directly saying "You are an idiot."

Suppose that you were responding to some authority figure who you respect (which could be a parent, or clergy, or a judge, or an officer who is about to write you a ticket). How would you respond to what you believe to be a idiotic statement? Presume that the person you are addressing has some intellect, and deserves your respect. Point out what you perceive as the flaw in their argument or assumption. You can usually do that without resorting to name-calling, regardless of the part of speech used.

273

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 14:44

"But in the three examples cited in [258], they seem to be carefully constructed to inflame

You give me far too much credit.

Also, I'd point out that in each of the first two cases B7 cites, there are some very telling ellipses in which I DID make an effort to explain WHY I was saying what I said.

In post 445, I was trying specifically to make the argument I made above, had NOTHING to do with calling anyone an idiot, and I'm frankly SHOCKED that you would even consider it worthy of deletion (except, possibly as part of a general nuking of a portion of a thread. On its face and by itself, there is absolutely nothing inflaming about it, and I'd really appreciate a specific comment about that post, because I really, truly just don't get what's deletion worthy there.

Regardless, if that is sincerely the standard by which you, the site owner, believe the posts should have been deleted, then please take the time to get with your moderators, because they need to delete about 60% of the posts that have been put up since the civility policy was allegedly implemented, and it isn't happening.

274

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 15:08

When you have to defend a post by calling attention to parts of speech, then you should probably recognize that it can be construed as inflammatory, and at that point, you should probably nuke it yourself and recast the argument in a more civil manner, rather than continuing the battle.

I would also point out that very few posts that have been reported have been allowed to stand - although a few have.

I think that when the policy was first implemented, behavior was generally better for awhile. Since then, we have gotten more comfortable, and less careful, and bad habits and incivility tend to grow and beget more of the same.

It's also important to recognize, when we are restricted to the written word, tone and inuendo are often difficult to attribute accurately. What we may be intending as a very innocuous comment may sound much more inflammatory when read and interpreted by others.

275

Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 19:18

OK. Thanks for the clarifcation, guru.

276

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 09:33

If moderators are going to allow posts calling people "unhinged" and "a troll" and telling them to just leave, while deleting requests for said posts to be deleted (so you know they were seen but not acted on), then this whole thread, and this forum, is 275+ posts of pure fraud.

I had a choice, to, try to get it to stop and walk away, or continue the banter. I thought the right choice was the first one. Obviously the moderators disagree?

Get new moderators. The ones you have can't do their job.

277

Mith
ID: 482583111
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 09:39

You know there's another solution for you if you're unhappy with the job they're doing.

278

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 09:54

I'm aware of that and it's under consideration. Thanks for your words of encouragement though.

Do you think the posts I referenced are OK in the context of the civility policy we are supposed to have?

279

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 10:16

I've got a related question.

Do MITH and PD think the their general tenor is different today than it was 4-6 years ago?

If so how would you two describe it?

I think it's a very very interesting topic that mirrors the whole culture and probably worthy of a thread of it's own. I'll be interested to see if you can see it.

At the very least can't we say that the shrill knob has been turned up more than one notch for everybody?

280

Mith
ID: 482583111
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 10:23

DWtez

Regarding the one you specified that I wrote, yes, it was poorly worded, but it wasn't a personal attack. I would have understood if it had been deleted. I'm not interested in commenting on any other posts.

Did you send an email? Isn't that the established procedure? I know you said you weren't in a position to do so the other day (and apparently you just had to publicly address those posts before you would be able to send one) but perhaps rather than spam up a couple of threads this morning you could just follow the proper procedure?

Boldwin
I was more hostile 4 - 6 years ago. I was emulating you.

281

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 10:30

Maybe it's just that you got a bit radicalized when you started your own blog, and PD when he put his hat in the ring. I think it's more than that, but it's at least that.

I see Alinski tactics entering into it and I'm trying to figure out how those marching orders went out to the non-cognoscenti. I should prolly read TPM archives.

282

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 10:36

"Did you send an email? Isn't that the established procedure? I know you said you weren't in a position to do so the other day (and apparently you just had to publicly address those posts before you would be able to send one) but perhaps rather than spam up a couple of threads this morning you could just follow the proper procedure?"

No, I didn't; as stated I wasn't in a convenient spot to do so. I had planned to do so this morning if there had been no action taken at all, presuming that the moderators hadn't seen it ( which would be one thing and completely understandable).

But when a deliberate action is taken to delete that request, and no action is taken on the direct personal attacks, that means a moderator's seen the post and made a specific, conscious evaluation that calling someone unhinged, calling them a troll, and telling them to just leave is okay.

Can you see how that's rather disappointing to me, given that this is basically the reason we had to start this thread a few months ago?

Which means that my sending an email now is unlikely to result in any particular satisfaction. The decision's been made. I don't particularly have a lot of recourse other than to vent my frustration and hope that I can effect a useful change in policy. Am I going about it wrong? Probably; if you can suggest another productive means of action (and "love it or leave it" is not a productive means of action, so please don't go down that road).

And yes, I know I'm too sensitive to this stuff. I'm trying to deal with it, I really am. I thought I was doing the right thing by bring attention to the fact that there was a bunch of stuff going on and walking away from the computer, rather than continuing to get engaged in the conversation.

That's what everyone keeps telling me to do. Ignore it and walk away and let the moderators deal with it, right? So I did that--and basically got a giant middle finger from whichever moderator dealt with the problem. And that's what I'm currently most disappointed about more than anything.

283

Mith
ID: 482583111
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 11:03

I spent too much time trying to push for better standards here, too. My approach wasn't so different from yours. It doesn't work.

I think most of us agree that the place is a lot more enjoyable since Guru added the new civility standards.

I know you've been offered a lot of unsolicited advice and I'm sorry to add to that pile but I think you should stop complaining so much, particularly the way you call out the (volunteer) moderators in public.

284

tree on the treo
ID: 287212811
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 11:11

dwetz...

email the mods. you may not get the result you want. then again, you may.

I've had both experiences. I've had a mod explain to me why they felt a post was borderline, but ultimately why they woudlnt delete it. I pushed back, and the position was reiterated.

I disagreed, but I felt the process was a fair one.

I also feel that dealing with baldwin (the reason for your ire) is less and less worth the public time. he'll claim he is being perscuted while at the same claiming to save our souls, a nice little messiah complex. he'll claim we're all victims of socialism, while being Agents of Alinsky.

and so on and so forth. you can't rationally challenge a person who uses those tactics because they're not rational, and the sooner you understand that, the better you'll feel, and you'll learn to, at the same time, laugh at that person's absurdity, and feel sorry for them.

use the email system. it works.

285

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 11:16

There's been a lot more crying to the refs (both formally and informally), but I can't say there is much more overall civility, IMO. A lot more talking about civility, in the same nasty personality-based posting as before, justified by the same excuses ("save the lurkers!" "can't let that go unchallenged!" et al) as before.

286

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 11:23

I disagree with Mith, and agree with PD, that civility has not increased significantly. It did, for about three weeks, but we're all backsliding.

287

Mith
ID: 482583111
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 11:24

You think so, PD? I think most everyone is making an effort, those of us who needed to, anyway. I think it shows.

288

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 11:25

Sadly, I do. I think "civility" is just another issue being tossed around, using the same techniques as others.

289

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 14:14

i'm somewhere in the middle. i do believe civility, generally speaking, has increased. i think there are two folks here who think the rules don't apply to them, and they both spend a lot of time complaining about the rules.

sure, baldwin gets under my skin. i personally think i've gotten better at ignoring his attacks, and the public comments from Guru last week went a long way toward validating my feelings on the matter.

in particular, posts 212 and 235 helped cool my jets, because when the guy who runs the show calls you on the carpet, it really isn't necessary at that point for anyone else to do it.

i think a lot of the lingering incivility (is that even a word?) would be eliminated if two things happened:

1. DWetz would just refer to my post 284, and accept that certain things are going to be certain ways. Yes, Baldwin has a lot of trolling, antagonistic posts. and yes, i think he gets away with more than other people. but that's just how it is - if something bothers you, email it to the mods. like i said, i feel they've been fair and even-handed with the numerous posts i've sent their way.

2. Baldwin would cut it with the blanket statements. cut it with referring to every person who posts here who doesn't believe in his End Times Radical Conservative Christian ideology asa Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Agent of Allinsky, Liberal, America-hater, or whatever.

it gets exhausting, and that's what pisses me off, because it's cheap, it's easy, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing worth accomplishing.

it's lazy way out when you don't have an argument, all the while tossing out an insult that is obviously an intent to incite, but not enough to get the post pulled.

anyway, that's my story, and i'm sticking to it.

DWetz, just accept that's how it is, and if you have a concern, go through the proper channels. Baldwin, knock it off with the inflammatory blanket statements about your fellow posters.

and i think we have a significantly better forum at that point.

290

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 14:23

I think we are ten times more civil than we were a year ago. We attracted a handful of new posters and thankfully lost a few others.

291

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 14:44

Those who don't believe in marxist class warfare wealth redistribution, I'd dearly like to hear you speak up and self-identify.

292

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 15:02

We have been. You just aren't hearing us.

And I'm sure you could have crammed a few more buzzwords in there the make it even less meaningful of a phrase.

293

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 15:15

Those who don't believe in marxist class warfare wealth redistribution, I'd dearly like to hear you speak up and self-identify.

you've got no interest in anyone speaking up to "self-identify", because every time someone does so - which is quite often - you strike a familiar pose:

294

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 16:14

PD

Ah, so you no longer believe in taking Tree's brother's money and giving it to me.

But we all know you do.

295

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 16:37

Of course you do, Boldwin. You believe anything that reinforces your bias, and reject anything which doesn't as "marxist" or "socialist" or whatever else your GOP "slam-of-the-day calendar" has.

I believe that the haves should help out the have-nots. I believe that letting the free market alone accomplish that is un-Christian.

Jesus was called lots of names, too.

296

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 17:19

He didn't send his disciples out two by two, to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

297

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 18:30

your fallacy skills are tremendous. the unintentional comedy of post 296 is brilliant.

298

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 19:11

Well, I guess Tree was right on with post 289.

299

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 19:53

fish in a barrel DWetz, fish in a barrel. i almost want to make a soundboard of Baldwinian responses.

300

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 19:54

That would be much less cool than the Gus Johnson soundboard, I have to say.

301

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Mon, Apr 19, 2010, 16:42

I have noticed that one useful way we can categorize people is between those who are checking the forum every hour and those who check it daily or less frequently.

Inevitably the frequent members will tend to chat.

Inevitibly this will annoy the infrequent posters.

Beyond trying to be mindful of including one novel idea in each post instead of just an empty emote response, are there any tools we could use to defuse this? Maybe a deliberately chatty thead for the chatty to get it out of their system?

I know Salon TableTalk has a Cafe Thread where they sling the irrelevant chat around. A lot of running jokes and themes going that you wouldn't want to clutter the substantial threads with. Very funny stuff sometimes. Occasional violent flame wars break out but they used to be very very short-lived. Maybe because the whole point of the thread was that everyone wanted a light-hearted and funny cafe and even the hot-heads had better sense than to overextend the flame war because their own side would smack em down soon enuff if necessary.

The ratio of libs to cons was about 500 to 10, so it wasn't hard to attract three ankle ferrets on the regular threads. They didn't harrass me at the cafe much tho.

There were some respected old-timers [non-mods] who would keep their own side from getting outta hand. I can't remember if the mods deleted posts. I think they had an edit function and would trim a sentence now and then, not often.

302

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Mon, Apr 19, 2010, 16:44

Then again towards the very end of the Clinton admin they went pay to post to drive out the conservatives.

303

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Mon, Apr 19, 2010, 17:02

Every year there would be one new 'lowest common denominator' poster descending progressively to writing in color and half-page size letters. I used to call them crayon posters. The respected old bulls [non-mod][libs of course] hustled them right out the door.

304

Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, Apr 19, 2010, 18:22

Then again towards the very end of the Clinton admin they went pay to post to drive out the conservatives.

of course they did. that's exactly why they did that.

they were just going straight from the playbook, as this action (to steal from PD), is sign #47 from the Alinsky/Ayers book PLUNGING A DEMOCRACY INTO MARXISM FOR DUMMIES.

305

Mith
ID: 482583111
Mon, Apr 19, 2010, 21:04

they went pay to post to drive out the conservatives

I thought liberals were the ones who go through life expecting everything to be provided to them, and conservatives the ones who understand that in a capitalist society we cannot expect to live on handouts.

306

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 16:27

The problem is that a donation to Salon.com is like donating to the committee to elect the next socialist.

307

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 16:31

And anyone who was there during that period surely felt that was part of the motivation.

That site is decidedly not meant to be bi-partisan and they don't appreciate the competition in the marketplace of ideas.

308

Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 16:41

That site is decidedly not meant to be bi-partisan

since when is that an issue to you? you're the defender of the most partisan of sources.

309

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 17:01

310

boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 17:06

311

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 17:14

Baldwin speculates on why they left. When they were here, however, his ability to get into their minds was demonstrably poor. I just don't believe that ability has improved now that they are no longer here to confirm or deny his points, which just so happen to coincide with his bias.

[And, not to put too fine a point on it, that point undergirds his entire reasoning for being confrontational on this forum].

312

boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 17:16

still PD do you wonder where did they go?

313

Mith
ID: 482583111
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 17:25

A few of us are in touch with Madman via facebook, though he doesn't seem to be very active there. Toral is still around Rotoguru, just not in this forum. Both of them offered explanations for leaving, as I recall.

Houpt has checked in but once or twice since Katrina.

Funny, no one ever asks about the very solid left-leaning contributers who left; JKP, Yankeeh8er/Soxzeitgeist and Jazz.

All six of those people are sorely missed here.

314

Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 17:32

There is probably a number of reasons. The main one, I
would speculate, and also the reason many progressives no
longer post here, is people get busy, and have to prioritize
there time. 10 years ago this site was vital. It served a
function hard to find other places. Not there are millions of
sites that serve this function, many frankly better.

Another reason may be embarrassment. If I doggedly
defended bush and the Iraq war, I would frankly avoid the
places I had made such brash and incorrect calls. No one
likes to be reminded how wrong they were over and over.

A third reason is the obvious degradation of discourse and
content. That's a bit of chicken and egg however.

315

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 17:34

#312: I know where they went--they question is why they left.

:)

My understanding is that Madman left because he got married and now has several kids and got busy. Sludge had the same experience. Both of them slowly stopped posting to our group blog (Dead Parrot Society) about the same time.

Toral left for reasons only he can clarify--but he seemed to have no problem slamming on Baldwin when the mood struck him. I think the thought of Boldwin speaking as to his reasons would strike him as odd, at best.

People move on. It doesn't have to be for partisan reasons that can only be responded to by becoming hyper-partisan.

316

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 18:05

Given the very real differences between Boldwin and the conservatives who no longer post here, I'm wondering why he feels he not only knows why they left, but that he has some kind of post-hoc blanket solution to it. - PD

Maybe it was the astonished Madman E-mailing me a week before he stopped posting, expressing disbelief at the way I had just been treated. Not saying that I was the reason, but the forum lost it's civility towards conservatives a long time before liberals noticed the place had degenerated.

Another perfect example was Boxman. He was a fine poster before the trolls drove him over the edge and he reacted in kind.

How I and B7 have managed to let it roll off our back would have Alinski scratching his head if the dead were conscious which they are not.

317

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 18:07

before the trolls drove him over the edge and he reacted in kind

Ha! Boxman was an ass, and when he couldn't stop being an ass he was banned. Stop making excuses for him.

318

Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 18:08

If I doggedly defended... the Iraq war, I would frankly avoid the places I had made such brash and incorrect calls. No one likes to be reminded how wrong they were over and over.

I'm glad that hasn't stopped MITH from hanging out here ;)

319

Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 18:14

Another perfect example was Boxman. He was a fine poster before the trolls drove him over the edge and he reacted in kind.

you only think so because he was your lap dog.

he was one of the few people ever banned from this board. and then he actually returned for a bit, post-ban.

there was rarely anything quality in his posts, and the fact that you refused to even remotely attempt to reign him in played a big role in his eventual departure.

we've been over this before. the leftists here have often called out their similar minded counterparts. the right has rarely, if ever, done that here.

320

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 18:19

I would hasten to add that Madman did indeed also have family reasons and he decided to prioritize more towards getting his career established.

Azdbacker graduated and started his own conservative site and pursued a journalism career, at one time becoming a contributing member of one of the main conservative opinion sites, in my estimation not much less prestigious than Hot Air or PajamasMedia.

Toral decided he was better than this place which he was, and did what I should have done and moved on to better pursuits. True there was a bit of thin-skinned reaction there at the end over rule-making in the poliboard leagues that I think helped push him over the edge. I caught a wiff that he needed to get beyond this petty bickering for his own moral growth.

I think Bili hit on a huge point. This was our blogging before the blog phenomenon took off. Now days we can find blogs that better suit our taste.

321

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 18:20

the right has rarely, if ever, done that here

I cautioned him at least every week, not to let you drag him down to your level.

323

Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 18:23

I cautioned him at least every week, not to let you drag him down to your level.

1. no you did not.
2. thanks for making it personal again. you really can't help yourself, and it's actually kind of sad.

324

Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, May 06, 2010, 10:22

going all the way back to posts 20 and 21 in this thread, a tidbit from this article about 10 unwritten rules in baseball you may not know...

number 8 on the list:
This is a book in itself. How one talks to umpires goes a long way toward getting favorable calls, or at least not getting thrown out of a game. ("That call was horse----" is generally acceptable; "You're horse----" is never acceptable.) Some savvy teams go so far as to post headshots and bios in the clubhouse for the umps working that day's game, so that players can butter them up a bit.

Still, there are ways to express anger without getting tossed. After umpire Shag Crawford called Dick Groat out on a play at second base, Groat told him, "You're still the second best umpire in the league." Then he added that the other 19 umpires were tied for first.

i do love Groat's comment. i miss baseball sometimes.

325

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Thu, May 06, 2010, 15:30

324-Dont take this post personally Tree please. Even though we disagree alot in the other threads I really think you and me could have good conversations on baseball. Now using a baseball analogy, and knowing how you stand politically, lets say you were a major league player and I was the home plate umpire and you were up to bat. The count goes 2 and 2, and you looked at the next pitch right down the middle without swinging, I would ring the third strike up so loud and pull the chain so hard (and as Frank Pulli told us in Umpiring school it would feel better than sex). LOL

326

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Fri, May 07, 2010, 05:02

We were also told that if you hear the the word horseshit, autonatic ejcection. And also that works the other way, the umpires know the whiners and crybabies on all the teams, thats when my analogy takes affect. ;)

327

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, May 07, 2010, 08:25

sounds like a bunch of horse$hit to me :oD

328

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, May 07, 2010, 11:34

waiting for the explosion.

329

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Fri, May 07, 2010, 11:49

You have once again proven my point, that your only purpose at this site is to make it impossible for me to post.

330

Mith
ID: 482583111
Fri, May 07, 2010, 11:58

B you've posted in that style before and never seemed to have a problem with people interrupting your string. You don't own a thread just because you start it.

But really, with Guru's thread-abbreviating thingy we weren't even going to be able to see all of the names on one page without having to extend the thread. If you're taking the time to link all their wiki pages anyway, it might have been useful to have a thread with all that content available in the subject field so that it's always at the top. And you'd obviously use a lot fewer keystrokes that way. Of course the project loses all of it's obnoxiousness that way.

332

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, May 07, 2010, 12:03

on a personal level, the deleted thread to me sure felt like spam for spam's purpose.

it didn't do anything but list democrats retiring from congress, one post at a time.

it provided no further information, and it didn't even attempt to list the 30 or so republicans are retiring.

additionally, your subject line was so awfully misguided and was a blatant attempt again to not even be remotely bi-partisan instead attempting to paint democrats as rats abandoning the sinking ship.

starting a thread, and posting this link, might accomplish more with less effort, AND stimulate conversation and discourse.

333

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 07, 2010, 12:03

[329] Crapola.

I didn't torch that thread - another moderator did. But you were apparently posting in the manner that you did primarily to agitate others. And when asked to explain why you were doing it that way, your only response pretty much confirmed that assessment.

334

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Fri, May 07, 2010, 12:13

Tree is the one whose only mission is to prevent debate by booing and obstruction.

Having a list of wikipedia bios of those leaving would have been useful to me during the election. I'll have to find a site which is not threatened by a completely unemotional unsubjective list of links.

335

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Fri, May 07, 2010, 12:14

And I judged #327 to indicate he was up to it again.

336

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, May 07, 2010, 12:27

re 334 - whatever. i posted a VALUABLE link in that thread, and in 332 of this one, relating to what you were trying to do, in an attempt to make it comprehensive, easier to read, and in a format that might appeal to discussion.

re 335 - reading comprehension much?

the comment in 327 has ZERO to do with you - the world doesn't revolve around you Baldwin Christ. it directly referenced the 3 posts previous to it, and was completely relevant to THAT conversation.

did you even bother to read the post right before 327? yea, didn't think so.

337

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Fri, May 07, 2010, 12:32

If a simple list of links listed without commentary is such acid dripping on your head that you cannot bear it, and must protest until it stops then you see why I don't bother engaging you as a rule.

338

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, May 07, 2010, 12:45

If a simple list of links listed without commentary is such acid dripping on your head that you cannot bear it, and must protest until it stops then you see why I don't bother engaging you as a rule.

(i like how you ignored your own point of ignorance in 335. it's typical of you)

as for that thread, you can blame me, but i'm not a moderator here. i didn't delete a thread that you admitted was nothing more than a personal reference for you. i just admired the folly of the right said thread.

clearly i'm not the only one who had an issue with it, and quite frankly, if you truly feel as if you do in 329, no one is forcing you to stay here.

339

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 07, 2010, 12:55

[334] First of all, my purpose here is not to provide you with a free link-warehousing facility. And it has not gone unnoticed that, although you have posted as much or more on RotoGuru than anyone else has over the past 10 years, there is no GuruPatron designation next to your name. So it is has been a free resource to you. It is not free to me, however.

Second, there are better ways to post a list of links than to create a series of individual posts. For example, you could put them all in a single post. Even better, you could put them in a single file on your own computer. Or, if you want to look up a certain Wikipedia entry for a retiring legislator, you can simply type that name into google, or into the search field at Wikipedia. So I don't really see much value in a separate warehouse of Wikipedia links - for you or for anyone else. So I'm not convinced that was truly your motivation.

341

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 07, 2010, 13:53

Lest anyone feel they have been unduly muzzled, here are the number of posts since the beginning of 2010 in the politics forum, when the civility policy went into effect:

Boldwin 1405
Perm Dude 1030
Tree 563
biliruben 473
DWetzel 297
sarge33rd 292
Mith 281
Pancho Villa 245
Nuclear Gophers 182
boikin 170
All others combined 1822

Total posts: 6760

342

Great One
ID: 54457712
Fri, May 07, 2010, 13:57

I bet I am leading this posts competition in all forums combined...lock it up! :)

343

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 07, 2010, 14:12

GO: Nope - not even top 7.

344

Great One
ID: 54457712
Fri, May 07, 2010, 14:14

boo... i gotta step up.

345

Farn @ work
Leader
ID: 451044109
Fri, May 07, 2010, 14:16

GO - I think I might start posting each wrestler's points for each show individually, including those who didn't appear. I should catch up in no time.

Btw Guru, I've been extremely negligent in donating. I'll be donating by the end of the weekend. If not please remind me. I'd do it now but I can't from work.

346

Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Fri, May 07, 2010, 14:48

One out of every five posts is from Boldwin. That sounds about right.

Who leads in deleted posts? Can you tell?

347

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 07, 2010, 15:08

Not as easy to count deleted posts, although frankly, not very many have been deleted.

Of the top 10 politics forum posters, 7 are GuruPatrons, and those seven have contributed an aggregate amount of $1370. Essentially, they are carrying the financial burden of this forum, along with many other less frequent posters. Without them, this forum would not exist.

Arguably, the evidence suggests that Boldwin views this forum as tantamount to a "public entitlement", and is perfectly content to be the largest "forum welfare recipient" while allowing others to subsidize his activity.

And I wonder whether he really feels as abused as he claims. Would you be the largest consumer of a resource if you thought that it was abusing you? If so, then maybe it's like an addiction. Sure it hurts, but he just can't stop.

348

Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Fri, May 07, 2010, 15:23

I thought the civility standard had already taken things where
I wished they didn't go; but now we are including discussion
of Patron status in a discussion of of whether a poster's
thread topic has merit. If it helps, credit Baldwin with half my
contributions; then maybe ge can claim to have a better point.

Dave- to state the obvious, this is your site to do with as you
wish, but, respectfully, political discourse becomes valueless
to me under these circumstances.

350

Farn @ work
Leader
ID: 451044109
Fri, May 07, 2010, 15:36

I don't think the real point is that he doesn't contribute anything. I am guessing there are numerous posters in this forum who don't have the means to contribute. The problem is he treats it as a personal dumping ground for his every thought. If you saw his post this morning before it was deleted you would understand.

I would give my left arm to have Boldwin make rational comments and try to see the point of view of others. We need conservative posters here badly. But he seems to take some of his posts a little too far.

351

chode
ID: 4744089
Fri, May 07, 2010, 15:37

You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Get it through your head.

352

Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Fri, May 07, 2010, 15:37

I am carrying the load of all the other conservatives who had more welcoming places to be.

353

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, May 07, 2010, 15:38

Stop. Make your own points--don't presume to speak on behalf of others. Particularly since most left of their own accord and had nothing to do with feeling the persecution which infects most of your posts.

354

blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Fri, May 07, 2010, 15:38

Forum welfare recipient - now THIS is getting interesting.

I'd be more interested to see the top 5 posters by forum...

355

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, May 07, 2010, 15:42

i find the statistical $ interesting, but i also agree with some of MBJ's sentiment. i know it's been a few years since i donated - i do have a means to do so again, and it's on my list, after catching up on some fantasy sports "debt".

Farn's 350 is more to the point and i agree 100 percent with The problem is he treats it as a personal dumping ground for his every thought. If you saw his post this morning before it was deleted you would understand.

i agree 150 percent with I would give my left arm to have Boldwin make rational comments and try to see the point of view of others. We need conservative posters here badly. But he seems to take some of his posts a little too far.

even when encouraged by other posters to tone down the rhetoric and make an attempt to be rational and decent, he sees it as an attack that he refuses to back down from.

356

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Fri, May 07, 2010, 15:43

Although I find Baldwin to be one of the most opinionated and close minded persons I have come across, I gotta admit that were he not posting, this forum would lose most of the fire that attracts me to it.

357

Great One
ID: 54457712
Fri, May 07, 2010, 15:55

He's like watching a car crash.

358

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 07, 2010, 16:23

[348] Unfortunately, I think you are taking some of this latest discussion out of context. But rather than belabor the issue, I'm going to shut up.

359

Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Fri, May 07, 2010, 16:37

After reading post 327 to post 358 I am throwing you all out of the game.

360

Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Fri, May 07, 2010, 16:51

FTR- I saw the thread. I didn't see how it violated any civility
policy or other establshed groundrule. Someone didn't find
value in it and deleted it. Interesting precedent.

361

biliruben
ID: 113582522
Fri, May 07, 2010, 16:56

4th. Dang! And here I thought I hardly posted at all anymore.

That shows you the difference between reality and perception!

For what it's worth, my 2-cents are pretty much MBJs 2-cents. I can always spare some copper (or zinc) for a friend in need.

I get pretty turned off by any attempt to judge posts on anything beyond their own merit.

362

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, May 07, 2010, 18:05

I saw it too, it didn't bother me.

When I had a chance, I was going to throw in the Libertarian dogcatcher of some podunk town Montana though, to illustrate what a worthless thread it was. That would have been equally valuable.

363

Boldwin
ID: 8423823
Mon, May 10, 2010, 04:50

Some theme music for the fraternity.

364

Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, May 10, 2010, 08:37

like shooting fish in a barrel. per usual.

365

DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Mon, May 10, 2010, 09:53

Because blatantly calling people trolls in the "future of the forum" thread is a great way to prove how well you play with others...

366

Boldwin
ID: 8423823
Mon, May 10, 2010, 19:19

Gang stalking.

The only reason I have been resistant to these tactics is I started here early enuff. Any more recent arriving conservative couldn't unless they were exceptionally tuff individuals and exceptionally detirmined to not being driven off.

367

Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, May 10, 2010, 20:35

Divine.

368

Boldwin
ID: 24528715
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 05:17

Sure?

369

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 07:55

Did you take it to heart?

370

Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 08:27

Did you identify with it?

371

Boldwin
ID: 24528715
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 10:57

Anyone who expects to pay an extremely high price for their principles, has given it more thot than you guys.

372

Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 11:16

perhaps i should revise the Baldwin of post #367 to this one:

you carry the cross for us all, Baldwin H. Bernhardt.

373

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 11:32

Baldwin: You choose to post on this forum. No one forces you too. Putting aside your martyrdom fantasies, what "principles" exactly are you talking about? Can you point to one well-put principle in your rambling Sestak thread?

Most of these posts are self-fulfilling: "I'm being persecuted because I am right! The more you attack me the bigger my shell grows"

374

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 11:55

All I know is from that headline from 368, at LEAST 2/3 of those guys with the Jesus complexes were completely delusional.

Gotta go with the odds on these things.

375

Boldwin
ID: 24528715
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 18:13

PD

Even on this forum it is common for certain posters to refer to any sincere true believer as the taliban.

Those posters are ahead of the globalist curve on that one, but those people will someday launch a war on the religious and anyone who refuses to compromise will really pay a high price.

Don't worry, PD. You will fold for them like origami. You won't have any problem from them. Your relationship with God is another story.

The entire second 'chapter' of Psalm describes this hardening of the governments towards the religious at the very end.

2 Why have the nations been in tumult
And the national groups themselves kept muttering an empty thing?

2 The kings of earth take their stand
And high officials themselves have massed together as one
Against Jehovah and against his anointed one,
3 [Saying:] “Let us tear their bands apart
And cast their cords away from us!”

4 The very One sitting in the heavens will laugh;
Jehovah himself will hold them in derision.

5 At that time he will speak to them in his anger
And in his hot displeasure he will disturb them,
6 [Saying:] “I, even I, have installed my king
Upon Zion, my holy mountain.”

7 Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah;
He has said to me: “You are my son;
I, today, I have become your father.

8 Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance
And the ends of the earth as your own possession.

9 You will break them with an iron scepter,
As though a potter’s vessel you will dash them to pieces.”

10 And now, O kings, exercise insight;
Let yourselves be corrected, O judges of the earth.

11 Serve Jehovah with fear
And be joyful with trembling.

12 Kiss the son, that He may not become incensed
And YOU may not perish [from] the way,
For his anger flares up easily.
Happy are all those taking refuge in him.

376

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 18:20

Martydom fantasies, Biblical quotes, and armageddon predictions (but those people will someday launch a war on the religious and anyone who refuses to compromise will really pay a high price.)

Exactly what is wrong with this forum.

377

Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 18:26

Even on this forum it is common for certain posters to refer to any sincere true believer as the taliban.

Those posters are ahead of the globalist curve on that one, but those people will someday launch a war on the religious and anyone who refuses to compromise will really pay a high price.

there are posters here who might possibly believe they above. those posters are likely paranoid and delusional, and bordering on being mentally unstable.

there are also posters here who have already launched a war on the religious - particularly if those religious people have brown skin. there's no someday about it - those posters are doing it now.

378

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 18:51

"Even on this forum it is common for certain posters to refer to any sincere true believer as the taliban."

Quotes, please, or delete as slander.

379

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 19:32

any sincere true believer

Obviously you're speaking of a believer of religious dogma, but many people have sincere true beliefs outside of the religious arena that you delight in insulting, deriding and belittling. And, if I recollect correctly, part of your problem with Mitt Romney is that he is...gasp...a Mormon. Though I don't think there's any Muslim posters on this board, you've made it quite clear that you have no respect for their sincere, true beliefs, preferring to categorize the entire religion with the most radical as the norm and fallaciously acting as if you're some kind of noted Islamic scholar when it comes to the Koran, as opposed to someone who merely parrots Joseph Farah and other bias sources.

Further, it is not common on this board that sincere true religious believers be referred to as taliban. But given that you show little or no respect to most anyone's sincere, true beliefs, unless they coincide with yours, perhaps it's a style I'll start to employ.

380

Boldwin
ID: 24528715
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 19:56

I have to correct myself. It would be more precise to say that based on past performance PD would fold like origami. If Sarge can change anyone can change and I certainly wouldn't want to preclude that possibility from PD.

But based on past performance if the globalist PC police came to PD's door and told him he had to actively support abortion, he'd...well he wouldn't have a crisis of conscience as he reconciled his religion with the demands of the state. He'd ask them if he could teach the origami class to his fellow former catholics.

Again, based strictly on past performance.

381

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 20:20

FWIW, I still support a woman's right to choose.

382

Boldwin
ID: 24528715
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 20:34

Baby steps.

383

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 20:35

But based on past performance if the globalist PC police came to PD's door and told him he had to actively support abortion, he'd...well he wouldn't have a crisis of conscience as he reconciled his religion with the demands of the state.

I'm not certain where, outside your own head, you would have gotten this. I'm more pro-life than you are.

384

Boldwin
ID: 24528715
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 20:38

Planned Parenthood are quaking in their boots to hear it.

385

tree on the evo
ID: 4251457
Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 22:40

Sarge...more power to u in your new
found beliefs, but if you
lay with the devil you'll get
burned....pretty clearly believing
isn't enough....you must believe as he
does or else....

386

Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 02:21

between being anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, i'm pretty sure i'm more pro-life than Baldwin is too...

387

Boldwin
ID: 24528715
Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 17:14

The Devil believes. But his feet are pointed in the wrong direction.

388

Boldwin
ID: 135311520
Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 04:25

Par for the course

389

Boldwin
ID: 45561815
Fri, Jun 18, 2010, 16:30

Hmmm...maybe it wasn't the '68 Democratic Convention's fault.

390

Boldwin
ID: 211053178
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 09:53

But can you find wide-ranging sources credible to most people anymore?

391

Boldwin
ID: 291145317
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 20:54

“schools reek with . . . puerile nonsense. Their programmes of study sound like the fantastic inventions of comedians gone insane”. ...

"To make good citizens. And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps." - H.L.Mencken

392

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 22:41

A couple of good pieces on this topic I recently came across:

Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt

Civility as a Political Virtue

393

Boldwin
ID: 47411106
Tue, May 10, 2011, 07:11

No charge.

Do you think the big fangs were too obvious? 8]

394

Tree
ID: 320371412
Tue, May 10, 2011, 08:52

the big reveal, as suspected?

or just another example of unintentional irony and humor on Baldwin's part.

395

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Tue, May 10, 2011, 13:40

I, for one, am grateful. The first step for B is admitting he has a problem.

403

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 08:53

So spam is now a liberal thing?

404

Tree
ID: 41512710
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 09:32

407

Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 11:32

PD

Destroying the forum with spam like someone is doing over the past ten hours is exactly something an unethical 'ends justifies the means' Alinsky disciple [incapable of succeeding any other way] would do.

408

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 11:41

It would be exactly like a lot of things, Baldwin. But the fact that you are willing to jump to such a crazy conclusion says volumes.

Ask yourself: Why would an "Alinsky disciple" think that spamming the Baseball Standings forum (for instance) would being about some goal of theirs?

409

Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 11:45

I usually only use the poliboard. I wasn't aware any other board was effected. What is your theory on what is happening and why?

410

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 11:49

Right now Guru doesn't know what is going on, though he's able to catch most of the spam at this point.

Frankly, I don't know what to think since there doesn't appear to be any weblinks or anything else accompanying the attack. Maybe something is getting through filters at an earlier point in the process that would normally be caught.

So long as Guru's program continues to catch these things I guess it doesn't matter so much. But it is odd that we got those over about 12 hours on almost all forums.

411

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 12:09

nuisance posts

412

sarge33rd
ID: 1964421
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 13:08

speaking of nuisance posts...spam, which has hit these forums before, suddenly being attrivbuted by our local conservative cuckoo to an "Alinsky assault", is PURE nuisance.

One thing the spam did, was bring up some old threads I reread. In one, Bs posts were compared to a puppy, peeing on everything he sees so as to "mark his turf'. In truth, the analogy is not at all, far off the mark.

413

Tree
ID: 17727115
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 13:12

I am desperately searching youtube for that clip from the movie "office space" about "jumping.... To conclusions"... Sadly, to no avail.

Wow. This has been an amazing couple days of posts. Lol

414

Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 18:10

Need troll protection?

Marry Chinese

You go Wendi Murdock! My new heroine.

425

Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 12:33

People need to keep in mind that when you start a new thread, another historical thread gets sent to the archive, a thread that may have been popular.

So, for instance, this thread, Sarge... should not have been created, you should have put this link into the "Occupy Wall Street" thread. It's not too late to do that, hint, hint.

In short, fewer new threads, more threads stick around.

426

sarge33rd
ID: 8940711
Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 12:50

point made...and it wont self edit to let me bomb the thread. No clue why.....sooooo...if a mod would be so kind :) TY

427

Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 09:07

Link in #126 repaired.

428

Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 09:25

Rereading, out of my uber-concern for the civility, don't you know...

And, if I recollect correctly, part of your problem with Mitt Romney is that he is...gasp...a Mormon. - PV

Nah, I like Glenn Beck just fine. That's not an issue, politically.

429

DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 11:35

Ah, the "Some of my best friends are Mormon, honest!" defense.

430

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 19:16

Mitt Romney was born a Mormon, been one his entire life.

Beck, on the other hand, converted to the LDS Church as an adult. That means he bought into some of the most bizzare beliefs ever formed on this planet after his thought process was likely fully developed. Or, maybe the dogma was immaterial, and he just wanted to belong. Well, let let Glen tell it.

Far be it from me to question his sincerity, especially since B thinks he's just fine.

431

Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 19:44

That means he bought into some of the most bizzare beliefs ever formed on this planet after his thought process was likely fully developed.

In Beck's defense I'm not sure his brain ever actually developed.

432

Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 20:01

Mighty tuff talk for people not quite up to the hellish rigors of free and open debate without having their hands held by a censor.

433

sarge33rd
ID: 1110131214
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 20:09

free and open debate, implies that you are open to hearing and considering, an opposing view. Doubtful, whether you will even admit that you are not.

434

Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 20:12

Stopping someone from posting dickish comments on a private web site isn't the same as being censored.

435

Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 20:37

I think that is one of the funniest things I've ever written.

436

sarge33rd
ID: 1110131214
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 20:48

assuming 435 is accurate, that explains a lot.

437

Myboyjack
ID: 36452617
Mon, Nov 14, 2011, 15:53

PD 434: Of course it's censorship. I think you mean, it's not a violation of the 1st Amendment or something?

Main reason this forum is a lost interest for me is that it devolved into one long plea to the moderator.

438

Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Mon, Nov 14, 2011, 16:06

Maybe I'm not choosing my words carefully, MBJ. Boldwin insists that at every turn he's "being censored" when, in fact, we're holding him to a standard of civility.

It is like someone going into a restaurant and loudly swearing and bullying patrons. I suppose giving someone like that a timeout might be considered "censorship" but mostly in the minds of those doing the swearing. It kinda misses the point.

So sure--keeping a bullying guy from doing so repeatedly, publicly is "censorship" but that's an awfully narrow interpretation, IMO.

445

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, Nov 14, 2011, 22:27

MBJ - please remember back to the original post in this thread. Two years ago Dave was about to pull the plug on the Political forum altogether because it had really devolved into a cesspool of childish name calling. A new policy was created, a few new mods added, people behaved, for a while.

There is one person who does not accept the notion that mods can and will erase his improper posts. He has never donated a dime to the cost of this forum, yet is by far the most frequent poster. The fact that he bellyaches and screams "Alinisky tactics" when his improper posts get removed is nothing more than further proof of his mental illness.

Yeah, this forum is played, alright, but the addition of new moderators is certainly not the reason why.

446

Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 23:12

Can you make this up?

Researchers find poop-throwing by chimps is a sign of intelligence

Oh, well that explains everything.

447

Tree
ID: 41512710
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 00:20

they obviously didn't study you.

448

Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:47

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

449

Razor
ID: 551031157
Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 15:37

The problem with this forum is obvious. Every single thread is about one person's opinion, and all other posters seem willing to discuss those opinions ad nauseum. Seriously, go down the first page and click on any thread. When that behavior stops on both sides, this forum might resume some continued, worthy discourse. Until then, the amount of intellectual thought shared will remain low and the pissing contests will continue.

450

Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Sun, Jan 22, 2012, 18:30

And you thot our poliboard family was uncivil.

Thank God liberals rang the alarm about 'eliminationist rhetoric'.

459

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 23:53

At least they're not cat murderers.

Stay classy.

460

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 22:54

So, on a serious discussion note, are the moderators and the site operator actually OK with completely unprovoked instances of Boldwin calling people trolls every chance he gets, or not? I know at least one is, because he chooses to read the posts and respond to them instead of saying "oh yeah, I've had to delete another 50 of these... maybe it'll just get ignored this time."

To the users here, are you OK with it? Don't you find it a little tiresome? Would you prefer to have the moderators do their job and delete it instead of just ignoring it?

461

biliruben
ID: 59551120
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 08:30

I'd prefer if you and Tree completely stopped interacting with Boldwin and vica versa. Problem solved.

I'd also prefer if you realize that the moderators are just volunteers with lives of their own.

462

Tree
ID: 2015259
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 10:23

I'd prefer if you and Tree completely stopped interacting with Boldwin and vica versa. Problem solved.

i don't disagre with this premise. but it's a nice theory that doesn't work so well in practice.

I'd also prefer if you realize that the moderators are just volunteers with lives of their own.

amen. and Baldwin exploits that fact. Dwetz is correct - you probably can't find a stretch of 15 Baldwin posts in the same thread where he doesn't call someone a troll or some other name, harass them for their beliefs, or mock them for some reason or another.

i am sure Baldwin is not like this in real life. if he were, someone would have put him in the hospital already. but his online persona is ghastly and rude.

yes, i realize we're playing a game of "well, he started it!", but i feel pretty confident that if Baldwin could go without calling me a troll or harassing me about my religion, i could very easily pretend he didn't exist.

but when you call someone out repeatedly, it really is just a matter of time before they fight back.

so, i'll put it out there.

Baldwin - don't harrass folks for their religious beliefs, don't call them trolls, and in general, don't insult them. you do that for a week solid - and then keep it going - and i won't respond to anything you post.

463

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 10:28

"I'd prefer if you and Tree completely stopped interacting with Boldwin and vica versa. Problem solved.

I'd also prefer if you realize that the moderators are just volunteers with lives of their own. "

I would prefer this too, but unfortunately I don't get to make all of that decision. The alternative is to let him insult me repeatedly and not be able to do anything at all about it.

And yes, I know the moderators are volunteers. That said, if they can't (or won't) do the job they volunteered for, why do we need them?

464

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 10:47

And one more thing "with lives of their own" sort of implies "well, sometimes they won't get to it right away".

And I TOTALLY understand that. It's completely understandable. I agree.

However, that excuse goes out the window when someone I know for a fact is a moderator reads and responds to the insulting post, doesn't it? At that point it's not a matter of not having time to deal with it. It's a matter of being around to deal with it and not giving a damn.

Yes, PD, I'm calling you out specifically on this.

465

Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 13:31

Dwetzel,

No moderators are on here 24/7. Though many are very active. But often, by the time a moderator sees a post there is already so many responses to it, the only choices are 1) let the debate rage on or 2) heavy handed deletion

Then there is individual perception. You and Tree are very taken aback by being called trolls. Whether you are or aren't is irrelevant. But both of you constantly bring this up as a highly offensive comment. Simply put - I don't find it all that offensive. At least not to the point of feeling a need to censor it.

I have 2 main criteria I go by:
1) it must be a recent enough comment that there is not a lot of dialogue/discussion from it yet
Once a discussion gets going on a comment, I feel its better for the free flow of ideas to let it continue unless it continues to degrade.

2) I must find it patently offensive. As I said in another thread, my threshold for finding something patently offensive is *VERY* high.

There may be other factors or extenuating circumstances but those 2 are the first line of defense against an overzealous destruction of a conversation for me.

466

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 13:46

"Dwetzel,

No moderators are on here 24/7. Though many are very active. But often, by the time a moderator sees a post there is already so many responses to it, the only choices are 1) let the debate rage on or 2) heavy handed deletion"

While I see your point to some degree...

How about when there are zero responses to it, and it's just ignored by the moderator anyway (and responded to by the moderator himself)? Because that's exactly the case we are talking about here.

467

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 13:47

I'll have to confess that when someone calls people "trolls" over and over and over, it loses effectiveness - and it also tends to get ignored. I suspect most people have tuned it out long ago.

But apparently, some have not. That doesn't excuse the bad behavior. But if everyone would learn to ignore it, it would probably go away.

As a parent, it reminds me of episodes when two siblings are sitting in the back seat of the car on a long trip and just can't seem to stop needling each other to evoke a response. As a parent, you end up wanting to reach back and whack 'em both. That's probably not the optimum response, but I suspect that's similar to the gut reaction of most moderators here.

Having said that, I have an idea for an alternate approach for this transgression. It may backfire, but it's worth a try. We'll see how well it works.

468

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 13:50

"But if everyone would learn to ignore it, it would probably go away."

Sigh.

This is a really weak cop-out. It reminds me a great deal of "she shouldn't have dressed that way, can you blame that guy for raping her".

And yes, I know that's somewhat over the top.

469

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 13:52

And I hope that the "work-around" you have planned doesn't mean that a simple change in vocabulary will let someone else continue to insult me every chance they get. One word is not the problem.

471

Tree
ID: 18082319
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 14:24

Guru. You do have a point. And i ignored it for quite sometime. But, it was incessant, akin to being poked repeatedly by a stick. Not painful, but annoying.

The constant harassment of me about my religion though? That's another story. How that is allowed is beyond me. You may not think much about it, but 70 years ago my people faced the same line of questioning - "what do you believe, Juden?!" and six million were killed for their beliefs.

What I believe and what i choose to share about those beliefs is my business, and it's disgusting that Baldwin constantly pushes on this matter, and that most people here find it ok to ignore those attacks. I was shocked and disappointed that there was not a board wide condemnation of his constant demands to know my religious beliefs. It's inappropriate behavior on his part, and it's downright offensive.

472

Razor
ID: 551031157
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 15:10

DWetzel, the only approach that will work for you is to turn the other cheek and ignore it. It's really easy to just scroll past posts. Just use your scroll wheel. It will go away both for you, and eventually, everyone else. The more you take the bait, the worse this forum becomes.

473

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 15:42

The ONLY approach? Really? REALLY? How about moderators delete insulting posts? That wouldn't be successful at all?

If this is truly the case, that "you just shouldn't care" then just don't have moderation at all and make it a free for all. If I want to call biliruben (name picked at random of someone I think I have no beef with whatsoever) a baby-raping cockmuncher terrorist over and over, even in threads he's not even participating in, or post animated GIFs of people pooping on each other and saying "this is what I think of your ideas, you scumbag", you're telling me the only solution for all of you is to just ignore it and not be bothered by it.

If we're going free for all, just let me know, I'll adapt accordingly.

But, if we're going to have these rules (and I thought, in reading through the first couple hundred posts or so of this thread, that the general consensus was that we needed them), I don't think I'm asking too much to ask that these rules be enforced by the moderators.

474

Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 15:46

If you can't see why "well, I don't think you were insulted, so even though you do, and the person doing it is clearly intending to provoke and insult you, I don't care" is a REALLY shitty moderation criteria, I guess that explains a lot about how the forum is (not) moderated.

Wetzel,

You've completely missed my point. My point is simply that everybody has a different threshold. You cannot expect me or any other moderator to know your threshold, nor should you expect any other individual to accomodate your threshold. Why yours? Why not my threshold? Or PD's or Boldwins or C1's or Trees or Sarge's or weykools or the list goes on and on and on.

Should we custom tailor moderation to each individual person involved in a discussion? Sorry, thats not going to happen.

No, guru has allowed me to be a moderator (given mine stemmed from a need to help edit posts in the baseball leagues/standings years ago when we did slow drafts on these boards) and I'm assuming he's trusting my judgement on when to use it. Thats the threshold for the use of my mod priviledges. And PDs threshold is his own judgement. And the same for any other moderator on the board. And I'll say by sheer happenstance, those with the priviledge seem to be of a like mind in how to utilize the tools we have. That alone should tell you something.

And to be clear, there have been things that I found to be a personal attack on me that I have never even given thought to deleting.

475

Tree
ID: 190262514
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 15:47

Razor - Martin Niemöller called. he wants to discuss not speaking up with you.

476

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 16:04

"Wetzel,

You've completely missed my point. My point is simply that everybody has a different threshold. You cannot expect me or any other moderator to know your threshold, nor should you expect any other individual to accomodate your threshold. Why yours? Why not my threshold? Or PD's or Boldwins or C1's or Trees or Sarge's or weykools or the list goes on and on and on."

You have completely missed my points, then. I know you're just in "oh, here we go again" mode, but please, for the love of God, take a minute, stop, and read and react unemotionally please.

1. I would expect you to know what my standard is, because I have specifically emailed "moderators@rotoguru1.com" in the past, to state that I am bothered by this stuff, and would prefer to see it proactively deleted in the future. Either you did not receive those emails (and that email address doesn't work), or you choose to ignore them (and you just aren't doing your job).

At any rate, you have my email presumably as a result of receiving a recent email sent to that address. Tell me why him calling me a troll over and over is within the forum rules. That's the bottom line. Is it within the rules, or isn't it?

2. If you honestly think Boldwin calling people trolls every third post is not 100%-no-doubter an attempt to personally insult, harass, and inflame, you are simply not cut out to be a moderator on the politics forum. And you should not pretend to be one.

477

Khahan
ID: 50122516
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 17:14

You want moderators to be something they are not. I know what expectations Guru set on me when he made me a mod. Those expectations are not what you are outlining. I get it. You don't like having somebody calling you names and launching attacks on you ruining discussions you are in. You don't like it anymore than I like having somebody insinuate that I am worthless and incapable of performing a simple task. However as I said what you are looking for from the moderators is different from what I believe is expected of us. You can:
1). Adjust your expectations to fit what reality currently is
2). Try to get the current reality changed
3). Do neither and continue to be disappointed
4). Stop posting

I honestly hope you choose 1 or 2. We rarely agree on these boards but you are one of people who truly challenges me to think about my position.

478

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 17:29

Baldwin calling someone a troll has been a verbal tic of his for a long time. I think Guru is right that most people just don't even notice anymore.

479

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 17:45

Khahan, in response to your position, I'd assert that you don't know what the expectations are -- or, that the expectations have changed from what is stated that they are. I'll offer a citation:

"Second, be aware that this is a moderated forum. There are a number of moderators who regularly (and often stealthily) patrol these boards, and they have the responsibility to edit and delete posts and threads that are abusive and/or inappropriate."

Do you know where this quote comes from? It's from here

Ergo, I would assert that either you do not see these posts as abusive and/or inappropriate, or that you are not meeting your responsibility, or that the "welcome to new users" is misleading when it says that there are people whose responsibility it is to take care of these things. I can't really think of other options. If you can, I'm all ears.

I don't think you're worthless -- or rather, I think you have the capability to be far better than worthless in the position of moderator, but given your current positioning as to what you will and won't moderate, IN THAT POSITION I do think you're worthless right now, at least to me.

Again, I fully understand that moderators aren't around all the time, and that I shouldn't expect instant satisfaction. And I'm OK with that. I'm actually a moderator on another, much, much larger forum; I know I'm not always around, nor are my fellow moderators. However, I'd also point out that if moderators aren't always around, the definition of "recent" posts need to expand a bit. And I'd also also point out that "we're not always around" is no longer a valid excuse when the moderator, in fact, IS around (as evidenced by the fact that he's replying, in the thread, to the abusive post). Agreed?

As for your numbered list, #2 is the whole point of this discussion. Unfortunately, it seems that the likely options available to me are #3 or #4, with a little bit of #1 -- and this is the part where "well, screw it, they let him insult me every chance he gets, I may as well at least get some small satisfaction and do it back" comes into it -- and I know that's the part that everyone else hates. Ironically perhaps, that, too, is a small part of my goal in getting the current reality changed.

The bottom line, though, is this:

"I get it. You don't like having somebody calling you names and launching attacks on you ruining discussions you are in."

Who does? And, isn't that the whole point? I'd also observe that it's ruining discussions I'm not even in yet, and I do often take the option to not bother to get involved in a discussion I might otherwise find interesting -- the Right to Work thread is a good example of this. But, I digress.

And, if "calling you names and launching attacks on you ruining discussions you are in" isn't the definition of "abusive" posts, which moderators are responsible for deleting... what is?

480

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 17:50

"Baldwin calling someone a troll has been a verbal tic of his for a long time. I think Guru is right that most people just don't even notice anymore."

1. Your definition of "a long time" seems different than mine.

2. Why wasn't it stopped in the first place? That doesn't excuse it. Or, if it does, then...

3. If I develop a 'verbal tic' calling him a "baby-rapist enabler", even in conversations he isn't involved in, is that OK and non-abusive too? Because I'm pretty sure that's ridiculous.

None of this is terribly important. The bottom line here is:

Your position seems to be "it's OK, he just always insults people that way. He abuses people so often, unless he kicks them in the nuts instead of punching them in the face, I don't even care." And if you think that, you've totally abandoned all hope of having a remotely civil discussion in the future.

481

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 18:58

Whatever Guru's alternate approach might be, there is another, very simple solution for anyone who feels the standards here or the enforcement of them is insufficient.

482

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 19:01

Ah, the "if you can't take the abuse we've told you you don't have to take, GTFO" defense.

Not worth dignifying. This is a serious discussion.

483

Khahan
ID: 54138190
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 19:17

But Dwetzel, boldwin didn't just suddenly develop a verbal tick to call people trolls. He developed it over the years from what he perceives as attacks on him (whether justified or not, that is irrelevant, I'm stating a fact that attacks on him exist and he is responding to them. I'm not supporting nor downing either position, just stating it exists).

To Boldwin, coming to these boards and seeing 90% of the people taking a philosophically and ideologically opposing view and then having those people just hammer at him....his response to assume he is being trolled.

You can try to equate the tit-for-tat between different parties on these boards all you want. But you are only giving your opinion. And this brings me back to my original question to you: To what degree or what standard do we enforce the rules?

To you, being called a troll is a punch in the face. To me, being called a troll is a 'sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me,' kind of comment. So with regards to that, who's standard do we rely on? Well, as moderator, I'm going to rely on mine. Its a situation where neither of us are right or wrong. We have different opinions and it is truly only an opinion.

To me, calling a person a baby-rapist enabler would cross the line. Can I define why that does but a troll doesn't? Probably not in any way you'd accept. Because we are different. Plain and simple.

To me, this is a choice between a very heavy handed approach in which probably a good 1/3 of the content would be deleted or its a near complete hands off approach in which individuals are responsible for their own actions and must deal with the consequences of their own actions. Guess which I believe is a better way of life? I'll give you a hint - I'm a firm believer in being responsible for ones own actions.

I grew up thinking of liberals as people who wanted to legislate and control people's thoughts and actions. They have a vision and everybody must abide by it, whether they agree or not. I may even agree with a particular vision but I'd still be against legislating it to the point where there is no choice.

Unfortunately, I have to separate republicans out from conservatives these days. The vocal minority in the republican party (IE the tea party) is doing exactly that - they want things their way and they want to legislate it or control everybody to the point where its agree with them or gfto. At any rate Im way off topic now.

The point is, I'm not right, but I'm not wrong. You are not right, but you also are not wrong. We're dealing with an opinion and interpretation here. And except in the most extreme circumstances i'm not about to enforce my personal belief system on others. Maybe that does make me a poor moderator in your eyes. But in mine, it makes me a good one.

As usual, we don't agree and you've given me plenty to think about. But I feel like this conversation is about to devolve into circular arguments where we just repeat the same things different ways. I'll gladly read any response and digest it, but if I feel we're just going to be repeating ourselves I'm going to refrain from responding any longer.

484

sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 19:24

^ One of the best posts I've read on here in a VERY long time.

485

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 19:49

GTFO" defense

For the record my suggested solution was neither a defense or the kind of demand that the abbreviation describes.

It's a solution that I've employed in the past and can assure from experience that it works unfailingly for as long as you're disciplined enough to follow through on it.

486

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 20:06

"To Boldwin, coming to these boards and seeing 90% of the people taking a philosophically and ideologically opposing view and then having those people just hammer at him....his response to assume he is being trolled. "

Are you suggesting that you think that disagreeing with someone's point of view, even very stridently, is the same, in any way, as just calling them names, "sticks and stones" or not?

And, if it's all "sticks and stones", then why have moderators -- or this discussion -- at all, except to delete spambots?

487

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 20:27

"For the record my suggested solution was neither a defense or the kind of demand that the abbreviation describes.

It's a solution that I've employed in the past and can assure from experience that it works unfailingly for as long as you're disciplined enough to follow through on it. "

In that case...
(sarcasm)
Thanks!!! I was completely unaware that it would be physically possible to not come here anymore. This new, startling revelation has completely opened my eyes.
(/sarcasm)

Look, I'd like it to be a kinder, gentler place here. Really. I'd even be happy to be a part of making that happen. I think you'd all like that too. And I really don't think it's asking too terribly much to change things some to make that happen.

"Hey, can you actually do something about this one guys constantly haranguing me even when I'm not around, I would prefer to be able to interact here with the rest of you, and even with him, without having to deal with that" does not seem an incredibly demanding, unreasonable request to me. Especially when the tools and the people are known to be available to make that happen.

Does it seem unreasonable to you? If it does, let me know what's unreasonable about it. If it doesn't seem unreasonable, then maybe we can sit down and do something about it instead of "well, he's just like that, insulting a bunch people all the time, you just have to accept having someone virtually screaming in your face".

488

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 21:57

What seems unreasonable is, despite insisting upon the rules, to constantly claim they don't apply to you when you decide to go to war over perceived slights.

489

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 21:57

That isn't a backhanded attempt to make you go away.

I'm also trying to more subtly suggest that if you just accept that the place isn't what you'd like it to be, it might be easier to accept it for what it is. This is probably especially true after a break from it for a while.

I've walked away from the forum for various periods of time and found this to be true for myself.

The other posters and the mods don't define civil discourse quite the same as you do (they often enough don't see a lot of things the way I do, either). You decide for yourself whether the forum is worth returning to every day, despite that fact.

490

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 22:17

"What seems unreasonable is, despite insisting upon the rules, to constantly claim they don't apply to you when you decide to go to war over perceived slights."

If they aren't against the rules, then don't enforce them at all (but don't be mad when I do the same). If they ARE against the rules, then enforce them when someone complains about it, even if that someone is me.

Your post reeks of "I just don't care for you, so I'm going to ignore what's right, just to spite you".

A remarkably simple question, requiring a "yes or no" answer: is it, or is it not, against forum rules to repeatedly call people trolls?

491

sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 22:35

DW, I would venture to guess it is not. Depending perhaps on context etc. Other than slanderous (jewboy for ex or kike etc etc) I'm not so sure there are many "hard and fast" rules in that regard.

As for a term like "troll", if we are to be honest with ourselves, there are times when we ARE in fact "trolls". I'd find it hard to blame another, for calling me what I sometimes am. *shrug* (Of course, that means I'd find it hard to blame me for calling another an idiot, when they sometimes are. lol)

492

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 22:48

I genuinely don't care what think my post reeks of. I care that you take the slightest slight as reason yourself to ditch the rules which are most often to be self-applied.

Stop whining about rules you yourself refuse to follow.

493

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 22:50

Given past experiences, it's hard to even know what the standard is, Sarge. I know I've complained about other specific instances and posts have (eventually) been deleted. But on the other hand, 30 hours and multiple moderators posting about this conversation later, it's still there in black and white in the Right to Work thread, after I followed the rules and sent an email to the highlighted address and didn't bother to respond to the namecalling at all. So, I'm really just guessing. I guess it's fair to assume by the inaction that it's A-OK.

Which is disappointing. I'm going to try very hard to play by whatever the rules, as actually enforced, are. If it's "go ahead and insult people every time you want to", then that's fine, let me know. If it's "no, we're actually trying to be civil", then that's fine too (and obviously preferable).

But please, don't lie to me and pretend to give a crap about civility by trying to have these discussions and then let someone go around calling me a troll every other post. And don't tell me that it's all "sticks and stones", and then delete a post that says "you are a liar, and here's the factual evidence to prove it".

I'm willing to drive in whatever lane needs to be driven in. Just pick the goddamn lane so I know where that is.

494

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 22:51

"I genuinely don't care what think my post reeks of. I care that you take the slightest slight as reason yourself to ditch the rules which are most often to be self-applied.

Stop whining about rules you yourself refuse to follow. "

If you refuse to enforce them, then they aren't really rules worth mentioning.

Can you answer the simple yes or no question I posed in post 490 please, instead of just bitching about my bitching?

495

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 22:54

Again, the rules are mostly self-applied. Stop whining to the refs.

Believe it or not, my points have nothing to do with any other poster. I realize that you want to talk about Boldwin rather than yourself, but that is the problem.

496

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 22:59

Bullshit.

In this case in question, I've followed every goddamn rule in the book.

1. I didn't respond in that thread, or anywhere else on here.

2. I sent an email to "moderators@rotoguru1.com".

3. You blew it off, despite obviously having the time to bitch at me in this thread.

I think it's completely fair to assume at this point that you consider calling people trolls every chance that someone gets is acceptable according to the standards of civility. Is this correct, yes or no?

497

Tree
ID: 17039238
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 23:06

Dwetz - at this point, i'd let it go. it's not a battle you're going to win.

i agree Baldwin gets more leeway. but it is what it is. i'm disappointed my point wasn't even addressed, but if we're going to allow the questioning of one's beliefs, well, we'll see that happening more and more. quote me on that.

498

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 23:15

497: Sorry, I refuse to just let it go without getting some actual clarity. I happen to think these are reasonably intelligent people with a massive blind spot that can still be reasoned with. Maybe I'm wrong, and the refusal to answer a simple "yes, it's OK" or "no, it's not OK" means that the rules are "I'll do whatever the *#&$(*&# I want to, I have the power, go (#$*$&*$)@*($ yourself".

And yes, if the verdict is "yes, it's OK to call people trolls; yes it's OK to badger Tree about his religion when he has said he doesn't want to discuss it", then I would assume it's completely in bounds to commence Operation Quiet Sheep. I think there'd be an infinitely better place here if that never happens again, though.

499

biliruben
ID: 59551120
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 00:47

Of course it's okay to call people trolls. Guru and these moderators have said as much.

Consider this question asked and answered.

It's up to you how to respond to that extremely mild invective.

As for Tree's religion, I have missed most of that, but Baldwin's mind works in mysterious ways. As far as I can tell (and I could be way off base) he seems to think it might matter what sect of Judaism Tree is, as I would gather he thinks some sect has some specific grudge against Witnesses. I have no idea whether there is substance to it, and personally, suggesting some deeper motives to Tree's petulance in engaging Boldwin is completely silly. He is argumentative and has a distaste for social conservatives. Why he would need some religious reason is, in my view, a bit nutty (is that worse than calling someone a troll - maybe. Call the cops DW).

But in any case, I haven't seen harassment. I've seen Boldwin ask a few times. That's not harassment, unless I missed something.

I again plead - just stop f'in with each other. Please.

500

Canadian Hack
ID: 164132618
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 01:46

Here is my point of view as a frequent lurker and sometimes poster. This forum can be great. I think I first started to read it on a regular basis when it gave the story of the Bin Laden relatives getting flown out of the US when other planes were still grounded. This was well before the movie Fahrenheit 9/11. It is great stuff. Often somebody has a link to a great story I knew nothing about.

At that time Baldwin was a useful prolific poster. I disagreed with him on most topics, but he definitely had something to say and it was interesting.

I think the most interesting thing today on this forum is often watching Baldwin's decent into madness and incivility toward others. Every thread including this one shows examples of Baldwin running off topic and attacking others. He is merciless in attacking Tree - usually without discussing the topic at hand. Everyone who posts here for a while gets attacked with ad hominems and worse.

On most internet boards people get banned for far less than Baldwin's behaviour. I have often wondered why he hasn't been banned here. On the otherhand, I wonder what happens to a message board when its most prolific poster gets banned.

In an ideal world, I would like to see Baldwin get well soon and return to the more decent honorable person he was ten years ago. I don't imagine that to be possible - but would like to be shown otherwise.

501

weykool
ID: 1611471811
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 02:03

DW complaining about the forum rules is rich.
When you make personal attacks on people you lose your right to complain when people make attacks on you.

I agree with Khahan that Troll is a pretty innocuous comment.
I am reminded of this exchange from Roadhouse:
Steve: Being called a cocksucker isn't personal?
Dalton: No. It's two nouns combined to elicit a prescribed response.
Steve: What if somebody calls my mama a whore?
Dalton: Is she?
The point is pretty simple, you are only going to be offended if there is some truth to it.

502

Tree
ID: 17039238
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 02:47

500 is pretty much right on the money, and i've said as much for awhile now, particularly At that time Baldwin was a useful prolific poster. I disagreed with him on most topics, but he definitely had something to say and it was interesting.

there is also something to be said for the most interesting thing today on this forum is often watching Baldwin's decent into madness and incivility toward others, which is something i pointed out a looooong time ago, but no one took it seriously when i said it.

good post CH.

503

Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 09:26

Personal attacks are usually the result of someone having lost an argument. Being called a troll, Marxist, baby murderer, Satanist, enviroweenie, etc., is usually tempered by the satisfaction that points can no longer be countered by anything other than kindergarden tactics.

It's unfortunate that media stars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have built their careers by being insulting and obnoxious, making the technique an accepted, even admired form of public rhetoric. The most effective counter to these techniques come from comedians. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and Bill Maher are more popular and entertaining than Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann, who are clones of Limbaugh/Coulter on the other side of the political spectrum.

So, it should be no suprise that this political forum is a microcosm of the national political scene, which is neither pretty nor cordial.

As for Tree and the religion question, I felt the entire subject was so ridiculous that no personal support was even necessary, it's just a given. When people assign other posters as "enemies," the personal attacks tend to degenerate into areas that are forbidden by this forum's civility code, but Boldwin has been the object of such attacks as well, even if he appears to revel in such combat.

Sometimes it's hard to take the high road with responses that are well researched and coherent instead of knee-jerk reactionary, but this forum is better served by the former.

504

Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 09:44

Right to work thread post #31 by Baldwin, in response to PD :

Unless you want to join the trolls who reflexively write liar after my every post, take my post #10 as my honest well thot out position and deal with it.

Is this the post you're mad about? How do you know he's referring to you? You don't even have any posts in that thread. In fact, the only way it could be about you.....is for you to admit that you "reflexively write liar after Baldwin's every post". Which you have now done.

505

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 10:33

504: Well, B7, I guess I do reflexively write "liar" in response to people lying what they're doing, in the context of a post where I quoted him doing like two days before what he said he doesn't do. If "reflexively" means "once", of course. That was apparently a deletable offense on my part, by the way. Apparently "liar" is much more offensive than "troll".

500: Yup. I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees it. If a new poster came on here insulting everyone in every post, it wouldn't be tolerated.

501: "When you make personal attacks on people you lose your right to complain when people make attacks on you."

This is wrong. I expect to be held to the SAME standards that everyone else (Tree, Boldwin, PV, and you) are held to. When I go off the deep end, go ahead and delete it. Just hold everyone to the same standard, and keep that standard reasonably consistent. I don't know why that is an amazingly controversial statement.

Regardless, thanks to everyone, especially the moderators, for clarifying that personal insults are OK as long as they're used often enough to make you not care about them any more. I'll get to work.

506

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:07

"Regardless, thanks to everyone, especially the moderators, for clarifying that personal insults are OK as long as they're used often enough to make you not care about them any more. I'll get to work."

I hope you, and everyone else, is mature enough not to act on that threat. I do consider it a threat. If that's the way we're headed, I'll just shut down the Politics forum. That's my simplest solution. (Or call it a "threat" if you wish.)

507

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:20

I hope I am too. Right now I'm genuinely very angry, and have taken the time to delete a couple of things I'd probably regret later, so that's a good sign.

I'm deeply disappointed that the consensus among your volunteer staff seems to be "we want a civil forum, and part of having a civil forum is letting someone insult you so often that we just don't notice it any more".

That makes it, for me, a distinctly uncivil forum to visit and participate in. A (fortunately small) part of me wants everyone else to feel what I often feel when I visit.

And yes, leaving's a valid option, I guess. If you want the message to potential visitors to be "we believe in a civil forum, and that includes letting someone insult you so often that you don't feel welcome here any more and are barely willing to participate because you know you're going to get dragged into another mudslinging contest that nobody's interested in preventing", then mission accomplished.

508

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 11:28

I'd like you to examine one thing though, Guru, since we're on the subject.

If you think that me stepping up my game to Boldwin's level would make you want to just shut down the entire forum, could we maybe re-examine this concept that Boldwin's level is acceptable? I find it hard to accept that

One person acting in a certain manner = no need for any corrective action,
Two people acting in a certain manner = feeling the need to shut everything down.

But that's where we're at right now.

509

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 12:05

Good grief.

For the record, I never said Boldwin's behavior was excusable. He's been asked before to behave. I've now taken additional steps to try to impose corrective action.

It's also understandable (to me) that other moderators would tend to overlook frequent "verbal tics" that seem to lack any gravitas. I have not given the moderators any specific rules. I want them to apply common sense and consider context.

I have made it known that I do not frequent this forum. I depend on other moderators to address most transgressions. And if they are not addressed, I have provided an email address to report issues.

In the last six months, I've received two emails to that address. Both are from DWetzel. One in September, and one this week. In the absence of those notifications, I generally assume things are under control.

Of course, if I am called upon to make deletions multiple times each day, then I'll have to consider more draconian responses - banishment, or closing the forum.

I've also said on multiple occasions that retaliation "in kind" is not an acceptable response. In some cases, I am inclined to deal with that more severely than the original offense.

512

bibA
ID: 4057177
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 12:36

DW - Don't you realize that your point has been made....and made....and made. We get it, you feel that for some reason you are being picked on unfairly.

Of course just because 95% of us don't see it that way does not make our view right, but what can you accomplish here by going on and on?

I just hope Guru does not lose patience here.

513

Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 12:37

Dwetzel -

Do not post in this thread again today, in fact, do not post on these boards today. Take the day off. The future of this forum has never been in greater threat than it is today and I, for one, would like you to stop threatening it. Quit blaming everything on Baldwin. You are not going to get the last word on this. STOP!

515

Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Sat, Jan 28, 2012, 11:27

Please excuse my recent absence. I seem to have sprained something or a lot of somethings after posting #506.

517

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 10:58

I suppose this is an appropriate place to mention the rise of the newest low, making disgusting equations of liberals to Nazis in every other thread on the forum.

I've taken it upon myself to not respond in kind, but seriously -- this garbage needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. If you're going to allow this, this it ought to be open season on any such ludicrous comparisons. And I know none of us particularly want that.

518

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 11:33

Actually, in the last instance he did not. Perhaps you are overly sensitive to his throwing out the Nazi charge willy nilly, but the the most recent case he was trying to make the point that Catholics "were slow to react" in Nazi Germany as well--he wasn't calling anyone a Nazi now.

He's wrong, of course. But this doesn't mean he was wrong in the way he said he was. He never called anyone a Nazi whi wasn't, in fact, a Nazi.

519

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 11:52

You're conveniently glossing over the context of other, far more clear-cut cases of it (which I note you are ignoring, whether deliberately or not) over the last couple of weeks when you make that comment. He's also done it BEFORE the last blowup on here.

Context matters here. Don't pretend for a second that the least clear-cut example of it eliminates the presence of all the other ones. Can you address those as well?

520

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 11:59

Alternatively, saying "nah, it's cool to compare someone who has a different opinion on something to someone else who gassed a few million people to death" is a valid option for you.

A completely retarded option that means that civility is a bullshit buzzword, but it's a valid option.

521

Tree
ID: 2110611
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 12:05

i think the reality here is that Baldwin says a lot of stupid, wrong-headed, and ill-founded things.

his statements are often ignorant, bigoted, mean-spirited, and without merit.

he gets a free pass a lot of times, in the way the town drunk gets a free pass. you just have to excuse stupid behavior because it's inherent to who that person is.

i don't expect a mod to agree with me on this sentiment, at least not publicly. and that's fine.

but that's why i believe Baldwin gets away with saying a lot of things he does. It doesn't make it right, but at least it makes it easier to ignore, and if you go with that philosphy DWetz, you might more easily gloss over the simply ridiculous things he says.

522

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 12:16

Oh, I already know everything you've said, Tree -- and no, I don't really expect the people that have let it go on this long to change their minds now. I don't really care if they won't say it publicly -- it's what they do that matters. The reflex response from PD, to defend the behavior, was very disappointing. I suppose I could go through and put together a package of quotes from this year if it would help, but it's really not something that should be necessary to make the point.

Despite the fact that I don't think anything will really come of it, I still feel strongly that I'm clearly right, and that speaking out about this disgusting behavior is the right thing to do. (This is the part where, if I were so inclined to make a point, I'd make a "first they called us Nazis..." statement -- but I'll be nice for now and leave it out.)

523

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 12:29

Also, re: 518 -- I'd point out (my bold):

23 Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 08:02 They were too slow to react to anti-religion in Germany too.

24 Tree
ID: 17039238
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 09:12 You are predicting a higher percentage of Catholics will vote for Obama this time?

if immigration becomes a significant issue during the 2012 election, Obama's going to see that number rise significantly.

They were too slow to react to anti-religion in Germany too.

false Nazi comparisons again. such comparisons are not only ignorant of history, but ignorant of current events as well.

25 Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 10:12 #23: Took you long enough to drop in the Nazi reference.

So, uh, PD -- why would you take the time to come on here and tell me I'm wrong for complaining about that particular reference (when I was making a larger point that includes that as one of multiple examples) when YOU YOURSELF thought it was a Nazi reference, like, one hour ago?

Seriously, dude, WTF. Can you maybe be remotely consistent in your thinking here and not just reflexively reject every complaint I make just because you can't handle being criticized?

524

bibA
ID: 4057177
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 12:37

Some of our politicians make similar Nazi and or Communist comparisons. Do you actually believe that a political forum should be held to a higher standard?

If the moderators here were allowed to stomp on Baldwin's free speech rights just for this, I would seriously think they have gone too far.

525

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 12:55

"Some of our politicians make similar Nazi and or Communist comparisons. Do you actually believe that a political forum should be held to a higher standard?"

um, yes?

"If the moderators here were allowed to stomp on Baldwin's free speech rights just for this, I would seriously think they have gone too far."

As I've been reminded many times, "free speech" doesn't really apply on a private forum such as this.

If you're suggesting that "calling people Nazis any time you disagree with them politically" is an essential part of this forum, then let's just get rid of any moderation, accept that it's going to go fully in the gutter, and be done with it. Because if you're allowing that, there is basically nothing you shouldn't allow at all. I've got a bunch of absolutely HILARIOUS Jehovah's Witnesses jokes that I've been refraining from.

526

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 13:02

DW: It was, indeed, a Nazi reference. But if you read my #518 more carefully, you would see that it wasn't him making "equations of liberals to Nazis."

In that thread, who, exactly, is the liberal he was calling a Nazi? Only a deliberate misreading of that post would come up with a name.

I can handle criticism just fine. And typically I can handle criticism based upon a misunderstanding (as yours is, in reference to that thread). But there is nothing wrong with clarifying your mistake. Can you handle criticism of this sort yourself?

527

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 13:04

Sure.

Now look at all the other examples of it over the past couple of weeks, since those were also part of the point. Then, after you've done that, get back to me, because until you have, you're not even attempting to address the point.

528

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 13:11

Also, if you're hanging your hat on "he's only calling Catholics Nazis, not liberals, so it's okay", just say so.

529

sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 13:33

That isnt what B said in that thread either DW. He said the Church was slow to ract to Nazi Germany, and in truth, the AMERICAN was slow to react to Nazi Germany. We were isolationist at the time and every segment (with a few individual exceptions), was slow to react.

Bs comment there, was in point of fact, factually correct.

530

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 13:43

First, before I get dragged into this tangent -- THAT'S ONLY ONE OF A BUNCH OF EXAMPLES. IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT NOT AN EXAMPLE, FINE, I DON'T CARE. THAT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE GREATER POINT, FOR CHRISSAKES. GET OVER IT.

Second, the argument B makes is only even remotely relevant if you are comparing the people the church "should" be opposing to Nazis in the first place. Which is exactly what he's doing.

531

Tree
ID: 15151612
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 14:00

DWetz - i think you're so out to get Baldwin, you're missing the larger picture.

quite frankly, Baldwin's usage of Nazi here isn't nearly as much as a personal attack as his grade school insults of calling everyone else here a "troll".

PD's response was "yep. here we go again. Baldwin pulling the Nazi card."

Baldwin doesn't have much to back up much of what he says. he always falls back on Naziism/Socialism/Communism/Alinskyism/Vegetarianism as some sort of lame crutch for his ignorance.

as he defends further into madness, i suspect we'll see even more off-the-wall remarks, and depending on their nature or context, they may end up deleted by our mods. in due time, i suspect we'll see Baldwin off these boards, either by his own hand or because it's harder to post from a prison cell.

honestly man, you're letting yourself get too bent out of shape by someone who is intentionally mean and not really well-informed on many things he tries to discuss. let it flow like water off a duck's back, and share a smirk to yourself knowing that you're a better person than someone who has a fairly significant messiah complex.

532

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 14:10

I'm not even bent out of shape about it. Really. I'm not.

I'm much, MUCH more bent out of shape by the obvious mental disconnection among otherwise reasonable people who proclaim to want a civil forum and yet let the stuff go on as much as they do (even as ill-informed and infantile as it might be) while failing to have a basic logical conversation about it.

533

Frick
ID: 14082314
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 14:15

I think you might be one of the few who actually read Boldwin's posts at this point. I wonder how many people just skim and reread if they see he isn't going on one of his typical rants.

534

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 14:20

Meh, I mostly do do that, but then I see stuff that just drags everyone else down and makes this a thoroughly unwelcoming place for potential new blood and, well, here I am.

I'd send Guru a crisp $100 bill for an "Ignore user" feature on the forum, and feel like I got the steal of the century.

535

Razor
ID: 551031157
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 14:23

The forum is much better to read when you skip the hyperpartisan, nonsense posts and the usual long list of responses to the hyperpartisan, nonsense posts. Sadly, when you do that, you're not left with much of a forum since 80% of the conversation revolves around the hyperpartisan, nonsense posts.

536

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 14:32

I don't even mind the hyper-partisan nonsense posts. That's roughly 97% of any political forum ever. If someone wants to post that they believe that the Tome Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster told them that the environment should be protected by American soldiers urinating on the dead bodies of Muslims, because it would lead to better capital gains rates and the protection of marriage, I can handle that. Heck, I think that's pretty hilarious most of the time.

I just don't see why, on a supposedly civil forum, I or anyone else should have to deal with direct insults or comparisons to genocidal murderers while we're at it.

And yes, there's a huge difference between the two things. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, attempting to stop the first.

537

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 14:43

#535: Your post is clearly both hyperpartisan and nonsense.

538

Tree
ID: 41158613
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 15:07

DWetz - let it go man. at this point, you realize that you're giving an idiot satisfication and feeding an ego that is already unreasonably huge.

all you're doing now is causing harm to this forum because the simple solution is the last one any of us want. i'd rather not see Guru take his ball and go home.

let it go. don't give the king of the trolls the satisfaction that he played a significant role in silencing a message forum.

539

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 15:16

Quite frankly, if the only rational alternative to "let someone call people Nazis whenever the occasion suits them" is "shut down the entire Politics forum", I will not consider the choice of the latter option a great loss, nor will I consider that I had anything to do with it other than slightly hastening an inevitable demise.

Fortunately, I happen to know there are other perfectly reasonable options to be chosen which provide far superior alternatives.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me logically why "calling people Nazis" is now aligned with "have a civil forum", but "discussing whether you can call someone a Nazi or not" suddenly endangers everything. I asked for that last time, and didn't get one.

540

Frick
ID: 14082314
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 15:28

What are the other reasonable options? Blocking IP addresses is possible, but is very time consuming on Guru's end and very easy to defeat on the user's end.

Automatically block or delete posts by user name? Again very time consuming to program and easy to defeat.

541

Tree
ID: 41158613
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 15:30

the rest of us care about this forum and want it to continue to exist.

if you really don't care that much, then please go away. many of us have been here a decade a longer, and we enjoy communicating with each other.

at this point, you're being a detriment, and not an asset.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me logically why "calling people Nazis" is now aligned with "have a civil forum", but "discussing whether you can call someone a Nazi or not" suddenly endangers everything. I asked for that last time, and didn't get one.

here. you want an answer? here's your answer: you can discuss whatever you want. but the mods here are volunteers, Guru is a volunteer, and whatever decisions they do or do not make is theirs to make. they don't owe anyone an answer - not me, you, Baldwin, MITH, PV, SZ, Bili, Sarge, or anyone else who may post here.

there's your answer, at least from me. if you can't let it go, then you need to go. please do not wreck this forum for the rest of us.

543

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 15:42

"What are the other reasonable options? Blocking IP addresses is possible, but is very time consuming on Guru's end and very easy to defeat on the user's end.

Automatically block or delete posts by user name? Again very time consuming to program and easy to defeat."

Well, there's always the "have posts that call people Nazis deleted" option. That's at least something.

Guru's stated he already has the IP ban capability. I think a permanent ban it should be used as a last resort only, of course.

Frankly, on basically every other forum ever created they would have a gradually escalating series of temporary bans, and sometime around the eighth or tenth time someone's gone off the deep end and called someone a Nazi troll... well, if they haven't gotten the message by then, then losing that person is no great loss and at least they won't ruin it for the rest of us. And yes, I realize that it'd be some work to implement -- but it would be about a zillion times more effective than the "ignore the problem and hope it resolves itself" approach currently being practiced.

I fail to see why the mere possibility of mentioning something like that means that we're suddenly worried about the world being shut down.

544

Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 15:46

I've been here quite a while too (since the fairly early days of Smallworld),

Same here. Actually I think I may be pushing 12 years now, believe it or not. I really miss smallworld.

545

Razor
ID: 551031157
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 15:52

Re: 537 - Oh, is it? Most every thread on the front page has long stretches have off-topic conversations, some of which are just badly off-topic rehashes from another thread. The partisanship does not bother me. The quality of the discourse does because it frequently sinks to low levels, as noted by others in this thread. You can choose to ignore that if you like. This forum seems to revolve around the efforts of its most persistent posters rather than around attracting quality posts, which is why there aren't nearly as many as there used to be.

546

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 15:57

I should have put a :) there--thought the assumed smiley would be assumed...

550

Frick
ID: 14082314
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 16:38

Re: 548

So the TLDR version of your post is "If I can't have something the way I like it, no one else should be able to have it either."

If someone is called a Nazi Troll, the post would likely be deleted by the mods. If it wasn't, an e-mail to Guru would remedy the situation.

The most recent Nazi reference wasn't calling anyone a Nazi, it was bringing up a point about an institution that was the center of the conversation. The person who the post was directed at has already given their opinion of it and were ok with the reference.

You come across as someone who is taking the slightest issue and blowing it up to fulfill a personal vendetta. I'm sure you don't feel that way, I'm just giving my perception of the issue.

551

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 16:44

"well, there's your mistake. you're giving Baldwin too much credit. Best I can tell, there's rarely anything reasonable about his posts."

I believe you have assumed a statement I did not make.

552

DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 16:55

"so your answer is to take it away from everyone else? that's reasonable to you?"

Rational? No, probably not.

Reasonable? I'll concede that it perhaps isn't entirely reasonable. However, I think you're being completely unreasonable in not taking a harder look at the relatively minor steps necessary to eliminate the problem so that we could both enjoy something. So it appears we already have totally different ideas of what's reasonable.

Very very normal and human? Obviously. Look at how you feel about the mere notion that it could be taken away. Now imagine how I feel, having something I would otherwise greatly enjoy being dragged into the muck for reasons that are fairly easily preventable.

553

chode
ID: 3610616
Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 17:00

"This forum seems to revolve around the efforts of its most persistent posters rather than around attracting quality posts ..."

+1

554

Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 11:06

Planets are outnumber by moons. Bugs outnumber lighthouses.

555

sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 13:33

Lighthouses, are obsolete. Nice choice of a comparative.

556

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 15:31

As a counterpoint, there are a bunch of trees in my front lawn and one steaming dump that a passing animal left there.

557

Tree
ID: 24125715
Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 16:26

your lawn is in illinois???

558

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 18:25

It is, not that I see precisely why that's relevant. ;)

559

DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 15:49

The words "arbitrary and capricious" come to mind.

561

Seattle Zen
ID: 47630913
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 18:57

In the near term, this forum will be under a very stringent code of civility. And whining about it will not be tolerated either. This is a free country and a free forum – but that means that if you don’t like the standards, you are free to leave, or at least free to remain silent. And it means that I am free to restrict this forum to commentary that satisfies my personal standards of civility and respect.

This forum is not your outhouse.

562

Tree
ID: 14632318
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 19:06

whoa. lots of missing posts. i shudder to think.

564

weykool
ID: 8657121
Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 21:58

Is there a list of what is and isnt acceptable under the civility policy?

Report abuse

565

Tree
ID: 17039238
Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 22:01

There was a reasonable discussion in this thread...

nothing hard and fast, but some decent guidelines...

Report abuse

566

weykool
ID: 8657121
Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 22:05

I am aware of the discussion there, but didnt see anything official from Guru.
Just thought we should all be aware of what the rules are.

Report abuse

567

weykool
ID: 8657121
Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 22:47

Guru FYI:
I get an error when I click on the policy on civility and respect link.

Report abuse

568

Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 23:36

Uh oh. That's not a good sign!

Report abuse

569

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 11:17

The link should be fixed now.

I'm trying my best not to produce a specific list of prohibited items. I want to avoid the tendency of some to try to exploit loopholes, or to go just up the line.

As general guidance (and I probably have said this before), if you are unsure about whether something is OK to post, then don't say it. And if you think someone else's post has crossed the line, then click on the "Report Abuse" link for that specific post. If we get enough reports (and "enough" is not yet precisely defined), that will help to define whether the line has been crossed.

I know that "tone" is something that is difficult to convey accurately in written posts, but if you think that a post is stated in a way that would almost never be accepted in civil spoken conversation (and do not use the media as a guideline for this!), then report it.

There are ways to make points (and counterpoints) without attacking the intelligence of the "adversary", or impugning his/her motives, lifestyle, religious beliefs, religious affiliation, heritage, etc.

For some regular posters here, that is going to be a difficult standard to meet.

Report abuse

570

DWetzel
ID: 25740420
Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 16:01

I noted one error on the "report abuse" function -- the "Thank you, XXX" doesn't list the reporter's name, it lists the name of the person whose post is being reported.

Report abuse

571

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 16:10

Thanks - I think I've fixed that.

Report abuse

572

biliruben
ID: 41431323
Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 04:04

I just wanted to say thank you guru, for restoring, and perhaps more importantly, policing the politics forum.

I don't participate as much any more, but I found that I missed it.

I hope we all take Guru's guidelines to heart. If so, I will bring myself back in.

Report abuse

573

Mith
ID: 597352314
Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 15:38

What do these mean: Â ?

Report abuse

574

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 15:53

It's the translation of a certain blank character using a specific character encoding format.

I suspect you're referring to its appearance in the Healthcare thread? I suspect something got copied into that thread that disrupted the encoding scheme.

Report abuse

583

Mith
ID: 517222317
Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 22:44

Guru

Thank you.

Report abuse

610

Khahan
ID: 54138190
Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 00:39

I deleted basically the whole discussion from today. The discussion itself was started as off topic to this forum. It quickly devolved into childish rhetoric and name calling. Any semi-serious post about it would have been silly to leave up. They would have made no sense. So the whole discussion from today is down in case anybody is wondering what happened to it.

Report abuse

614

Boldwin
ID: 12107713
Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 11:21

Ok Tosh, knock yourself out. Wow me with something interesting. I'm taking a break and I hope people write interesting things here, and find interesting things. Conservatives, jump in here and don't let this bird fly with just one wing.

Hasta la vista baby.

Report abuse

615

Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 11:49

Since you took the time to mention me specifically ... be sure to post your blog address so that I can visit.

Please use the regular exit to your left, and not the revolving door. Thank you.

Report abuse

616

Boldwin
ID: 291029284
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 08:52

Why can't conservatives be more civil?

Report abuse

617

Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 09:17

Those familiar with Malloy from his numerous appearances at NewsBusters over the years...

Is there anyone else familiar with Mike Mallory? I'm sure not. I suspect the overwhelming majority of people who know Mallory's name have heard it at righty outlets.

If most of the conservatives people cite as uncivil were as generally familiar as Mike Mallory there wouldn't be much of an argument.

He might approach the tone of an Ann Coulter but not her influence on the discourse. This is weak.

Report abuse

618

Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 11:03

Is there anyone else familiar with Mike Mallory?

According to
this website, and I have no idea if it's current, his affiliates and the times he's broadcast rank him in the bottom 5% of syndicated talk hosts, so it's not shocking he uses the shock jock approach to try to get some notoriety.

If this is an example of NewsBuster exposing liberal media bias, they probably don't have a very good idea of what constitutes the media, and neither do their readers.

Report abuse

619

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 11:10

They certainly seem fixated on him.

Baldwin's post is telling. He's essentially saying that the Tea Party shouldn't be civil because he's found an uncivil liberal.

Report abuse

620

Boldwin
ID: 291029284
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 11:10

It's all moving away from the MSM. The MSM is a spent force. They have used up all their credibility. Some guys on blogs and twitter have more clout than talking heads on the networks.

Report abuse

621

Boldwin
ID: 291029284
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 11:11

PD

I am telling you there never was any justification for liberals to pose as 'the civil ones'.

Report abuse

622

DWetzel
ID: 25740420
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 11:12

Seems like a stupid twist of a headline to me. I don't see why what some left wing kook says on some radio show that has nothing to do with this board means it's OK for you to spray verbal feces all over it.

Report abuse

623

Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 11:13

I'm pretty sure "MSM" still puts plenty enough pundits on the TV.

So that doesn't make a very strong excuse for why you and Newsmax can't find one to meet the Coulter standard for uncivil.

Report abuse

625

Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 11:30

Boldwin - disgusting links are not tolerated. As bili said, you have been on tilt for a month and if you don't start behaving like an adult, prepare for your presence to be removed from these boards.

Report abuse

628

Boldwin
ID: 291029284
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 11:43

Tolerance for you, but not for me.

Report abuse

629

DWetzel
ID: 25740420
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 12:19

If some yahoo wants to buy whatever fake pee-pee with an Obama statuette in it, bully for them.

It's something else that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this forum.

Report abuse

630

Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 13:24

MITH 617 - a double standard is a double standard. Nothing more to it than that. When Jared Loughner opened fire there was a huge outcry from many on the left to tone down the rhetoric and try to blame the right for the violence because of the violence of the right's rhetoric.

It was never qualified or justified with a statement like, "Because so many people hear the violent talk and see adds using cross-hairs its far worse and needs addressed." It was always purely based on the content of the talk.

Now that liberal talk show host is using that same kind of language and rhetoric excuses are flying, "he doesn't have an audience." "he's not as popular as ann coulter so its irrelevant."

No, its not irrelevant. If the rhetoric needs toned down, then it needs toned down. Period. Both sides. Can't have this one both ways.

Report abuse

631

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 13:28

The difference is K when that kook on the left spouts vitriol, it amounts to nearly nothing because no one hears it. When AC spouts vitriol, it isnt the same BECAUSE, more people are influenced by AC. You will never put an end to ALL of the garbage, but you can do everything in your power, to put an end to the garbage coming out of influential people. It isnt a 1:1 body count relevancy here. Its an audience size relevancy.

Report abuse

632

Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 13:53

Sarge, you are again making the point even more blatant. Go back and re-read the Gabrielle Giffords shot thread.

Go ahead and read thru the thread. Every single person attacking the violent rhetoric is simply attacking the violent rhetoric. They are using both common and uncommon, national and regional examples to attack violent rhetoric. In fact the first person to address audience size happens in post 83..by me!

And then I'm just mentioning that with a national audience anybody who says comments like this guy linked above says is an even bigger idiot.

I'm not dismissing it as irrelevant because he's a small audience. Not the way MITH does in 617 and not the way you are in 631.

The size of his audience plays no role in determining if the message is valid, invalid, right, wrong, violent, peaceful, acceptable or unacceptable. The only thing the size of the audience plays a role in is how big of a dbag the speaker looks.

Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh would be idiots to make the comments that Mallory made, not because of the size of their audience but because the comments are idiotic, violent and not acceptable. And Mallory is an idiot for making those comments because of their content. Considering all the talk in the Giffords post, any defense of Mallory's comments amounts to hypocrisy.

Report abuse

633

Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 14:01

Khahan

Now that liberal talk show host is using that same kind of language

Wow Khahan where do I start?

It was never qualified or justified with a statement like, "Because so many people hear the violent talk and see adds using cross-hairs its far worse and needs addressed."

Huh? The whole reason people were saying that was because of it's prevalence, not that it existed at all. I couldn't have cared a whit about Glenn Beck until millions of people started hanging on his every word.

Also, I think you should go back and take a look at my contributions to the Gabby Giffords thread before you accuse me of any double standard.

Next, I think you should read the link in 616 again and note that Malloy's rant is nothing like the violent crosshairs and "bullets over ballots" rhetoric that people were blaming Giffords' shooting on. This fool Malloy is hoping for "an Angel of the Lord to" to do the Passover trick on Conservatives. Not exactly a call to arms.

My point in 617 is that the right's reputation for uncivil discourse is earned by many of their best-known celebrity pundits who's words are distributed every day to massive audiences, while the same type of rhetoric doesn't typically get pundits on the left nearly as far.

Turn to any rightist media outlet and you'll hear angry people who have made a career harshly inappropriate and sometimes dangerous statements about the opposition. On the left, you usually have to dig a bit. You really think this point is an invalid double standard unworthy of mention in a discussion about uncivil political discourse?

Report abuse

634

Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 14:34

You really think this point is an invalid double standard unworthy of mention in a discussion about uncivil political discourse?

Just, you know, the terrible swift sword, just (Malloy emulates sound of sword cutting repeatedly through the air) lop their heads off.

He's calling for the 'teabaggers' to be killed by the sword. To have their heads lopped off.

Yes, if you turn to any rightist media outlet you are likely to hear the same kind of violent rhetoric. And my point is exactly this: its not good for the right and its not good for the left.
I'm not the one making any excuses in an attempt to dismiss one side. You are (post 617) and Sarge is (post 631).

I say both sides are wrong when they do it. You say the right is wrong because its so prevalent and reaches so many, but its ok for the left because its such a small portion of what is said and reaches so few.

Have I misinterpreted what you mean when you say, "Is there anyone else familiar with Mike Mallory?" and "He might approach the tone of an Ann Coulter but not her influence on the discourse" then dismiss Boldwin's charge that Mallory is guilty of violent rhetoric by claiming the charge is weak?

Report abuse

635

bibA
ID: 54522612
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 14:46

....but its ok for the left..... - er, just where did they say that?

Report abuse

636

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 14:47

No K. Neither of us said that it is ok for the left. (dismissing it) I am saying, that one a person speaks stupidly and 7 people hear him, and another speaks stupidly and 70,000 hear that, it is imperative we address the one heard by 70,000 with FAR more vigor, than the one heard by 7. Why? The bell curve and the human population sample. A defined % of that audience, is susceptible to violent rhetoric. With a meager audience, the risk is meager. With a major audience, that % translates to a meaningful number of people, and the risk too, is major. Its simple math and human behavior.

Report abuse

637

DWetzel
ID: 25740420
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 14:55

Let's be clear, then: Mike Mallory is also an idiot who really ought to just shut up when he says stuff like this.

It STILL has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Report abuse

638

Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 15:08

He's calling for the 'teabaggers' to be killed by the sword. To have their heads lopped off.

No he's not. He's calling for God to kill them. Which is absurd more because it is juvenile and religiously offensive than because it might actually incite violence. It's the same as if he'd wished a plague of frogs on them. This is silly and you're smarter than this.

And my point is exactly this: its not good for the right and its not good for the left.

We agree. I made this very clear numerous times in the Giffords thread.

I'm not the one making any excuses in an attempt to dismiss one side... Have I misinterpreted what you mean when you say

Yes, very much so. All I've dismissed is the relevance of Mike Malloy as representative of the tone of the political left.

And look I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings to hear it but Ann Coulter is much more representative of the tone of the political right, if for no other reason than the fact that she (along with too many who are like her) is welcome on any rightist media outlet where she might care to drop by.

Does that dismiss the left? Only if you're hyper-defensive. It simply makes the point that the right has even more work to do in this regard than the left does, so it's kind of silly for an outlet to get all worked up over a small potatoes like Malloy, particularly as they boast such pillars of civil discussion like Ted Nugent among their contributors.

Report abuse

639

Boldwin
ID: 291029284
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 19:39

So no one is going to address the fact I have to pay for displays of Serrano's Piss Christ, while EBay feels they will receive no pushback whatsoever for censoring Glenn Beck's pissing right back at Jamie Foxx's god?

Report abuse

640

DWetzel
ID: 25740420
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 19:55

Certainly no, it's not going to be addressed in a thread that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Other things that are irrelevant to this thread:

Home remedies for clearing up yeast infections
The Minnesota Timberwolves backup power forward situation
How to score some hot girls in Fargo, North Dakota

You know what is on topic though? Asking why the hell you can't read a simple forum and put crap where it goes.

Report abuse

641

Mith
ID: 18451815
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 19:58

My guess is that, considering they are a successful business, they are likely doing what successful businesses would seem likely to do: going in the direction with less pushback.

Report abuse

642

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 20:19

Are there hot girls on Fargo, ND?

Report abuse

643

Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 20:37

I have to pay for displays of Serrano's Piss Christ

Yes, that one one hundredth of a cent it cost you must have really been a blow. Now tell us how you feel about the 5 bucks you had to pay to drop napalm and Agent Orange to defoiliate the jungles of Southeast Asia, an environmental catastrophe that remains over 4 decades later. Don't bother, we know you're estatic about it.

Report abuse

644

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 22:28

yup. One does need to support the arts--even art you don't like.

Report abuse

645

Tree
ID: 1910562515
Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 00:55

So no one is going to address the fact I have to pay for displays of Serrano's Piss Christ, while EBay feels they will receive no pushback whatsoever for censoring Glenn Beck's pissing right back at Jamie Foxx's god?

i will.

ebay, like many other places, has terms and conditions. claiming he was selling a jar of a urine was a violation of that T&C. Beck even posted that fact on his page. you know that, and opted not to share.

to save you the challenging part of using Google, i'll go ahead and do that for you, posting some of google's rules:

Human remains and body parts policy

Examples of prohibited items include, but are not limited to:

Native American grave-related items, including skulls and skeletons intended for medical research

Tibetan prayer skulls

organs

bones

blood

waste products

body fluids

sperm

eggs

any of these items included as a gift, prize or giveaway in connection with another item listed on eBay

You can't sell any of these items even if you state they are intended for medical research.

Report abuse

646

Boldwin
ID: 211040295
Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 06:40

In Beck's case it isn't even piss. He's considerably more decent than Serrano.

Report abuse

647

Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 09:44

This fool Malloy

Fair enough, a condemnation of his words is all I was looking for.

Report abuse

648

Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 09:49

It wasn't enough when I compared him with Ann Coulter in my first post on the topic?

Report abuse

649

Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 10:59

To be honest MITH, I have never once listened to ann coulter. A comparison to her doesn't mean much to me because I have no idea what she's like.

But I hardly ever listen to any political radio because its all so much bravado and show for ratings more than substance.

Report abuse

650

Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 11:15

I don't know that Coulter has a radio show. But much of her work (syndicated columns, book excerpts, frequent TV appearances, etc.) has been posted and discussed here.

If you're under the misconception that uncivil rhetoric is as tolerated on the mainstream left as it is on the mainstream right, she (and her frankly shocking popularity and success) is example 1A in the case for why you are mistaken.

Report abuse

651

Tree
ID: 1910562515
Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 11:23

In Beck's case it isn't even piss.

he proclaimed it was. that's the point.

Report abuse

652

DWetzel
ID: 25740420
Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 12:20

It wasn't intended to be a factual statement.

Report abuse

654

Tree
ID: 191111311
Mon, Dec 03, 2012, 13:15

dang. i feel like i missed something. stupid job.

Report abuse

655

Boldwin
ID: 281118321
Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 01:16

Some censor really went over the line this time.

Question for B7 and other conservatives and remaining reasonable people. Even MITH. Where else do you hang out? Please send me your email addresses. It may be time to defriend this place.

Report abuse

656

Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Wed, Dec 05, 2012, 19:19

I rarely blog anywhere else. I left a couple posts at the Kurt Haskell family blog about the underwear bomber. I have a facebook page now.....but don't use it too much.

Report abuse

657

Boldwin
ID: 501111510
Wed, Dec 05, 2012, 19:50

Thanks. 8]

Report abuse

658

Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 13:56

I chat politics with friends and family on facebook but I can't imagine putting myself in the position of having to explain to my friends and family why I would willingly associate with someone who writes the kind of terrible things you do.

Report abuse

660

Boldwin
ID: 3211181118
Tue, Dec 11, 2012, 19:22

MITH

I never talk politics on Facebook either.

Report abuse

662

biliruben
ID: 59551120
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 10:21

Most of the other places I post are grounded, with productive discussions about real issues we are working hard to change, such as education and local policy issues, where advocacy might make a difference.

Ten years ago, this was also a reasonable place with productive discussions about real issues. Now it's a guilty pleasure to allow for insights into the alternate reality of what appear from a distance to be the unhinged.

If you are interested in public school capacity and program placement issues or urban infrastructure assessment, policy and planning, I'll be happy to point you to those discussions. They are usually extremely well reasoned, often from people with lifetime's of professional experience. I learn, and nurture my desire to learn more.

Report abuse

663

Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 12:56

Chronicles of Higher Education?

Report abuse

664

biliruben
ID: 59551120
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 12:58

No. Local stuff. Is it worthwhile?

Report abuse

665

Boldwin
ID: 2411531510
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 13:00

Nah, but I do use Chronicles of Higher Education?

I will regret leaving you on bad terms.

Report abuse

667

Bill
ID: 471139269
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 10:40

I was quite interested to see how this forum would change once Boldwin left. Unfortunately it is exactly the same.

Really, someone should count the number of posts by Boldwin after he had announced his retirement. I'd gamble he has more posts than everyone else combined.

And certainly another example of why we should not believe a single word that character says.

Report abuse

668

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 13:23

The "I Like Bikes..." thread, is setting off some alert in my google chrome, and chrome announces malware and will not open the page.

Anyone else encountering similar issues?

Report abuse

669

Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 14:07

No alerts for me Sarge. I use firefox and have malwarebytes. It could be one of the links inside the thread.

Report abuse

670

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 14:18

have to be a recent one....been using chrome here for months.

Report abuse

671

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 14:59

Message says "Content from bikereviews.com, a known malware distributor...."

Report abuse

672

Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 15:00

Not necessarily sarge. Not sure how indepth chrome searches are but if a change happened to a page an old link goes to, it may be seeing that page as a known threat.

Report abuse

673

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 15:06

that is true...

Report abuse

674

bibA
ID: 54522612
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 16:19

Yup, same thing happened to me sarge "Danger, Malware Ahead" - I also use Chrome.

Report abuse

675

Boldwin
ID: 911502615
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 16:50

Pretty sure I haven't opened that thread in a month. Wasn't my worm.

Report abuse

676

sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 17:28

w/674 being the case...at least I know then it isnt something buggy with my chrome. Its a link to a site, with an issue Google believes to be malware.

Report abuse

682

Frick
ID: 2193319
Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 09:29

Six Laws Of Political Disagreement With Internet Strangers Edition

Report abuse

683

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 16:13

Good find, Frick.

Two items that are worth highlighting:

[1] THE FOURTH LAW: Presume no one shares your opinions. That means you’ll have to try hard to understand a range of differing perspectives. Empathy is not easy.
[2]...we need to begin political disagreements with a spirit of curiosity and humility and earnest investigation – rather than ignorance or sanctimonious soapboxing or half-baked misconceptions or hectoring condescension or slimy snake oil rhetoric. And I’m not talking about the other guy. I’m talking about YOU.

Report abuse

684

Boldwin
ID: 52137255
Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 18:34

Report abuse

685

Boldwin
ID: 4824216
Fri, Mar 01, 2013, 07:42

Chavez loving censors.

Report abuse

688

sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 23:14

can we have an iggy button please?

Report abuse

689

Mith
ID: 4310402110
Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 11:09

I think Dave Hall should consider whether he wants a politics forum at all if his most most dedicated member is this dedicated to turning it into a religious hate site.

Ban him or shut it down already.

Report abuse

690

Tree
ID: 40328723
Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 11:11

also reposting here:

i would hate to see this place shut down due to one person's bigotry and hate. i've met way too many great people through these boards, even some of the ones i disagree with often.

that two people at the same time point out almost the exact same thing about the same post says something.

that somebody can't grasp why 149 is about hate and completely uninformed about two different groups of people, speaks volumes.

anyway, i'd hate to see this place go away. there is too much good here - why let one bad apple ruin it all?

Report abuse

691

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 12:31

How about a thread in which one member isn't allowed to post?

Report abuse

692

sarge33rd
ID: 4609710
Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 22:55

I'll post a $100 donation, the day an iggy button is activated.

Report abuse

693

nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 18:22

Hey MITH. We would all appreciate it if you wouldn't suggest shutting down the political forum.

We are Americans. We are free right? We can handle speech we don't agree with.

If you don't like it, just ignore his posts, I stopped reading most of Tree's posts a long time ago. It's amazing if you don't read them you can't be offended. (And yes I feel the same about some of the other guys posts)

If you are that bothered just leave, but please don't suggest closing the forum, the easier choice is for you to not come here if you are that bothered. I don't want that, but you are the one suggesting closing the forum.

Report abuse

694

Mith
ID: 29182720
Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 19:19

Hey Nerve, nationality and freedom have nothing to do with it in a privately owned and run forum.

And even if they did, you'd still have no greater right to tell me what not to say than I have to say it. Like they say, freedom of speech is funny that way.

Seeing the place shut down isn't my preference, either. So that's clear now if it wasn't before.

Best I can do for you.

Report abuse

695

Tree
ID: 40328723
Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 21:47

I stopped reading most of Tree's posts a long time ago.

too bad, really. might stop you from starting duplicate threads.

Report abuse

706

Boldwin
ID: 57462820
Tue, May 28, 2013, 21:07

"The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history. During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." — George Orwell

Report abuse

707

Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Wed, May 29, 2013, 00:26

telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act

You ought to try it someday...

Report abuse

713

Tree
ID: 564211423
Wed, May 29, 2013, 11:18

"The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history. During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." — George Orwell

btw, this would be another quotation from the Wing Nut Memefesto that is incorrectly attributed.

Orwell said no such thing, and there is nothing in his writings to indicate as much.

it appears that the earliest this quote, or something similar to it, appeared in print, was in a 1982 book (more than 30 years after Orwell's death) written by Venturino Giorgio Venturini, in which he attributed the similar phrase "In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" to Orwell.

there are numerous examples of similar remarks by other people, but nothing that is attributable to Orwell.

this is becoming a fairly common practice from the Wing Not Memefesto. grab a quote, don't bother to see if it's real, and then post it. it's shoddy research, and usually when encountered with the fact that whomever is being proclaimed to have said something (most often Lincoln or Jefferson) did not say it as all, the response is usually similar:

"but it's still true!"

and that may or may not be the case, but when you put the weight of a name like Jefferson or Orwell behind it, it carries more significance than if you attribute it to "schmuck" or "jones".

Report abuse

714

Mith
ID: 4310402110
Wed, May 29, 2013, 11:24

Tree did you ever notice that about 95% of your posts are about 1 of 2 things: Boldwin or yourself?

Report abuse

715

Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Wed, May 29, 2013, 11:32

It is *really* hard to get out of that "reaction" mode to Baldwin's posts, since he's intentionally confrontational. But do try, tree. Make the forum less about pointing out how his posts stink, and more about how progressives define themselves with their own ideas.

It isn't about how much they don't like TP'ers. Otherwise, the Left would simply be the flip of the Far Right, who live only to hate on Obama.

Report abuse

716

Tree
ID: 204302911
Wed, May 29, 2013, 12:31

re 714 - perhaps.

but 713 wasn't one of them. it wasn't about Baldwin, but rather the mis-attribution of the quote in 706. i believe that if you're going to attribute a quote to someone, you need to be correct about it.

that being said, points (714 and 715) taken.

Report abuse

721

Boldwin
ID: 18933159
Tue, Oct 15, 2013, 11:26

Looking back, MITH#689...lol!

Report abuse

722

Boldwin
ID: 391155242
Tue, Dec 24, 2013, 04:47

If we could only get rid of that Boldwin. His presence must be chasing everyone away.

Report abuse

723

biliruben
ID: 208491113
Thu, Jan 23, 2014, 16:48

Report abuse

724

nerveclinic
ID: 54039114
Fri, Jan 31, 2014, 04:44

Nice one Bili...

Report abuse

729

Boldwin
ID: 23430254
Sun, May 25, 2014, 14:12

Report abuse

730

bibA
ID: 204511510
Sun, May 25, 2014, 14:42

Tried to open 729 and got: "Virus Detected Antivirus software detected a virus. Your downloaded file may have a virus, as a result the file you attempted to download was removed by the Windows Attachment Manager"

Report abuse

731

Boldwin
ID: 23430254
Sun, May 25, 2014, 16:08

I don't understand why you would have to open an image. It should have loaded when you opened this thread. I am running Norton which is provided by my ISP Comcast. For some reason Norton isn't catching that KB-890830 malware which asks me to install it tho I have always refused. I am unaware of any other issues.

Report abuse

732

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Mon, May 26, 2014, 21:39

I believe this is the image?

Report abuse

734

Tree
ID: 438482411
Mon, May 26, 2014, 23:14

i love when people post memes with words that weren't actually said by the person they are attributing.

"fools will believe anything posted on the internet. the truly uninspired and those unable to think for themselves will repost it at every opportunity." - Thomas Jefferson

Report abuse

742

Boldwin
ID: 114512621
Tue, May 27, 2014, 19:17

The BBC is now censoring the word 'girl'.

Report abuse

745

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Mon, Nov 17, 2014, 18:27

Go away. You're a lying troll who even lies about leaving. = PD

It's not enuff for PD that the forum screeched to a halt when I left. It's so important to him that I leave that he makes up the false claim that I promised to leave and then slanders me for not living up to his daydream.

If only the boring old liberal echo chamber could find a new challenger.

Report abuse

746

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Mon, Nov 17, 2014, 20:33

Your ability to inflate your own importance is an impressive, yet useless skill. Go away.

Report abuse

747

Tree
ID: 161036918
Mon, Nov 17, 2014, 22:30

you said that much nicer than i would have. i actually wrote something out, then opted not to post it.

Report abuse

748

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Wed, Nov 19, 2014, 16:55

PD, You had a hand in turning an historic election that saw the rise of the largest Republican congressional majority in living memory...

...reduced to one thread and less than 20 posts.

Mighty fine moderation and I'm just wondering what new wonders you plan on visiting on this forum if Dave Hall extends your contract?

Report abuse

749

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Wed, Nov 19, 2014, 17:07

The man who openly sh!t on the floor now wonders why it smells.

Report abuse

750

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 09:48

It was alive and thriving when I left. Try and be honest about why it got boring after that.

Report abuse

751

Gator
ID: 208541817
Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 11:21

So it was PD banning my posts soon as I posted them. I thought it was Tree. PD seemed like more of a moderate (by liberal standards), so I am surprised. I drop by occasionally just for the humor aspect of Boldwin vs the Liberals. Dave Hall said there were many lurkers and I am sure they are here for the same show. No one will be visiting the forum to see a liberal reach around fest. This goes back to the fact that liberalism is an emotional state void of logic. The moderates and conservatives come here for debate while the left needs the emotional reassurance, but I never thought they would try to run off Boldwin. He was the token conservative that allowed the liberals to say "See we allow conservatism here".Dave Hall did this forum an injustice placing a liberal as a moderator. When this forum was going strong there was some colorful language being used but we are all adults and it did not seem to slow the popularity of the forum. I believe Dave Hall just wanted some money(which he deserves for furnishing this site) and I would have donated if not for the placement of moderators. I searched for other forums and while the content is as good or better than this one the format here is much better. Other forums you have to go through page after page where here they are all posted on one page. I guess it is irrelevant now, this forum is doomed by liberal moderation.

Report abuse

752

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 12:02

I banned no posts of yours. As I've said many times, I rarely delete any posts, but when I do I *always* say so, and say why.

Report abuse

753

biliruben
ID: 561162511
Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 13:48

I quick summary of this forum:

The Golden Years:
Good faith arguments between Democrats and Republicans, with nuanced, detailed arguments. Well researched and civil. 1998-2002.

The Tree and Boxman years:
Reasonable Republicans driven from the forum by a combination of drivel and impotent anger from the far left, dredged from the Supreme Court gifting George Bush the election in Florida, and subsequent blind support of war in Iraq. Those Republicans that survived that, slunk away, after the embarrassment and impossibility of supporting said war became evident. Bye Madman and Toral et al..... 2003-2006.

Sound Byte gotchas and lack of decorum or thoughtful arguments prevail:
Tree hounds Baldwin to near maniacal levels, and the forum turns into a bitch-slap fest, with no reward given for thoughtful analysis.
The conservative mantel is completely taken over my loony-bin far-right Baldwin, who's tenuous thread attaching himself to reality is completely severed. I'm not sure if it was Terri Schaivo or Sara Palin wielding the scissors.
2007-present.

Report abuse

754

nerveclinic
ID: 42105017
Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 14:38

Bili, one major omission in post 753. It was Jeb Bush who gifted W the election.

He may soon be rewarded for that act of treason.

Report abuse

755

weykool
ID: 21012423
Tue, Nov 25, 2014, 21:02

Tree hounds Baldwin to near maniacal levels, and the forum turns into a bitch-slap fest,
I look at Baldwin and Tree as Pavlov and his dog. Baldwin posts and Tree starts salivating/slobbering on his computer. Pretty funny stuff.

Report abuse

756

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 12:22

How seemingly rational people here manage to hate me and everything I believe more than they hated OBL.

Report abuse

757

biliruben
ID: 561162511
Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 13:35

I hate you because you are beautiful.

Report abuse

758

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 18:58

Yeah, there's that too.

Report abuse

759

Bean
ID: 121011511
Fri, Dec 12, 2014, 13:04

<756> Took to the time to read the entire article. Well written, said what we all know to be true, but provides no way ahead other than maybe we all should be more tolerant.

There is no way in hell I will ever be more tolerant of a Steelers fan.

Report abuse

760

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Fri, Dec 12, 2014, 21:07

I just heard Obama on 'The Herd'...

“Social media does have this ability to channel people’s rage and frustration and sometimes nastiness in ways that polarize society. The one difference is that, in politics, sometimes people forget, we’re actually all on the same team, and that’s the American team. It’s one thing in sports if you go into the Eagles stadium or the Raiders stadium and folks are hollering at you and throwing stuff at you and you’re the opposing team. Sometimes in politics I think we forget we’re not on different teams.”

Except we aren't on the same team any longer.

Progressives want a marxist country unrecognizable to traditional Americans and have no intention of long term compromise on this goal. These tribes are simply incompatible. They are no longer on the same team.

Report abuse

761

Pancho Villa
ID: 2131916
Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 09:40

So, when you meet someone, whether in a business or social setting, you first make the determination if they fit your description of a 'traditional American,' before deciding whether or not they are suitable enough to be on your team.

No wonder you're so miserable.

Report abuse

762

biliruben
ID: 229341622
Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 10:57

Whenever Boldwin throws around the term Marxist, I giggle.

It makes him look so absurd, like he's unthinkingly lapping up red-meat talking points from what ever his website or short-wave tinfoil radio du-jour is picking up today.

Maybe a dictionary would be an appropriate Christmas gift.

Report abuse

763

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 11:18

I suspect he's written his own.

Report abuse

764

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 08:43

Oddly enuff, marxists and conservatives do agree on one undeniable truth.

You can't trust the powerful. Thus you can't trust government. They just disagree on which parts of government to distrust the most.

Report abuse

765

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 09:40

And we all agree the media sucks.

Report abuse

766

Pancho Villa
ID: 2131916
Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 11:06

I'm starting to get the picture now. The modern 'traditional American' is hopelessly cynical, obsessed with a negativity that dominates most every aspect of life.

You can't trust the government.
The media sucks.
The economy is in ruins.
We're overrun with Mexicans.
Jon Lester won't lead the Cubs to the world series.

Report abuse

767

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 13:30

Yeah, traditional America has been dipped in liberal sh&t for 60 years and we can't breathe when we venture out into blue enclaves or watch their media. We're just fine and dandy left alone with our own tribe. Go away and take your czar with you.

Report abuse

768

Bean
ID: 121011511
Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 17:58

<766> You forgot you can't trust Wall Street, you can't trust the Arabs, you can't trust Russia, you can't trust China, and in a pedophiliac God you can no longer Trust either. There is no respite, but drugs and gambling....and you can't trust those either.

The family is ripe for pillage from divorce lawyers and sex salesmen and you can't trust them (yeah your family is who I was talking about).

Identity fraud, child abductions, frivolous lawsuits, oh my!

What ever happened to the simpler times when we just dealt with bootleggers, con-men, racketeers?

We've always been a hopelessly cynical people, is this a new discovery of yours?

USA, USA, USA!!!!!!

Report abuse

769

biliruben
ID: 105572020
Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 19:09

Speak for yourself. I general hang with optimists. I don't have time for whiners.
My exception is my 7 year old, but even from him its a bit much.

Just live your life the best you can.

And in the greatest nation in the safest, most prosperous time in history, you gotta work pretty hard not to succeed and be happy.

Sadly, the baldwins of the world do seem to work pretty darn hard and being miserable.

Report abuse

770

Tree
ID: 161036918
Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 21:42

amen.

Report abuse

771

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 22:27

If there is a singular thing I've learned from politics on this side of the table, it is that people want their fear. I know this because people get very, very upset when you try to take it away from them. Facts don't matter.

For people who have convinced themselves of their own powerlessness (or, that others are just out to get them), fear is something to own and to hold.

Report abuse

772

Bean
ID: 121011511
Mon, Dec 15, 2014, 11:55

In the words of someone I knew: "Well, just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to get me."

Then there is this one: "People are like sheep, they need to get fleeced now and then."

Nothing wrong with cautious optimism, but don't deny people their cynicism and sarcasm. It is essential for their mental health, provides them with a non-violent defense against predators and often defines their sense of humor. Without it, we wouldn't be civilized.

Report abuse

773

biliruben
ID: 561162511
Mon, Dec 15, 2014, 12:06

Sure. But you can do that without thinking more half your fellow citizens, and ALL the rest of the human race rest of the world is your sworn enemy.

Report abuse

774

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Mon, Dec 15, 2014, 12:08

That was one nasty, uncalled for inexplicable post there in #768, Bean. I didn't think you sunk that low.

Report abuse

775

C1-NRB
ID: 101101515
Mon, Dec 15, 2014, 16:00

Bean: In the words of someone I knew: "Well, just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to get me."

You knew Maj. Frank Burns?

Report abuse

776

Bean
ID: 121011511
Tue, Dec 16, 2014, 10:22

Yeah, I think we did a tour in Korea together. He was in a MASH unit, right?

Favorite Dilbert character: Wally, for his impeccable situational awareness and consistent plan of attack

Report abuse

777

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Sat, Dec 20, 2014, 22:34

Why settle for micro-aggression?

Report abuse

780

Seattle Zen
ID: 1610533022
Mon, Dec 29, 2014, 23:15

The days of Baldwin posting any inane stupidity he finds in any thread he wants are not coming back.

Report abuse

781

Bean
ID: 121011511
Tue, Dec 30, 2014, 12:06

darn, I missed them

Report abuse

782

Boldwin
ID: 510591420
Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 13:52

Thank You

Report abuse

783

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 16:22

About online forums in an age of social media saturation.

A rather good piece.

Report abuse

784

Boldwin
ID: 49250121
Wed, Mar 11, 2015, 20:41

Just remember when you finally realize WWIII has already started, that this forum deleted the Islamic Apocalypse thread. Nothing to see there, apparently...lol...sheesh.

And all record that I started the 'Housing Bubble' thread 2 years before it burst.

I told you so, even if it was desperately dragged to the memory hole.

Report abuse

785

Bean
ID: 14147911
Wed, Mar 11, 2015, 22:31

<783> I stopped using Facebook after about one year. I was an early non-.edu adopter. The constant barrage of game hi scores and, guess what I am eating now posts became more bothersome than the invasion of privacy was worth.

I've never used Twitter, but will one day out of professional curiosity only.

In earl days there was something called Newwsgroups that we used in DoD for collaboration. That concept has morphed. RSS feeds seemed to have been abandoned by My Yahoo as well.

Its funny to see so many here who actually know HTML syntax. This dinosaur is not yet extinct.

Report abuse

786

biliruben
ID: 28420307
Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 06:49

Report abuse

787

Boldwin
ID: 49250121
Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 20:42

It does kinda matter whether it's a community activist who turn them into body-snatched zombies...

...or whether it's prince charming bringing her back to life.

Report abuse

788

Bean
ID: 14147911
Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 21:11

Shhh, we just got the baby to sleep. What were you thinking? Lets go out to the garage, turn on the game, and have a beer now.

The bedtime story was one with a happy ending, and there's quiet music playing in the background. Don't worry I just checked the monitor in the nursery and its working. Everything's gonna be OK.

Play Ball!

Report abuse

789

Boldwin
ID: 49250121
Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 22:40

Probably the most interesting thing written in the last two months was the article in 'The Atlantic', disclosing to an unaware world, that ISIS is Islamic.

The most interesting rejoinder to that article is Here.

But since the thread that began discussing the most important article in the last two months was deleted by our fearless censors, I'll let the rest of you figure out where to put the most interesting thing we could be discussing on a political board.

Report abuse

790

Boldwin
ID: 412132511
Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 22:15

You can't censor your way to a better future.

Report abuse

793

Gator
ID: 27337811
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 06:19

Obviously Guru does not monitor this forum. Seattle Zen is the worse person possible to monitor this forum. He is crazy left wing a and his opinion is anything that is not far left should be banned. I had 4 posts that just switch what the left posters said to a moderate point of view and they were deleted.

Report abuse

795

weykool
ID: 472331022
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 10:43

Seems to me the only reasonable solution is to revoke SZ's censorship privileges or shut down the the forum all together.
At the end of the day it's Guru's forum and he can allow it to be whatever he wants it to be.

Report abuse

796

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 11:00

Uhm...some of us have too many good memories to go down the road of closing the forum down. No matter what.

Dave apparently is a lib so we must live with lunatic moderation.

That is the sort of call where Solomon decided which was the real deserving mother. It was the one who could not bear to see the baby cut in half just to get half a victory.

Report abuse

797

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 11:02

Guru is not a lib, not even close, but apparently calling people "a lib" makes the real world go down better for you. So there's that, I suppose.

With PV's passing, this forum has lost a bit of light. I'd advocate closing it down.

Report abuse

798

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 11:08

Not the real mother.

Report abuse

799

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 11:50

I've hardly been in this forum at all for the past year. FWIW, I've hardly gotten any complaints directed to me. And if anything was directed to me in a forum post, I probably didn't see it.

I'm really not interested in running a politics forum. I'm certainly amenable to shutting it down.

So that's essentially the choice. Live with it as is, or shut it down. I'm through with trying to make adjustments.

Report abuse

800

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 13:27

Based on a recent conversation and a limited review of some of the latest activity, I’ve decided to shut the Politics Forum down.

This forum was originally established at the request of several Gurupies who wanted a place to discuss politics and current events that really didn’t fit in any of the sports-related forums. For many years, I think it served its purpose quite well. In fact, I would often come here to see what was being said about various issues, and found much of the discussion to be intellectually honest, sometimes enlightening, and generally in good temperament.

Over time, those traits have become less evident. And with each degradation, some posters have fled. I don’t see this as a unique development in this politics forum; I think it has followed universal trends in political discourse.

Of course, when this forum was launched, the terms “blog” and “social media” didn’t even exist. So this forum filled a useful void at that time. But today, there are a multitude of places where people can go to discuss politics and current events. They are probably not run in the same manner as this forum. And based on the way in which this forum has transformed, I can see that there are good reasons for the types of controls that other forums attempt to impose.

As I’ve said many times, I am really not interested in running or managing a politics forum. I’ve made several attempts at light-handed controls and imposed standards, but they just don’t seem to be very effective. Self-moderation is really the only effective control in this environment. And based on some of the behaviors exhibited here, I’m always a bit concerned that uncivility has the potential to reflect badly on the RotoGuru brand.

So, here is the plan:

Effective immediately, no more posts will be allowed in any politics forum thread except for this one. Any further discussion in this thread must be related to “the non-future of this forum”. After about a week, I’ll shut down the ability to add to this thread as well.
I’ll leave the existing forum threads available for review, copying, etc. for about six weeks. Around June 15th, I’ll remove them all. So if you have anything archived here that you want to retain, it’s up to you to figure out how to retrieve and store it.
For those sports leagues that have resided at this forum, you’ll need to move those discussions to the appropriate Leagues & Standings Forum(s). Don’t ask me to transport those threads over, however. The forum is not well designed to move threads from one forum to another. It’s up to you to figure out what needs to be saved, and how to save it. If there are leagues that are currently in hiatus, make sure someone from each of those leagues is aware of the need to salvage historical info.

I’m disappointed to lose the old politics forum. But I’m relieved to be losing the current one. I’d like to thank those who have done their best to try to make this work. I especially thank those who have served as moderators. Frankly, most of them have long since left as well.

Report abuse

801

Bean
ID: 14147911
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 14:03

Thanks Guru,

Fun arguing with you all. Ever wonder why they say never discuss religion or politics at the dinner party? Who could have foreseen that the Thanksgiving dinner discussion would have to be limited to sports once the kids grew up.

Guess we'll have to limit our discourse to who has the shiniest player now. See you guys in the Fantasy Sports Forums.

Report abuse

802

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 15:00

You, I will miss, Bean.

Report abuse

803

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 15:04

It's been suggested that I move all politics forum threads into the deleted thread warehouse - where they can at least be accessed for posterity.

With the caveat that posterity probably isn't forever - at least insofar as the RotoGuru Forum is concerned - and that the search capabilities within that warehouse are going to run somewhat slowly, given the large number of threads - I should be able to do that. But I won't make that shift until June 15.

So, if there is anything that you really want to preserve, find it now and save it yourself. However, there still should be an attic full of them to rummage through after 6/15, if needed.

Report abuse

804

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 15:05

We've gone from liberals asking for 'a long overdue conversation' on their favorite topics, to diss inviting and criminalizing opposing points of view.

The tyrants and thot police have won.

Move Orwell out of the fiction section.

Report abuse

805

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 15:07

I appreciate #803, Dave.

Report abuse

807

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 16:34

Thanks, Guru. I appreciate the time you took to set up and maintain this politics forum, despite its nature and the fact that, in its last years, it wasn't the kind of value-added feature that RotoGuru Empire needs.

Report abuse

808

Khahan
ID: 17332816
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 17:03

Thanks for the good times here guru. I've always been hot and cold in the politics forum -sometimes diving in and being active for weeks or months at a time, sometimes not even opening a thread for weeks or months at a time.

Even when I periods of complete inactivity I always missed the forum. Some posters I simply butted heads with and generally tried to avoid engaging. Others I disagreed with but I found to be thoughtful and considerate and willing to discuss issues. That I will miss but most of those who are thoughtful in their discussion are also active in the sports forums (or at least in a league active on those forums).

So thanks again. Lots of great memories, lots of great discussions. Unfortunately too many not-so-great discussions...which is why we find ourselves where we are today. I guess as a group all of us only have ourselves to blame.

Thanks all. And appropriately I'm listening to Ozzie's "see you on the other side." Guess I can say I'll see you on the other side of the forums.

Report abuse

809

Seattle Zen
ID: 301361318
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 17:05

All good things must come to an end. I am very appreciative for all the effort and expense you, Guru, have given to this forum over the past, what, 16 or 17 years.

I was one of the early frequent posters and a lot of my time has been sent down this hole, happily. It is rather amazing the number of good friends I have made from this experience. It was September 11th... 2000 that a handful of Gurupies met at a Mariners game and I became friends with at least three of these attendees. I was one of the charter members of the Political Baseball keeper league. I anguished over the uncertainty of the 2000 Presidential election here. I was one of the few sane voices against the invasion of Iraq and I will remind everyone who listens that no, not everyone believed the rhetoric coming from the Administration, I posted link after link of excellent journalism from around the globe that dispelled the notion that Iraq still had WMDs. I expressed my disgust with the independent US voter during the 2004 Presidential election. I predicted on election night 2008 that Barack Obama would win TWO terms.

But as Guru and others have pointed out, the forum has changed. I didn't stop posting, but I posted a lot less and I lost motivation to post long pieces for a variety of reasons. This is no longer a unique corner of the interweb, there are plenty of other opportunities to interact with others in political discourse. I will remember this forum warmly, I will hold all of you with high regard and I will miss all of "this". Adios.

Report abuse

810

Gator
ID: 27337811
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 19:37

Because some posters have complained about an overofficious moderator you are shutting the forum down? I do not understand. When I ran a website there was no maintenance for the forum.If I am wrong please inform me.
Are you upset some complained about Seattle Zen as a moderator?
Unless you have close friends on this forum there is no reason you should provide a service without compensation. Some of us are capitalists. What would you consider fair compensation?

Report abuse

811

Gator
ID: 27337811
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 19:47

BTW,Guru, I have e-mailed you a few times to see if you would be interested in a daily fantasy sports venture.Did you not see the e-mails or just not interested?

Report abuse

812

biliruben
ID: 28420307
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 20:10

Thanks, Dave, for providing this venue.

I'm a bit sad, but it's probably for the best. Talking past each other and trying to nail people with gotchas isn't really my thing, and that's pretty much where we are now.

I learned much from posters here, liberal and conservative, that are long gone, or, sadly more recently gone.

I appreciate you keeping the archive. There are posts I still search out in there, particularly my arguments around the housing bubble, and economic theory. Mainly just to remind myself I wasn't crazy. ;)

Thanks again, and goodbye all!

Report abuse

813

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 21:23

[811] I have no idea what you are referring to.

Report abuse

814

weykool
ID: 472331022
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 21:40

Guru:

Thank you for your efforts.
All good and bad things must come to an end.
Best of luck to you getting your brand back on track.

Report abuse

815

Gator
ID: 27337811
Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 23:40

E-mail me kidd184@hotmail.com. I may have had your e-mail wrong.

Report abuse

816

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Wed, Apr 29, 2015, 07:40

Having found Twitter and learned how to get the most out of it took some of the sting out of withdrawal here the first time. I will especially miss here however the intense competitive pressure to over-learn the fine points of the day's issues.

Report abuse

817

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, Apr 29, 2015, 07:40

Many thanks for the outlet and the source Dave. It has been much appreciated.

Report abuse

818

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Wed, Apr 29, 2015, 07:40

If Gator sets up an alternate site, I am all over that.

Report abuse

819

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Wed, Apr 29, 2015, 07:59

For lurkers who really enjoyed the clever snark and the deep strikes you used to get here, let me tell you your first most important replacement.

On twitter: David Burge@iowahawkblog

And if you'll only accept it from a homosexual: Dr Hugo Hackenbush@MangyLover

I'm not gonna have Tree follow me to twitter but if you want my twitter address, just ask.

Report abuse

820

Gator
ID: 27337811
Wed, Apr 29, 2015, 09:48

I developed a fantasy sports website about 10 years ago. I had no knowledge on how to create a website and had to self educate myself. It was tough as I had many friends offering to help me but few did. I am currently in the planning stage of creating a website to compete with Fanduel and Draftkings. I hired some programmers but they decided to opt out and are trying to create the site on their own.I did not make them sign a non-compete contract as they were acquaintances. I am just gathering information now and contacting Guru and other websites I use to set my fantasy teams on advertising costs. I do have a friend who has a daily fantasy sports information site going. If Guru has a FTP program we can move everything. Maybe we can even talk him into setting up a redirect. I will try to contact my buddy today.

Report abuse

821

Tree
ID: 161036918
Wed, Apr 29, 2015, 11:28

sad to see this forum closing. i'm not sure it's for the best, but alas, all good things must come to an end.

i met some great people here. some i've met in person, some i still hope to meet in person, and one, in particular, i'll never meet in person.

the irony of PV passing just a few weeks before the board dies as well, is not lost on me.

he was, imho, the best poster we had here, and a voice of left-leaning reason even in the face of those who called him a radical.

Report abuse

822

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, Apr 29, 2015, 16:43

for those who care to stay in touch, this is my most active email account.

Valid observation and point Tree, re PV. That man, is sorely missed.

Report abuse

823

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Wed, Apr 29, 2015, 18:24

One thing you have to admit. When we left we were au courant.

College Encourages Lively Exchange Of Idea - The Onion

Report abuse

824

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Thu, Apr 30, 2015, 01:34

When the left attempts to envelop itself in a bubble where all decent people believe the same things, they are only fooling themselves. They are creating the illusion that all the intellectual battles have been won and they no longer need to debate or justify their positions.

At the same time, out in the real world, Democratic politicians are scrambling to move to the right just to survive.

They are growing so accustomed to living in an ideological “safe space” that they will no longer understand what it means to debate their positions, much less how to win the debate.

This is the Paradox of Dogma. If you try to shut down public debate, is this a way of ensuring that you win—or an admission that you have already lost? The answer is: both. It might ensure that you win in the short term. But over the long term, it abandons the field to those who do believe in ideological debate.
Report abuse

825

Building 7
ID: 2011541213
Thu, Apr 30, 2015, 16:53

Sad to hear about Pancho Villa. He was a voice of reason around here, with well-documented arguments. I had my disagreements with him at times, as I'm sure everyone did, but , most of the time I agreed with him, or was persuaded to agree with him.

Report abuse

826

Boldwin
ID: 112382716
Thu, Apr 30, 2015, 22:30

The world's greatest blogger [or his support staff] have retweeted me at least 6 times in the last ~50 hours! You've created a monster!

Report abuse

827

nerveclinic
ID: 8832812
Mon, May 04, 2015, 15:48

The political Forum died a long time ago. Hard not to agree with a lot of Dave's points. The Golden years were fun, lately it's been a bit of a cesspool at times.

We would appreciate if you would stick it in the attic so we can get back to any important baseball threads. I guess the main baseball thread will now move to the league thread?

Report abuse

828

nerveclinic
ID: 8832812
Mon, May 04, 2015, 15:49

Report abuse

829

Bean
ID: 14147911
Mon, May 04, 2015, 16:41

Started the new thread awhile back Nerve

Report abuse

830

nerveclinic
ID: 42105017
Tue, May 05, 2015, 07:11

I only saw this yesterday. Shows you how often I come/post here.

Report abuse

831

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, May 27, 2015, 09:54

I have an idea.

This forum software has the capability to designate a forum as "hidden", which means it does not show up on the main listing, and is essentially available only to those who know it's there.

I could designate this Politics forum as a hidden forum, and also eliminate all moderator privileges. It would then essentially run as an unmoderated, semi-private forum. All threads and links would operate as before. It just wouldn't show up on the main forum listing.

The only caveat is that if I discover a trend toward vulgarity, obscenity, or other completely unacceptable behavior, then I'll shut it down in a heartbeat. So if you remain active here and don't like the way things are going, feel free to complain - but don't expect me to attempt to fix anything with a scalpel. I'll fix it with a sledgehammer.

I'm not going to act on this yet. I may decide it's a bad idea. But give me a week to mull it over.

Feel free to comment if you wish. This thread is still live.

Report abuse

832

Khahan
ID: 194182712
Wed, May 27, 2015, 13:18

I like it. Would we have to 'sign up' to see the forum?

Report abuse

833

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, May 27, 2015, 14:56

No. You'd just need to know it was there.

Report abuse

834

Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Wed, May 27, 2015, 16:12

So we could bookmark it, then?

Sounds fine to me.

Report abuse

835

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, May 27, 2015, 16:35

Yep. Bookmark it.

Report abuse

836

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, May 27, 2015, 18:39

I like the idea Dave. Despite the sometimes rampant sniping (and yes, I will admit to my share of guilt), this still serves as a valid resource for information.

Sufficient numbers of posters, frequenting so many different sites; I couldnt possibly glean it on my own.

With the "sledgehammer" ever present and looming, one would like to think we could conduct ourselves in a manner, almost resembling multi-digit IQd life forms.

Report abuse

837

biliruben
ID: 28420307
Thu, May 28, 2015, 07:46

Given that I still reflexively (perhaps compulsively) check this forum (via bookmark), and have stumbled across something half a dozen times in the last few weeks, I would have posted in the past, I like your idea.

Report abuse

838

biliruben
ID: 28420307
Thu, May 28, 2015, 07:46

See 723.

Report abuse

839

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, May 30, 2015, 16:34

OK.

The forum is now alive once again, with the following changes:

1. It is no longer listed on the main forum index. If you want to get here, bookmark this URL:
http://rotoguru1.com/cgi-bin/view.pl?board=pol

2. The only one with moderator privileges for this forum is me. But don't ask me to use them unless something really dastardly has been posted. And if I am called upon to moderate, recognize that my response might be to nuke the forum for good. Or to permanently block one or more IP addresses from being ever able to access any page on any rotoguru domain. Or both.

If you don't like those rules, then stay away.

This is being done solely as an accommodation to some longtime forum users who have shown an ability to behave properly. But this is the last gasp.

Report abuse

840

sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 00:05

since this has turned into Boldys playground for crackpot bullshit...I'll be deleting my direct link.

If you care to contact me, there is my active email.

Report abuse

841

Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 12:39

Report abuse

842

weykool
ID: 472331022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 10:51

since this has turned into Boldys playground for crackpot bullshit...I'll be deleting my direct link.
Translation: Now that we can no longer censor conservatives and the liberal reach-around fest is over, I'm taking my ball and going home.

Report abuse

843

Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 12:56

I'll bet #1996 was what drove him off the cliff.

Report abuse

844

CanadianHack
ID: 4411552620
Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 00:49

I still come to this forum every once in a while and I think it is shame that it is essentially dead. I think with Boldwin's death, it is possible that nobody will ever come here again and debate anything.

I understand that there have been some problems in the past. Honestly compared to many places on the internet these problems are not unique to this forum and not as bad as they are in many places. One of the most significant problems was that Baldwin and several others could not co-exist peacefully. That problem is effectively solved.

I think it would be good if it was possible to "de-hide" this forum and attract traffic. If Guru was asked to do this would anybody care?

I am nearly certain that given the polarization in society there will eventually be problems again and I for one would be willing to accept it. I can say I learned a lot by lurking here and sometimes posting and it is a shame to see it all die.

Is there any future to this forum? I hope the answer to that question can be yes.

Report abuse

845

widdleavi
ID: 120121821
Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 08:07

I would love to see this forum come back.

Report abuse

846

weykool
ID: 386101420
Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 21:11

The problem is finding fair moderators.
Most of the active moderators were from the far left and would delete posts they disagreed with (Not their job) and allowed personal attacks against conservatives. (their job to delete)

I really don't see the need for the forum as there are plenty of other places to discuss the issues of the day in a more fair and balanced setting.

Report abuse

847

Tree
ID: 444512518
Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 23:56

Most of the active moderators were from the far left and would delete posts they disagreed with

this is not actually something that happened.

allowed personal attacks against conservatives

this is also not actually something that happened, at least not in a vacuum. most personal attacks allowed came from both sides.

Report abuse

848

weykool
ID: 54011222
Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 15:12

Tree:

It is precisely what happened.
If you were capable of seeing past your left wing bias you would see the truth.

I had several posts that were deleted that were not in violation of any forum rules and I can only conclude that they were deleted because the moderator disagreed with the argument.

Report abuse

Forum: polPage 3383Subject: The future of this forum

Forum: pol
Page 3383
Subject: The future of this forum