Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Slapdash

***Official PSF Moderation Thread***

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, tonydead said:

Like you said. If you have some self awareness you could probably figure it out. 

On the other hand what if it did let you know when you were being ignored?

Even the most self aware people can't know what they don't know.  That's completely illogical :shrug:

Personally?  I'm a consider the source guy.  Depending on the person I might care and would cause me to reflect a bit.  With many I wouldn't care at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, irish eyes said:

Note to all, no offensive nicknames for any  female soccer players or adjectives for liberal politicians or you get banned. But it is ok to blatantly call people buffoons if you are on the other side and not get banned. I know this because these posts were very close together and the other person continued posting well after. Great job mods, keep up the hypocrisy. 

You went over the line multiple times  man.  It was almost as of you were begging to be banned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, tonydead said:

That’s the beauty of it. You don’t know who has you on ignore. Those busy running around playing board cops might not even realize that no one is responding to them. 

Since you continue to post mostly about me...I will respond.

First off...the idea of the full ignore won't work.  Because of the bias people have on this board.  The moderators don't want the keys to a thread in the hands of people who just don't like the other side.  For example, people who want others banned for liking a post, or asking a question (as you have recently complained about).

Second...stop with the board cop stuff.  Lately it seems all you do is play board cop complaining about me.  Its also old when some of the same people throw the same thing "board cop" out while not even realizing its what they are doing.

Third...the not responding thing.  If that were true...at least two people here you think would have gotten a clue.  Instead of I have a couple followers who seem to only try to get me to snap and break the rules so they can get me banned.  One of them responding just earlier that I don't answer questions.  No crap I don't answer questions of people Ive told I won't resond to over and over and over.  Yet they still reply and still ask me questions (and its easy to see those even when you ignore someone because people still quote them).  If you want consistency...the reason Id say there is bias...is never do those kind of people get called out for their actions by those that are "on their side".  Instead, some of you all even agree with them with what they are doing.

If you see something I post where I insult someone, report it.  If you see where I violate the TOS...report it.  If not, quit complaining about me so much.  Im hear to discuss topics.  And if I ask a question its because Im interested in the answer.  If I ask for a link, its because Id like to see the source and am interested as it may be something I haven't read yet.  Unliike some, I don't ask things to fish...I think fishing for reactions from people I don't know would be a monumental waste of time.  So discuss the topics...and if you don't want to hear from me or respond to me...say so and put me on ignore.  Unlike others, I won't follow you around trying to get you to react.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, irish eyes said:

Note to all, no offensive nicknames for any  female soccer players or adjectives for liberal politicians or you get banned. But it is ok to blatantly call people buffoons if you are on the other side and not get banned. I know this because these posts were very close together and the other person continued posting well after. Great job mods, keep up the hypocrisy. 

You have to realize as a poster that does not adhere to the groupthink and groupspeak you become a target.  The crew is going to mash the report button on you for jaywalking.  The few guys remaining  on the right aren’t that trigger happy.  

Joe once alluded to 6 immediate reports on someone calling AOC an “idiot.”   If name calling like that on Trump insults were reported, nobody would get anything done   

Sadly, your views make you a target   

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Even the most self aware people can't know what they don't know.  That's completely illogical :shrug:

Personally?  I'm a consider the source guy.  Depending on the person I might care and would cause me to reflect a bit.  With many I wouldn't care at all.

When no one ever responded to your demands you might be smart enough to figure it out.  But, the more I think about it, it should tell you when you are on ignore.   If people saw that I had them on ignore and it prompted them to stop responding to me I might actually start using that feature.

Even if you didn't care, it would still serve the purpose of cleaning up the threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, irish eyes said:

Note to all, no offensive nicknames for any  female soccer players or adjectives for liberal politicians or you get banned. But it is ok to blatantly call people buffoons if you are on the other side and not get banned. I know this because these posts were very close together and the other person continued posting well after. Great job mods, keep up the hypocrisy. 

I don't think anyone should be banned or suspended for calling a politician a buffoon or worse, so long as the insult isn't based on race, gender, religion, nationality, etc. and isn't crude.  Politicians knowingly sign up for that when they run for office, and calling them foolish or stupid or cruel or ignorant or whatever is pretty standard stuff.

But do you really not understand the difference between that and "offensive nicknames for female soccer players"?  Come on, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I don't think anyone should be banned or suspended for calling a politician a buffoon or worse, so long as the insult isn't based on race, gender, religion, nationality, etc. and isn't crude.  Politicians knowingly sign up for that when they run for office, and calling them foolish or stupid or cruel or ignorant or whatever is pretty standard stuff.

But do you really not understand the difference between that and "offensive nicknames for female soccer players"?  Come on, man.

Bold - That's great, but, that's not how I understand the rules around here.  And crude is pretty subjective.

The soccer player in question (I'm assuming it's Rapinoe) put herself out there for public scrutiny when she took the stances that she did.  She's now a little bit more than a female soccer player, right?

Edited by tonydead
Edited for proper English and punctuation, I hope, so no one could make an interpretation that I called Rapinoe a little soccer player because that's not what I meant.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Bold - That's great, but, that's not how I understand the rules around here.  And crude is pretty subjective.

The soccer player in question (I'm assuming it's Rapinoe) put herself out there for public scrutiny when she took the stances that she did.  She's now a little more than a female soccer player, right?

I agree, that's not how I understand the rules around here. I disagree with the rules around here, but it's not my forum so politely stating my disagreement is all I can do.

I disagree with the notion that people who aren't in politics taking political positions amounts to some sort of consent to be insulted.  And even if it is, there's still a difference between calling someone a "buffoon" and anything I'd describe as an "offensive nickname."  Perhaps if I knew the offensive nickname in question I'd feel differently, but I suspect it was a reference to her appearance, gender, sexuality or something like that; IMO that sort of thing isn't OK even for politicians.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

I agree, that's not how I understand the rules around here. I disagree with the rules around here, but it's not my forum so politely stating my disagreement is all I can do.

I disagree with the notion that people who aren't in politics taking political positions amounts to some sort of agreement to be insulted.  And even if it is, there's still a difference between calling someone a "buffoon" and anything I'd describe as an "offensive nickname."  Perhaps if I knew the offensive nickname in question I'd feel differently, but I suspect it was a reference to her appearance, gender, sexuality or something like that; IMO that sort of thing isn't OK even for politicians.

Yeah, maybe you (we) need to know the nickname before we jump to conclusions.  She's analogous to Kaepernick now though, and should be open to public scrutiny.  In the Kaep thread every nickname was reported endlessly until we couldn't use anything other than his proper name to refer to him.  Maybe we should try that with Trump because he isn't held to the same standards around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Yeah, maybe you (we) need to know the nickname before we jump to conclusions.  She's analogous to Kaepernick now though, and should be open to public scrutiny.  In the Kaep thread every nickname was reported endlessly until we couldn't use anything other than his proper name to refer to him.  Maybe we should try that with Trump because he isn't held to the same standards around here. 

I disagree that kneeling and answering media questions honestly (Rapinoe only commented on Trump and visiting the White House when asked) makes someone akin to a politician in terms of public scrutiny.  I don't think it's healthy to treat the choice not to demonstrate unquestioned loyalty to the song or flag of a nation as more political than choosing to demonstrate loyalty in that manner.  In my opinion they're both political acts, neither more than the other even though one obviously draws attention the other does not because it puts you in the minority.

Otherwise I agree with you; I assumed the nickname was actually offensive since it was described as such, and most of the Kaepernick nicknames were harmless and the reaction to them was pretty silly IMO.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I disagree that kneeling and answering media questions honestly (Rapinoe only commented on Trump and visiting the White House when asked) makes someone akin to a politician in terms of public scrutiny.  I don't think it's healthy to treat the choice not to demonstrate unquestioned loyalty to the song or flag of a nation as someone more political than choosing to demonstrate loyalty in that manner.  In my opinion they're both political acts, neither more than the other even though one obviously draws attention the other does not because it puts you in the minority.

Otherwise I agree with you; I assumed the nickname was actually offensive since it was described as such, and most of the Kaepernick nicknames were harmless and the reaction to them was pretty silly IMO.

There is always going to be a large segment of the population that will take issue with the Anthem and Flag, you know that going in.  That's always been my most critical comment about Kaep, much better ways to get the message out without being divisive yourself.

Enough thread hijack tho, what do you think about thread creators being able to use the ignore feature on a thread wide basis?

Edited by tonydead
and a large segment of that population is the military and vets, dumb idea all around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll chime in. I like your work, but don't like the idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I'll chime in. I like your work, but don't like the idea. 

Man, don't overload me with all those specifics.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I agree, that's not how I understand the rules around here. I disagree with the rules around here, but it's not my forum so politely stating my disagreement is all I can do.

I disagree with the notion that people who aren't in politics taking political positions amounts to some sort of consent to be insulted.  And even if it is, there's still a difference between calling someone a "buffoon" and anything I'd describe as an "offensive nickname."  Perhaps if I knew the offensive nickname in question I'd feel differently, but I suspect it was a reference to her appearance, gender, sexuality or something like that; IMO that sort of thing isn't OK even for politicians.

It had nothing to do with her appearance, gender,or sexuality. But I'm not going to say it again or we'll have to get out the box of tissues for the offended parties. As I said, i get it, different standards for different posters. All depends on your views if you'll be banned or not.

Edited by irish eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my thread. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

My thread is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

Without me, my thread is useless. Without my thread, I am useless. I must post my thread true. I must post straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must post him before he posts me. I will ...

My thread and I know that what counts in war is not the posts we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit ...

My thread is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my thread clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will ...

Before God, I swear this creed. My thread and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, irish eyes said:

It had nothing to do with her appearance, gender,or sexuality. But I'm not going to say it again or we'll have to get out the box of tissues for the offended parties. As I said, i get it, different standards for different posters. All depends on your views if you'll be banned or not.

If it makes you feel any better I'm pretty far to the left and I've been banned repeatedly over the last few months, each time for something almost comically innocuous. Once for a broad reference to trolling in general that was wrongly characterized as a false accusation of trolling, once for a false accusation of trolling (irony alert!) that was then amended to "not being excellent" because I accurately described hypocrites in the media and politics who amplify anti-semites and then accuse others of anti-semitism as "garbage," and once for literally just repeating the title and thesis of this article which appeared in a widely respected centrist magazine.

There's plenty of room for criticism of policies, and perhaps for having different standards for different posters.  But it definitely doesn't have anything to do with your views or political leanings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, irish eyes said:

It had nothing to do with her appearance, gender,or sexuality. But I'm not going to say it again or we'll have to get out the box of tissues for the offended parties. As I said, i get it, different standards for different posters. All depends on your views if you'll be banned or not.

Not everyone brings up the fact that they have been banned so I don't know how you can make claims like this.  I can a day for calling a poster a turd.  I meant it in a fun way.  I call my kids little turds all the time.  I never complained or brought it up right after I returned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tonydead said:

If you find yourself not welcome post better. Problem solved. 

Oh the irony of this post.   You do realize (or don’t I guess) that when you complain about the “echo chamber” or how unfair the modding is this is exactly what you’re describing above.   

 

To be crystal clear I’m not saying that you’re not welcome here, I personally prefer the different opinions here as that’s why I come to these threads, but it the effects are the same.  My point being not “feeling welcomed” will not change a person’s personality or posting style, this has been proven here 100x over.   

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Enough thread hijack tho, what do you think about thread creators being able to use the ignore feature on a thread wide basis?

It would be a dream come true for posters like Hell Toupee who over a half dozen times tried to create safe space threads that didn't allow any disagreement. They all failed miserably and then he either changed the thread title so people couldn't find it in a search or nuked the thread.

The purpose of this forum is supposed to be political discussion. If you can limit who and what can be posted, you end up with a propaganda thread preaching to the choir and of no value to anyone. If you don't want any disagreement, then go to TownHall or Free Republic on the right and Democratic Underground or DKos on the left.

This idea is unrealistic and unworkable. If allowed it would be the beginning of the end of this forum because every page would be a collection of competing threads devoted to "members only" and would not be a real discussion of any issue, idea or person.

Edited by squistion
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

It would be a wet dream for posters like Hell Toupee who over a half dozen times tried to create safe space threads that didn't allow any disagreement. They all failed miserably and then he either changed the thread title so people couldn't find it in a search or nuked the thread.

The purpose of this forum is supposed to be political discussion. If you can limit who and what can be posted, you end up with a propaganda thread preaching to the choir and of no value to anyone. If you don't want any disagreement, then go to TownHall or Free Republic on the right and Democratic Underground or DKos on the left.

This idea is unrealistic and unworkable. If allowed it would be the beginning of the end of this forum because every page would be a collection of competing threads devoted to "members only" and would not be a real discussion of any issue, idea or person.

That's because you went into each of them and told him you were going to hijack it because you don't like his posting style.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

This is my thread. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Fake News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Slapdash said:

Fake News.

I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for creating this thread so that all the whining and bickering over how unfair life and/or the mods are  and who's trolling whom can be conglomerated in one place. It doesn't completely remove all that nonsense from the other threads, but every little bit helps.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

That's because you went into each of them and told him you were going to hijack it because you don't like his posting style.  

That isn't remotely true.

Take the original Trump Tweets Thread that Hell Toupee started. At its inception, HT demanded that only tweets by Trump and those in his orbit be allowed (like Gorka and Coulter). In addition only positive things (or cheerleading) about what Trump tweeted could be posted. Negative comments were not welcome and people who did so were asked to leave and go to other threads.

That was not a posting style, that was a control freak trying to dictate the entire content of a thread. 

All I and others did was to give our commentary and opinion on the individual Trump tweets. That was not a hijacking of the thread since it related directly to the subject matter of the thread,  which was Trump's tweets. When he couldn't have his way, HT had the expected cursing meltdown, changed the thread title to "Adios Amigos" and then immediately nuked the thread.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, squistion said:

That isn't remotely true.

Take the original Trump Tweets Thread that Hell Toupee started. At its inception, HT demanded that only tweets by Trump and those in his orbit be allowed (like Gorka and Coulter). In addition only positive things (or cheerleading) about what Trump tweeted could be posted. Negative comments were not welcome and people who did so were asked to leave and go to other threads.

That was not a posting style, that was a control freak trying to dictate the entire content of a thread. 

All I and others did was give to our commentary and opinion on the individual Trump tweets. That was not a hijacking of the thread since it related directly to the subject matter of the thread,  which was Trump's tweets. When he couldn't have his way, HT had the expected meltdown and changed the thread title to "Adios Amigos" and then immediately nuked the thread.

Wrong.  Here's two examples of you hijacking his threads from the beginning.  The first one is absolutely in retaliation.

 

Here he starts a thread and asks for it to stay cordial.  Your response is "I'll keep it as cordial as you do any thread that I start."  Total hijack effort on your part.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/776672-maga-the-maga-universe/?do=findComment&comment=21968296

Here he starts another thread.  Of course you're one of the first 5 replies with another trolling thread hijack

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/767578-walkaway-movement-from-the-democrat-party—-deniers-are-blind-to-the-facts/?do=findComment&comment=21162211

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Wrong.  Here's two examples of you hijacking his threads from the beginning.  The first one is absolutely in retaliation.

 

Here he starts a thread and asks for it to stay cordial.  Your response is "I'll keep it as cordial as you do any thread that I start."  Total hijack effort on your part.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/776672-maga-the-maga-universe/?do=findComment&comment=21968296

Here he starts another thread.  Of course you're one of the first 5 replies with another trolling thread hijack

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/767578-walkaway-movement-from-the-democrat-party—-deniers-are-blind-to-the-facts/?do=findComment&comment=21162211

:own3d:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Wrong.  Here's two examples of you hijacking his threads from the beginning.  The first one is absolutely in retaliation.

Here he starts a thread and asks for it to stay cordial.  Your response is "I'll keep it as cordial as you do any thread that I start."  Total hijack effort on your part.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/776672-maga-the-maga-universe/?do=findComment&comment=21968296

Um, it isn't a hijack to directly respond to what was specifically said in OP  :lol:

I was just telling him that I would show the same degree of respect and courtesy to his threads that he has always shown to mine (and you should be aware of how respectful he has always been in any thread that I have started).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slapdash said:

Fake News.

Yes, yes.... I was being sarcastic, obviously. 

Hopefully I wasn't been so sarcastic that the point that anyone who feels they need so much control over a thread they create, as to need to put certain posters on ignore so that their replies don't show to anyone, needs to go to a psychiatrist, if only so that they can report back to us what psychological condition they suffer from. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dkp993 said:

Oh the irony of this post.   You do realize (or don’t I guess) that when you complain about the “echo chamber” or how unfair the modding is this is exactly what you’re describing above.   

 

To be crystal clear I’m not saying that you’re not welcome here, I personally prefer the different opinions here as that’s why I come to these threads, but it the effects are the same.  My point being not “feeling welcomed” will not change a person’s personality or posting style, this has been proven here 100x over.   

Thanks. The beauty of my suggestion is you can keep me out of your thread topics if you want. That’s ok with me. 

I agree the different opinions are good, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m taking about the posters that start personal pissing matches everyday that ruin thread. I disagree people wouldn’t be motivated to be better posters in order to participate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

It would be a dream come true for posters like Hell Toupee who over a half dozen times tried to create safe space threads that didn't allow any disagreement. They all failed miserably and then he either changed the thread title so people couldn't find it in a search or nuked the thread.

The purpose of this forum is supposed to be political discussion. If you can limit who and what can be posted, you end up with a propaganda thread preaching to the choir and of no value to anyone. If you don't want any disagreement, then go to TownHall or Free Republic on the right and Democratic Underground or DKos on the left.

This idea is unrealistic and unworkable. If allowed it would be the beginning of the end of this forum because every page would be a collection of competing threads devoted to "members only" and would not be a real discussion of any issue, idea or person.

Thanks for the input. What I’m proposing is just a simple addiction to the self moderation we’ve already been asked to do. We already ignore on an individual basis. Not how you characterized it. 

And there is no need to get personal and call out other posters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Misfit said:

If 95% of the people had those posters on ignore it would accomplish the same thing.

I agree. How do we get this done?  One simple solution is to let the thread creator decide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without singling anybody out, I think most (over half) of the people who post in this forum can't be trusted with any type of moderation power.  Nothing good is coming to come from letting thread-creators moderate their own threads.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FF Ninja said:

Snowflakes still gonna :cry:

One asked that a person be banned just for liking a post! It is amazing the lengths they'll go to in order to avoid a conflicting opinion.

How is this type of name calling of posters allowed?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Without singling anybody out, I think most (over half) of the people who post in this forum can't be trusted with any type of moderation power.  Nothing good is coming to come from letting thread-creators moderate their own threads.

We already ignore people and have been asked to report. We have already been asked to self moderate, and report anything we see over the line. 

I’m not suggesting full moderation control, just a simple ignore function for the thread just like we have for individual posters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Misfit said:

That's a bad solution.  

Go on...,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tonydead said:

We already ignore people and have been asked to report. We have already been asked to self moderate, and report anything we see over the line. 

I’m not suggesting full moderation control, just a simple ignore function for the thread just like we have for individual posters. 

Seriously, you should start a FaceBook group.  That way you can be very specific about who you want to allow to post.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Yes, yes.... I was being sarcastic, obviously. 

Hopefully I wasn't been so sarcastic that the point that anyone who feels they need so much control over a thread they create, as to need to put certain posters on ignore so that their replies don't show to anyone, needs to go to a psychiatrist, if only so that they can report back to us what psychological condition they suffer from. 

The discussions would be much better without the individual pissing matches that happen here every damn day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

Seriously, you should start a FaceBook group.  That way you can be very specific about who you want to allow to post.

No way I will ever be on Facebook. 

I could start my own forum and mock members over. here though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tonydead said:

No way I will ever be on Facebook. 

I could start my own forum and mock members over. here though. 

Sounds like you have it all worked out 👍

Good luck in your future endeavors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Misfit said:

Maurile already said it's not possible with the this board.  Sure someone could re-code it, but then it's not a 'simple' solution as you claim.  

Given that people complain about echo chambers in here constantly, I would imagine a significant number of threads would turn into exactly that.  Cliques would be created, on both sides, which would limit discussion.  You already have the ability to exclude these posters from your own personal experience without disrupting others.  If you are upset that posters are quoting your ignored posters while in pissing matches, then I suggest you expand your ignore list to the people constantly quoting the people you don't want anything to do with.

The usually isn’t as difficult or costly as you’d think. I order changes to similar programs all the time. But who knows. 

I think you could be right on the second point, but, I’m guessing it’s a few bad actors that might make a change for the better. Most people come here for some sort of debate in my opinion and welcome different views, without the pissing matches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

Sounds like you have it all worked out 👍

Good luck in your future endeavors.

lol, I’m sure you understood my reference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tonydead said:

If you found that you were unable to participate in a few threads would that make you change your posting behavior in hopes that you were more welcome?  I think this might just revolutionize this place. 

It would balkanize and tribalize it, it's bad enough already.

The best thing this place (TSP, FFA, here, all of it) does is bring people together of opposite POV's, different parts of the country, to hash things out. - In TSP sometimes people love it when homers chime in, but some people hate it because they are cheerleading or have blinders on. But if someone has something important to say because they watched a game that's great. People just get too emotional here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

Thanks. The beauty of my suggestion is you can keep me out of your thread topics if you want. That’s ok with me. 

I agree the different opinions are good, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m taking about the posters that start personal pissing matches everyday that ruin thread. I disagree people wouldn’t be motivated to be better posters in order to participate. 

Putting aside the exclusionary nature of what you’re suggesting (which I strongly disagree with) I have yet to see any proof of your bolded premise here.  In fact there are countless cases that prove the opposite, including some of the people you are referencing when coming up with this ideas.  Those people have not curtailed their behavior one bit in the threads where they are clearly “not welcomed”.  Making them feel more unwelcome will not drive change.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Trump HQ thread, AOC thread and Mueller thread seem to be creating a buffer sufficient for me.  Keep all that nonsense in those threads and it frees the others up nicely.  Don't fix what ain't broke.

ETA:  Not sure how I forgot about the Kaep thread...that sucker's been doing some major lifting since its inception.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Commish said:

The Trump HQ thread, AOC thread and Mueller thread seem to be creating a buffer sufficient for me.  Keep all that nonsense in those threads and it frees the others up nicely.  Don't fix what ain't broke.

ETA:  Not sure how I forgot about the Kaep thread...that sucker's been doing some major lifting since its inception.

Almost every thread has the same crap in it.  People only point it out based on who is doing it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Almost every thread has the same crap in it.  People only point it out based on who is doing it

I can only speak to the threads I am generally active in.  None of them are having the issues those threads I listed are having.  And if there is a dust up, it comes and goes quickly.  The others you can check in and come back a few weeks later and it still be the same nonsense going on.  I guess productive dialogue COULD be happening in between and I just have bad luck, but I doubt it.  Between who's the bigger troll and/or bigger board cop it's never ending in those threads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, squistion said:

It would be a dream come true for posters like Hell Toupee who over a half dozen times tried to create safe space threads that didn't allow any disagreement. They all failed miserably and then he either changed the thread title so people couldn't find it in a search or nuked the thread.

The purpose of this forum is supposed to be political discussion. If you can limit who and what can be posted, you end up with a propaganda thread preaching to the choir and of no value to anyone. If you don't want any disagreement, then go to TownHall or Free Republic on the right and Democratic Underground or DKos on the left.

This idea is unrealistic and unworkable. If allowed it would be the beginning of the end of this forum because every page would be a collection of competing threads devoted to "members only" and would not be a real discussion of any issue, idea or person.

Yeah, well this is just false. I've seen Joe himself "ban" people out of threads because they disagreed with the thread topic, and as such the thread essentially became a safe space. I won't drop names but I absolutely have 1 specific instance in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Almost every thread has the same crap in it.  People only point it out based on who is doing it

This is true because there are people on both sides doing it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

The Trump HQ thread, AOC thread and Mueller thread seem to be creating a buffer sufficient for me.  Keep all that nonsense in those threads and it frees the others up nicely.  Don't fix what ain't broke.

ETA:  Not sure how I forgot about the Kaep thread...that sucker's been doing some major lifting since its inception.

So your solution is to hope people stay in certain threads that you aren't interested in and hope they stay out of those you are.  Hmmm.  Sounds exactly like what I'm proposing except you wont have to hope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Putting aside the exclusionary nature of what you’re suggesting (which I strongly disagree with) I have yet to see any proof of your bolded premise here.  In fact there are countless cases that prove the opposite, including some of the people you are referencing when coming up with this ideas.  Those people have not curtailed their behavior one bit in the threads where they are clearly “not welcomed”.  Making them feel more unwelcome will not drive change.   

Telling them they are not welcome and putting them on ignore are two very different things.  Suppose some bored person decides to go trolling -  Telling them they are not welcome is a reward for their behavior.  Putting them on ignore stops their behavior, whether they decide to stop trolling or not.  My theory is they might just stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.