***Official PSF Moderation Thread***

[Gr00vus 10,207]

5 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

In my limited time in the PSF it seems basically to be trolling each other. I thought that was part of this forums schtick. If people were rep[orting all trolling it would overwhelm all systems.

I probably should have made this assumption from the outset as well. Live and learn.

[tonydead 5,487]

7 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

No, it doesn't.  As many have said there are two lib mods that aren't fair in their handlings of posters.  I think Joe is mostly fair or he really tries to be anyway.  

  People have such short memories.  Last election Clayton got caught deleting any and every post he didn't agree with in his Bernie for president thread.

[timschochet 26,281]

30 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

You ought to report yourself for this pompous and insulting post

I don’t report anybody else 

when I think about you 

I report myself

[moleculo 6,917]

@FBG Moderator>I don't have anything to say about anyone, but can we please have a merge?

 

TIA

[Max Power 2,654]

I'm curious what the boards and mods thoughts are on the phrase "red meat for the base" after saying something controversial.  It often seems to be used in a way to imply trump voters are stupid hateful or racist. 

 I think the phrase can still be used appropriately, and is at times but more often than not it's a slam

[GoBirds 6,750]

19 hours ago, Max Power said:

Whoa... I think that was my post, and not that I care, but seriously???  It was at around 3am when the board is dead.  A little tongue in cheek to maybe stimulate conversation at an off hour.

I've never reported a single post in 12 years.  I just don't believe in it.  I'm a bit surprised that is the level that gets reported though.  Glad to see a moderator can put it in context. 

Think that was my post, pretty hilarious he’s reporting things like that. Great example of why steering clear during football season is safest bet, regulars always out to get the “other side “. 

[sho nuff 12,570]

4 hours ago, [scooter] said:

The irony of this entire exchange is that it destroys the whole "Mods are libs" conspiracy theory.

That theory has been destroyed over and over.

[parasaurolophus 4,732]

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

I'm curious what the boards and mods thoughts are on the phrase "red meat for the base" after saying something controversial.  It often seems to be used in a way to imply trump voters are stupid hateful or racist. 

 I think the phrase can still be used appropriately, and is at times but more often than not it's a slam

Such a minor thing it isnt worth ever getting upset over.

[John Blutarsky 2,807]

3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

That theory has been destroyed over and over.

I got two weeks from Clayton for "arguing". Based on that you should have a life time ban.

[Joe Summer 7,587]

Max Power said:

I'm curious what the boards and mods thoughts are on the phrase "red meat for the base" after saying something controversial. It often seems to be used in a way to imply trump voters are stupid hateful or racist.

I think the phrase can still be used appropriately, and is at times but more often than not it's a slam

Be careful what you wish for. If the mods start to narrow the scope of when certain phrases can be used, then they might also start to narrow the scope of when other phrases can be used.

(Oh, just for a random example off the top of my head......phrases such as "You guys have him this time".)

[GoBirds 6,750]

4 hours ago, HellToupee said:

You ought to report yourself for this pompous and insulting post

Can’t believe he would post something like that. 

[HellToupee 13,081]

2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Such a minor thing it isnt worth ever getting upset over.

We need to understand the level of hate that is out there for Trump supporters. 

[Don't Noonan 4,839]

4 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

I got two weeks from Clayton for "arguing". Based on that you should have a life time ban.

I don't even bother responding to him anymore.  He is so predictable and I don't think he is all there.

[Gr00vus 10,207]

30 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Think that was my post,

It wasn't your post.

[sho nuff 12,570]

21 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

I don't even bother responding to him anymore.  He is so predictable and I don't think he is all there.

More personal comments.  Good stuff.

[John Blutarsky 2,807]

29 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

More personal comments.  Good stuff.

You do it all the time. 

[tonydead 5,487]

The recent shtick of pretending to quote Trump supporters and miss-spelling all the words like they aren't smart enough to speak correctly is pretty horrible.

[Ramblin Wreck 11,869]

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

More personal comments.  Good stuff.

Truth hurts doesn't hurt?

[FBG Moderator 559]

12 hours ago, tonydead said:

The recent shtick of pretending to quote Trump supporters and miss-spelling all the words like they aren't smart enough to speak correctly is pretty horrible.

Altering what someone said and then quoting someone when it's not what they actually wrote is lame and not something we allow. If you see that, report it.

 

[parasaurolophus 4,732]

15 hours ago, sho nuff said:

That theory has been destroyed over and over.

Got a link for this?

I am not actually being serious, just making a point at how dumb your link requests are and I think are genuinely just trolling.

You ask people for links in bad faith, not just fact finding missions. It isn't like somebody posts the US population is 750 million and you ask for a link. If somebody says democrats are in favor of open borders, you ask for a link. You aren't asking for a link supporting why they think that. You are asking for a link to all democrats saying "I want open borders". When you of course don't get the link saying "I want open borders" you act like you just proved the person wrong. When somebody says the ACA is a redistribution of wealth, you ask for a link,  When somebody says AOC is a socialist you ask for a link. Those aren't statements based on data points. Opinion, or at least to a large extent, is almost always implied in such statements.  

Somebody posts quoted text from an article and you ask for a link and criticize them when all you need to do is copy the first line of the article and search it and voila!  

Somebody says more violent rhetoric comes from the left, you ask for a link. This is stupid. What are you expecting? The organization of Official Violent Rhetoric to have a spreadsheet documenting all statements of rhetoric with an empirical rating scale?  

People make obvious hyperbolic statements and you ask for a link(which is of course why I specified that I wasn't being serious when I said half your posts were asking for links because as we both know, that is the kind of "can I have a link" you would pull.)

Also just so you don't ask for a link, I made up the whole "office of violent rhetoric" thing. 

You get mad when people sarcastically ask you for links and say "that was my opinion" even though you technically made a definitive statement. (Something you did in this thread just a few posts ago). Just like above bolded. I know you cant provide empirical data proving that such a theory has been destroyed since you don't have access to what is reported and not reported to the mods. I understand that your opinion was implied in such a statement and that asking for a link is just a stupid troll job. 

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by parasaurolophus

[rockaction 15,580]

Worse yet is getting asked for a link, providing one, and then having to argue over whether it really captured what you were trying to say or the point you were trying to prove. Like the time I asserted that a lot of conservatives did indeed hold their nose and vote for Trump because of S. Ct. justices. This was challenged. I found the link and then had to debate it for an hour. Total waste of time.

[sho nuff 12,570]

Just now, parasaurolophus said:

Got a link for this?

I am not actually being serious, just making a point at how dumb your link requests are and I think are genuinely just trolling.

You ask people for links in bad faith, not just fact finding missions. It isn't like somebody posts the US population is 750 million and you ask for a link. If somebody says democrats are in favor of open borders, you ask for a link. You aren't asking for a link supporting why they think that. You are asking for a link to all democrats saying "I want open borders". When you of course don't get the link saying "I want open borders" you act like you just proved the person wrong. When somebody says the ACA is a redistribution of wealth, you ask for a link, :lmao:. When somebody says AOC is a socialist you ask for a link. Those aren't statements based on data points. Opinion, or at least to a large extent, is almost always implied in such statements.  

Somebody posts quoted text from an article and you ask for a link and criticize them when all you need to do is copy the first line of the article and search it and voila!  

Somebody says more violent rhetoric comes from the left, you ask for a link. This is stupid. What are you expecting? The organization of Official Violent Rhetoric to have a spreadsheet documenting all statements of rhetoric with an empirical rating scale?  

People make obvious hyperbolic statements and you ask for a link(which is of course why I specified that I wasn't being serious when I said half your posts were asking for links because as we both know, that is the kind of "can I have a link" you would pull.)

Also just so you don't ask for a link, I made up the whole "office of violent rhetoric" thing. 

You get mad when people sarcastically ask you for links and say "that was my opinion" even though you technically made a definitive statement. (Something you did in this thread just a few posts ago). Just like above bolded. I know you cant provide empirical data proving that such a theory has been destroyed since you don't have access to what is reported and not reported to the mods. I understand that your opinion was implied in such a statement and that asking for a link is just a stupid troll job. 

 

I disagree with nearly everything you wrote here...but enough of it...have a nice day.

[timschochet 26,281]

3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Worse yet is getting asked for a link, providing one, and then having to argue over whether it really captured what you were trying to say or the point you were trying to prove. 

I don’t believe this happens. Got an example? 

[KCitons 4,146]

3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I disagree with nearly everything you wrote here...but enough of it...have a nice day.

These types of responses are my favorite. If you've had enough of it, why respond at all? Answer: because you want to have the last word without explanation. 

#Takeyourballandgohome.

[toshiba 1,899]

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I disagree with nearly everything you wrote here...but enough of it...have a nice day.

These types of responses are my favorite. If you've had enough of it, why respond at all? Answer: because you want to have the last word without explanation. 

#Takeyourballandgohome.

It might be, and I say this seriously, if someone doesn't respond to a question they get hounded for ignoring that question.  I know it has happened to you in the past, so maybe a response like that is better than no response.  

[tonydead 5,487]

22 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Got a link for this?

I am not actually being serious, just making a point at how dumb your link requests are and I think are genuinely just trolling.

You ask people for links in bad faith, not just fact finding missions. It isn't like somebody posts the US population is 750 million and you ask for a link. If somebody says democrats are in favor of open borders, you ask for a link. You aren't asking for a link supporting why they think that. You are asking for a link to all democrats saying "I want open borders". When you of course don't get the link saying "I want open borders" you act like you just proved the person wrong. When somebody says the ACA is a redistribution of wealth, you ask for a link,  When somebody says AOC is a socialist you ask for a link. Those aren't statements based on data points. Opinion, or at least to a large extent, is almost always implied in such statements.  

Somebody posts quoted text from an article and you ask for a link and criticize them when all you need to do is copy the first line of the article and search it and voila!  

Somebody says more violent rhetoric comes from the left, you ask for a link. This is stupid. What are you expecting? The organization of Official Violent Rhetoric to have a spreadsheet documenting all statements of rhetoric with an empirical rating scale?  

People make obvious hyperbolic statements and you ask for a link(which is of course why I specified that I wasn't being serious when I said half your posts were asking for links because as we both know, that is the kind of "can I have a link" you would pull.)

Also just so you don't ask for a link, I made up the whole "office of violent rhetoric" thing. 

You get mad when people sarcastically ask you for links and say "that was my opinion" even though you technically made a definitive statement. (Something you did in this thread just a few posts ago). Just like above bolded. I know you cant provide empirical data proving that such a theory has been destroyed since you don't have access to what is reported and not reported to the mods. I understand that your opinion was implied in such a statement and that asking for a link is just a stupid troll job. 

 

[sho nuff 12,570]

6 minutes ago, toshiba said:

It might be, and I say this seriously, if someone doesn't respond to a question they get hounded for ignoring that question.  I know it has happened to you in the past, so maybe a response like that is better than no response.  

Pretty much...it has zero to do with a last word.  Someone took the time to write out that long of a post.  It deserved a response.  I had a long rebuttal written up and decided it was best to just say I disagree and walk away.  @parasaurolophus is a good poster.  I don't agree with a lot of what he says...but a good poster who I just don't agree with.  It deserved some acknowledgement. 

[KCitons 4,146]

16 minutes ago, toshiba said:

It might be, and I say this seriously, if someone doesn't respond to a question they get hounded for ignoring that question.  I know it has happened to you in the past, so maybe a response like that is better than no response.  

Fair enough. One could respond with saying that they don't wish to discuss further. Agree to disagree. Starting out with "I disagree with nearly everything your wrote" or just responding with "No", is just being disingenuous. 

And yes, I have had it happen to me. Multiple people ask multiple questions of me, I try to answer them all to the best of my ability. But, I've seen many of my questions go unanswered. If a poster continues down the conversation path with a different poster, I will remind them of my question. Otherwise, I let it go. 

 

[KCitons 4,146]

13 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Pretty much...it has zero to do with a last word.  Someone took the time to write out that long of a post.  It deserved a response.  I had a long rebuttal written up and decided it was best to just say I disagree and walk away.  @parasaurolophus is a good poster.  I don't agree with a lot of what he says...but a good poster who I just don't agree with.  It deserved some acknowledgement. 

Agree to disagree seems better than "You're wrong" (but I don't think you deserve the courtesy of me explaining why I think you're wrong).

Just my opinion. And I've been known to be wrong.

[toshiba 1,899]

19 minutes ago, KCitons said:

41 minutes ago, toshiba said:

It might be, and I say this seriously, if someone doesn't respond to a question they get hounded for ignoring that question.  I know it has happened to you in the past, so maybe a response like that is better than no response.  

Fair enough. One could respond with saying that they don't wish to discuss further. Agree to disagree. Starting out with "I disagree with nearly everything your wrote" or just responding with "No", is just being disingenuous. 

And yes, I have had it happen to me. Multiple people ask multiple questions of me, I try to answer them all to the best of my ability. But, I've seen many of my questions go unanswered. If a poster continues down the conversation path with a different poster, I will remind them of my question. Otherwise, I let it go. 

I am not sure I agree with your thought that it is being disingenuous, sometimes the effort isn't worth the payout.  I have, at times, just posted a reply that was not fair to the thought out question that was asked.  But I just don't want to devote the time it would take to give a good response, so I just post that I disagree or something else quick.  Sometimes, for me, it is just that; not wanting to devote the time and energy when I know it won't make a difference anyway.

 

I know you get frustrated with the accusations that you are ignoring when I would guess you just have a hard time defending your positions on 100 different fronts.  You don't have an easy task, due to the makeup of this board.

Edited September 26, 2019 by toshiba

[toshiba 1,899]

8 minutes ago, KCitons said:

23 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Pretty much...it has zero to do with a last word.  Someone took the time to write out that long of a post.  It deserved a response.  I had a long rebuttal written up and decided it was best to just say I disagree and walk away.  @parasaurolophus is a good poster.  I don't agree with a lot of what he says...but a good poster who I just don't agree with.  It deserved some acknowledgement. 

Agree to disagree seems better than "You're wrong" (but I don't think you deserve the courtesy of me explaining why I think you're wrong).

Just my opinion. And I've been known to be wrong.

I would agree with this though!

[KCitons 4,146]

Just now, toshiba said:

I am not sure I agree with your thought that it is being disingenuous, sometimes the effort isn't worth the payout.  I have, at times, just posted a reply that was not fair to the thought out question that was asked.  But I just don't want to devote the time it would take to give a good response, so I just post that I disagree or something else quick.  Sometimes, for me, it is just that; not wanting to devote the time and energy when I know it won't make a difference anyway.

 

I know you get frustrated with the accusations that you are ignoring when I would guess you just have a hard time defending your positions on 100 different fronts.  You don't have an easy task, due tot he makeup of this board.

Agree with both of your paragraphs. If that makes sense. 

Perhaps I'm taking it too much from personal experience. My assumption is that people are here to have an honest conversation. When I spend the time to respond honestly to everyone, I expect the same in return. That's why I feel it could be disingenuous. Results may vary for other posters.

[parasaurolophus 4,732]

8 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Agree with both of your paragraphs. If that makes sense. 

Perhaps I'm taking it too much from personal experience. My assumption is that people are here to have an honest conversation. When I spend the time to respond honestly to everyone, I expect the same in return. That's why I feel it could be disingenuous. Results may vary for other posters.

I dont think he was being disingenuous. Its funny, you hang around these boards long enough you learn to take certain posts from people certain ways(although obviously misinterpretations can still occur). I think sho knows that if I took the time to write a long post like that and he probably remembers each of the instances I brought up so he knows I didn't just pull those out of thin air and put some time into it, that I was actually trying to make a legit helpful criticism rather than just be a jerk to him even though he may ultimately disagree with the criticism. I wouldn't put that kind of effort into criticism of somebody that never provided content. He knows I made the point about sarcasm earlier in the thread and so he knows I was intentionally laying things on thick. 

I also know sho well enough to know that a reply like that from him wasn't a lack of respect, but rather it was respectful. Rather than a continuous loop on the topic(which we are all capable of being stubborn with the last word), it is simply politely closed. I wish more discussions went that way to be honest. 

 

[KCitons 4,146]

3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I dont think he was being disingenuous. Its funny, you hang around these boards long enough you learn to take certain posts from people certain ways(although obviously misinterpretations can still occur). I think sho knows that if I took the time to write a long post like that and he probably remembers each of the instances I brought up so he knows I didn't just pull those out of thin air and put some time into it, that I was actually trying to make a legit helpful criticism rather than just be a jerk to him even though he may ultimately disagree with the criticism. I wouldn't put that kind of effort into criticism of somebody that never provided content. He knows I made the point about sarcasm earlier in the thread and so he knows I was intentionally laying things on thick. 

I also know sho well enough to know that a reply like that from him wasn't a lack of respect, but rather it was respectful. Rather than a continuous loop on the topic(which we are all capable of being stubborn with the last word), it is simply politely closed. I wish more discussions went that way to be honest. 

 

 

29 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Results may vary for other posters.

 

[Politician Spock 5,327]

2 hours ago, toshiba said:

It might be, and I say this seriously, if someone doesn't respond to a question they get hounded for ignoring that question.  I know it has happened to you in the past, so maybe a response like that is better than no response.  

This is a passive aggressive attack on KCitons. Just call him out directly next time, guy. 

[toshiba 1,899]

1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

3 hours ago, toshiba said:

It might be, and I say this seriously, if someone doesn't respond to a question they get hounded for ignoring that question.  I know it has happened to you in the past, so maybe a response like that is better than no response.  

This is a passive aggressive attack on KCitons. Just call him out directly next time, guy. 

It really wasn't.  How can @KCitons be expected to answer every question he is asked?  He is out numbered here and it seems like to me he makes an effort.

[Politician Spock 5,327]

1 hour ago, toshiba said:

It really wasn't.  How can @KCitons be expected to answer every question he is asked?  He is out numbered here and it seems like to me he makes an effort.

I was referring to him hounding others for not answering his questions. 

[toshiba 1,899]

6 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

1 hour ago, toshiba said:

It really wasn't.  How can @KCitons be expected to answer every question he is asked?  He is out numbered here and it seems like to me he makes an effort.

I was referring to him hounding others for not answering his questions. 

That was not clear to me, it sounded like you thought my post was an attack.  I apologize.

[Engelberg 175]

5 hours ago, KCitons said:

These types of responses are my favorite. If you've had enough of it, why respond at all? Answer: because you want to have the last word without explanation. 

#Takeyourballandgohome.

that's sho's endgame, always needs the last word..... It's hilarious

[KCitons 4,146]

3 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

This is a passive aggressive attack on KCitons. Just call him out directly next time, guy. 

Sorry you feel that way. 

If you haven't paid attention, I get asked questions by 10 posters, and then asked to shut up by 10 others. (at times, you're both)

Perhaps we remove the middle man and you guys can just be angry at each other. 

20 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I was referring to him hounding others for not answering his questions. 

I can think of a handful of times that I've hounded someone for an answer. You being one of them. Sorry I hurt your feelings by doing that.

I think it's best we just agree to disagree and go about our lives. 

[FF Ninja 2,823]

On 9/25/2019 at 11:46 AM, tonydead said:

On 9/25/2019 at 11:42 AM, [scooter] said:

The irony of this entire exchange is that it destroys the whole "Mods are libs" conspiracy theory.

I'll bet you $100 that Joe is the one that decided to let this sarcastic phrase go because he's tired of the report bat phone going off and if you were to look back Clayton and Aaron have suspended people for saying that and much less.

[jon_mx 7,678]

15 hours ago, toshiba said:

It might be, and I say this seriously, if someone doesn't respond to a question they get hounded for ignoring that question.  I know it has happened to you in the past, so maybe a response like that is better than no response.  

I got hounded and ridiculed for not giving an acceptable response to if you are right why do so few people agree with you here, as if there is not a huge anti-Trump bias on this forum.  I am really surprise I was not asked for a link for suggesting such.  

[toshiba 1,899]

7 hours ago, jon_mx said:

23 hours ago, toshiba said:

It might be, and I say this seriously, if someone doesn't respond to a question they get hounded for ignoring that question.  I know it has happened to you in the past, so maybe a response like that is better than no response.  

I got hounded and ridiculed for not giving an acceptable response to if you are right why do so few people agree with you here, as if there is not a huge anti-Trump bias on this forum.  I am really surprise I was not asked for a link for suggesting such.  

I think there is a huge anti-Trump bias in general, but he deserves it.

[jon_mx 7,678]

1 minute ago, toshiba said:

I think there is a huge anti-Trump bias in general, but he deserves it.

Yes, but that bias is far heavier in the forum than it is in general.  90 percent of this forum is rabidly anti-Trump.  

[Ramsay Hunt Experience 18,303]

7 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I got hounded and ridiculed for not giving an acceptable response to if you are right why do so few people agree with you here, as if there is not a huge anti-Trump bias on this forum.  I am really surprise I was not asked for a link for suggesting such.  

There is also a huge anti-Hitler and anti-Manson bias on this board.  If you feel that you are unfairly singled out for the opinions expressed on this board, maybe you should consider the possibility that those opinions are either:  1)not very informed; 2) poorly reasoned; and/or 3) morally indefensible.

[roadkill1292 9,833]

7 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I got hounded and ridiculed for not giving an acceptable response to if you are right why do so few people agree with you here, as if there is not a huge anti-Trump bias on this forum.  I am really surprise I was not asked for a link for suggesting such.  

Among other things you compared asking a foreign power for help in discrediting a political opponent to "opposition research." There aren't many places where an opinion like that will escape unchallenged. 

Not all opinions are created equal.

[toshiba 1,899]

Just now, jon_mx said:

4 minutes ago, toshiba said:

I think there is a huge anti-Trump bias in general, but he deserves it.

Yes, but that bias is far heavier in the forum than it is in general.  90 percent of this forum is rabidly anti-Trump.  

I would say anti-Trump might be close to that number for the Political Forum participants (not all FBG Forums) , rabidly would be probably much less than that though.

[jon_mx 7,678]

Just now, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

There is also a huge anti-Hitler and anti-Manson bias on this board.  If you feel that you are unfairly singled out for the opinions expressed on this board, maybe you should consider the possibility that those opinions are either:  1)not very informed; 2) poorly reasoned; and/or 3) morally indefensible.

Yes.  Exactly the extreme bias I was referring to.  Comparing Trump to Hitler is way to typical in this place. 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience 18,303]

If 90% of a community can't decide whether you're disingenuous, stupid, or both maybe complaining about the bias of the community isn't the most useful response.  I'm sure there are other communities where those opinions are more mainstream.  

[rockaction 15,580]

5 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

There is also a huge anti-Hitler and anti-Manson bias on this board.  If you feel that you are unfairly singled out for the opinions expressed on this board, maybe you should consider the possibility that those opinions are either:  1)not very informed; 2) poorly reasoned; and/or 3) morally indefensible.

No, I don't think this is accurate. There's a heckler's veto at work on this board, and it has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the counterarguments presented, nor of reasoning. It's really simply an exertion of political will; nothing more, nothing less. That someone as bright as yourself might have missed that possibility strikes me as willful, to a degree.