Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You're changing the subject, of course. But I've stated several times in relation to that stuff that it should be a requirement that one obtains a security clearance BEFORE being allowed to run for President or even Congress. It wouldn't weed out all the turds but it help tremendously with the corruption. Part of obtaining that security is not only tax returns but full financial disclosure information.
I just about never agree with him but he is well informed and his reasoning is fine. I wouldn't call his opinions morally indefensible, just often wrong.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/26/us/adl-new-hate-symbols/index.htmlWhat is the FBG staff take on their site hosting a white power symbol?
Its offensive to many people and I feel like I'm doing my part bringing it to your attention for removal.
Happy 4th all.
In reality, the OK sign is probably used to represent 'white power' maybe 0.1 percent of the time at most. It is funny how such a common symbol can be used to project some kind of racist hidden meaning in people. It is like they have to invent #### to find racism.https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/26/us/adl-new-hate-symbols/index.html
No reply to this and the threat continues. FBGs is fine hosting hate symbols?
Ok, we got you.
Or because racists took it over as their thing and people are being careful about it.
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture
That's because it is on the internet. A large contingent of pro-trumpers are quite old and/or uneducated. Internet forums attract younger more (relatively) tech savvy people. I doubt all those rural voters are playing fantasy football or debating politics on the internet.
The forum is filled with quite old white males, but yet there is a very strong anti-Trump and anti-conservative bias in the political subforum. The same bias is not present in the FFA. It is a combination of the bias of the moderators and the gang mentality of the more liberal-leaning posters who have succesfully manipulated the moderators.
Try not to be so condescending and rude to other posters is my advice.
I don't believe that to be true, but all I've got is an anecdote: Despite the fact that my posts probably contained the most linked sources out of everyone here, I had a mod give me a time out with the line saying something like "I get that condescending bully shtick is your thing..." when I was replying with a short quip to a known troll that never contributed anything meaningful to a conversation. Can I be condescending to a worthless poster? Yep. Guilty. If someone posts unsubstantiated garbage and propaganda-like one-liners while never actually engaging in a meaningful way, I'll occasionally respond in kind which I'll admit is a mistake. But I've started a few well sourced topics, brought a lot of sourced information into serious topics, and frequently engage in thoughtful discussions, so it was utter BS for a mod to say "bully shtick" is my thing. If the mod had stuck to giving me a time out for being condescending, I'd have been fine with it. But that mod crossed a line with that accusation.
I tell this story to combat your narrative that the mods have been manipulated into a bias against people who continue to support trump. I'm not saying a bias swings the other way, but the unwarranted attacking shot in the explanation indicates there is certainly no bias favoring anti-trumpers. Hell, I think the mod even said "if you don't agree that's what you were doing, find another board." Wtf? I absolutely agree I was being condescending, but I also absolutely disagree that my posts here are bullying or that my posting could be classified as "shtick." I didn't take the time to link my sources just for fun. I've stopped doing it as much, because it's clear people don't even bother to click on them, but back when I got the warning, I was very deliberate about sourcing all my data.
As for warnings/time outs, if anything, it sounds like trump supporters are the most thin skinned and trigger happy when it comes to reporting. Perhaps, there's a bit of chicken little going on here, but I honestly don't think so. Moderation will never be perfect. There will be missed time outs at times and heavy handed time outs at other times. You probably just notice it more when one of the minority goes missing than one of the majority.
It is. There's a lot of data on the demographics including my link below (which doesn't even include independents like myself) and this link. Older people were more likely to vote for trump and uneducated people were more likely to vote for trump. It's well known that rural people were more likely to vote for trump and I've got no data on this, but rural people don't strike me as fantasy football message board types. My broader point was that you shouldn't expect the population on any internet forum to mimic trump's approval rating.
There are more links like this available.
I don't recall asking for advice. I was simply providing him an example which called into question his presumed moderation bias.
Because, once upon a time both forums were as one, and the internal polling tended to be pretty well split and reasonably well representative of the country's population. Now the PSF polling tends to be 90 percent leaning towards liberal and anti-Trump stances.How could it be? We don't talk politics in the FFA. What a weird thing to say
Sure...and once upon a time "liberal" wasn't the term you guys use it as today and I'm willing to bet the "anti-Trump" stances are pretty prevalent in the FFA today. They are just smart enough not to wander over into this chaos to say it. Take quite the set of gymnastics skills to pull this logic off, but I do see where you're coming from with all the inference and supposition. I'll just point out that it's probably not the smartest/strongest thing to assume all else constant except for the creation of the PSF which is what's required to make this statement in good faith.
Not according to Jim. But I do think they are now trying to reverse what happened and make it a more welcoming place to opposing ideas. So my points were more about history than current state.
I don't believe that to be true, but all I've got is an anecdote: Despite the fact that my posts probably contained the most linked sources out of everyone here, I had a mod give me a time out with the line saying something like "I get that condescending bully shtick is your thing..." when I was replying with a short quip to a known troll that never contributed anything meaningful to a conversation. Can I be condescending to a worthless poster? Yep. Guilty. If someone posts unsubstantiated garbage and propaganda-like one-liners while never actually engaging in a meaningful way, I'll occasionally respond in kind which I'll admit is a mistake. But I've started a few well sourced topics, brought a lot of sourced information into serious topics, and frequently engage in thoughtful discussions, so it was utter BS for a mod to say "bully shtick" is my thing. If the mod had stuck to giving me a time out for being condescending, I'd have been fine with it. But that mod crossed a line with that accusation.
I tell this story to combat your narrative that the mods have been manipulated into a bias against people who continue to support trump. I'm not saying a bias swings the other way, but the unwarranted attacking shot in the explanation indicates there is certainly no bias favoring anti-trumpers. Hell, I think the mod even said "if you don't agree that's what you were doing, find another board." Wtf? I absolutely agree I was being condescending, but I also absolutely disagree that my posts here are bullying or that my posting could be classified as "shtick." I didn't take the time to link my sources just for fun. I've stopped doing it as much, because it's clear people don't even bother to click on them, but back when I got the warning, I was very deliberate about sourcing all my data.
As for warnings/time outs, if anything, it sounds like trump supporters are the most thin skinned and trigger happy when it comes to reporting. Perhaps, there's a bit of chicken little going on here, but I honestly don't think so. Moderation will never be perfect. There will be missed time outs at times and heavy handed time outs at other times. You probably just notice it more when one of the minority goes missing than one of the majority.
A. Uneducated people were more likely to vote for Trump.
This feels like a failed attempt at virtue signaling. I never said what is said in option "B."
You’re right, my mistake. You wrote “a large contingent”. I still think it comes off as insulting. There’s a whole lot of very educated Trump voters out there (ones that I am hoping the Democrats can reach BTW.) No need to insult them.
Their voting is to blame for our nation's current debacle, so I'm guilty of insulting when speaking freely not in this forum, but I meant no insult there. I genuinely think those factors lead to trump supporters being under-represented in online forums. Do you have another theory? I really don't buy the theory that this particular forum is disproportionate due to moderation.timschochet said:
It is one of the reasons though. There are a decent amount of people that use to post here that either got banned or just left. They all post on the FFT Geek board and it's the complete opposite of this place. Almost no moderation, tons of homophobic and racist comments, lots of personal insults and very strongly conservative. While being free to say more of what you want can be nice, it can get pretty bad. I do find it entertaining how incredibly "extreme" some of them can be though.
Uneducated? Not sure what that means and it comes of offensive. We talking no schooling, HS, post grad? I did not get my college diploma until I was 28. So from 21-28 I was considered uneducated?timschochet said:
I don't see that comment in any of your warnings, but if it's there, it sounds very much like a rockaction situation.
No. Neither did any of my large extended family none who are I guess are not "educated"
He probably means, non-college education, as that is the usually polled category.
Warning issued by FBG Moderator
We get it the condescending bully shtick is your thing. But be way more cool if you want to post on the boards. If you don't agree that's what you were doing, find another board.
Edit: Nevermind. I just read through to page 2 of that thread. It wasn't immediately clear that Rockaction misinterpreted his own quote as the warning.
(to be fair - by link was to a show called "According to Jim" - which tied into the original post...)
I have only ever seen this word in brown bear Brown bear what do you see to describe noise of a zebra. I kind of figured it was just a made up word for that book. Who knew...
This would lead to an imbalance of who's being a jackass and who isn't....not "conservative" vs "liberal" as what some of the "conservatives" assert around here.
I've posted a few unfortunate truths that got me timeouts.
As for warnings/time outs, if anything, it sounds like trump supporters are the most thin skinned and trigger happy when it comes to reporting.
Wow
