rockaction
Footballguy
Desktop. Still can't make out what it is, though your and Bart's description help. The standardized, non-FBG emoticons are very small to these aging eyes.Are you on a computer or mobile?
Desktop. Still can't make out what it is, though your and Bart's description help. The standardized, non-FBG emoticons are very small to these aging eyes.Are you on a computer or mobile?
Agree. That's why I really like @Koya's question to @Don't Noonan. If A thinks B is dealing in falsehoods, how should A approach B about that? For now, it really doesn't matter whether B is dealing in falsehoods or not. What matters is how do we go about discussing the validity of a claim? Maybe the starting point is trying to stamp out that "hate" you talk about before worrying about focusing on the "truth".When people find something they are certain is true and others claim it is absolutely false, that hate really comes out sometimes.
On my phone it looks like this:Desktop. Still can't make out what it is, though your and Bart's description help. The standardized, non-FBG emoticons are very small to these aging eyes.
Oh. Well, that would not have cleared it up at all. I guess I would have gotten it...I also guess my eyes are just tired and bad right now.
When people send me a bunch of emojis I can't decipher it's what I send back by text.Oh. Well, that would not have cleared it up at all. I guess I would have gotten it...I also guess my eyes are just tired and bad right now.
On second glance, definitely sheep. Just not sure about the big horn part of it.When people send me a bunch of emojis I can't decipher it's what I send back by text.
I was asking this more generally, not regarding specifically the transcript.I just spent 10 minutes going through yesterday's exchange picking quotes out to link here and then accidentally hit quote in the long thread and lost them.Not wasting time doing it again.
There was one or two posters that responded perfectly fine saying that yes it was called a transcript by the media but the fine print said it wasn't verbatim. That is perfectly fine, then the discussion should lead to was anything relevant to the impeachment left out or was it minor details or national security info. Nope, we had groups of folks demanding I don't call it a transcript and called me a liar. I posted a link of CNN, CBS, NBC calling it a transcript and Joe commented that I was correct and Fish and others were crying for no reason.
You yourself said I was either intentionally spreading false info or trolling. Can you see where I and the majority of the public are coming from? Should we not believe the media? Should I assume Trump altered the transcript or didn't include damaging parts like you guys obviously do?
I hope you realize how asinine most of us think this is. We’re good people Joe- you don’t have to toss out the whole thing just because a handful of users act in bad faith.Not just that it's being reported. That's one thing to waste the moderators time like that.
The far bigger thing for me is accusations that when we do allow a post like "It means Brennan and Clapper are crapping their pants and Misfud needs witness protection as his life may be in danger." somehow means me and my forum are "subjugating the truth" or limiting someone's ability to disagree. That's far worse than just whining about a post.
KC I always appreciate your point of view and agree with alot of what you are saying. Unfortunately the 1st bolded item is a problem as voices in here are selectively silenced and fairness always comes into question. If you own a football website do you really want to deal with this? Most on the left are in here for the 2nd bolded even though they will claim otherwise, it's their way to "get back" for not being able to control their emotions from an election they should have won. This forum has fostered that behavior as essentially a venting thread. Not to say posters like you don't offer very valuable insight which I appreciate, but lets call a spade a space for the majority in here.I don't disagree with this. But, let's extrapolate it out to the rest of society. IE shutting down this board. We are in the midst of unprecedented political turmoil. Should we shut down media? Or perhaps shut down town halls or protests? They are all ways that people from both sides express their opinions. Silencing voices never solves the problem. Embracing it and recognizing the problem leads to solutions. We need to find ways to extend olive branches when met with conflict. If our elected officials can't do this, maybe we can in this small corner of the internet.
I've been called a troll. But, ignored most of it. Because I know I'm not trolling. I've done some self reflecting after the conversation that Noonan had the last couple of days in the other thread. I had already refrained from my usual posting frequency in the gun thread because I felt it was becoming unproductive. It doesn't mean I've changed my stance. And I doubt those I disagree with believe I've changed either. We just don't need to argue about it any longer. I stated over and over that I was searching for win-win compromise. I think everyone should be looking for that type of solution when they engage in any discussion. The feelings you get from winning your point on a message board are short lived. The benefits from reaching common ground are long lasting.
I'm worried that it doesn't matter. Being an anonymous message board, may be exactly what some people want. The ability to curb stomp someone that thinks differently than they do, for the shear joy of acting like a jerk without accountability. We can't get away from that. We can hold them accountable and weed out those that don't want to make this a productive place.
clearly i was wishing harm to them right? If that's the case i want to be banned now. There's no excuse for violence.How about adding "You should travel more often", which clearly implies wishing harm to them.
Not just that it's being reported. That's one thing to waste the moderators time like that.
The far bigger thing for me is accusations that when we do allow a post like "It means Brennan and Clapper are crapping their pants and Misfud needs witness protection as his life may be in danger." somehow means me and my forum are "subjugating the truth" or limiting someone's ability to disagree. That's far worse than just whining about a post.
The bolded in each post leads me to an outside the box thought. And one I hadn't really thought of until now. We know that there are those in this world that wish to destroy our country. They sew discourse through social media outlets. Of which, this forum could be considered one. Having a political sub forum makes it an easy target for those parties to create rifts between people. If that is the case, then I could see Joe needing to remove the target in order to remove the vehicle used by those that wish to turn us against each other.I didn’t report that post or any like it but I could explain why it was reported. It doesn’t matter though. What you’re experiencing there is something playing out all over the country and to some extent the world right now.
I don’t know if you watch Evil. Not a bad show. Haven’t decided yet if it’s a good one. Last night’s episode had a line I loved from Aasif Mondvi, and I have to paraphrase it because I don’t remember the exact wording:
“We live in a world made of pixels. And those pixels can now be manipulated so well that no one knows what’s true anymore. And that makes people believe in lies and conspiracy theories. And I hate it.”
It’s a pretty common sentiment while we figure out everything from made up reports by Stephen Glass to deep fake software. When people find something they are certain is true and others claim it is absolutely false, that hate really comes out sometimes.
That's why I suggested the reaction smilies to the right of each post. I think that stays the same on any format.This is a small thing, but I think it may be important. Some emoticons are vastly different on a computer than they are on the mobile site. I think it actually leads to some confusion in what people mean at times, especially when they react using an emoji. "Big horn sheep" is a good example.
I am not spending the money on a detective to find out if Brennan and Clapper actually crapped their pants. That is just too much to ask.Understood. That's a big part of this time for me.
I asked people repeatedly to report lies they see.
I asked:
If you see something you think is wrong, please post what you think is accurate. If you can provide a source or link for why you think what you think, that's even better.
If you see someone post something you think is an intentional lie, please report it and then definitely in the report include the link to show where it's obviously a lie and not just a difference of opinion.
The first report I get today is someone reporting this post:
The message the person attached to the report was: "Another post with no facts behind it. This account is a troll. I know you don’t care, but Joe asked us to report this type of post. This is why the PSF will be killed off."
I don't know who Brennan and Clapper are. I"m assuming the poster thinks they're in trouble.
But when us allowing a post like "It means Brennan and Clapper are crapping their pants and Misfud needs witness protection as his life may be in danger." is somehow subjugating the truth or limiting someone's ability to disagree, I'm pretty much at the end of the line.
In the end, this was not about the word transcript. Many of us - rightful or otherwise - believe there is an all out assault on the truth. Worse yet, this push to call legitimate news fake, to obfuscate and promote propaganda is done intentionally as a tactic to an overarching strategy the document conflates truth and lies that it’s nearly if not impossible to distinguish between the two.And I still can't believe how much time people spent worrying about the damn word "transcript". Crazy.
Hey, there was a dude that used to post here that offered $800 to find out my real name and address.I am not spending the money on a detective to find out if Brennan and Clapper actually crapped their pants. That is just too much to ask.
Let me preface this by saying I am the most untrusting person I know. I expect the absolute worst from people in order to not be let down if it eventually happens. It's a major flaw and one I hope to correct before my days are up. But, I disagree that a majority of the people are here just to cause emotional pain or get back at those they disagree with. I know that I am not. As I mentioned, we are in uncharted waters politically and what we need is to throw each other a life preserver and not an anchor.KC I always appreciate your point of view and agree with alot of what you are saying. Unfortunately the 1st bolded item is a problem as voices in here are selectively silenced and fairness always comes into question. If you own a football website do you really want to deal with this? Most on the left are in here for the 2nd bolded even though they will claim otherwise, it's their way to "get back" for not being able to control their emotions from an election they should have won. This forum has fostered that behavior as essentially a venting thread. Not to say posters like you don't offer very valuable insight which I appreciate, but lets call a spade a space for the majority in here.
I always assumed you lived in Illinois but now I have you pegged as a teacher in CA.Hey, there was a dude that used to post here that offered $800 to find out my real name and address.
That's about $20 worth of detective work right there.I always assumed you lived in Illinois but now I have you pegged as a teacher in CA.
Do you have that dude's info so I can send him my paypal?That's about $20 worth of detective work right there.
Being on a teachers salary, you should have taken the $800.Hey, there was a dude that used to post here that offered $800 to find out my real name and address.
Ummm it was an all out assault on Noonan. The guy explained and posted links why he was using the word transcript. Others wanted to call it a memo and stated why. At that point, just agree to disagree and move on. It's never good enough until the mob has it's way.In the end, this was not about the word transcript. Many of us - rightful or otherwise - believe there is an all out assault on the truth. Worse yet, this push to call legitimate news fake, to obfuscate and promote propaganda is done intentionally as a tactic to an overarching strategy the document conflates truth and lies that it’s nearly if not impossible to distinguish between the two.
These tactics and strategy have been used before by any number of controlling parties of any number of nations. I think it’s important that we are honest with ourselves and each other about this context.
it is within this context that some of us feel there is a concerted effort to chip away at objective truth (again, the 1984 line about the most essential command being to reject what you hear and see), and we are deathly fearful of the consequences should that occur.
That doesn’t solve our issues of better conduct here, including in response to someone that we feel is pushing that tactic (whether they are or not it is the impression of many... and I’m asking how those who feel that way should respond) - but it’s important context so we don’t talk as if this is about semantics. It’s far deeper than that, with far higher stakes.
That is all very nice Joe, and while you can prohibit political topics, you won't be able to shut down any and all political discussion, as it bleeds into many topics in which the original thread or thread title was not political in nature (See Chick-Fil-A thread as a classic example. Or how about any thread reporting a mass shooting or terrorist attack?). If you are willing to delete all political references or discussion in FFA threads, fine, but then you will just be playing Whack-A-Mole and pretending that politics don't enter into non-political themed threads, which is unrealistic.No. I'm saying we need to decide if this political forum continues to exist.
The FFA and Shark Pool would stay as they are with a non flexible stance on not allowing political topics.
Who defines the “bad guys?”If you shut down this forum, the bad guys will have won, but do what you want to do, fine with me.
KC I respect your opinion as always........unfortunately take a look at the one Trump thread not started to complain or vent about him......you won't find any life preservers but instead endless complaining mostly irrelevant to the original purpose of the thread. They just can't control themselves. Is what it is. Hope you have a good weekend bud!Let me preface this by saying I am the most untrusting person I know. I expect the absolute worst from people in order to not be let down if it eventually happens. It's a major flaw and one I hope to correct before my days are up. But, I disagree that a majority of the people are here just to cause emotional pain or get back at those they disagree with. I know that I am not. As I mentioned, we are in uncharted waters politically and what we need is to throw each other a life preserver and not an anchor.
Admining this board is not a perfect science. Most of these guys are better versed about who to start at RB this week than they are at the political happenings. If you and I can't know everything about everything, why should we expect them to? So in addition to the technical nuances that go into many of the conversations, they need to be cautious about being fair and balanced? It's an uphill battle. Joe already mentioned that he is not on the cutting edge of the impeachment inquiry. It would be akin to suspending someone for not understanding a math joke. (a subject of which I am also poor at).
Ignorance like this is why this forum is a negative blemish on what is a great company.That is all very nice Joe, and while you can prohibit political topics, you won't be able to shut down any and all political discussion, as it bleeds into many topics in which the original thread or thread title was not political in nature (See Chick-Fil-A thread as a classic example. Or how about any thread reporting a mass shooting or terrorist attack?). If you are willing to delete all political references or discussion in FFA threads, fine, but then you will just be playing Whack-A-Mole and pretending that politics don't enter into non-political themed threads, which is unrealistic.
I was on record as being against the creation of this forum from the get go and sadly, most of my predictions as to how this would play out were prescient.
If you shut down this forum, the bad guys will have won, but do what you want to do, fine with me.
If you shut down this forum, the bad guys will have won, but do what you want to do, fine with me.
Seems like squistion is a bad guys assetIgnorance like this is why this forum is a negative blemish on what is a great company.
You too.KC I respect your opinion as always........unfortunately take a look at the one Trump thread not started to complain or vent about him......you won't find any life preservers but instead endless complaining mostly irrelevant to the original purpose of the thread. They just can't control themselves. Is what it is. Hope you have a good weekend bud!
The "bad guys" are those whose objective or goal was and is to get this forum shut down and political discussion ended.Who defines the “bad guys?”
That's generous of you.Seems like squistion is a bad guys asset
Who are the bad guys?That is all very nice Joe, and while you can prohibit political topics, you won't be able to shut down any and all political discussion, as it bleeds into many topics in which the original thread or thread title was not political in nature (See Chick-Fil-A thread as a classic example. Or how about any thread reporting a mass shooting or terrorist attack?). If you are willing to delete all political references or discussion in FFA threads, fine, but then you will just be playing Whack-A-Mole and pretending that politics don't enter into non-political themed threads, which is unrealistic.
I was on record as being against the creation of this forum from the get go and sadly, most of my predictions as to how this would play out were prescient.
If you shut down this forum, the bad guys will have won, but do what you want to do, fine with me.
Answered above and OP was edited with the same clarification.Who are the bad guys?
Not only that who are the bad guys and what did they win? Pretty sure the winner here would be Joe and his team for not having to deal with all the stuff Joe keeps telling us he's tired of dealing withWho defines the “bad guys?”
I have yet to see anyone say their goal was to get the forum shut down. Have you?The "bad guys" are those whose objective or goal was and is to get this forum shut down and political discussion ended.
Who? I could use $800. They don't pay Zoomba instructors as much you think.Hey, there was a dude that used to post here that offered $800 to find out my real name and address.
I don’t think anyone's goal is to kill the PSF. Good guys, bad guys or neutral guys.The "bad guys" are those whose objective or goal was and is to get this forum shut down and political discussion ended.
Not specifically on this forum, no. But if you look back, from the beginning some people were saying this forum was unnecessary and for Joe and or the mods to shut it down. Were their exact words: "My goal is to shut this down" No, but from their comments when the PSF was first formed and from their subsequent posting history, it is not much of a leap to see that was their objective.I have yet to see anyone say their goal was to get the forum shut down. Have you?
He's long gone.Who? I could use $800. They don't pay Zoomba instructors as much you think.
Not even bad hombresI don’t think anyone's goal is to kill the PSF. Good guys, bad guys or neutral guys.
this was part of the intent of this thread, recognizing that it is up to us, the posters who make up this community, to adhere and most of all just be better. To each other and the community at large.If people's actual goal is to save the PSF, then perhaps the discussion should pivot to discussing concrete steps for saving it.
I would recommend establishing some very simple ground rules for discussion (MT's list is a great place to start), and then sticky them to the top of this forum.
If we need more, we'll add more - like amending the constitution.
Agree. That's why I really like @Koya's question to @Don't Noonan. If A thinks B is dealing in falsehoods, how should A approach B about that? For now, it really doesn't matter whether B is dealing in falsehoods or not. What matters is how do we go about discussing the validity of a claim? Maybe the starting point is trying to stamp out that "hate" you talk about before worrying about focusing on the "truth".
This. Approach it like a penalty for taking a dive or flopping in hockey.It absolutely is not subjugating the truth to post that. That should never have been reported.
But you needn’t be at the end of the line. Just start suspending people who waste your time with foolish reporting. It will go away very quickly.
I’ll start the hashtag campaign: #savePSFIf people's actual goal is to save the PSF, then perhaps the discussion should pivot to discussing concrete steps for saving it.
I would recommend establishing some very simple ground rules for discussion (MT's list is a great place to start), and then sticky them to the top of this forum.
If we need more, we'll add more - like amending the constitution.
No one has said it on this forum but the bad guys win if Joe decides to shut it down? I'm so confusedNot specifically on this forum, no. But if you look back, from the beginning some people were saying this forum was unnecessary and for Joe and or the mods to shut it down. Were their exact words: "My goal is to shut this down" No, but from their comments when the PSF was first formed and from their subsequent posting history, it is not much of a leap to see that was their objective.
Just my opinion and take on things.
I’m 100% guilty of this but somewhat in my defense I’ve been trying for a while to get the feature where replies to people I have on ignore are also ignored.I agree with this. I also think it's hard for members of the mob to recognize it when it happens -- i.e., the mob isn't doing it on purpose, but is instead unaware of itself.