FFA Moderation Thoughts - What Do You Think? (1 Viewer)

[bueno]

I suggest talking politics on Twitter or a political board.  These threads always end up with posts like these:

Trump (or Hillary) Supporters are...followed by a bunch of generalities that are stereotyping half of the population.

Sometimes they are disguised, but it's essentially the same.

How can anyone with an IQ over 30 support somebody so in love with Russia?

This is BAIT.  Somebody will take the bait and call that person out (or post the smiley) - It naturally escalates and then mods have to delete a ton of posts, issue timeouts, etc.  Or we can ignore and let the trolling, bait, responses continue to escalate and finally the threads find themselves deleted or people get banned.  

The problem I am hearing here, David, is fair enforcement. There have been accusations made that one side gets away with not be excellent while the other side is more tightly moderated. I have watched, and I have posted and been attacked, yet those people seem to not suffer any consequences. You also have at least one mod that appears to be deleting posts in a thread he started because he doesn't agree with the poster.

So I ask you David, if I see bias here in the FFA, how do I know that other parts of FBG aren't equally biases, or that I can trust the posts/articles/etc. of your other contributors? The FFA to me measures the pulse and fairness of the entire site. Just something to think about...from someone who has been with you from day one.

 

[jon_mx]

It's a private board.  It's called terms of service.

Let's not get carried away.  There is no structure or clear terms of service to the moderation in this forum.  

 

[eoMMan]

Posting of pics coming soon, right?

 

[HellToupee]

I suggest talking politics on Twitter or a political board.  

i have no idea but is adding a political sub-forum a pain or impossible to add? Wouldn't you want to keep customers inhouse.

i don't know , just spit balling. I love politics but could go cold turkey if all political banter was verboten.

 

[hilineninerfan]

It's a private board.  It's called terms of service.

Relax. No one takes you serious anyway.

 

[baymen]

It's baffling to me why you guys care so much about what other people are posting.  I don't care about a ton of posts of no interest to me (most of the FFA)...it's odd that you guys are so bothered by this and are advocating banning folks and stopping all political talk.

It's a Free For All, and so long as we're not clogging up the system (which lately there have been very few political threads), what's the beef?  Live and let live man...just skip over stuff you don't like...it's not hard, and you can do what you want and we can do what we want, and whenever either side wants to cross over, they can.

You guys need to lighten up.

Are you suggesting that the non-political posters need to lighten up?  I would suggest that the political posters lighten up quite frankly.  Same arguments between the same posters day in day out stuck in their positions throwing out generalities with insults and attacks.  Doesn't make for a good discussion.

 

[mr. furley]

You guys all need to get more angry about what strangers are saying on the internet. 

You want to mess with me and my crew? i swear to god ill give you my address and you can come over and see what happens...my homies and i will take care of it.

Harrison Stevens

100 Mary #11

San Antonio, TX, 78230

 

[adonis]

It's a private board.  It's called terms of service.

Let's not get carried away.  There is no structure or clear terms of service to the moderation in this forum.  

They can do as they wish, and it's tough to moderate - I get that.

But I've been here for going on a decade or more now and I've seen folks get timeouts for breaking the "be excellent" rule, and seen offending posts deleted.  Year after year, month after month, folks complaining about timeouts for clearly line-crossing posts, folks leaving, aliases for use during timeouts...that was business as usual until recently.

What I don't understand is why things have changed.  It seems there was a pretty clear moderation policy, and lately it hasn't really been enforced too well.  Maybe because both sides feel that it was unfair - I dunno.  I wouldn't enjoy being a mod, that's for sure, and it's a lot of work to police a site.

However, it just seems odd to me that the rules have changed all of a sudden.  That's my main point.  I enjoy political conversations, especially because having them in person carries with it more consequences (even though I try to be excellent to folks I'm disagreeing with even online).  I'm just disappointed that the rules seem to have changed at a time where it's useful to be able to get feedback on thoughts on current events.

 

[the rover]

Relax. No one takes you serious anyway.

Ahh, the personal attack from someone who can't engage in discussion.  The heart of all of this.  

 

[adonis]

It's baffling to me why you guys care so much about what other people are posting.  I don't care about a ton of posts of no interest to me (most of the FFA)...it's odd that you guys are so bothered by this and are advocating banning folks and stopping all political talk.

It's a Free For All, and so long as we're not clogging up the system (which lately there have been very few political threads), what's the beef?  Live and let live man...just skip over stuff you don't like...it's not hard, and you can do what you want and we can do what we want, and whenever either side wants to cross over, they can.

You guys need to lighten up.

Are you suggesting that the non-political posters need to lighten up?  I would suggest that the political posters lighten up quite frankly.  Same arguments between the same posters day in day out stuck in their positions throwing out generalities with insults and attacks.  Doesn't make for a good discussion.

Political posters aren't telling the non-political posters what to do or not do, and are not suggesting to the mods/owners that all non-political posters should be banned and threads axed.  That's where the "lighten up" comments come in.

 

[hilineninerfan]

Ahh, the personal attack from someone who can't engage in discussion.  The heart of all of this.  

Touche. Awesome comeback!

 

[the rover]

Do you think more than 10% of the trolls actually think they are the ones trolling?  Or do they likely think they are innocent and it's the other guy that's wrong?

Does it matter?  The issue is moderation.  Ban repeat offenders and axe offending threads.  Easy and consistent.

 

[adonis]

The problem here is that according to the new guidance for talking about political things, threads that have been axed have not been violators.  They've played according to the new rules, stopped posting so many other threads, and tried to stay on topic and excellent to each other, but even that doesn't seem to be enough.

Now one of the owners is saying maybe we should just take all political conversations to another forum.  

What is it?  Is it OK to talk politics here in certain situations or is it not?  All we're asking for is some guidance and some consistency.  When the rules change after more than a decade of being relatively the same, without and clear reason, and new guidance is given which is followed but stuff is still axed, just tell us what the deal is and stick to it.  If you want no politics on your board, just say it.  If you're wanting to moderate like you have for more than a decade, then say that and do it.  This whole wishy washy middle ground is frustrating.

 

[GoBirds]

I stayed out of that thread (posting-wise) most of the day after Magaw told Max he wasn't allowed to post in that thread anymore.  I figured only one sides views were welcome in that thread.  I didn't see anyone else going after Clinton in that thread beyond that; just the normal Trump and Putin are cousins stuff.

I was told the same, which is cool they own the board and make their own rules. At the same time to crack down only on views that oppose yours and not police the other side seems pretty weak. 

 

[Dickies]

There's 1 gambling thread.  In the past, there were a bazillion political threads on a page with limited space.  HTH.

90% of the FFA doesn't interest me, so I avoid.  Not a difficult concept.

 

[adonis]

Do you think more than 10% of the trolls actually think they are the ones trolling?  Or do they likely think they are innocent and it's the other guy that's wrong?

Does it matter?  The issue is moderation.  Ban repeat offenders and axe offending threads.  Easy and consistent.

If the thread offends, then yes Axe it, but if it's just an offending post, why throw out the whole thread?

 

[GoBirds]

That's

I brought up Hillary in the context of "No way the Russian hack caused the huge turnaround for Trump causing Hillary to lose" which was certainly relevant to the discussion.  

Ha I thought I was the only one......guess our views didn't comply. 

 

[[scooter]]

You know you're doing a decent job when both sides feel like they're being unfairly moderated.

 

[gianmarco]

90% of the FFA doesn't interest me, so I avoid.  Not a difficult concept.

When you can't see anything but political stuff because 90% of it is political and you have no interest in that, then it actually is a little harder to avoid than singular threads like the running thread or the gambling thread.

There must be a reason people were asking to have the threads moved when there wasn't a similar outcry to have the official beer thread moved, right?

 

[the rover]

If the thread offends, then yes Axe it, but if it's just an offending post, why throw out the whole thread?

Go find anything useful if the Thanks Obama thread.  The entire thread is just bait, and the majority of the posts in it are pure garbage 

 

[McGarnicle]

So we had political threads banned, then we had two mods posting in political threads including the one who issued the ban, and then the most civil and informative political thread in years gets axed. I get that right?

 

[adonis]

Go find anything useful if the Thanks Obama thread.  The entire thread is just bait, and the majority of the posts in it are pure garbage 

Then it's like a fly catching flies.  There are some useful posts in there, but how hard would it be to just delete offending posts and give those making them a timeout?  Regarding all the garbage posts - folks have stupid opinions.  I just skip over them.  It's annoying, but the topic in general isn't that bad, in my opinion.

 

[HellToupee]

So we had political threads banned, then we had two mods posting in political threads including the one who issued the ban, and then the most civil and informative political thread in years gets axed. I get that right?

I don't get how the russian thread is so revered for being civil .

 

[the rover]

Then it's like a fly catching flies.  There are some useful posts in there, but how hard would it be to just delete offending posts and give those making them a timeout?  Regarding all the garbage posts - folks have stupid opinions.  I just skip over them.  It's annoying, but the topic in general isn't that bad, in my opinion.

that's because you have accepted and continue to post in what has become of political threads.   contrary to your premise, I'm not uninterested in politics.  I'm uninterested in engaging in the threads here, which have become predictable and unseemly.   the fact that many good posters have decided over years to leave the main FFA and engage only in megathreads is a reflection of what has been allowed to occur.  

the fact that the mods are asking for what we'd like to see, and have taken steps to clean it up, is refreshing.   As much as you may enjoy the current state of affairs, I don't.   This is the forum for expressing that.  If the consensus is that it can't be moderated, then it should be prohibited.   

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Does it matter?  The issue is moderation.  Ban repeat offenders and axe offending threads.  Easy and consistent.

Yes, it matters.  The moderation is unfair for one because a few moderate based on their personal views instead of following rules.  The moderators troll in some cases too.  My point were if everyone were more self-aware then the tool factor would go down drastically instead of most people trolling then pointing a finger when someone takes the bait.  

 

[GoBirds]

I don't get how the russian thread is so revered for being civil .

Was civil for one side. So what got it axed?

 

[adonis]

Then it's like a fly catching flies.  There are some useful posts in there, but how hard would it be to just delete offending posts and give those making them a timeout?  Regarding all the garbage posts - folks have stupid opinions.  I just skip over them.  It's annoying, but the topic in general isn't that bad, in my opinion.

that's because you have accepted and continue to post in what has become of political threads.   contrary to your premise, I'm not uninterested in politics.  I'm uninterested in engaging in the threads here, which have become predictable and unseemly.   the fact that many good posters have decided over years to leave the main FFA and engage only in megathreads is a reflection of what has been allowed to occur.  

the fact that the mods are asking for what we'd like to see, and have taken steps to clean it up, is refreshing.   As much as you may enjoy the current state of affairs, I don't.   This is the forum for expressing that.  If the consensus is that it can't be moderated, then it should be prohibited.   

That's a good point, and I agree that the threads have become pretty bad.  We just disagree on what should be done.  

I go into those threads regularly and see mostly the same offenders still offending.  I see many posts of personal attacks, or being un-excellent to each other go unmoderated (for whatever reason).  My stance is that these threads would get cleaned up pretty easily by just enforcing the board rules, and the quality of discussion would improve.

Do you disagree that this would happen?  Or do you think that political threads in general are beyond saving, no matter what moderation steps are taken?

 

[the rover]

That's a good point, and I agree that the threads have become pretty bad.  We just disagree on what should be done.  

I go into those threads regularly and see mostly the same offenders still offending.  I see many posts of personal attacks, or being un-excellent to each other go unmoderated (for whatever reason).  My stance is that these threads would get cleaned up pretty easily by just enforcing the board rules, and the quality of discussion would improve.

Do you disagree that this would happen?  Or do you think that political threads in general are beyond saving, no matter what moderation steps are taken?

I think a permaban of less than 10 posters would clean up a lot of the problems.   short of that, I would relegate every political thread to a subforum, and allow the rest of the FFA to continue politics-free.  there are a lot of boards out there devoted to politics.  for those exclusively interested in politics, I suggest they get their fix at one of those if a consistently-moderated FFA doesn't satisfy them.

 

[HellToupee]

 there are a lot of boards out there devoted to politics.

suggestions please

 

[[scooter]]

Magaw singled out Max because all of Max's anti-Hillary posts were unrelated to the thread topic (Russia). But there were plenty of other anti-Hillary/anti-Democrat/pro-Trump posts which were allowed to stand because they were relevant to the topic at hand.

Someone posted that the thread was much more civil than most political threads (and it was attributed to the absence of Tim, ha ha).



Anyway, the whole thing is weird. When Dodds was originally accused of using moderation to defend a pro-Trump bias, Dodds denied it and basically said that he was only banning "catch all" threads. We were told that political threads would be permitted as long as they stuck to specific topics. Well, the Russia thread DID stick to a specific topic. And it was fairly civil, with both sides making their points without being abusive.

And yet the thread was nuked. So what now? I don't know what to believe anymore.

That's

I brought up Hillary in the context of "No way the Russian hack caused the huge turnaround for Trump causing Hillary to lose" which was certainly relevant to the discussion.  

I dunno Max, maybe it's because your reputation for not being excellent preceded you...

People already knew Clinton was a corrupt, lying POS

You don't have to be sorry.  I'm not the one defending a lying POS.

I called her an untrustworthy, dishonest and lying POS.

Congratulations on nominating a corrupt, lying POS?

However, if by "fundamentally honest" you mean a corrupt, lying POS - then I agree with you.

I draw the line at lying, sleazy, corrupt pieces of s##t.

The fact that you don't think she's a POS doesn't means she's not a POS.  It means you can't really think for yourself for the most part.

And, of course, there is the actual fact that she is an immense liar and POS. 

It's nothing more than an excuse to fool yourself into thinking you aren't sacrificing anything by voting for an immense POS.

"False equivalency" is the new term used by liberals to make themselves feel better about voting for their lying, corrupt, POS candidate.

you need an excuse to feel good about voting for a supreme POS.

The solution to that is NOT to nominate the worst possible POS woman you can find.

Listen - the fact that you don't want to hear your candidate is a POS doesn't make it any less true.  We're going to keep repeating so you get it thru your thick skull

Well, Hillary is a corrupt and shady POS, so there's that.

I know I said HRC is a POS because...well...she is.

Who cares?  She's still a POS.

So then I guess your support of Hillary makes you a corrupt and dishonest POS?  Okay.

Yeah, Hillary has a reputation of being a liar and dishonest pos because it's someone else's fault.

I'll take 17 clowns over a corrupt POS

 

[David Dodds]

I will say what I did the last time.  If you are trying to group a lot of people into a "catch-all" basket, your post likely stinks as bait.

Examples:

- Anybody supporting the Wall is a racist.

- Anybody not denouncing Trump is a racist, bigamist, homophobe and/or is stupid.

- Anybody that likes Obamacare just likes leaching off the government.

- People that trust WikiLeaks over the news are certified whack jobs and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

- How can somebody be so blind as to not see Russia is in bed with Trump?  

Thinly disguised posts that people are going to interpret similarly to these are essentially the same.  They are BAIT posts.  Even if you believe them to be 100% true.  They are nothing but stinky bait.  Most of the political threads have devolved to the most partisan people throwing stink bait post after stink bait post.

 and ####posting anybody that disagrees with their world-view.

I am saying for people to find a new board, because these threads are going to keep getting axed if this stays the norm.  I thought the Russia thread was vastly better than the catch-all Trump thread, but there was still a lot of bait going on that I think detracts from the message board I wish to have.   

 

[captain_amazing]

My   as someone who:

1. Believes there is an increasing problem in posting trends in the FFA that are leading to I-fights and general non-excellence.

2. Believes that part of the solution would be to create a political forum.

I rarely post in the political threads, but will follow some of the ones that interest me.  I don't browse the FFA threads for political discourse, though - rather I look for threads that are likely to make me laugh, are generally an interesting, non-politics topic, or are a topic I think I could add value in.  Those topics tend to have light-hearted, not-so-serious postings, as, by nature, most of the topics aren't deep or incredibly complex (with the exception of shukes rating thread, which is both of those things).  Political topics, by nature, typically incite deep, complex, and sometimes polarizing posts.  These different types of threads can coexist with a proper balance.  When topics on politics significantly increase, however, I believe this coexistence begins to break down, as that light-hearted, not-so-serious postings begin to bleed into more and more of the increasing serious political threads, creating tons of friction and pouring gasoline over what are already hotly debated topics.

I really think the solution is to create a politics sub forum where folks, who are looking to engage in series political debate and discourse, can visit, and the other threads can continue to exist in the FFA.  While, I agree we are all adults and should be able to have civilized discussion no matter how much our views differ, I also wish I was 6'2" and could run a 4 40.  I think FFA is becoming too dominated by political topics and it's dragging down everything.  I want to see yoga pants threads, threads about pranking co-workers, and shukes rating thread when I visit the FFA - not 5,000 consecutive thread about "Democrats are terrible" or "Republicans are terrible."  I think a political subforum will make political threads way richer and not so polarizing and will improve the types of topics appearing in the FFA.

 

[adonis]

That's a good point, and I agree that the threads have become pretty bad.  We just disagree on what should be done.  

I go into those threads regularly and see mostly the same offenders still offending.  I see many posts of personal attacks, or being un-excellent to each other go unmoderated (for whatever reason).  My stance is that these threads would get cleaned up pretty easily by just enforcing the board rules, and the quality of discussion would improve.

Do you disagree that this would happen?  Or do you think that political threads in general are beyond saving, no matter what moderation steps are taken?

I think a permaban of less than 10 posters would clean up a lot of the problems.   short of that, I would relegate every political thread to a subforum, and allow the rest of the FFA to continue politics-free.  there are a lot of boards out there devoted to politics.  for those exclusively interested in politics, I suggest they get their fix at one of those if a consistently-moderated FFA doesn't satisfy them.

I think setting out a clear list of things that are OK or not OK to do, and enforce them, would be sufficient to get those 10 habitual offenders out of those (and other) topics.  Something like:

- Be excellent to each other: personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated and will result in a timeout of no less than x days.  
- It's fine to disagree with ideas and mildly attack them, but do not go overboard in attacking someones ideas.  Doing so will result in an X day timeout.
- If the goal of a post seems to be to attack another poster personally for their views on a subject, this will result in an X day timeout.
- It's fair game to go after public officials, but in doing so, show some restraint.  Personal attacks even on public figures that cross the line of reasonable behavior will result in a timeout of no less than x days.
- A person who gets more than X timeouts in Y amount of days will be permanently banned.  Aliai will be banned as well.
- Try to keep political threads focused on topic rather than a person or individual action. Threads on similar topics will be merged.
- Some other rule limiting the creation of threads focused on negative qualities of politicians they don't like (examples like Trump is such a liar, Obama is a bum, etc).  Lay out punishment.
- Do not flood the FFA with political threads (some measure here to not exceed)
- Do not respond to posts that are not intended as jokes with a single smiley, or laughing emoticon, or anything that simply denotes derision of the post. (guesswork)
 

Perhaps solicit some volunteer mods who specifically focus on political threads, and when they give someone a timeout or ban someone, they point to the specific rule they broke and the punishment.  Update the list of violations and punishments and post it publicly.

I may be going a bit overboard here, but I feel it's worth trying to preserve political discussions in the FFA because I like hearing from a lot of the folks in the non-political crowd and if they felt more comfortable posting in political threads, it'd be a definite positive addition.

 

[tonydead]

The inmates are running the asylum. 

 

[Slapdash]

Absolutely pathetic. 

Kudos to @SaintsInDome2006 and @Bob Magaw for all the great material.  Wish I had saved more of the links.

Some really ridiculous on this page too.  Wow.

 

[skol asylum]

No it isn't.  It's a private board and this garbage was allowed to get out of control.  The mods are finally doing something about it.  Just drop the hammer.

And sickle. Don't forget the sickle.

 

[the rover]

I think setting out a clear list of things that are OK or not OK to do, and enforce them, would be sufficient to get those 10 habitual offenders out of those (and other) topics.  Something like:

- Be excellent to each other: personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated and will result in a timeout of no less than x days.  
- It's fine to disagree with attacks of mildly attack them, but do not go overboard in attacking someones ideas.  Doing so will result in an X day timeout.
- It's fair game to go after public officials, but in doing so, show some restraint.  Personal attacks even on public figures that cross the line of reasonable behavior will result in a timeout of no less than x days.
- A person who gets more than X timeouts in Y amount of days will be permanently banned.  Aliai will be banned as well.
- Try to keep political threads focused on topic rather than a person or individual action. Threads on similar topics will be merged.
- Some other rule limiting the creation of threads focused on negative qualities of politicians they don't like (examples like Trump is such a liar, Obama is a bum, etc).  Lay out punishment.
- Do not flood the FFA with political threads (some measure here to not exceed)
- Do not respond to posts that are not intended as jokes with a single smiley, or laughing emoticon, or anything that simply denotes derision of the post. (guesswork)
 

Perhaps solicit some volunteer mods who specifically focus on political threads, and when they give someone a timeout or ban someone, they point to the specific rule they broke and the punishment.  Update the list of violations and punishments and post it publicly.

I may be going a bit overboard here, but I feel it's worth trying to preserve political discussions in the FFA because I like hearing from a lot of the folks in the non-political crowd and if they felt more comfortable posting in political threads, it'd be a definite positive addition.

this is the issue.  that isn't going to happen.   the same voices that dominate every political thread have pushed all but the most vehement political posters and the most determined trolls out.   until they're gone, there won't be any new blood and you'll just get to rehash the same discussions with the same people over and over.

 

[bueno]

Just go look at the "Thanks Obama" thread.  There's no useful discussion there.  Just trolls being trolls.

I disagree, There is good discussion in there. Trolling too, but it isn't 100% trolling.

 

[Scoresman]

Could be worse. Dodds could be anti-yoga pants.

 

[Chemical X]

Say anything against Dear Leader and you may disappear forever....

am I talking about North Korea or the FFA?

 

[skol asylum]

Go find anything useful if the Thanks Obama thread.  The entire thread is just bait, and the majority of the posts in it are pure garbage 

The thread was not bait. I figured he exit memo was newsworthy and I was posting it to look back on his legacy, both good and bad, and thanking him for being a decent guy and doing what IMO he thought was best for the country. The fact that there is a strong juxtaposition for the crude behavior of the incoming guy is more food for discussion. Call it bait. I call it fact.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Could be worse. Dodds could be anti-yoga pants.

There will  be anarchy if that thread goes anywhere. 

 

[skol asylum]

I will say what I did the last time.  If you are trying to group a lot of people into a "catch-all" basket, your post likely stinks as bait.

Examples:

- Anybody supporting the Wall is a racist.

- Anybody not denouncing Trump is a racist, bigamist, homophobe and/or is stupid.

- Anybody that likes Obamacare just likes leaching off the government.

- People that trust WikiLeaks over the news are certified whack jobs and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

- How can somebody be so blind as to not see Russia is in bed with Trump?  

Thinly disguised posts that people are going to interpret similarly to these are essentially the same.  They are BAIT posts.  Even if you believe them to be 100% true.  They are nothing but stinky bait.  Most of the political threads have devolved to the most partisan people throwing stink bait post after stink bait post.

 and ####posting anybody that disagrees with their world-view.

I am saying for people to find a new board, because these threads are going to keep getting axed if this stays the norm.  I thought the Russia thread was vastly better than the catch-all Trump thread, but there was still a lot of bait going on that I think detracts from the message board I wish to have.   

Is posting unfounded stories about pedophilia at pizza joints stinky bait?

 

[adonis]

this is the issue.  that isn't going to happen.   the same voices that dominate every political thread have pushed all but the most vehement political posters and the most determined trolls out.   until they're gone, there won't be any new blood and you'll just get to rehash the same discussions with the same people over and over.

I think that's true if the moderation doesn't change.  But it's possible that changes in moderation can cause a change in the level of discourse in those threads.  

I'd love to consider ways to have that happen, rather than just trying to lock down political threads entirely or move it all away.  

 

[flapgreen]

Hey guys,  what's going on in here? 

 

[[scooter]]

Is posting unfounded stories about pedophilia at pizza joints and then admitting that it was a quasi-fishing attempt stinky bait?

Fixed.

 

[bueno]

I think that's true if the moderation doesn't change.  But it's possible that changes in moderation can cause a change in the level of discourse in those threads.  

I'd love to consider ways to have that happen, rather than just trying to lock down political threads entirely or move it all away.  

I'm thinking that mods should just delete any thread with a personal attack, but then personal attacks can be disguised fairly well, like scooter bringing up Larry Craig after all these years - yeah, it's a personal attack. Yet I've seen too many personal and general attacks left alone on one side, while disagreement from another side is deleted. That has to end too.

 

[adonis]

I think that's true if the moderation doesn't change.  But it's possible that changes in moderation can cause a change in the level of discourse in those threads.  

I'd love to consider ways to have that happen, rather than just trying to lock down political threads entirely or move it all away.  

I'm thinking that mods should just delete any thread with a personal attack, but then personal attacks can be disguised fairly well, like scooter bringing up Larry Craig after all these years - yeah, it's a personal attack. Yet I've seen too many personal and general attacks left alone on one side, while disagreement from another side is deleted. That has to end too.

In my opinion, we know a lot of the problems in these threads, and we agree that they're worse because of them.  What we don't have are a clearer set of policies/rules that help keep threads clean (as clean as they can be, which frankly is still pretty dirty - it's politics after all), and remove occasional offenders temporarily, and repeat offenders permanently.  If there was a clear list of do's and don'ts, along with punishments listed, it'd go a long way toward cleaning stuff up.  And I think it's counterproductive to delete an entire thread just because there's one personal attack.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

 


FFA Moderation Thoughts - What Do You Think?
 
 
 
Getting better everyday
 

 

[HellToupee]

Is posting unfounded stories about pedophilia at pizza joints stinky bait?

I guess . Kind like people associating a political candidate with a pedi organization