My time here has come to an end (1 Viewer)

[squistion]

SMH.

I predicted it would come to this. That banning all political discussion was unrealistic and impractical, as politics can and do bleed into almost any discussion.

I said that ultimately the mods would always be playing Whac-A-Mole to keep politics out of this forum and it seems that I was right.

It gives me no pleasure to have been prescient.

this is exactly the type of posting that got the political forum shut down so good job on staying consistent take that to the bank brohan

No, it isn't. There was nothing of a political nature that I said in that posting. I was discussing the consequences of banning political discussion, brohan.

 

[Joe Bryant]

SMH.

I predicted it would come to this. That banning all political discussion was unrealistic and impractical, as politics can and do bleed into almost any discussion.

I said that ultimately the mods would always be playing Whac-A-Mole to keep politics out of this forum and it seems that I was right.

It gives me no pleasure to have been prescient.

Not really. I know folks "hate to be right " but as I said earlier, it's pretty rare that a topic is closed. Seems like it's been a couple of times a month. For a board this busy with this much activity, it's not much.

And for the most part, lots of people on the board do a great job helping us keep it steered away from politics without much issue.

Yes, but I don't believe that is necessarily a good thing.

It has gotten to the point that discussion is stifled in some threads because people are afraid of saying anything that might be interpreted as a being political.

For example, TimSchochet started a thread about his favorite obscure rock songs and one song (that was decades old) had a political point-of-view that people started to discuss but then abruptly halted when someone said: (paraphrasing) "We don't want this thread locked and/or suspensions given out because this might be considered a political discussion."

My opinion is that if people are hesitant to make an innocuous post (as in the example above) then they might not post in that or any thread at all and may go elsewhere where anything considered remotely political will not be censored. The closing of the politics forum resulted in losing some regular posters who also made good non-political contributions in other forums, like this one and The Shark Pool (and I don't think that the forums are better for it).

This kind of self-policing is part of adulting, it's the prudent way to assure the forums remain valuable and worthwhile to most of us who are just fine limiting pissing matches and flame wars. Those are tiresome and soul draining. I don't see anyone not posting in alternate threads just because they couldnt espouse potentially political utterances in another.

This is where we landed and where we are.

I fully acknowledge this isn't how 100% of the people want it. But like anything we had to make a decision we felt was best.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

damn near everybody acting like teenagers, forming tribes and cliques

how come I was never invited to join said tribe or clique?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

SMH.

I predicted it would come to this. That banning all political discussion was unrealistic and impractical, as politics can and do bleed into almost any discussion.

I said that ultimately the mods would always be playing Whac-A-Mole to keep politics out of this forum and it seems that I was right.

It gives me no pleasure to have been prescient.

this is exactly the type of posting that got the political forum shut down so good job on staying consistent take that to the bank brohan

No, it isn't. There was nothing of a political nature that I said in that posting. I was discussing the consequences of banning political discussion, brohan.

What you're doing right now is exactly why the PSF got shut down. It's as if you deliberately set out to illustrate precisely why ownership was right to nuke it from orbit.

 

[squistion]

SMH.

I predicted it would come to this. That banning all political discussion was unrealistic and impractical, as politics can and do bleed into almost any discussion.

I said that ultimately the mods would always be playing Whac-A-Mole to keep politics out of this forum and it seems that I was right.

It gives me no pleasure to have been prescient.

this is exactly the type of posting that got the political forum shut down so good job on staying consistent take that to the bank brohan

No, it isn't. There was nothing of a political nature that I said in that posting. I was discussing the consequences of banning political discussion, brohan.

What you're doing right now is exactly why the PSF got shut down. It's as if you deliberately set out to illustrate precisely why ownership was right to nuke it from orbit.

Discussing the consequences of banning politics is not what got the PSF got shut down, which is what I did in my post.

 

[KarmaPolice]

damn near everybody acting like teenagers, forming tribes and cliques

how come I was never invited to join said tribe or clique?

 

[KarmaPolice]

SMH.

I predicted it would come to this. That banning all political discussion was unrealistic and impractical, as politics can and do bleed into almost any discussion.

I said that ultimately the mods would always be playing Whac-A-Mole to keep politics out of this forum and it seems that I was right.

It gives me no pleasure to have been prescient.

Not really. I know folks "hate to be right " but as I said earlier, it's pretty rare that a topic is closed. Seems like it's been a couple of times a month. For a board this busy with this much activity, it's not much.

And for the most part, lots of people on the board do a great job helping us keep it steered away from politics without much issue.

Yes, but I don't believe that is necessarily a good thing.

It has gotten to the point that discussion is stifled in some threads because people are afraid of saying anything that might be interpreted as a being political.

For example, TimSchochet started a thread about his favorite obscure rock songs and one song (that was decades old) had a political point-of-view that people started to discuss but then abruptly halted when someone said: (paraphrasing) "We don't want this thread locked and/or suspensions given out because this might be considered a political discussion."

My opinion is that if people are hesitant to make an innocuous post (as in the example above) then they might not post in that or any thread at all and may go elsewhere where anything considered remotely political will not be censored. The closing of the politics forum resulted in losing some regular posters who also made good non-political contributions in other forums, like this one and The Shark Pool (and I don't think that the forums are better for it).

This kind of self-policing is part of adulting, it's the prudent way to assure the forums remain valuable and worthwhile to most of us who are just fine limiting pissing matches and flame wars. Those are tiresome and soul draining. I don't see anyone not posting in alternate threads just because they couldnt espouse potentially political utterances in another.

This is where we landed and where we are.

I fully acknowledge this isn't how 100% of the people want it. But like anything we had to make a decision we felt was best.

It's been said before, but I was a bit shocked to read how much bs you had to read because of these boards and threads. I couldn't imagine getting emails and PMs from grown adults about this stuff. Just nuts.

Why people can't self-police, walk away from threads, or use the ignore function is beyond frustrating to you and the mods, I'd imagine.

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

damn near everybody acting like teenagers, forming tribes and cliques

how come I was never invited to join said tribe or clique?

The first rule of the Cool Kids Club is that we don't tell you where our lunch table is.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

 

[Desert_Power]

As a content creator on these forums, I choose to ignore the 1% that aren't with me.

I've been trying to become a FBG influencer for years. Never once have I been asked to hock Just For Men to you oldies. :(

What about grape juice?

 

[KarmaPolice]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

Very fair point.

A huge annoyance to me is the constant whining and finger pointing about who ratted out who - things like that. As you hinted, outcome would be possible and overpower the +s.

 

[Joe Bryant]

SMH.

I predicted it would come to this. That banning all political discussion was unrealistic and impractical, as politics can and do bleed into almost any discussion.

I said that ultimately the mods would always be playing Whac-A-Mole to keep politics out of this forum and it seems that I was right.

It gives me no pleasure to have been prescient.

Not really. I know folks "hate to be right " but as I said earlier, it's pretty rare that a topic is closed. Seems like it's been a couple of times a month. For a board this busy with this much activity, it's not much.

And for the most part, lots of people on the board do a great job helping us keep it steered away from politics without much issue.

Yes, but I don't believe that is necessarily a good thing.

It has gotten to the point that discussion is stifled in some threads because people are afraid of saying anything that might be interpreted as a being political.

For example, TimSchochet started a thread about his favorite obscure rock songs and one song (that was decades old) had a political point-of-view that people started to discuss but then abruptly halted when someone said: (paraphrasing) "We don't want this thread locked and/or suspensions given out because this might be considered a political discussion."

My opinion is that if people are hesitant to make an innocuous post (as in the example above) then they might not post in that or any thread at all and may go elsewhere where anything considered remotely political will not be censored. The closing of the politics forum resulted in losing some regular posters who also made good non-political contributions in other forums, like this one and The Shark Pool (and I don't think that the forums are better for it).

This kind of self-policing is part of adulting, it's the prudent way to assure the forums remain valuable and worthwhile to most of us who are just fine limiting pissing matches and flame wars. Those are tiresome and soul draining. I don't see anyone not posting in alternate threads just because they couldnt espouse potentially political utterances in another.

This is where we landed and where we are.

I fully acknowledge this isn't how 100% of the people want it. But like anything we had to make a decision we felt was best.

It's been said before, but I was a bit shocked to read how much bs you had to read because of these boards and threads. I couldn't imagine getting emails and PMs from grown adults about this stuff. Just nuts.

Why people can't self-police, walk away from threads, or use the ignore function is beyond frustrating to you and the mods, I'd imagine.

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

It's just part of running a forum.

I also acknowledge it would likely be much better, for both me and the forum, if I post much less. I love the community part of though and very much like to engage with people who see things differently. So it's a draw. But I also have to be realistic and see that I'm probably making some of it worse.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

Very fair point.

A huge annoyance to me is the constant whining and finger pointing about who ratted out who - things like that. As you hinted, outcome would be possible and overpower the +s.

Understood. But the report feature is key to helping the forum stay on track. We get a ton of really helpful things from spam reports to bot reports to when people do over a line and such. Those are always best to be private. If someone reports too much or reports things that aren't really over the line, the moderators will let them know.

 

[BlackCrowes]

No idea who the Potato brothers are but they must be a big deal if you are walking away because of them.

Enjoy your golden years of retirement.

Me neither, never heard of them. Of course, I will be looking them up now....

do yourself a favor and don't

 

[General Malaise]

SMH.

I predicted it would come to this. That banning all political discussion was unrealistic and impractical, as politics can and do bleed into almost any discussion.

I said that ultimately the mods would always be playing Whac-A-Mole to keep politics out of this forum and it seems that I was right.

It gives me no pleasure to have been prescient.

Not really. I know folks "hate to be right " but as I said earlier, it's pretty rare that a topic is closed. Seems like it's been a couple of times a month. For a board this busy with this much activity, it's not much.

And for the most part, lots of people on the board do a great job helping us keep it steered away from politics without much issue.

Yes, but I don't believe that is necessarily a good thing.

It has gotten to the point that discussion is stifled in some threads because people are afraid of saying anything that might be interpreted as a being political.

For example, TimSchochet started a thread about his favorite obscure rock songs and one song (that was decades old) had a political point-of-view that people started to discuss but then abruptly halted when someone said: (paraphrasing) "We don't want this thread locked and/or suspensions given out because this might be considered a political discussion."

My opinion is that if people are hesitant to make an innocuous post (as in the example above) then they might not post in that or any thread at all and may go elsewhere where anything considered remotely political will not be censored. The closing of the politics forum resulted in losing some regular posters who also made good non-political contributions in other forums, like this one and The Shark Pool (and I don't think that the forums are better for it).

This kind of self-policing is part of adulting, it's the prudent way to assure the forums remain valuable and worthwhile to most of us who are just fine limiting pissing matches and flame wars. Those are tiresome and soul draining. I don't see anyone not posting in alternate threads just because they couldnt espouse potentially political utterances in another.

This is where we landed and where we are.

I fully acknowledge this isn't how 100% of the people want it. But like anything we had to make a decision we felt was best.

It's been said before, but I was a bit shocked to read how much bs you had to read because of these boards and threads. I couldn't imagine getting emails and PMs from grown adults about this stuff. Just nuts.

Why people can't self-police, walk away from threads, or use the ignore function is beyond frustrating to you and the mods, I'd imagine.

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

It's just part of running a forum.

I also acknowledge it would likely be much better, for both me and the forum, if I post much less. I love the community part of though and very much like to engage with people who see things differently. So it's a draw. But I also have to be realistic and see that I'm probably making some of it worse.

We don't need to let perfect be the enemy of good. This place doesn't have to be perfect for it to continue to be useful and entertaining for us and part of that is your contributions here.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

That would be awesome

 

[rockaction]

I also acknowledge it would likely be much better, for both me and the forum, if I post much less.

Joe, the forum would be lessened if you did that. I've seen some bizarre interactions that are weirdly caustic towards you, and I've seen people acting out because of perceived slights or differing opinions, so I can see why you might feel that way at certain times.

But for the large majority of us, we appreciate your presence. We may not always be in agreement about our conclusions and thoughts regarding the topics of discussion, and we might not even agree how to discuss those topics fairly and appropriately, but I don't think the place would be better if you left because you think your absence would help us get along better. I don't think dispositions would change, and any negative energy brought to the table would find another outlet. You're a valuable voice here. Of course, it's up to you, but you'd be missed.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

RIP

I know you loved Fields but this is an overreaction

 

[Battersbox]

Anyone who has been on these boards for as long as he has knows the only direction that thread would take. If you have any idea who these guys are, you know. Let's all be honest here at the very least.

But he wanted to discuss it anyway, and then start a thread to kick over some furniture on the way out the door.

Can you imagine owning a business, and you keep a little clubhouse going for some friends, at a loss?

And you dealing with this on a Sunday night. Annoying.

I totally sympathize with this and realize that Joe is in an impossible position. I think almost all of us realize that. The times we live in are making it really difficult to host discussion-based content. I didn't say a thing when the PSF was axed for precisely that reason—it's not right to expect somebody to host something they find costly or untenable.

My participation in this thread has been to call attention to one element of the discussion, which is an element I think is being used by commenters in a disingenuous way. Everybody's mileage may vary about that, and there are some people that are indeed disagreeing with my position. Regardless of how that issue is ultimately decided, I'll personally abide and keep it cool because I know that this can be a disheartening nuisance. I do not want to add to that and haven't castigated anybody nor taken shots at moderators. I just wanted to make my position known because I think it's better for the board that certain people don't get a heckler's veto over content they don't like. It seems unjust.

I don't have anything to add on this topic other than to say I've never heard the term 'heckler's veto' before and I think it's awesome. If you coined that then hats off to you sir.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I also acknowledge it would likely be much better, for both me and the forum, if I post much less.

Joe, the forum would be lessened if you did that. I've seen some bizarre interactions that are weirdly caustic towards you, and I've seen people acting out because of perceived slights or differing opinions, so I can see why you might feel that way at certain times.

But for the large majority of us, we appreciate your presence. We may not always be in agreement about our conclusions and thoughts regarding the topics of discussion, and we might not even agree how to discuss those topics fairly and appropriately, but I don't think the place would be better if you left because you think your absence would help us get along better. I don't think dispositions would change, and any negative energy brought to the table would find another outlet. You're a valuable voice here. Of course, it's up to you, but you'd be missed.

Also, at least Joe explains why he moderates the forums the way he does. Not every message board is like that. I don't mind if the moderation is done a little differently than how I would do it as long as I feel like I know where the lines are drawn, and why they were drawn there. This mod team has always been pretty good about that IMO.

 

[The Gator]

but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

That would be awesome

Reported

 

[rockaction]

I don't have anything to add on this topic other than to say I've never heard the term 'heckler's veto' before and I think it's awesome. If you coined that then hats off to you sir.

Thanks, man, but I can't take the credit for it. 'Heckler's veto' is a term of art when it comes to free speech and its conundrums that it almost seems to necessarily entail. Simply put, a heckler's veto means that a party who disagrees with the substance of what you're saying can set events in motion that prevent you from saying it. It's usually considered in the context of loud demonstrations and caustic behavior in academic settings that prevent a speaker from speaking, but it extends definitionally to the situation I was making my claim about.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

interestingly the Ukraine/Russia thread has survived. Can't imagine an Israel/Palestine thread making it more than 8 seconds.

 

[General Malaise]

interestingly the Ukraine/Russia thread has survived. Can't imagine an Israel/Palestine thread making it more than 8 seconds.

There was one. It predictably lasted just a little longer than 8 seconds.

 

[squistion]

interestingly the Ukraine/Russia thread has survived. Can't imagine an Israel/Palestine thread making it more than 8 seconds.

It makes no sense to me why that threat topic with inherently political overtones is allowed. I would put the thread about the economy in the same category.

 

[Joe Bryant]

interestingly the Ukraine/Russia thread has survived. Can't imagine an Israel/Palestine thread making it more than 8 seconds.

That one was already well established when we stopped the political forum and I asked the people to do their best to keep it just to facts and information and be overly political and they have been able to do that for the most part. There's a lot of self policing there in that forum as people want it to stay alive.

But we overwhelmingly proved we weren't able to do that on a regular basis with most topics.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

Very fair point.

A huge annoyance to me is the constant whining and finger pointing about who ratted out who - things like that. As you hinted, outcome would be possible and overpower the +s.

Understood. But the report feature is key to helping the forum stay on track. We get a ton of really helpful things from spam reports to bot reports to when people do over a line and such. Those are always best to be private. If someone reports too much or reports things that aren't really over the line, the moderators will let them know.

I can't imagine someone *cough* @General Malaise *cough* reporting things that aren't really over the line. Who would do such a ridiculous thing?

 

[General Malaise]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

Very fair point.

A huge annoyance to me is the constant whining and finger pointing about who ratted out who - things like that. As you hinted, outcome would be possible and overpower the +s.

Understood. But the report feature is key to helping the forum stay on track. We get a ton of really helpful things from spam reports to bot reports to when people do over a line and such. Those are always best to be private. If someone reports too much or reports things that aren't really over the line, the moderators will let them know.

I can't imagine someone *cough* @General Malaise *cough* reporting things that aren't really over the line. Who would do such a ridiculous thing?

You did it to yourself, Sacamano. You just think you run amok in here, galivanting around with your anti-lettuce rhetoric, spewing lies and distortions? I won't stand for it. Not now, not ever.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

interestingly the Ukraine/Russia thread has survived. Can't imagine an Israel/Palestine thread making it more than 8 seconds.

I appreciate what Joe does here, and I think when I've read the Ukraine thread it's a good example of how the needle can be properly threaded. It's largely a repository of news items and updates, and while you can glean the tenor and biases of certain posters over time, it's not in your face or over the top. I think with the right people a lot of threads could be like that. The Supreme Court thread was another good example. Of course, it only takes a couple of people going off the rails in those types of threads to the whole thing.

As far as the examples of Watson and Rodgers, if I were running the show I think bringing up the effect of their off-field issues on, e.g., the locker room should be okay, but posts that make the thread about the off-field issues or are obviously meant as an invitation to pile on about the sins of the player are a distraction and net negative.

 

[squistion]

interestingly the Ukraine/Russia thread has survived. Can't imagine an Israel/Palestine thread making it more than 8 seconds.

I appreciate what Joe does here, and I think when I've read the Ukraine thread it's a good example of how the needle can be properly threaded. It's largely a repository of news items and updates, and while you can glean the tenor and biases of certain posters over time, it's not in your face or over the top. I think with the right people a lot of threads could be like that. The Supreme Court thread was another good example. Of course, it only takes a couple of people going off the rails in those types of threads to the whole thing.

As far as the examples of Watson and Rodgers, if I were running the show I think bringing up the effect of their off-field issues on, e.g., the locker room should be okay, but posts that make the thread about the off-field issues or are obviously meant as an invitation to pile on about the sins of the player are a distraction and net negative.

The locking of the SCOTUS thread I found to be particularly unfortunate, because it was mostly just attorneys on this forum posting court news/rulings as they happened and then interpreting the actual impact in non-political terms. No reason that it could have not remained up (if ones about Ukraine and the economy are).

 

[Pip's Invitation]

I think a concrete example that happened recently was in the religion thread.

I started that thread. In retrospect, I should have known better than to do so even though I clearly didn't want it to turn into anything but a macro assessment of whether America was better or worse off because of the sharply dropping rate of religious affiliation or identification in the populace. Instead of that, the discussion centered on belief, defenses of belief, and what individuals believed was their faith and mission or lack thereof. It then became about personal examinations of faith—or lack of faith—which then turned into examinations of personal actions and their grounding in morality. There was the personalization of some deeply-held notions both for and against religion as a positive force, and that is never a recipe for detached analysis.

That wasn't what I was going for, and I should have known better. The mere mention of religion to those of faith and those that are agnostic or atheistic seems to send everybody into the recesses of their own self, and people get defensive and invested in the arguments personally. A more methodical way of looking at things with an impersonal and detached bird's eye view can barely even be acknowledged as possible at that point because there is so much personal investment in one's position. That does not bode well for achieving impartiality regarding the subject.

So mea culpa on that.

Back in the day "don't discuss politics or religion with people you aren't close to" was oft-dispensed advice. The internet and social media show why.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

Very fair point.

A huge annoyance to me is the constant whining and finger pointing about who ratted out who - things like that. As you hinted, outcome would be possible and overpower the +s.

Understood. But the report feature is key to helping the forum stay on track. We get a ton of really helpful things from spam reports to bot reports to when people do over a line and such. Those are always best to be private. If someone reports too much or reports things that aren't really over the line, the moderators will let them know.

I can't imagine someone *cough* @General Malaise *cough* reporting things that aren't really over the line. Who would do such a ridiculous thing?

You did it to yourself, Sacamano. You just think you run amok in here, galivanting around with your anti-lettuce rhetoric, spewing lies and distortions? I won't stand for it. Not now, not ever.

That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, lascivious, salacious, and outrageous.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

Very fair point.

A huge annoyance to me is the constant whining and finger pointing about who ratted out who - things like that. As you hinted, outcome would be possible and overpower the +s.

Understood. But the report feature is key to helping the forum stay on track. We get a ton of really helpful things from spam reports to bot reports to when people do over a line and such. Those are always best to be private. If someone reports too much or reports things that aren't really over the line, the moderators will let them know.

I can't imagine someone *cough* @General Malaise *cough* reporting things that aren't really over the line. Who would do such a ridiculous thing?

You did it to yourself, Sacamano. You just think you run amok in here, galivanting around with your anti-lettuce rhetoric, spewing lies and distortions? I won't stand for it. Not now, not ever.

That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, lascivious, salacious, and outrageous.

Can we get an update for the love of god? It’s been years. Slacker

 

[Chris B.]

I feel a lot of the good discussion forums are going soft to counter the extreme toxicity that the internet now skews. Its too difficult to maintain a civil middle ground.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

RIP

I know you loved Fields but this is an overreaction

If they had gotten more than a 6th rounder back he might still be here.

 

[Mr.Pack]

See this is a perfect example of why the Politics Forum was needed. If you wanted to stay out of politics, stay out, if you wanted to wade into the cesspool, then go for it, but it kept all the discussion out of the FFA.

 

[The Gator]

See this is a perfect example of why the Politics Forum was needed. If you wanted to stay out of politics, stay out, if you wanted to wade into the cesspool, then go for it, but it kept all the discussion out of the FFA.

Except for the bleed over into the FFA of the bad attitudes that were festering in the PSF.

FFA has been far improved since the PSF has been gone IMO

 

[Dr_Zaius]

The locking of the SCOTUS thread I found to be particularly unfortunate, because it was mostly just attorneys on this forum posting court news/rulings as they happened and then interpreting the actual impact in non-political terms.

Yeah, I wish that thread was still around to discuss Murthy v. Missouri arguments this morning, but to be fair I do remember a couple of bouts of questionable posts on a few hot button issues. Some folks find it hard to resist flinging partisan poo, unfortunately. It's a shame.

 

[Joe Schmo]

See this is a perfect example of why the Politics Forum was needed. If you wanted to stay out of politics, stay out, if you wanted to wade into the cesspool, then go for it, but it kept all the discussion out of the FFA.

Seems mostly a one sided discussion from an old man yelling at clouds that he can't have his forum back, other than that it's been pretty chill in here. When the psf was open there was open warfare all over these boards and it was annoying to aggravating to a lot of posters who didn't give a flick about who started what and who did what to who in the psf.

 

[General Malaise]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

Very fair point.

A huge annoyance to me is the constant whining and finger pointing about who ratted out who - things like that. As you hinted, outcome would be possible and overpower the +s.

Understood. But the report feature is key to helping the forum stay on track. We get a ton of really helpful things from spam reports to bot reports to when people do over a line and such. Those are always best to be private. If someone reports too much or reports things that aren't really over the line, the moderators will let them know.

I can't imagine someone *cough* @General Malaise *cough* reporting things that aren't really over the line. Who would do such a ridiculous thing?

You did it to yourself, Sacamano. You just think you run amok in here, galivanting around with your anti-lettuce rhetoric, spewing lies and distortions? I won't stand for it. Not now, not ever.

That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, lascivious, salacious, and outrageous.

Can we get an update for the love of god? It’s been years. Slacker

If the guy mixed in a salad every now and again, he'd have the fortitude and strength to do this.

 

[fatness]

See this is a perfect example of why the Politics Forum was needed. If you wanted to stay out of politics, stay out, if you wanted to wade into the cesspool, then go for it, but it kept all the discussion out of the FFA.

We tried something like this at home but we couldn't get the termites to stay in the back closet.

 

[KarmaPolice]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

Very fair point.

A huge annoyance to me is the constant whining and finger pointing about who ratted out who - things like that. As you hinted, outcome would be possible and overpower the +s.

Understood. But the report feature is key to helping the forum stay on track. We get a ton of really helpful things from spam reports to bot reports to when people do over a line and such. Those are always best to be private. If someone reports too much or reports things that aren't really over the line, the moderators will let them know.

See, that's why you get the big bucks. I hadn't thought of that at all. I was more coming from wondering if it would be effective at keeping the bs to a minimum if people know their report/objection would be public.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Why do people declare that they’re leaving? Just leave

 

[Gally]

Why do people declare that they’re leaving? Just leave

Don't want to leave all your fans hanging

 

[Desert_Power]

Opinions about political discourse aside, there have been some really high quality discussions to read in here lately.

 

[[icon]]

If I am not allowed to openly discuss things I support and individuals I have interest in in a world that constantly shuts down the discussion of things deemed inappropriate by the powers that be, then footballguys serves no use to me. So long

I kind of stopped myself. This place absolutely sucks now and we are moderated like children. I've moved onto reddit. Come here for the tv threads only now.

Thanks for the update. We were wondering!

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Anyone who has been on these boards for as long as he has knows the only direction that thread would take. If you have any idea who these guys are, you know. Let's all be honest here at the very least.

But he wanted to discuss it anyway, and then start a thread to kick over some furniture on the way out the door.

Can you imagine owning a business, and you keep a little clubhouse going for some friends, at a loss?

And you dealing with this on a Sunday night. Annoying.

I totally sympathize with this and realize that Joe is in an impossible position. I think almost all of us realize that. The times we live in are making it really difficult to host discussion-based content. I didn't say a thing when the PSF was axed for precisely that reason—it's not right to expect somebody to host something they find costly or untenable.

My participation in this thread has been to call attention to one element of the discussion, which is an element I think is being used by commenters in a disingenuous way. Everybody's mileage may vary about that, and there are some people that are indeed disagreeing with my position. Regardless of how that issue is ultimately decided, I'll personally abide and keep it cool because I know that this can be a disheartening nuisance. I do not want to add to that and haven't castigated anybody nor taken shots at moderators. I just wanted to make my position known because I think it's better for the board that certain people don't get a heckler's veto over content they don't like. It seems unjust.

I don't have anything to add on this topic other than to say I've never heard the term 'heckler's veto' before and I think it's awesome. If you coined that then hats off to you sir.

I agree. That is really creative and I have never heard the term. Did you come up with that Rock?

 

[waiver wire]

See this is a perfect example of why the Politics Forum was needed. If you wanted to stay out of politics, stay out, if you wanted to wade into the cesspool, then go for it, but it kept all the discussion out of the FFA.

Except for the bleed over into the FFA of the bad attitudes that were festering in the PSF.

FFA has been far improved since the PSF has been gone IMO

I think FFA has improved partially due to the bad attitudes did bleed into FFA but I think the main reason for the improvement is the majority of the trolls of PF have left since it was closed.

 

[[icon]]

Forum runs a pretty consistent line in moderation. Whether I agree with that line is immaterial as this ain't my bag, baby. But, you must give Joe & Co credit for being clear even if not always 100% specific.

You're cool with it, or you move to Reddit.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The term "heckler's veto" appears in quite a few Supreme Court cases. It's a little known fact that Earl Warren stole that expression from rock.