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

[rockaction]

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.

 

[ChiefD]

The only thing I will say is it sure seems a double standard is applied here from time to time. I've seen threads started by leadership here that were borderline political to begin with under the guise of "what do you think of this" or "things to think about."

Don't ask me to link to stuff because I'm old and don't have time to search for threads, but sometimes there is hypocrisy here and that's a problem.

 

[BassNBrew]

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 hope @Joe Bryant at least got a something better than a 6th round pick for @flapgreen

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

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 hope @Joe Bryant at least got a something better than a 6th round pick for @flapgreen

As long as he isn't going to the Jets, it's all good.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Kate Middleton . Come on

Im going to miss Flap

I'm with you. I think he's owed an apology, frankly. Other than speculating about whether or not one of the kids had a snot bubble, what was the big deal?

I'll have you know, I am a big deal.

 

[kevzilla]

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 hope @Joe Bryant at least got a something better than a 6th round pick for @flapgreen

4th round if flap gets 51% of the snaps.

I'll show myself out. I hope he stays.

 

[Mister CIA]

@flapgreen
I hope you stay.

Maybe Flap will flip, Floppo.

 

[Scoresman]

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.

There are dozens of threads going at any given time where politics doesnt bleed in. Just because one did and it was deleted doesn't mean getting rid of political discussion was unrealistic or impractical and it doesnt mean you were right about the downfall of the FFA.

I do think the moderating can be heavy handed (axing a kate middleton thread?), and a lot of times done out of context, but the decision to move away from political discourse is fine by me.

 

[skol asylum]

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 hope @Joe Bryant at least got a something better than a 6th round pick for @flapgreen

Let's be honest. As a Bears fan there just isn't much value there.

 

[Mitchie]

I'm waiting for someone to re-enact the scene from Hoosiers "Flap goes, I go, Flap stays, I stay."

 

[jhib]

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 seems to be ignoring that it was already a worse game of Whac-a-Mole to allow politics up until threads invariably got locked for people going too far again and again (at least that's the impression I was left with). And as "unrealistic and impractical" as you think this approach is, it seems to be working for a lot of us.
I, for one, appreciate the way things are currently handled around here. If it's also easier for Joe & the mods at the same time, that's awesome.

 

[jhib]

The only thing I will say is it sure seems a double standard is applied here from time to time. I've seen threads started by leadership here that were borderline political to begin with under the guise of "what do you think of this" or "things to think about."

Don't ask me to link to stuff because I'm old and don't have time to search for threads, but sometimes there is hypocrisy here and that's a problem.

My general impression is that usually when it's a borderline topic, the OP usually makes an effort to focus the conversation on a less-political aspect of the topic right from the start. In contrast, this one was basically just "let's talk about these guys."

 

[KarmaPolice]

It's for the best to keep the political stuff out of here.

I recently stopped reading the current religion thread for this and other various reasons. Not good for the blood pressure.

I get this sentiment, but for me it's gone too far the other way. What you did is perfectly reasonable - don't like where the conversation is going and step away. But my opinion is most people don't do that online and instead it's leans to people who have to make sure nobody has those discussions because they don't want to or aren't capable of it. Instead the reaction is more like: I can't handle this topic or word so I will make sure that nobody is able to either in case I accidently come across it in the future.

Mix that in with a healthy dose of damn near everybody acting like teenagers, forming tribes and cliques, trying to rile up people, etc... That describes the PSF and other boards like fftoday perfectly.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm waiting for someone to re-enact the scene from Hoosiers "Flap goes, I go, Flap stays, I stay."

"My team is on the board"

 

[Juxtatarot]

I really don’t mind losing posters that can’t not talk about politics.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The only thing I will say is it sure seems a double standard is applied here from time to time. I've seen threads started by leadership here that were borderline political to begin with under the guise of "what do you think of this" or "things to think about."

Don't ask me to link to stuff because I'm old and don't have time to search for threads, but sometimes there is hypocrisy here and that's a problem.

This is just how it goes with any discussion platform. Moderation is inherently subjective. It is impossible to apply it exactly the same in every scenario all the time. Nevermind that there are in most cases more than one moderator each with their own take on where the line should be drawn, but even amongst the same moderator things will vary day to day and situation to situation. A discussion's politicism isn't an empirical number that can just be turned on or off over a certain amount. It's subjective, and difficult to judge.

No different than holding calls in football or foul calls in basketball. It's just not possible to apply standards exactly the same to every play.

I remember this as far back as video game forums (called "bulletin boards" back then) in the early 2000's. Xbox fanboys thought the mods were Playstation biased. Playstation fanboys thought those same mods were Xbox biased.

It's kind of sad that even a bunch of 50 year olds can't figure it out, honestly. Moderation is a no win proposition. No matter what you do, both sides will think you're unfair from one day to the next.

 

[gianmarco]

I really don’t mind losing posters that can’t not talk about politics.

That's a lot of negatives!!

 

[jamny]

Best to just treat this forum as a place to discuss non-serious topics like TV shows, sports, music and cooking recipes.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Sorry to hear that. I thought I was as polite as I could in letting you know the Tate Brothers thread was going to unavoidably become political.

I realize not everyone agrees with us trying to stay away from political threads. I have no idea if that's the right thing. But it's how we're trying to operate.

We'll hopefully still be here if you decide to return. All the best to you whichever way you decide to go.

It's much appreciated

Can't make everyone happy. Hope Flap stays as enjoy his Bears banter

 

[Scoresman]

The only thing I will say is it sure seems a double standard is applied here from time to time. I've seen threads started by leadership here that were borderline political to begin with under the guise of "what do you think of this" or "things to think about."

Don't ask me to link to stuff because I'm old and don't have time to search for threads, but sometimes there is hypocrisy here and that's a problem.

This is just how it goes with any discussion platform. Moderation is inherently subjective. It is impossible to apply it exactly the same in every scenario all the time. Nevermind that there are in most cases more than one moderator each with their own take on where the line should be drawn, but even amongst the same moderator things will vary day to day and situation to situation. A discussion's politicism isn't an empirical number that can just be turned on or off over a certain amount. It's subjective, and difficult to judge.

No different than holding calls in football or foul calls in basketball. It's just not possible to apply standards exactly the same to every play.

I remember this as far back as video game forums (called "bulletin boards" back then) in the early 2000's. Xbox fanboys thought the mods were Playstation biased. Playstation fanboys thought those same mods were Xbox biased.

It's kind of sad that even a bunch of 50 year olds can't figure it out, honestly. Moderation is a no win proposition. No matter what you do, both sides will think you're unfair from one day to the next.

I think a concrete example that happened recently was in the religion thread. “Leadership” basically told a poster to drop a certain tangent the conversation was heading in because it was too political, but not before getting one last political zinger in himself.

When the double standard was pointed out by myself and others, posts were deleted.

I won’t participate in a discussion if leadership is clearly on one side and has the power to delete posts at will. I mean, it’s their board, their prerogative, but I don’t know why anyone would want to participate in that.

 

[rockaction]

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.

 

[rockaction]

And I'm writing and answering because I indeed care about the board and want it to be a place where we have discussions of merit and import. I don't want to cause problems in doing so. At all. I'm not happy with today, to be honest, and I really wish that I hadn't brought it up back a page or so ago. The moderation is fine here and Joe's place is a place I truly relish. I just didn't want commenters stymieing legitimate conversation and factual matters that affect us because those commenters want to silence so-called political speech—a silencing not done out of any love for the community, but because of their own predilections. That's uncool.

 

[Bozeman Bruiser]

Rock, I don't know if you are indirectly pointing a finger at me with regards to the Rodgers thread. Just to clarify, I had been away a few days, was catching up on all the free agency action, and clicked on the Rodgers thread. At that point the mod had already deleted whatever was said and asked people to not talk about non-football stuff. I didn't see what you or anyone else had posted and was not trying to silence you or push any narratives by asking the mod to delete that 1 post on the page that was dancing around Rodgers something or another. I don't even know if it was for COVID or Sandy Hook, but it was one of those posts like you see in the Twitter thread where everyone is tiptoeing around politics without actually saying politics. I just prefer not to bring CNN drama into the Shark Pool.

If you were not pointing a finger at me then never mind.

And sorry you knew someone or was acquainted with someone that was a victim that day. An acquaintance of mine's daughter was shot in the head at the Las Vegas concert, she was fortunate enough to survive with a long recovery, but it made me want to choke people when I would see conspiracies floated about that shooting.

 

[rockaction]

An acquaintance of mine's daughter was shot in the head at the Las Vegas concert, she was fortunate enough to survive with a long recovery, but it made me want to choke people when I would see conspiracies floated about that shooting.

Bozeman, I'm really sorry to hear that. That is awful. I have a hard time making sense of Vegas or Sandy Hook, and I can sympathize with you being angry at conspiracy pushers. I should say that I did not know a victim of the Sandy Hook shooting. My cousin's kids went to schools and lived in the town where the Sandy Hook shooting took place, which is Newtown, CT. They were children at the time and attended public school. My mother and my aunt were frantically telephoning my cousin to make sure everything was okay with her kids that day. I believe that the children were older than elementary school students and were ultimately fine, but the moments of panic were felt at a familial level. I know the children, and I was worried as heck about them. There was nothing that spoke to conspiracies or cover-ups and actors—only a concern for the kids that day.

Rock, I don't know if you are indirectly pointing a finger at me with regards to the Rodgers thread.

It wasn't you that I really had in mind, though I did see your post and did not understand why you were calling for a moderator to remove fairly innocuous posts about Rodgers. If your reasoning behind that is that you don't want any politics injected into the discussion in the Shark Pool, then I can respect that.

It's a fine line, though. These were hardly frivolous mentions of politics nor were they virtue signals. I think what most of us were sussing out is at what point does a VP position and/or promulgation of a fairly sinister and evil conspiracy theory affect Rodgers as a football player? I think if you read my posting, I'm concerned about Rodgers as a viable QB in New York at that point. I state that I really don't necessarily want to cheer for him and that he might have a difficult time next year in NY if this is true, or, if reports were to be believed, that he might leave the team to seek political office. With that in mind, it's impossible to separate the discussion into political/apolitical territory. I believe I said to send the Jets' third-round pick for Justin Fields. That was my initial take on it.

But I've gone on long enough and beaten this to death. I simply want to explain myself to the reader regarding what I thought the other night and what I now think about the issue at hand. Thanks.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

Oh, bull####. I don't know what happened to derail things, but people were grown ups for an awful lot of pages, iirc.

Maybe somebody got something out of those pages that wouldn't have otherwise. Maybe. That's a success.

Every thread doesn't have to be the Russian bride draft. And you can't hand hold forever.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Tl; dr - it should be OK to keep trying to have adult conversations imo.

Not to be confused with adult conversations.

 

[rockaction]

Oh, bull####. I don't know what happened to derail things, but people were grown ups for an awful lot of pages, iirc.

Maybe somebody got something out of those pages that wouldn't have otherwise. Maybe. That's a success.

Every thread doesn't have to be the Russian bride draft. And you can't hand hold forever.

People were pretty awesome for the most part, I thought. But if it's rankling a decent portion of the commenters in either its subject or delivery then maybe I made a mistake. I don't know. I can only go on the feedback that I get and that I see in the thread. Perhaps I don't need to take responsibility for everything. I've been told that.

I think you're right, ultimately. I'd like to see serious discussions without people at each other's throats. My analysis of the thread was that it maybe got too personal for some. I was fine with it because I'm really not invested in proving either side's merits as the truth and the way. I have love for agnostics and atheists, and I also have love for folks who practice religion or have a religiosity that informs their actions.

So thanks for posting, Bob. I appreciate it. I'm sure others do, too.

 

[General Malaise]

Question:

If we discuss Deshaun Watson here or in the Shark Pool are we allowed to discuss his sexual misconduct or does it have to only be football?

Like....when does it cross a line? I can't have a conversation about Watson absent his checkered past. I'd say the same about Trevor Bauer or Miles Bridges or Roman Polanski or Andrew Tate. Either we can talk about them or we can't.

And I really hope we're not tossing out the discussion of criminality because it maybe might sorta bleed into political boundaries.

 

[WVU Alum]

So… why does that one guy Cavwhatever get to spout his weird conspiracy theories in the Covid thread with seeming impunity for 3 years? Or is that different?

 

[belljr]

I had no idea the former Detroit Lions WR family was so controversial

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

Sorry to hear you think that but wish you well for the future.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

Thanks. For the most part, it feels like we do ok. I know some think we suck or don't like our leadership and that's a bummer but all in all, it seems like the forums bring some value.

And for what it's worth, the threads that get closed are pretty rare. An Andrew Tate brother discussion seemed like an easy one to see it would get political. One for the Royal family that opened with talking about a conspiracy theory seemed like a normal thing for the mods to say that was one we'd rather not have. There were no suspensions of course or anything like that. Just closing a thread. Those are the only two I know of this month. On a really busy board.

For sure we don't get everything right. And we're not completely even all the time in moderating. But all in all, I'm ok with the end product and the effort folks make to create what we have here.

There will always be folks who don't like or disagree with me and how we operate. I've accepted that. And we give them a place here to voice their complaints.

But we'll keep mostly doing what we can the way we have been. As always, I have no idea if that's the "right" way. But it's how we're going to try.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The only thing I will say is it sure seems a double standard is applied here from time to time. I've seen threads started by leadership here that were borderline political to begin with under the guise of "what do you think of this" or "things to think about."

Don't ask me to link to stuff because I'm old and don't have time to search for threads, but sometimes there is hypocrisy here and that's a problem.

This is just how it goes with any discussion platform. Moderation is inherently subjective. It is impossible to apply it exactly the same in every scenario all the time. Nevermind that there are in most cases more than one moderator each with their own take on where the line should be drawn, but even amongst the same moderator things will vary day to day and situation to situation. A discussion's politicism isn't an empirical number that can just be turned on or off over a certain amount. It's subjective, and difficult to judge.

No different than holding calls in football or foul calls in basketball. It's just not possible to apply standards exactly the same to every play.

I remember this as far back as video game forums (called "bulletin boards" back then) in the early 2000's. Xbox fanboys thought the mods were Playstation biased. Playstation fanboys thought those same mods were Xbox biased.

It's kind of sad that even a bunch of 50 year olds can't figure it out, honestly. Moderation is a no win proposition. No matter what you do, both sides will think you're unfair from one day to the next.

This is what I fall back to A LOT on boards like this. Hell, I am probably on the young side and we continually see grown adults nearing retirement age with kids acting like this. Reporting each other, not being able to be civil, getting upset about words from people they probably will never meet, calling each other names to rile them up, on and on. I am not immune to most of this behavior, so let's be clear on that too. My point is more that I read all sorts of articles and posts about how bad the kids are with the tech, but I look around at the parents and shake my head more.

 

[FarFromHome]

If I don't like the temperature of a thread I just stay out of it. I try to keep things light and respectful. Message board pissing matches seem silly.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The only thing I will say is it sure seems a double standard is applied here from time to time. I've seen threads started by leadership here that were borderline political to begin with under the guise of "what do you think of this" or "things to think about."

Don't ask me to link to stuff because I'm old and don't have time to search for threads, but sometimes there is hypocrisy here and that's a problem.

If by "leadership" you mean me, please never hesitate to tell me you feel I start a political thread. I used to do these a lot back when we discussed politics here, but I think I've held off mostly since.

I do know I regularly think of a topic I'd like to ask the FFA because I value this group's opinion, but I choose not to post as it felt too political.

But I definitely do not want to have a double standard. If you see that, please let me know. Either in the thread or if you'd rather it be private, send a PM.

I can have blind spots just like anyone else so please let me know if you feel a thread is started with a double standard.

 

[zamboni]

Best to just treat this forum as a place to discuss non-serious topics like TV shows, sports, music and cooking recipes.

I think this is pretty sage advice and what I've focused on all these years here. I'm not an overly political person, but if I am going to discuss political issues, I'll reserve it among people I know and whose values I know, rather than put them out there with little knowledge of the audience.

 

[TennesseeJed]

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.

Oh, bull####. I don't know what happened to derail things, but people were grown ups for an awful lot of pages, iirc.

Maybe somebody got something out of those pages that wouldn't have otherwise. Maybe. That's a success.

Every thread doesn't have to be the Russian bride draft. And you can't hand hold forever.

How long ago was the Russian Bride draft?

Seems like it could be resurrected as the Russian Grandmother Draft now.

 

[3C's]

Man, I thought he had stage 4 cancer or something. Didn't know it was going to be about a thread getting locked.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

Oh, bull####. I don't know what happened to derail things, but people were grown ups for an awful lot of pages, iirc.

Maybe somebody got something out of those pages that wouldn't have otherwise. Maybe. That's a success.

Every thread doesn't have to be the Russian bride draft. And you can't hand hold forever.

How long ago was the Russian Bride draft?

Was probably 15 years ago. I'm embarrassed by it now. But it happened. :(

Like most of life, it's a balance staying consistent but also realizing when one is wrong and adjusting course.

 

[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.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's worth noting that the Ukraine thread seems to be doing just fine. "Every thread inherently involves politics" is only true if you look at like two or three threads.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Question:

If we discuss Deshaun Watson here or in the Shark Pool are we allowed to discuss his sexual misconduct or does it have to only be football?

Like....when does it cross a line? I can't have a conversation about Watson absent his checkered past. I'd say the same about Trevor Bauer or Miles Bridges or Roman Polanski or Andrew Tate. Either we can talk about them or we can't.

And I really hope we're not tossing out the discussion of criminality because it maybe might sorta bleed into political boundaries.

Maybe we are no longer allowed to talk about any non-football character issues? That was my take from the Aaron Rogers thread.

 

[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.

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).

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Funny the different interpretations of that. My reference to the Russian bride draft was simply to invoke a thread that was long and epic.

A 14 page thread that lasts a couple of weeks can be a positive, even if it ends poorly.

 

[Joe Schmo]

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.

 

[encaitar]

Question:

If we discuss Deshaun Watson here or in the Shark Pool are we allowed to discuss his sexual misconduct or does it have to only be football?

Like....when does it cross a line? I can't have a conversation about Watson absent his checkered past. I'd say the same about Trevor Bauer or Miles Bridges or Roman Polanski or Andrew Tate. Either we can talk about them or we can't.

And I really hope we're not tossing out the discussion of criminality because it maybe might sorta bleed into political boundaries.

Maybe we are no longer allowed to talk about any non-football character issues? That was my take from the Aaron Rogers thread.

I'm fine with the mods wanting and expecting the Shark Pool to remain focused on football, particularly as it relates to fantasy purposes. That is the point of that forum anyway. Rodgers talking about weird **** while high on Ayahuasca doesn't really relate to that IMO. However, if it also means that we can't discuss his crazy ramblings over here, I think that goes past the scope of what this forum was meant to be, which is a Free for All. Sadly it seems like it no longer is that.

 

[hagmania]

Start your own forum with hookers and blackjack imo.

The crew here does a pretty superb job. And I like most of you nerds that post.

 

[gianmarco]

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

 

[Keerock]

I know I'm in the minority, but one of the reasons I like this place is because it's one of the few places I can go and NOT have everything turn into a political debate. I rarely, if ever, talk politics outside of my home. The divisiveness it causes and the "feelings" that get hurt aren't worth it.

Maybe I'm a wuss... keep the politics out of it (but bring back the yoga pants thread)

 

[hagmania]

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. :(