Warning - Novel Length - A Forum Manifesto (3 Viewers)

[Galileo]

time to move thread to Political sub

Maybe it is time to seal this one up and pin it.  We have the same back and forth already going in the FFA moderation thread.

 

[timschochet]

We are all trying to make those threads a better place. Why does squis get the mods involved for the same 4-5 posters he disagrees with instead of ignoring them?  Let's be consistent and fair? 

Well you know MY answer to that- squistion shouldn't complain about those posters either. If he's bothered by them, he should put them on ignore as well. Isn't that what the ignore button is for? The one area in this discussion that I really take issue with Joe Bryant is on reporting. I don't plan on reporting other people, and frankly I don't like the whole idea of encouraging us to report on other people. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Joe, any chance of getting you in a werewolf game?

asking for a friend

@BoredStormtrooper

#resistance #never4get

 

[Juxtatarot]

I strongly disagree with the criticism of squistion. I find his tweet postings informative, often funny, fun to read, and they're always pertinent to the discussion at hand. I don't think any moderation is necessary in this instance. 

I mostly agree.  However, if I was doing something that annoyed large numbers of people and it wasn't just people on the other side of issues, I would stop.  

 

[fantasycurse42]

I strongly disagree with the criticism of squistion. I find his tweet postings informative, often funny, fun to read, and they're always pertinent to the discussion at hand. I don't think any moderation is necessary in this instance. 

It is NOT a coincidence that he is at the center of an argument no matter the topic

When pointing a finger at everyone else, it is a good time to take a look in the mirror for some self-reflection. 

Just my .02, I have the guy on ignore, so whatever :cstu: DAMN!!! THEY GOT RID OF THE PIGEON EMOTICON

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Well you know MY answer to that- squistion shouldn't complain about those posters either. If he's bothered by them, he should put them on ignore as well. Isn't that what the ignore button is for? The one area in this discussion that I really take issue with Joe Bryant is on reporting. I don't plan on reporting other people, and frankly I don't like the whole idea of encouraging us to report on other people. 

Agreed. Plus issues get addressed differently by Joe than Aaron or Clayton or whoever.  Not a knock on them they are human but one mod may suspend for something that another wouldn't.  

If say squis posts 10 tweets in an hour in a fast moving thread and you report one the mod may think the one is harmless and move on.  If you report all 10 the mod may think you're trolling the report feature. 

Anyway I don't want to see anyone suspended including Dr D, Hell Toupee or beaver cleaver.  If we are doing a reset then do one for those guys and let everyone be excellent to each other without past grudges.  Squis can decide for himself what type of tweets he wants to post with. 

 

[Politician Spock]

All right, we disagree on this, and we have for some time. But my larger point is: if you don't like his posts, you're free to complain about them, or ignore them, or put them on ignore. Why do you need to get Joe and the moderators involved? That seems unnecessary in this instance, IMO. 

Kind of odd to take a discussion WITH Joe and turn it into a discussion about EXCLUDING Joe. Start a different thread to discuss whether or not people should report stuff. The discussion we are having here is what does Joe allow and not allow. Twitter spamming is not allowed according to Joe. If you disagree, then disagree, but keep it on that subject. 

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I got a time out for spamming. Its in my discipline history.  I truly did not understand my offense.  I am not one to spam, and looking at my posting history from the time of my T.O I certainly did not see any such activity.  That is not to say I did not do so.  Sometimes our posts do not come to the attention of mods for weeks or even months.  The disconnect between the discipline and the offending post made it impossible for me to connect the behavior, and so to correct it.  I know mods cannot take time to explain every decision, it would be draining. That said it might be nice if there was a link to the offending post.

Perhaps that is not possible, I don't know, just a thought.  Keep up the good work.  I think I will pay this year, not for the content, but as recompense for  the bandwidth I have consumed over the years.

to provide context, when warnings are handed out, there's a drop down menu for the possible reasons. "spamming" is just the default answer, so it doesn't always mean that was actually chosen but generally means the person giving out the warning didn't change it to something. there's not a ton of options given so those labels aren't that useful generally.

as for the explanations, there's a box to leave a note for the user and a separate box to leave a note for the other moderators. don't want this thread to become something where everybody asks to know what they were suspended for. your last one was pretty minor though so I wouldn't sweat it.

 

[squistion]

It is NOT a coincidence that he is at the center of an argument no matter the topic

That seems a bit of hyperbole. I don't recall being the center of any arguments in the Yoga Pants thread.

Just my .02, I have the guy on ignore, so whatever :cstu: DAMN!!! THEY GOT RID OF THE PIGEON EMOTICON

R.I.P. little birdie. Hope the poor thing didn't suffer.

 

[waterworld]

Politics forum already down the toilet again. This was not taken seriously by the anti Trump guys. Oh well. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Perhaps Joe can give us a ruling on this example.   Informative tweet adding to the discussion?  Or troll bait?

Jim Gaffigan‏ @JimGaffigan 16h16 hours ago

Everyone is overreacting to the Trump & Putin private meeting.

Relax. It might have been Trump's performance review.

 

[squistion]

Perhaps Joe can give us a ruling on this example.   Informative tweet adding to the discussion?  Or troll bait?

Jim Gaffigan‏ @JimGaffigan 16h16 hours ago

Everyone is overreacting to the Trump & Putin private meeting.

Relax. It might have been Trump's performance review.

I commented when I posted it, that it was on a lighter note, and that was the intent. It seemed an amusing comment to share based on some of the over-the-top responses on both sides to the Trump/Putin meeting. Obviously a humorous aside is not an informative addition to any discussion, but I hope we can add an occasional moment of levity, rather than be dead serious on every political topic all the time.

 

[the rover]

Perhaps Joe can give us a ruling on this example.   Informative tweet adding to the discussion?  Or troll bait?

Jim Gaffigan‏ @JimGaffigan 16h16 hours ago

Everyone is overreacting to the Trump & Putin private meeting.

Relax. It might have been Trump's performance review.

Are you serious?  If you're triggered by an inoffensive joke by a stand-up comedian maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Are you serious?  If you're triggered by an inoffensive joke by a stand-up comedian maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard.

I'm asking a question.  

But your reaction is basically the same I had to people that are triggered by a  .  I bet if someone had responded to that tweet with a   someone would have told them they are trolling and not adding to the discussion.  So again, I'm trying to find out what Joe is looking for here.

 

[the rover]

I'm asking a question.  

But your reaction is basically the same I had to people that are triggered by a  .  I bet if someone had responded to that tweet with a   someone would have told them they are trolling and not adding to the discussion.  So again, I'm trying to find out what Joe is looking for here.

If you're so concerned about his tweets why not ignore him so the rest of us don't have to watch the same pissing match over every thread you're in?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

If you're so concerned about his tweets why not ignore him so the rest of us don't have to watch the same pissing match over every thread you're in?

 I rarely respond to one of his tweets.   You are free to ignore me if my questions are bothering you so much.  I won't be offended.

As far as the tweets go, I won't post anymore examples.  Joe can address them and several others here can report them if they choose.  

 

[Slapdash]

And we're off. 

Time is a flat circle.  We were always destined to come to this

 

[Joe Bryant]

Perhaps Joe can give us a ruling on this example.   Informative tweet adding to the discussion?  Or troll bait?

Jim Gaffigan‏ @JimGaffigan 16h16 hours ago

Everyone is overreacting to the Trump & Putin private meeting.

Relax. It might have been Trump's performance review.

Fair question. 

I'm not going to turn this into answering every scenario but on something like this, I'd say it's ok.

BUT, if you want to get a little deeper, I'd say stuff like this is not really what I'd hope this board will be.

The Gaffigan line has a very clear intention. All the people who agree can laugh and feel good that someone they like is talented and made a (legit funny) joke that reinforces what they feel and makes them kind of glad they're in the group that is cool and makes funny jokes about the President. I'd say almost as important an intention is all those people know this is a great shot at the people who support Trump and it'll be a legit burn for them. Gaffigan is super talented and stuff like this proves it. It's the perfect tone for not being overtly offensive but still scoring a ton of points on the jab scale. If you're a Trump supporter, that legit stings. 

So the guys who love the Gaffigan line get a laugh, feel good they're on the right side of things, and know the people they don't like are stung. Win all around.

Where I'd argue there's real value is that it exposes a legit issue that should be talked about. 

Unfortunately, that usually won't be the response. The people who thought it was funny will laugh and enjoy the sting. The people who are stung will now be looking to escalate the back and forth and try to find something they can retaliate with. Rinse and repeat for a year and you get what we have now. 

Bottom line - the Gaffigan stuff is ok. But if it were food, it's like candy. A little goes a long ways. In a perfect world, we'd have way more main courses and that's going to be more real and constructive talk with less jabs and stings and more answers. And yeah, I get that's pretty out there. 

 

[comfortably numb]

Did this reset include the search function?

 

[Scoresman]

I think that if you are legit "stung" by a Jim Gaffigan humorous tweet, it's time to take a step back.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

And on the note of "just put him on ignore". That's likely the way tons of things work. It's probably what I'd do if i were your guys' shoes.

BUT, there is also a line where guys don't get to just anything and tons of people have him on ignore. I'm not sure where that line is but it's something we'll work on I guess. 

In other words, yes - put the guy on ignore is a good answer. But there's a line where at some point, we as board owners have to look at why so many people have a guy on ignore. 

That make sense?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I think that if you are legit "stung" by a Jim Gaffigan humorous tweet, it's time to take a step back.  

I agree with you and I'm not stung by it, for whatever it's worth.  I'm just trying to figure out what does or doesn't fly to avoid a suspension.  Like I posted above, I never thought people would be "stung" by a laughing emoji but there are a few guys that lose their mind everytime someone uses it.  I believe Clayton said it was considered trolling to use it now unless I misunderstood him.  In some cases that's probably true but in many cases it's used because something is legitimately hilarious.

 

[General Malaise]

Another liberal circle jerk


Seems like this needs to be retired here, but I'll ask the chief.

 

[B-Deep]

@BoredStormtrooper

#resistance #never4get

free the trooper!

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another liberal circle jerk


Seems like this needs to be retired here, but I'll ask the chief.

Yes Please. Thank you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ha this is great, I just saw it. I guess you can take down the FAQ down now and pin this instead...

 

[Politician Spock]

I commented when I posted it, that it was on a lighter note that was the intent. It seemed an amusing comment to share based on some of the over-the-top responses on both sides to the Trump/Putin meeting. Obviously a humorous aside is not an informative addition to any discussion, but I hope we can add an occasional moment of levity, rather than be dead serious on every political topic all the time.

Tweets from entertainers are great!   

You could probably even spam a thread with numerous Gaffigan tweets and I would be  even If I disagreed politically.

It's the spamming of non-entertaining tweets that sucks. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Did this reset include the search function?

Sorry but no. We're stuck with the same search from Invision software that makes the forums. It's not too good. But it's all we have with the board. The volume of content we create here adds to the trouble some. 

Google of course has this type of thing where you search by the site name and forum name and words you're looking for:

site:forums.footballguys.com +"The Shark Pool (NFL Talk)" use a keyword here 
site:forums.footballguys.com +"Footballguys Free For All" use a keyword here

But Google is spotty too there.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I agree with you and I'm not stung by it, for whatever it's worth.  I'm just trying to figure out what does or doesn't fly to avoid a suspension.  Like I posted above, I never thought people would be "stung" by a laughing emoji but there are a few guys that lose their mind everytime someone uses it.  I believe Clayton said it was considered trolling to use it now unless I misunderstood him.  In some cases that's probably true but in many cases it's used because something is legitimately hilarious.

I didn't read what Clayton wrote but it's almost always clear when someone is using that emoji at someone compared to with someone.  

 

[the rover]

And on the note of "just put him on ignore". That's likely the way tons of things work. It's probably what I'd do if i were your guys' shoes.

BUT, there is also a line where guys don't get to just anything and tons of people have him on ignore. I'm not sure where that line is but it's something we'll work on I guess. 

In other words, yes - put the guy on ignore is a good answer. But there's a line where at some point, we as board owners have to look at why so many people have a guy on ignore. 

That make sense?

What kind of numbers are we talking about here?   How many people ignoring one poster would make you consider dropping the banhammer on someone?

 

[Joe Bryant]

What kind of numbers are we talking about here?   How many people ignoring one poster would make you consider dropping the banhammer on someone?

I dunno. We'll see how it goes. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I dunno. We'll see how it goes. 

Can you see who we ignore?

PS:  Asking for a friend  

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I didn't read what Clayton wrote but it's almost always clear when someone is using that emoji at someone compared to with someone.  

I've used it before to laugh at a post (like the Gaffigan tweet before).  Like Joe said, some will think I'm laughing at the joke and some will think I'm trolling the person that posting the tweet.

I've used it before to laugh at someone who just finished calling me 10 names and then asking me to engage in a conversation with them.  Many think that's trolling and I wouldn't necessarily argue with them as long as they agree the post I responded to was trolling too.  But in this example, I honestly was laughing out loud at my desk and not sitting here thinking to myself how I could troll some guy.

The only readable political threads are the ones Joe participates in.  Because people are on their best behavior when he's posting.   

 

[Limp Ditka]

I dunno. We'll see how it goes. 

You've chosen to ignore content by Joe Bryant. Options

 

[Limp Ditka]

I kid.... I kid

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Politics forum already down the toilet again. This was not taken seriously by the anti Trump guys. Oh well. 

Time out, ok?

[and btw if any of this is inappropriate I am happy to delete it, just let me know]

I wish I knew what you guys were looking for, what you expect.

When Trump threads got locked and deleted last year, I bumped the Moderation thread protesting that Trump fans were getting suspended and the threads killed. I disagreed with it. And Trump posters left in an exodus. That happened, but it should not have (ie from a moderation standpoint but also from the Trumpites standpoint).

I've said it before but it is the oddest, strangest thing to me that people who sound/post conservative have completely lost the ability to speak, respond, think in their self defense. Conservatives used to be - and I mean just like 3-4 years or so ago and for years before that - bada*ss take no prisoners political online thumpers. I mean that as a sincere compliment. It was facts, history, ideology based on right/wrong. At a minimum conservatives never had problems explaining what they believed. - Where did that go? Am I just misremembering? Now apparently mean or critical anti-Trump thread titles bother them, forget even going inside to read much less discuss their POV? I've begged, begged Trumpites to lay out their thoughts to state their beliefs. TommyBoy (great guy, I enjoy his posts) dragged liberals up and down his own (excellent) Obamacare thread for 2 years, but now apparently can't even stand the sight of mean thread titles. Explain that.

 

[Limp Ditka]

And if you're just going to leave the interpretation of the to moderators, just whack the damn thing. Not a chance in hell that's going to be handled correctly and you're insulting everyone's intelligence if you're suppressing people's ability to laugh at others lack of. 

 

[Scoresman]

I used to post and mod on a board that had a great moderation tool.  It was similar in effect to a banning, but it would essentially permanently add the problem user to everyone's ignore list.  So the problem user could still post and they would have no idea that their account was modified, but nobody would see any of it and they would be left wondering why no one was reacting/commenting on their stuff.  Worked great on trolls and spammers.  

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Time out, ok?

[and btw if any of this is inappropriate I am happy to delete it, just let me know]

I wish I knew what you guys were looking for, what you expect.

When Trump threads got locked and deleted last year, I bumped the Moderation thread protesting that Trump fans were getting suspended and the threads killed. I disagreed with it. And Trump posters left in an exodus. That happened, but it should not have (ie from a moderation standpoint but also from the Trumpites standpoint).

I've said it before but it is the oddest, strangest thing to me that people who sound/post conservative have completely lost the ability to speak, respond, think in their self defense. Conservatives used to be - and I mean just like 3-4 years or so ago and for years before that - bada*ss take no prisoners political online thumpers. I mean that as a sincere compliment. It was facts, history, ideology based on right/wrong. At a minimum conservatives never had problems explaining what they believed. - Where did that go? Am I just misremembering? Now apparently mean or critical anti-Trump thread titles bother them, forget even going inside to read much less discuss their POV? I've begged, begged Trumpites to lay out their thoughts to state their beliefs. TommyBoy (great guy, I enjoy his posts) dragged liberals up and down his own (excellent) Obamacare thread for 2 years, but now apparently can't even stand the sight of mean thread titles. Explain that.

I think most of the people you're asking this question to are in timeout.  Asked above but might have been missed.  If we're doing a reset, can all the guys that were suspended get a fair reset?  They are far from the only ones that ever trolled or participated in the nonsense that led to needing a subforum.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think most of the people you're asking this question to are in timeout.  Asked above but might have been missed.  If we're doing a reset, can all the guys that were suspended get a fair reset?  They are far from the only ones that ever trolled or participated in the nonsense that led to needing a subforum.

I will say there is an underlying frustration, guys like Sida & Higgs did speak, often volumes, about their POV, they got knocked out. They do deserve to be allowed to speak IMO. It's certainly too late now - they're certainly elsewhere - but that's where a lot of all <this> started. Moderation then would have helped prevent what has happened now.

 

[Scoresman]

Time out, ok?

[and btw if any of this is inappropriate I am happy to delete it, just let me know]

I wish I knew what you guys were looking for, what you expect.

When Trump threads got locked and deleted last year, I bumped the Moderation thread protesting that Trump fans were getting suspended and the threads killed. I disagreed with it. And Trump posters left in an exodus. That happened, but it should not have (ie from a moderation standpoint but also from the Trumpites standpoint).

I've said it before but it is the oddest, strangest thing to me that people who sound/post conservative have completely lost the ability to speak, respond, think in their self defense. Conservatives used to be - and I mean just like 3-4 years or so ago and for years before that - bada*ss take no prisoners political online thumpers. I mean that as a sincere compliment. It was facts, history, ideology based on right/wrong. At a minimum conservatives never had problems explaining what they believed. - Where did that go? Am I just misremembering? Now apparently mean or critical anti-Trump thread titles bother them, forget even going inside to read much less discuss their POV? I've begged, begged Trumpites to lay out their thoughts to state their beliefs. TommyBoy (great guy, I enjoy his posts) dragged liberals up and down his own (excellent) Obamacare thread for 2 years, but now apparently can't even stand the sight of mean thread titles. Explain that.

My guess is they don't really support Trump, they support the fact that the Democrats are losing.  

 

[B-Deep]

:reported:

  

 

[Dentist]

Im sure his social life and wallet are well ensconced in ignore.

Great use of ensconced, I hadn't seen that word in a sentence in years.

 

[tipsy mcstagger]

Great question bb.

Non profit things are cool. As you well know, this place can be awesome for pulling together. But even in non serious "sponsor me for a fund raising walk" and such, that's fine. What I mainly have in mind here are people trying to sell a product and instead of paying us for a banner or a spot in the email update, they figure they'll come in here and pitch their product. Some are subtle, most are just spammers. But for the guy who's just wanting to use the forum to advertise his product or website or youtube channel, we don't want that. 

For things where a member does something for business, for sure that's cool. LIke many of you, I've loved following Tipsy's McClure's BBQ. We're all cheering for him. I was just there a couple months ago. Sebowski mentioned he is an owner in a brewery. Love hearing about that. I think most of us have a feel for what's ok there. When it's "one of us" doing a business, for sure that's cool to talk about. I guess the only way I'd see that maybe not working is if one of the posters launched a competing product to Footballguys. We've always been firm about allowing other football sites to advertise so we might want to talk about that. But for stuff like Tipsy, rock on.

Great question. 

phew..... I 'm glad I didn't have to read through all these pages to get the answer I needed.   Thanks for letting me use this place as a blog for my biz..   It was never intended to be a platform for advertising as 99.5% of y'all don't live here.  BUT....It has done good things for my biz because I have fed a lot of y'all and a lot of y'all have sent folks to me even without having met me much less eat my AWESOME food.

 

[The Commish]

Where did that go?

It's tough to defend something you really don't believe in, but "the sides" keep it going even if it's a frivolous competition at this point.  I think you see the disappearance of those "badass" guys corresponds with the disappearance of the core beliefs of the party as a necessity to "winning" over all else for the party.  My  

There's a reason, if given enough time, a person stops defending Trump.  He's a hill literally NO ONE wants to die on.  When pressed, it's easier to give up because they didn't believe in him in the first place.

 

[trident]

I used to post and mod on a board that had a great moderation tool.  It was similar in effect to a banning, but it would essentially permanently add the problem user to everyone's ignore list.  So the problem user could still post and they would have no idea that their account was modified, but nobody would see any of it and they would be left wondering why no one was reacting/commenting on their stuff.  Worked great on trolls and spammers.  

What an interesting idea. 

 

[AAABatteries]

All right, we disagree on this, and we have for some time. But my larger point is: if you don't like his posts, you're free to complain about them, or ignore them, or put them on ignore. Why do you need to get Joe and the moderators involved? That seems unnecessary in this instance, IMO. 

Because he (and the trolls who replied to him or instigated with him) ruined most of the political threads.  I enjoyed reading them and still try to on occasion - I think Joe would like to know when posters are polluting the threads with non-ending arguments that usually started from one of his tweets.  The new PDRTT or whatever it is is actually a good thing for everybody to follow and hopefully those trolls start getting banned.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Politics forum already down the toilet again. This was not taken seriously by the anti Trump guys. Oh well. 

Please use the report button and let us know what posts you're talking about @waterworld

 

[Joe Bryant]

Time out, ok?

[and btw if any of this is inappropriate I am happy to delete it, just let me know]

I wish I knew what you guys were looking for, what you expect.

When Trump threads got locked and deleted last year, I bumped the Moderation thread protesting that Trump fans were getting suspended and the threads killed. I disagreed with it. And Trump posters left in an exodus. That happened, but it should not have (ie from a moderation standpoint but also from the Trumpites standpoint).

I've said it before but it is the oddest, strangest thing to me that people who sound/post conservative have completely lost the ability to speak, respond, think in their self defense. Conservatives used to be - and I mean just like 3-4 years or so ago and for years before that - bada*ss take no prisoners political online thumpers. I mean that as a sincere compliment. It was facts, history, ideology based on right/wrong. At a minimum conservatives never had problems explaining what they believed. - Where did that go? Am I just misremembering? Now apparently mean or critical anti-Trump thread titles bother them, forget even going inside to read much less discuss their POV? I've begged, begged Trumpites to lay out their thoughts to state their beliefs. TommyBoy (great guy, I enjoy his posts) dragged liberals up and down his own (excellent) Obamacare thread for 2 years, but now apparently can't even stand the sight of mean thread titles. Explain that.

I'm not sure I understand your point @SaintsInDome2006

Do you want something to change or are you just stating you don't understand why Conservatives aren't speaking up?

 

[Sinn Fein]

What is the ruling on spamming the board with multiple, identical posts?  Is that ban-worthy?  Asking for a friend...