YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE SUSPENDED! (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

That isn't trolling. HTH

Alright. I’m not going to get into an argument about definitions. I think we’re all on the same page here. 

 

[ShamrockPride]

Exhibit 1A.

He's not incorrect though. And he's doing it in the correct thread.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The solution, as others have stated is simple. Suspend the repeat offenders with increasingly harsher penalties, and if that doesn't work then permaban them.

Thanks. How exactly are you defining "offender"? 

I'm not trying to be cute. If you have a punishment for something, even one as minor as suspending the person, I think you have to be able to clearly define the offense. 

 

[GoBirds]

Censorship....yeah thats a great way to run a bulletin board.  Wow

This is what confuses me is that many clearly want to censor out anything they don't like from views to posting style......yet many of those same posters insist this isn't an echo chamber. That is exactly what is created from that type behavior. 

 

[tonydead]

Joe this played out as you feared because you didn't address the real problem, which is dealing with the trouble makers who seemingly in every thread are subtly or not so subtly trolling others here with the apparent intent of shutting down the discussion or hijacking the thread.

The solution, as others have stated is simple. Suspend the repeat offenders with increasingly harsher penalties, and if that doesn't work then permaban them.

I understand the fix I suggest will make the discussion probably even less diverse, as in my opinion, the worst repeat offenders seem to be on one side of the political spectrum. However, continuing to look the other way or using these mini-suspensions does not seem to be working.

Shutting the down the forum entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This forum has had some really good discussion in it and it shouldn't be ended by a few folks who are not serious about talking about politics at all.

I hope you decide to keep this place going.

Happy New Year!

The trailer park side of the political spectrum? 

You really think there are a bunch of people who spend time here purposely trying to get the forum shut down?  I mean if we took a look at who you are talking about and the time they actually spend posting here it would add up to anywhere near the time people spend who run around trying to stomp out anything Trump?

 

[timschochet]

He's not incorrect though. And he's doing it in the correct thread.

Well...I think he was very incorrect about me. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Thanks. How exactly are you defining "offender"? 

I'm not trying to be cute. If you have a punishment for something, even one as minor as suspending the person, I think you have to be able to clearly define the offense. 

Contempt of a gracious host.  You have expressed yourself.  You have relayed that this is exhausting you.  Some still insist on trying your patience.  Hire Miss Manners.  If she finds the behavior rude or contemptable and would find it rude or contemptable at a dinner party, suspend those folks.

Is Miss Manners still alive?  If not hire someone's grandma.

 

[timschochet]

You really think there are a bunch of people who spend time here purposely trying to get the forum shut down?  

Personally? No. 

But I do think there are a few people here who, from time to time, enjoy screwing around and destroying good discussions without any regard for the consequences. They’re not deliberately trying to do anything except cause trouble and see what happens.

And nobody does this 100%’of the time either. Sometimes the worst offenders can also engage in meaningful discussion- sometimes at the same time! Sometimes people who offer good discussion 95% of the time can turn on a dime and suddenly troll somebody. That’s why this stuff is so hard to regulate. 

 

[KCitons]

The trailer park side of the political spectrum? 

You really think there are a bunch of people who spend time here purposely trying to get the forum shut down?  I mean if we took a look at who you are talking about and the time they actually spend posting here it would add up to anywhere near the time people spend who run around trying to stomp out anything Trump?

I think there are. Not sure if I would classify it as "a bunch of people". There is a thread on another forum discussing how terrible this place, and it's posters, are. Why do people hack systems? Or create viruses? They just want to take something away from other people. I think there are posters here that would be very happy to have this place shut down. Because they know it takes something away from the posters that value it. 

 

[squistion]

Thanks. How exactly are you defining "offender"? 

I'm not trying to be cute. If you have a punishment for something, even one as minor as suspending the person, I think you have to be able to clearly define the offense. 

I am tempted to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity, that he couldn't define it, but "I know it when I see it."

Without naming names, there are posters here IMO who go from thread to thread and repeatedly ridicule other posters or points-of-view with snark, rolling emojis or inane comments. Putting them on ignore is not always helpful as the posts are bumped or quoted by others. 

If someone has this history (which I would think is easy to document) they would fall into the category of repeat offender. I imagine after a certain number of posts, they could be asked to refrain from continuing in this manner and if they fail to comply, suspensions could be issued (being increasingly harsher with each infraction). 

I understand what I am suggesting is having the mods making judgment calls of when a line is crossed as to what is acceptable and what isn't - but I don't see another way around it because the current status quo doesn't seem to be working. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Well...I think he was very incorrect about me. 

Which part?  You did accuse him of trolling.  You did threaten to return fire with extra snark.  

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

The trailer park side of the political spectrum? 

You really think there are a bunch of people who spend time here purposely trying to get the forum shut down?  I mean if we took a look at who you are talking about and the time they actually spend posting here it would add up to anywhere near the time people spend who run around trying to stomp out anything Trump?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think there are. Not sure if I would classify it as "a bunch of people". There is a thread on another forum discussing how terrible this place, and it's posters, are. Why do people hack systems? Or create viruses? They just want to take something away from other people. I think there are posters here that would be very happy to have this place shut down. Because they know it takes something away from the posters that value it. 

I do think there are some people who like to stir the pot. That's true in real life. It's 100x true on a platform with anonymity. 

I absolutely do not think there are many people at all purposely trying to the forum shut down.

Although I'm not surprised by much of anything. There are people who think I am trying to get the forum shut down. 

What I do think is happening is a massive lack of empathy. People seem incapable of assuming the best of the other. They seem incapable of assuming a neutral motive from the other. It's why people seem baffled at how others see things.

I get it. If I've got one thing I think I do well, it's understanding human nature and I am regularly baffled by how people behave. 

 

[timschochet]

Which part?  You did accuse him of trolling.  You did threaten to return fire with extra snark.  

The part where you wrote “that’s what needs to go.” 

I don’t think it does. I like it when @HellToupee trolls/exaggerates/busts people’s privates/ whatever you want to call it. I like it when people, including me, respond in kind. I think it’s obvious to most people reading that we’re trying to lighten things up and we’re not to be taken seriously. I don’t think it’s a cause of any problems around here. So I think you’re wrong. 

 

[tonydead]

I think there are. Not sure if I would classify it as "a bunch of people". There is a thread on another forum discussing how terrible this place, and it's posters, are. Why do people hack systems? Or create viruses? They just want to take something away from other people. I think there are posters here that would be very happy to have this place shut down. Because they know it takes something away from the posters that value it. 

Oh I know they exist, they aren't unicorns, but close.  The statement was that enough where on one side of the political spectrum that it would become more diverse when they all got perma banned.   Good grief.

 

[supermike80]

The part where you wrote “that’s what needs to go.” 

I don’t think it does. I like it when @HellToupee trolls/exaggerates/busts people’s privates/ whatever you want to call it. I like it when people, including me, respond in kind. I think it’s obvious to most people reading that we’re trying to lighten things up and we’re not to be taken seriously. I don’t think it’s a cause of any problems around here. So I think you’re wrong. 

As a general rule I agree that if everyone would just lighten up a little bit, things would be way cooler here

 

[Joe Bryant]

I am tempted to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity, that he couldn't define it, but "I know it when I see it."

Without naming names, there are posters here IMO who go from thread to thread and repeatedly ridicule other posters or points-of-view with snark, rolling emojis or inane comments. Putting them on ignore is not always helpful as the posts are bumped or quoted by others. 

If someone has this history (which I would think is easy to document) they would fall into the category of repeat offender. I imagine after a certain number of posts, they could be asked to refrain from continuing in this manner and if they fail to comply, suspensions could be issued (being increasingly harsher with each infraction). 

I understand what I am suggesting is having the mods making judgment calls of when a line is crossed as to what is acceptable and what isn't - but I don't see another way around it because the current status quo doesn't seem to be working. 

The Stewart line is nice and I've used it before. It's a little tough when it comes to actually applying it for a punishment.

These are separate posts from different people that were recently reported where the person reporting thought the poster should be suspended for making these posts:

"BUT THEY SOUGHT ASYLUM IN THE WRONG LOCATION!!!!!11111"

"You troll this thread non stop."

"Polls mean nothing to you and you put zero value in them, but still you took the time to post this. Okie Dokie."

"wat?"

"I know a guy that loves to ask others to prove every post they make certainly would be stand-up and do the same to back up their claims and not troll the thread. "

Maybe all of the people who posted these should not be allowed to post again after making these posts. I'm just not able to go there. On the "I know it when I see it", I'm not able to see it there. Yet these posts are what's typically reported.

 

[tonydead]

I am tempted to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity, that he couldn't define it, but "I know it when I see it."

Without naming names, there are posters here IMO who go from thread to thread and repeatedly ridicule other posters or points-of-view with snark, rolling emojis or inane comments. Putting them on ignore is not always helpful as the posts are bumped or quoted by others. 

If someone has this history (which I would think is easy to document) they would fall into the category of repeat offender. I imagine after a certain number of posts, they could be asked to refrain from continuing in this manner and if they fail to comply, suspensions could be issued (being increasingly harsher with each infraction). 

I understand what I am suggesting is having the mods making judgment calls of when a line is crossed as to what is acceptable and what isn't - but I don't see another way around it because the current status quo doesn't seem to be working. 

There are a whole bunch of them that do it in one specific thread.   

With all due respect, you're a little nutso even thinking this hasn't been done/tried.  People get suspended all the time, I heard of perma bans.  If you're honest with yourself you are just advocating for your safe place echo chamber.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I do think there are some people who like to stir the pot. That's true in real life. It's 100x true on a platform with anonymity. 

I absolutely do not think there are many people at all purposely trying to the forum shut down.

Although I'm not surprised by much of anything. There are people who think I am trying to get the forum shut down. 

What I do think is happening is a massive lack of empathy. People seem incapable of assuming the best of the other. They seem incapable of assuming a neutral motive from the other. It's why people seem baffled at how others see things.

I get it. If I've got one thing I think I do well, it's understanding human nature and I am regularly baffled by how people behave. 

Many forget that arguments are not won, more less discussions.  They are presented.  If they have merit they will find traction all on their own, without our pushing them.

 

[KCitons]

Oh I know they exist, they aren't unicorns, but close.  The statement was that enough where on one side of the political spectrum that it would become more diverse when they all got perma banned.   Good grief.

I don't know if it would get better. That's probably never going to happen because we discuss a wide range of topics here. I can speak from personal experience. I've been indifferent to Trump, and received moderate backlash from the majority here. I've then changed my stance to anti Trump and received moderate support from the majority here. I still have a strong pro gun stance that goes against many in the majority here. I can think of things like abortion, immigration, etc where I differ to varying degrees.

I should start a poll and see how many posters here would have suggested that I be banned for my activity here in the first half of 2019. I would guess it would land somewhere around 80%. Much like Noonan, I was called a troll numerous times. Other posters were told not to engage me. Suddenly, I agreed with the majority on the topic of impeachment and the heavens opened up and posters have taken me off ignore. 

If I was a troll then, why am I not a troll now? (just to those with opposing opinion). 

 

[parrot]

There are a whole bunch of them that do it in one specific thread.   

With all due respect, you're a little nutso even thinking this hasn't been done/tried.  People get suspended all the time, I heard of perma bans.  If you're honest with yourself you are just advocating for your safe place echo chamber.

Which thread?

 

[timschochet]

  Yesterday one guy that dominates every thread with volume

Also, come to think of it, I didn’t much like this part either. First off why not just name me? I ended up having to name myself so that anyone reading this would know who you were referring to.  Personally I find it a little crass not to come out and name the person you’re criticizing. 

Second, I certainly post a lot in certain threads. Not in “every thread”. And I’ve never understood why it would deserve criticism. And I don’t get why you included it, or why @John Blutarsky would start posts  about what time I wake up to post. THIS, IMO, is the sort of thing that “needs to go.” 

 

[John Blutarsky]

Also, come to think of it, I didn’t much like this part either. First off why not just name me? I ended up having to name myself so that anyone reading this would know who you were referring to.  Personally I find it a little crass not to come out and name the person you’re criticizing. 

Second, I certainly post a lot in certain threads. Not in “every thread”. And I’ve never understood why it would deserve criticism. And I don’t get why you included it, or why @John Blutarsky would start threads about what time I wake up to post. THIS, IMO, is the sort of thing that “needs to go.” 

I NEVER started THREADS about you Tim. This is what needs to go! Wow

 

[KCitons]

Which thread?

One example for me was the Democratic debate thread. For a couple of hours, those truly interested in discussing the candidates were having civil conversations. Towards the end of the debate a few posters showed up and brought the thread down a few notches. I decided to take my leave (and posted that) because it was pointless to try to glean any information after that. 

 

[AAABatteries]

I do think there are some people who like to stir the pot. That's true in real life. It's 100x true on a platform with anonymity. 

I absolutely do not think there are many people at all purposely trying to the forum shut down.

Although I'm not surprised by much of anything. There are people who think I am trying to get the forum shut down. 

What I do think is happening is a massive lack of empathy. People seem incapable of assuming the best of the other. They seem incapable of assuming a neutral motive from the other. It's why people seem baffled at how others see things.

I get it. If I've got one thing I think I do well, it's understanding human nature and I am regularly baffled by how people behave. 

I agree that there’s not many that want this place shut down - that would be a very small number of people.  But there’s people who absolutely enjoy arguing and trying to help their side win and they don’t really care how they do it.

And I agree the sides no longer want to empathize with each other - that to me is one of the bad side effects of the Trump era.  I really before felt like folks like both Bush and Obama and Clinton would just disagree and maybe occasionally throw jabs.  But they were always civil with each other.  Trump intentionally antagonizes people and not only doesn’t apologize but doubles down and encourages it.  IMO, he would revel in how people treat each other on this forum - and that’s really depressing to think we elected this guy to lead us.

 

[timschochet]

I NEVER started THREADS about you Tim. This is what needs to go! Wow

I meant posts. I will correct. 

 

[HellToupee]

why @John Blutarsky would start threads about what time I wake up to post. THIS, IMO, is the sort of thing that “needs to go.

I don’t recall JB ever starting a thread on your posting habitats. I do recall a back and forth exchange where this came up. Not everyone is chaste , everyone is guilty  in the psf of questionable posting on occasion 

 

[GoBirds]

I don't know if it would get better. That's probably never going to happen because we discuss a wide range of topics here. I can speak from personal experience. I've been indifferent to Trump, and received moderate backlash from the majority here. I've then changed my stance to anti Trump and received moderate support from the majority here. I still have a strong pro gun stance that goes against many in the majority here. I can think of things like abortion, immigration, etc where I differ to varying degrees.

I should start a poll and see how many posters here would have suggested that I be banned for my activity here in the first half of 2019. I would guess it would land somewhere around 80%. Much like Noonan, I was called a troll numerous times. Other posters were told not to engage me. Suddenly, I agreed with the majority on the topic of impeachment and the heavens opened up and posters have taken me off ignore. 

If I was a troll then, why am I not a troll now? (just to those with opposing opinion). 

Seriously, you are surprised by the bolded? 
 

 

[AAABatteries]

I don't know if it would get better. That's probably never going to happen because we discuss a wide range of topics here. I can speak from personal experience. I've been indifferent to Trump, and received moderate backlash from the majority here. I've then changed my stance to anti Trump and received moderate support from the majority here. I still have a strong pro gun stance that goes against many in the majority here. I can think of things like abortion, immigration, etc where I differ to varying degrees.

I should start a poll and see how many posters here would have suggested that I be banned for my activity here in the first half of 2019. I would guess it would land somewhere around 80%. Much like Noonan, I was called a troll numerous times. Other posters were told not to engage me. Suddenly, I agreed with the majority on the topic of impeachment and the heavens opened up and posters have taken me off ignore. 

If I was a troll then, why am I not a troll now? (just to those with opposing opinion). 

I’ll be honest - I thought your DUI/gun comparison stuff was kind of crazy  never paid attention to your political views.

 

[KCitons]

Seriously, you are surprised by the bolded? 
 

Not really. But it shows that we are only judged by our stance on topics. Tomorrow will be a new topic and perhaps a new chance to change teams. 

I hope we never have another 9/11, but I'm curious what the PSF would look like if it happened today? Would we still find reasons to attack each other, instead of the real enemy?

 

[HellToupee]

One example for me was the Democratic debate thread. For a couple of hours, those truly interested in discussing the candidates were having civil conversations. Towards the end of the debate a few posters showed up and brought the thread down a few notches. I decided to take my leave (and posted that) because it was pointless to try to glean any information after that. 

Gobble ,gobble, one of us

 

[AAABatteries]

Not really. But it shows that we are only judged by our stance on topics. Tomorrow will be a new topic and perhaps a new chance to change teams. 

I hope we never have another 9/11, but I'm curious what the PSF would look like if it happened today? Would we still find reasons to attack each other, instead of the real enemy?

I used to think that would bring us together - no longer do, some peoples first response would be to blame Trump and then another group would blame Obama for not calling them radical.

 

[KCitons]

I’ll be honest - I thought your DUI/gun comparison stuff was kind of crazy  never paid attention to your political views.

I think lots of opinions here are crazy. I choose to engage, absorb, or ignore every day.

The poor analogy I would use - When you login to FBG's and go to the Free For All, do you go into every thread to post your opinion? I don't. I scan the first page and see if there is anything new that piques my interest or has been updated since I last posted. The PSF seems different. I feel like some of you have to have an opinion on every topic in there. Mostly because it's tied to a dislike for Trump. 

Pick your battles. I didn't post in many Trump threads. (or many PSF threads) A majority of my posts in the first half of 2019 was in the gun thread. It was something I had a strong opinion on. 

 

[KCitons]

I used to think that would bring us together - no longer do, some peoples first response would be to blame Trump and then another group would blame Obama for not calling them radical.

And this is why we are doomed. 

 

[msommer]

I’ll be honest - I thought your DUI/gun comparison stuff was kind of crazy  never paid attention to your political views.

Still don't.

 

[KCitons]

Gobble ,gobble, one of us

Honestly, I don't want to part of either group.

At times, and more lately, it seems everyone defaults to the the worst they can be. 

This isn't an election. I don't have to hold my nose and pick one. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

"You troll this thread non stop."

Regarding this one, assuming this was in a "substantive thread" (I think that''s what Maurile called them), it's a clear violation of his rules -- if people want to bicker about trolling and moderation, keep it out of the substantive threads and post about it in one of the moderation threads.  I don't think moderators and posters are sticking to that and I find that disappointing.  Frankly, I thought Maurile's idea on this was fantastic.

 

[tonydead]

Regarding this one, assuming this was in a "substantive thread" (I think that''s what Maurile called them), it's a clear violation of his rules -- if people want to bicker about trolling and moderation, keep it out of the substantive threads and post about it in one of the moderation threads.  I don't think moderators and posters are sticking to that and I find that disappointing.  Frankly, I thought Maurile's idea on this was fantastic.

Disagree with the bold.  It was the one post out of the bunch, that I saw, that got a warning.  I think the warning was justified because it was in response to a post that was also against the rules.  A lot of times if it's two people going at it they give a warning for both of them to stop.  I think that's a good way to go.

Even though I've complained about the moderation being fair at times, I wholeheartedly disagree with the people on this page that are blaming the moderation for it not working out.  If people are looking for root causes it's not enough of the posters taking personal responsibility and looking in the mirror.

 

[Slapdash]

The Stewart line is nice and I've used it before. It's a little tough when it comes to actually applying it for a punishment.

These are separate posts from different people that were recently reported where the person reporting thought the poster should be suspended for making these posts:

"BUT THEY SOUGHT ASYLUM IN THE WRONG LOCATION!!!!!11111"

"You troll this thread non stop."

"Polls mean nothing to you and you put zero value in them, but still you took the time to post this. Okie Dokie."

"wat?"

"I know a guy that loves to ask others to prove every post they make certainly would be stand-up and do the same to back up their claims and not troll the thread. "

Maybe all of the people who posted these should not be allowed to post again after making these posts. I'm just not able to go there. On the "I know it when I see it", I'm not able to see it there. Yet these posts are what's typically reported.

I get what you mean and I'm generally a fan of less moderation.  Seems like these are mostly things we have been told not to be posting though.  So when someone posts similar over and over....that is probably what a lot of people mean by repeat low-value postings.

Anyways, this all seems like a weird thing to have so much traffic on for NYE.  Happy New Year everyone.

 

[That one guy]

:MugatuCrazyPillsGif:

For realz, guys, this isn’t hard and the only reason it appears so is because you allow it to be.  “Trolls” are not the problem, not even close.  A majority here claim to have a rather keen sense of who/what is trolling while simultaneously continue to be the ones who interact with that which is labeled as trolling.  The problem is and always has been everyone’s willful engagement with what they know pushes their buttons.  STOP!  JUST EFFING STOP! You are adults with the power of choice, and if you choose to keep interacting with posts/posters that you know are done so to aggravate you, that is YOUR fault!

I do think moderation would benefit from a more lax position, a sort of “let ‘em play” approach to the 4th quarter of a game.  No one, absolutely no one, should expect to get on an interwebs forum and find every word or even a simple majority of posts as favorable.  Certainly we should avoid and call out over the line things, such as personal attacks and abhorrent beliefs, but I don’t see such extremes as an actual problem here.  Quit poking each other, though!  You know when you’re doing it, so STOP!

Lastly, quit taking this place and yourself so damn seriously!  Yes, we’re discussong topics that do have tangible impacts on real life, but the reality is we’re gathered together for these discussions on an interwebs site centered around magic football!  Think about that next time you’re about to complain that someone’s post or posting style is bothersome to you...press the backspace button and don’t click submit 

 

[parasaurolophus]

How about limiting the number of posts that a person can report? Or how about after reporting the same person a certain number of times you have to put them on ignore or face suspension yourself. 

Seems to me reporting has become very commonplace and is probably dominated by a small amount of posters. 

Moderating right now has got to be as annoying as heck.

 

[sho nuff]

All very true.  There are also guys here who create posts with only the intent of getting a reaction and goading people then play victim when getting said reaction. It’s the definition of trolling but it’s also impossible to manage.  

But its not true...the person he is talking about with links os me...and its a disingenuous point.  
I ask for links of people im engaging in discussion.  If they ask me I will provide links as well.  
Where it’s disingenuous...this poster expects me to answer his questions or requests for links.  Why is that a problem?  Ive made it clear publicly and in private with him (and another poster) that I wont ever respond to them.  Ive asked politely for the posts to stop.  I have not replied to him in 2 years.  Why should I be expected to answer those requests when they know I wont respond?  Ive found several to not be reasonable to engage in discussion so I dont do so.  I only ask they do the same. 

 

[The Commish]

Not really. But it shows that we are only judged by our stance on topics. Tomorrow will be a new topic and perhaps a new chance to change teams. 

I hope we never have another 9/11, but I'm curious what the PSF would look like if it happened today? Would we still find reasons to attack each other, instead of the real enemy?

I used to think that would bring us together - no longer do, some peoples first response would be to blame Trump and then another group would blame Obama for not calling them radical.

Were you guys not around for the 9/11 threads?  This place has the capacity to hate the 9/11 attackers and those of us who didn't think it was a good idea to go into Iraq afterwards much less Afghanistan.  Just ask any of us who were opposed to those invasions from the beginning.

 

[KCitons]

Were you guys not around for the 9/11 threads?  This place has the capacity to hate the 9/11 attackers and those of us who didn't think it was a good idea to go into Iraq afterwards much less Afghanistan.  Just ask any of us who were opposed to those invasions from the beginning.

I wasn't around for 9/11. Spent most of my time in the SP until the Boston Marathon bombings. I remember that thread pretty well. Along with the missing Malaysian airplane thread. I don't recall bickering in those threads. Just a group of people sharing info and working towards a common goal. 

 

[The Commish]

I wasn't around for 9/11. Spent most of my time in the SP until the Boston Marathon bombings. I remember that thread pretty well. Along with the missing Malaysian airplane thread. I don't recall bickering in those threads. Just a group of people sharing info and working towards a common goal. 

You missed some doozies...wish they were still around to read.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I get what you mean and I'm generally a fan of less moderation.  Seems like these are mostly things we have been told not to be posting though.  So when someone posts similar over and over....that is probably what a lot of people mean by repeat low-value postings.

Anyways, this all seems like a weird thing to have so much traffic on for NYE.  Happy New Year everyone.

Understood. And that's the problem.

Everyone wants way more moderation. We want to permanently remove the guy who didn't actually violate an actual rule. But we want everyone to lighten up and be way less sensitive to post the jokes we think are ok. 

I truly don't know the answer. 

What I do know is I'm back to spending tons of effort on an end product most people seem to think is useless. And I don't really disagree. I agree it's pretty useless. We'll see. 

 

[HellToupee]

Were you guys not around for the 9/11 threads?  This place has the capacity to hate the 9/11 attackers and those of us who didn't think it was a good idea to go into Iraq afterwards much less Afghanistan.  Just ask any of us who were opposed to those invasions from the beginning.

I remember it like this as well and was wrongly  for going into Iraq 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Just got a PM that was

I was told by - whoever gets to hide behind the moderator account - to not waste his time - seriously F that guy - whoever he is.

Sigh.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

But its not true...the person he is talking about with links os me...and its a disingenuous point.  
I ask for links of people im engaging in discussion.  If they ask me I will provide links as well.  
Where it’s disingenuous...this poster expects me to answer his questions or requests for links.  Why is that a problem?  Ive made it clear publicly and in private with him (and another poster) that I wont ever respond to them.  Ive asked politely for the posts to stop.  I have not replied to him in 2 years.  Why should I be expected to answer those requests when they know I wont respond?  Ive found several to not be reasonable to engage in discussion so I dont do so.  I only ask they do the same. 

So you're saying if all the guys that post in the Trump thread asked you to stop and told you they won't answer your questions then you will politely stop engaging all of them?

 

[sho nuff]

Just got a PM that was

Sigh.

Yeah..that’s disheartening.