timschochet
Footballguy
This is probably the most illuminating and insightful post I have ever read on this subject matter. Thank you.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE SUSPENDED! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
- Status
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
The labeling of someone as a troll is far too broad nowadays. An internet troll was (and still is) someone whose only intent was to disrupt and essentially prank a forum. Basically just trying to get a rise out of people for a laugh. Now people are labeling people they disagree with as trolls, most often in cases where the person with an opposing view is less articulate. Just because someone doesn't type with wikkidpissah-like prose or Henry Ford-like knowledge and skill, it does not raise the likelihood that they are a troll. If Joe goes the route of banning people for being less articulate, doing so "bouncer style" like someone here suggested, it will be a stain on this website. I don't want to see the forum shut down, but that would be a much more respectable response. Personally, I think the most logical solution is to develop a simple, crystal clear set of violations (name calling, threats, emoji responses, etc) that receive unwavering timeouts with those TOs increasing in length for each occurrence.
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee
Footballguy
I’m thinking we could create our posts and send it in for review. Now the “reviewer “ aka the mod can decide if it’s worthy to be read , maybe it’s a little low effort and gets kicked back for further work or maybe it’s deemed worthy to be read here at the Algonquin round table.
I don’t know , just thinking out loud
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
The problem seems to be in the middle. Obvious traditional trolling should be easy for everyone to spot and moderators to deal with. I agree that false accusations can also be a problem.
But what about the subtle trolling where people as pushing a little but trying to stay within "rules"? I think that's one of the things that is really damaging the board.
KCitons
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Good idea. Maybe 2 random days a month just to reboot and have the regulars take a day off.
James Daulton
Footballguy
Yep. Trump supporters frame all criticism of them like we're all extremist who considers anyone who supports Trump to be racist and not smart. They go to this well over and over again so most reasonable communication is impossible.
Trump supporters also seem to just parrot back his talking points like they're fact. For example the economy, Trump supporters will continually repeat that this is the best economy in the history of the US, Trump has single handily improved trade deals, lowered unemployment to levels never before seen, etc. As if Trump had much if anything to do with the vast majority of the heavy lifting. The facts are that unemployment is exactly 1.0% lower than when Trump took office. Obama's term saw unemployment go down over 5%. Unemployment was "fake" during Obama's term, remember the workforce participation arguments that Trump and his supporters made time after time?
Trump's GDP is virtually identical to Obama's and the unnecessary increase in the deficit will be crippling to our economy in the near'ish future.
The trade imbalance is at an all time high as is illegal immigration.
The country is more divided than ever and the man at the top is the one fanning the flames.
Trump is almost never held accountable by his supporters and that's why he considers himself above the law.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I mostly agree with this, although I would submit that the Grand Canyon-like gap between the left and right pre-dates 2010. It got bad late in the Clinton administration, and then got a little better following 9-11, but once the Iraq War and all of the fall-out from that took place, the chasm became as wide as ever, and in the 10's, it just kept growing bigger and bigger. And I see no end in sight. :( :(
Last edited by a moderator:
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Thanks for the thorough response.
I need to spend some time thinking on it, and will give a better reply once I have my thoughts in order. Tonight most likely.
dkp993
Footballguy
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
Wow, 29 pages.
I don't really think this is that hard. Just ban people who aren't advancing the discussion. If you see it in one thread, you've very probably got the right folks regardless of how many threads you check out.
If the hammer happens to fall more heavily on one side of the aisle, that's just how it works out.
I don't really think this is that hard. Just ban people who aren't advancing the discussion. If you see it in one thread, you've very probably got the right folks regardless of how many threads you check out.
If the hammer happens to fall more heavily on one side of the aisle, that's just how it works out.
I think there’s some truth to this, but I think it’s partially explained by at least two very different reasons.
1. Trump doesn’t care about factual accuracy.[citation needed] It is perhaps not a coincidence that many of his supporters don’t seem very careful with their factual assertions, either, which makes it difficult to converse with them.
2. There are a number of reasonable Trump supporters who wouldn’t mind having grown-up conversations about politics, but this forum makes it impossible because of all the left-wing trolls. So the reasonable Trump supporters have given up even trying to have grown-up conversations with us.
I think point number one is partially true and partially overblown. As evidence that there might be something about personality traits that causes truth-seeking to be negatively correlated with supporting Trump, I'd point out that perhaps the two fields that seem most dedicated to sorting out truth from fiction and promoting truth — mainstream journalism and academia — are almost completely devoid of Trump supporters (and are often reviled by them).
But I think the point is overblown because there are plenty of people on the left who are also pretty terrible, in some ways, at discerning truth from fiction. Trump supporters don’t have anything resembling a monopoly on goofy beliefs about astrology, chemtrails, vaccines, extraterrestrials, homeopathy, or the truth about 9/11. Republicans are bad at climate science not because of any quirky personality trait, but because the oil and gas industry spends billions of dollars targeting them, directly and indirectly, with misinformation. If there were a similar group targeting left-leaning politicians and voters on some issue, I have little doubt that many would fall for it. Come to think of it, ask most people with a strong opinion that Citizens United was incorrectly decided to recite the facts of the case or the legal reasoning supporting the holding ... and prepare for a jumbled mess of misstatements.
There is definitely some truth to point number two as well. Anytime a Trump supporter shares his honest beliefs on this forum, he is likely to get numerous hostile responses — many smugly dismissing his position as dumb, and many outright accusing him of bad faith. Who wants to put up with that?
A lot of posts from my anti-Trump friends seem less calculated to promote fruitful discussion than to win a minor battle in the great war between pro-Trump and anti-Trump forces. The thing about war, though, is that it quickly becomes tedious, especially for the side that is outnumbered.
As evidence against point number two, I submit that it is hard to think of any Trump supporters — not just here, but anywhere, including prominent conservative publications — who consistently make an effort to get their facts right and to avoid repeating demonstrably false talking points. I’ve seen Ben Shapiro acknowledge facts inconvenient to his side (and publicly correct his own factual errors), but he’s not a true Trump supporter. I’m struggling to come up with examples of well known MAGA personalities who seem careful to avoid perpetuating factual errors. If I were a Trump supporter, I believe I would consider this a bad sign. Part of my struggle, however, may be because, while such people do exist, I’m not exposed to them since they’re not part of my bubble. Maybe they’re not part of my bubble because my side chases them away.
In summary, the whole thing seems complicated and resistant to easy answers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bonzai
Footballguy
I think that's a misleading metaphor because bad apples just continue to rot while bad posters can -- and sometimes do -- improve. I can think of multiple posters over the years who started out being accidentally annoying but eventually grew into extremely solid contributors.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bonzai
Footballguy
Absolutely. I think the policy around here of trying to see the best in others and get the best out of them is a noble one. However, sometimes empathy can lead us astray and get in the way of a reasonable decision that benefits the greater good. Are you familiar with Paul Bloom's work on empathy?
Does having empathy for the 5-10 posters that are driving this place into the ground outweigh the cost of shutting down the forum? I think this is classic case of when compassion is better than empathy.
ETA: Obviously I have opinions about how I'd like things to go, but I'm cool with whatever. This whole thing has to be a headache and the last thing I want to do is add to that. I genuinely find these types of issues to be interesting and thus chimed in. If you do not, feel free to ignore and move on.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
In my view you’re stretching here. Theory #2 (That there are pro-Trump posters that would like to have good conversations if only folks here would be more welcoming to them) seems completely contradicted by all of the available evidence:
1) Go look at the Geek Club over at FFToday. Pro-Trump posters dominate that forum, and anti-Trump posters are the minority by far. Is there good discussion there?
2) Look at the threads started by @bostonfred in this forum where he absolutely bends over backwards to just get any Trump supporters to actually make a coherent argument and consistently can’t make it work.
3) Think about your own posting history. There have been numerous times over the years where you’ve taken contrarian positions that are unpopular. You LOVE that. It’s fun. I love when that happens too. Being outnumbered in a debate is not some sort of oppression, it can be an opportunity. Instead, the Trump supporters prefer to hang out in the MAGA thread where they won’t be challenged and try (unsuccessfully) to keep out those that disagree with them.
4) Look everywhere around you. Can you find any examples of places where Trump supporters are engaged in the sorts of discussions that you would like to have? If such a place exists anywhere on the internet please direct me there because I would love to be part of that community.
The fact that some left-leaning people believe in fringe stuff like chemtrails just makes those people like the distractions I discussed in my earlier post. I don’t know of any poster here that believes in that stuff. The fact that a lot of people have opinions about Citizens United without knowing all the details of the case doesn’t seem all that convincing to me either. Campaign finance law is a weird niche subject that few people decide to delve into. For most people “Citizens United” is just shorthand for “corporations and the wealthy have too much political power in the United States.” I think that’s a pretty reasonable position even for someone that can’t explain what constitutes electioneering communication under McCain-Feingold.
I think it’s admirable that you always try to look at problems from other perspectives and consider the possibility that maybe what seems obvious to you is due to your own biases and blind spots. I agree that can happen sometimes. But lots of times things are obvious because they’re true and they’re staring you right in your face.
A few people have suggested that the moderators should crack down on demonstrably false statements.
My initial thought is: No way. I'm not going to adjudicate other people's factual disputes. What a pain that would be.
But like most people, I enjoy games. So what if we turned it into a game?
In Scrabble, one player can play a word and his opponent can decide whether to challenge it. If the challenge succeeds because the word is fake, the first player loses a turn. If the challenge fails because the word is real, the second player loses a turn. Seems fair.
What if we implemented the same idea here?
Two things that are annoying: (1) posting questionable claims without evidentiary support, and (2) demanding a link in support of such claims. Maybe those things would be less annoying in the form of a game, with penalties if either are done carelessly.
An idea for the rules:
1. If someone posts a claim and nobody challenges it, then never mind. Carry on as usual.
2. If someone posts a claim and it is challenged, the challenger should tag me and I will adjudicate.
3. If I decide that the challenge is dumb because the original claim was a matter of opinion rather than fact ("Trump is very handsome"), or because it is a matter of fact within the claimant's personal knowledge ("My uncle told me that Biden is younger than Trump"), the challenge fails and the challenger gets a timeout.
4. If the challenge is not formally dumb, the claimant must offer some support for his claim from a reliable source. If he can't do it, he will get a timeout.
5. If the claimant succeeds in offering support from a reliable source, the challenger will get a timeout unless he can negate the claim using a reliable source.
6. If the claim is both supported and negated by reliable sources, nobody gets a timeout. Exception: If the claim can be definitively established as false even though it has (or had) support from a reliable source, the claimant will be suspended for future repetitions of the claim if challenged.
7. A source's reliability will be my judgment call, but will roughly correspond to MSNBC or The Washington Times or better on the Media Bias Chart (not counting editorial opinions). Lesser sources might be okay if they corroborate each other. Better sources might be needed if they are widely contradicted.
8. Timeout length will be three days? Not sure, but it should be uniform.
To be clear, I am not implementing this game unless and until there seems to be support for it. If we do implement it, even people who opposed the idea will be subject to its rules, so I don't want to do it without a decent majority in favor.
My initial thought is: No way. I'm not going to adjudicate other people's factual disputes. What a pain that would be.
But like most people, I enjoy games. So what if we turned it into a game?
In Scrabble, one player can play a word and his opponent can decide whether to challenge it. If the challenge succeeds because the word is fake, the first player loses a turn. If the challenge fails because the word is real, the second player loses a turn. Seems fair.
What if we implemented the same idea here?
Two things that are annoying: (1) posting questionable claims without evidentiary support, and (2) demanding a link in support of such claims. Maybe those things would be less annoying in the form of a game, with penalties if either are done carelessly.
An idea for the rules:
1. If someone posts a claim and nobody challenges it, then never mind. Carry on as usual.
2. If someone posts a claim and it is challenged, the challenger should tag me and I will adjudicate.
3. If I decide that the challenge is dumb because the original claim was a matter of opinion rather than fact ("Trump is very handsome"), or because it is a matter of fact within the claimant's personal knowledge ("My uncle told me that Biden is younger than Trump"), the challenge fails and the challenger gets a timeout.
4. If the challenge is not formally dumb, the claimant must offer some support for his claim from a reliable source. If he can't do it, he will get a timeout.
5. If the claimant succeeds in offering support from a reliable source, the challenger will get a timeout unless he can negate the claim using a reliable source.
6. If the claim is both supported and negated by reliable sources, nobody gets a timeout. Exception: If the claim can be definitively established as false even though it has (or had) support from a reliable source, the claimant will be suspended for future repetitions of the claim if challenged.
7. A source's reliability will be my judgment call, but will roughly correspond to MSNBC or The Washington Times or better on the Media Bias Chart (not counting editorial opinions). Lesser sources might be okay if they corroborate each other. Better sources might be needed if they are widely contradicted.
8. Timeout length will be three days? Not sure, but it should be uniform.
To be clear, I am not implementing this game unless and until there seems to be support for it. If we do implement it, even people who opposed the idea will be subject to its rules, so I don't want to do it without a decent majority in favor.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
1 - This forum has nothing to do with FF Today. The rules are different. The posters are often different. You're comparing apples to oranges and trying to apply behavior there to here. That's intellectually dishonest and easy for one to think you have your own motivations beyond "good discussion"
2 - BostonFred's topics often can start off well but I've seen him quickly go into nonsense and start labeling groups and posters which will never end well.
Why does everything have to be Pro-Trump or anti-Trump? I've been in discussions here before and stated my opinion on something. Then all of a something I'm met with challenging me on who I'm going to vote for in the next election. The mental gymnastics and moving of goal posts in almost every discussion here is amazing. And it's often done by posters I bet many would label are good posters.
Another issue is things here typically aren't discussions. They are topics where someone has to "win" and insist that the other side surrenders. Those typically don't turn out well either.
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
If so, am I’m glad you feel that way, then that’s your case for keeping it open (and thus then dealing with the headaches that come with it). Honestly it’s really only 3 realistic options.
1. take the patience approach MT says above and deal with the detritus
2. rule with an iron boot and make some tough weeding out decisions and deal with the detritus.
3 shut it down and called it a failed experiment, and deal with the detritus.
krista4
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
@Maurile Tremblay, in your long post, most of which was excellent, you wrote:
because of all the left wing trolls.
What I’m about to write may not be considered to be very helpful by some. Nonetheless, I absolutely believe it to be true: there are only a handful of left wing trolls in this politics forum. They can be loud and prevalent at times but they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of those who troll here are pro-Trump or right wing.
because of all the left wing trolls.
What I’m about to write may not be considered to be very helpful by some. Nonetheless, I absolutely believe it to be true: there are only a handful of left wing trolls in this politics forum. They can be loud and prevalent at times but they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of those who troll here are pro-Trump or right wing.
I don't think shutting it down would necessarily mean it failed. Some things just run their course. Others just don't bring enough positive to outweigh the negative. Chapters end.
To be clear, I don't think there are many left-wing or right-wing trolls on this board even though there are constant allegations of trolling. In using that phrase, I was channeling people who are quick to accuse the other side of trolling. But I also think that people can organically come across as trolling even when they're not trying to. I think that's fairly common, in fact, and it's definitely for sure not limited to the pro-Trump side.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I agree. And I was really impressed by fatguy’s post on this subject. It gave me a lot of food for thought.
cosjobs
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
I have a question for Joe or Maurile.
As a Bears fan, I stop by that thread in the SP. As all fans will tend to do, there was/is an increasing amount of vitriol being spewed the further along we went into the season. In this case, it was expectations on how the team was going to fair this year. Those expectations were not met, and therefor, many would say that the criticism is deserved. I'm not wanting to report anyone, or get anyone banned. But my question is, why are we allowed to make those types of comments about a coach, gm, or qb, but not allowed to make the same statements about our President?
As a Bears fan, should I be able to vent my frustrations in a colorful manner? If someone voted for Trump and he didn't meet their expectations, should they be able to vent their frustrations? Seems like there is much more leeway in the SP and FFA than there is here in the PFS? Change the names and you'd receive a ban in one forum, but not the other.
Just a thought I had as I depressingly read the Bears thread today.
As a Bears fan, I stop by that thread in the SP. As all fans will tend to do, there was/is an increasing amount of vitriol being spewed the further along we went into the season. In this case, it was expectations on how the team was going to fair this year. Those expectations were not met, and therefor, many would say that the criticism is deserved. I'm not wanting to report anyone, or get anyone banned. But my question is, why are we allowed to make those types of comments about a coach, gm, or qb, but not allowed to make the same statements about our President?
As a Bears fan, should I be able to vent my frustrations in a colorful manner? If someone voted for Trump and he didn't meet their expectations, should they be able to vent their frustrations? Seems like there is much more leeway in the SP and FFA than there is here in the PFS? Change the names and you'd receive a ban in one forum, but not the other.
Just a thought I had as I depressingly read the Bears thread today.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I don't care one way or the other if you do this but if you have to get to this level of detail to sort out all the link this and prove this nonsense because people lack self control then Joe may as well just shut it down.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I'm not on Team Shut It Down, but if I were a mod I would be.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Maybe if we had 32 political parties things would be different.I have a question for Joe or Maurile.
As a Bears fan, I stop by that thread in the SP. As all fans will tend to do, there was/is an increasing amount of vitriol being spewed the further along we went into the season. In this case, it was expectations on how the team was going to fair this year. Those expectations were not met, and therefor, many would say that the criticism is deserved. I'm not wanting to report anyone, or get anyone banned. But my question is, why are we allowed to make those types of comments about a coach, gm, or qb, but not allowed to make the same statements about our President?
As a Bears fan, should I be able to vent my frustrations in a colorful manner? If someone voted for Trump and he didn't meet their expectations, should they be able to vent their frustrations? Seems like there is much more leeway in the SP and FFA than there is here in the PFS? Change the names and you'd receive a ban in one forum, but not the other.
Just a thought I had as I depressingly read the Bears thread today.
KCitons
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
If it's anything like twitter I can only imagine that thread is someone doesn't criticize TrubiskyI have a question for Joe or Maurile.
As a Bears fan, I stop by that thread in the SP. As all fans will tend to do, there was/is an increasing amount of vitriol being spewed the further along we went into the season. In this case, it was expectations on how the team was going to fair this year. Those expectations were not met, and therefor, many would say that the criticism is deserved. I'm not wanting to report anyone, or get anyone banned. But my question is, why are we allowed to make those types of comments about a coach, gm, or qb, but not allowed to make the same statements about our President?
As a Bears fan, should I be able to vent my frustrations in a colorful manner? If someone voted for Trump and he didn't meet their expectations, should they be able to vent their frustrations? Seems like there is much more leeway in the SP and FFA than there is here in the PFS? Change the names and you'd receive a ban in one forum, but not the other.
Just a thought I had as I depressingly read the Bears thread today.
Maurile wrote:
Trump supporters Republicans / Conservatives who wouldn’t mind having grown-up conversations about politics, but this forum makes it impossible because of all the left-wing trolls they get painted as MAGA Rally Guy that can't wait to go torture people at the border. So the reasonable Trump supporters Republicans / Conservatives have given up even trying to have grown-up conversations with us.
I know that's exactly why my Republican / Conservative friends don't post here.
I get it. I would never try to argue for enforcing border law stuff here as it just wouldn't be worth the ugliness.
I don't know the answer. But I know for a fact that's why some Republicans / Conservatives don't post here. And I fully agree with them.
I think it's this but with a tweak. I think it's more: 2. There are a number of reasonable
I know that's exactly why my Republican / Conservative friends don't post here.
I get it. I would never try to argue for enforcing border law stuff here as it just wouldn't be worth the ugliness.
I don't know the answer. But I know for a fact that's why some Republicans / Conservatives don't post here. And I fully agree with them.
If "colorful" is civil and PG then sure. And I don't know how we get into splitting hairs there. Nagy made a bad decision is fine. Nagy is an idiot is I know super mild but still just leads down an ugly path that makes my head hurt and think none of it's worth it. So please don't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just my take Buddy but this seems like a zillion times more work than I'd want to do.
John Maddens Lunchbox
Socialism for Dummies
I think there are many conservatives/republicans who voted for W twice, McCain and Romney on this forum who do not support Trump and some who did. The ones who do not support Trump have been quite vocal about it as well.
We have not heard many who have voted for Trump, but held their nose
We have not heard many who have voted for Trump, but did so with pride, but are now disgusted
We have not heard many who have voted for Trump, did so with pride and are more enthusiastic than ever
We have also not heard many who were D or unaffiliated, but now are firmly in Trumps corner.
instead we get a lot who claimed to have never voted for Trump, but never question or challenge any of the admins decisions.
I would love to see conservative and/or Trump voters that can articulate an argument, instead we get mainly cheerleading or derision of the opposite side. There are a few exceptions. These posters should deserve praise, instead there are some on the left who argue poorly with them.
djmich
Footballguy
I generally shy away from the politics forum for all the reasons why Joe started this thread, completely support you and your effort Joe as well as whatever the outcome is.
I was a very long time subscriber, stopped this year or last as frankly I found the content in FBG and other forums more useful to my decision making. Always had in the back of my mind leveraging the forums and not subscribing...never really thought there was much cost to the forums. Understand the monetary and personal costs a bit better.
So I know this wasn't the intent of the thread (the one joe started and was locked) but I'm back in next year! Any chance you could beef up the real time identifying out of nowhere dynasty players, at this point its the last bastion of edge in FF given all the subscription stuff available and forums often do a better job than pay sites on that front. Or maybe its better if we left something that requires a bit of work...
I was a very long time subscriber, stopped this year or last as frankly I found the content in FBG and other forums more useful to my decision making. Always had in the back of my mind leveraging the forums and not subscribing...never really thought there was much cost to the forums. Understand the monetary and personal costs a bit better.
So I know this wasn't the intent of the thread (the one joe started and was locked) but I'm back in next year! Any chance you could beef up the real time identifying out of nowhere dynasty players, at this point its the last bastion of edge in FF given all the subscription stuff available and forums often do a better job than pay sites on that front. Or maybe its better if we left something that requires a bit of work...
KCitons
Footballguy
Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not so much trying to look for action on your part, more on the part of posters. I did a quick search. Idiot was used 40 times in the month of December in the SP. It was used 19 times in the PSF. I would venture to guess most of those 19 were reported, while perhaps 1 was reported in the SP.
Looking closer, that phrase was used in game threads where an opposing fan may have even called your QB or coach an idiot. Nobody cared. They nodded and moved on. Why is that? I've been a football fan, and a Bears fan for a lot longer than I've been interested in politics. If someone, especially a Packer's fan, was to bash my coach or qb, I should want blood. But, I don't. I shrug it off and hope that my team does better next game.
I guess I wonder why the difference between football and politics? I know it effects our lives, but complaining or calling names doesn't really change those effects for either side. Shrug it off and hope your team does better the next election.
Just a social (media) observation.
There are a decent amount of conservatives that have those conversations here that are anti-Trump though. This board has already leaned libertarian, so that is not very surprising. I do think there is a group of conservatives that are not necessarily pro or anti Trump (and may very well be Trump voters) that are mostly missing from the dialogue here (posters like @jamny come to mind) compared to real life.
Of course, it is also possible to support improved border security without arguing in favor of detention camps.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
The Gary Johnson voters are tarred and feathered as bad as the Trump voters and blamed for any of Trumps horrible policies or statements.
Regarding us speaking up, once you and several others on the left identify that water is wet, why do we need to say water is wet?
What is the cost if that is what you think? It can be a rhetorical tool that helps you gain credibility. Often it is useful to emphasize something you agree on in a discussion that covers where you do not agree...or at least I have found it useful.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
1. I fell like it just creates an echo chamber
2. Gaining board cred on political issues isn’t high on my list
3. I don’t think many of the trump guys are open to having their opinion changed
I’ve noticed this as well. Heck, several weeks back there was a thread titled “Stupid People” that spent several days on the front page of the FFA. I’ve been admonished at least twice for just using “stupid” in a post (and not in the PSF). Just an observation. I’m assuming the thinking is that different contexts are different levels of inflammatory.
KCitons
Footballguy
I'm guessing it's been changed, but there was a thread in the SP title, "Post here when a coach does something obviously stupid". (I didn't search very hard for it). But, like anyone, coaches aren't trying to do it, it just happens. We should be able to make a comment without offense. I tell myself I do stupid things all the time.
A few months ago, I had just had the windshield replaced in my Subaru. A week later, I had to haul a few 2x6's from Home Depot. I thought I had enough room to rest them on the dash. I was stupid and didn't account for the angle of the windshield as the stack got 4 high. I closed the tailgate and broke the windshield again. I should be mocked (which my wife did). I deserve it.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
I meant to add this the first time I posted and apologize for not doing so.
The piece posted recently here via link, "Christmas Eve Confessions of Chuck Todd" or somesuch, lays out this whole problem nicely. In that article, the author summarizes Todd's recent public realization that political figures - including without limitation U.S. senators - go on his show, MTP, in a deliberate effort to offer spin contrary to fact to blunt the truth and appear antagonistic to the media. Todd also belatedly realizes that only one side does this and admits his naivete in failing to grasp this sooner. (Don't take my word for it, either - read the piece.)
The issue is the same here. The solution probably won't work for Chuck Todd and MTP, but it would work here just fine. Simply excuse those who are only here to argue, attack others, post little rollies, and start calling others trolls. No need for some complex system: just thank anyone who does this for their time and permaban them. Take it a step further and ban anyone who insists on engaging these people rather than posting about the issues. Yes, this proverbial axe may - just may - fall disproportionately on one group. But it will result in a friendlier and more constructive atmosphere. Hard as it is to believe, some people really are here just to disrupt, exhaust critical thinking, and devalue the truth.
The piece posted recently here via link, "Christmas Eve Confessions of Chuck Todd" or somesuch, lays out this whole problem nicely. In that article, the author summarizes Todd's recent public realization that political figures - including without limitation U.S. senators - go on his show, MTP, in a deliberate effort to offer spin contrary to fact to blunt the truth and appear antagonistic to the media. Todd also belatedly realizes that only one side does this and admits his naivete in failing to grasp this sooner. (Don't take my word for it, either - read the piece.)
The issue is the same here. The solution probably won't work for Chuck Todd and MTP, but it would work here just fine. Simply excuse those who are only here to argue, attack others, post little rollies, and start calling others trolls. No need for some complex system: just thank anyone who does this for their time and permaban them. Take it a step further and ban anyone who insists on engaging these people rather than posting about the issues. Yes, this proverbial axe may - just may - fall disproportionately on one group. But it will result in a friendlier and more constructive atmosphere. Hard as it is to believe, some people really are here just to disrupt, exhaust critical thinking, and devalue the truth.
Thanks. The truth is likely we just have a double standard and ask people to be more cool in the politics stuff as it seems so explosive.
- Status
Similar threads
