Forum Moderation Discussion - Poll added.

[dd]

I'll mention that the rules being argued about.... have literally never been enforced at any time...

They haven't needed to be have they?

But why were those specific rules created in the first place?

Oh yeah, it's because we actually DID have those problems on the board that preceded this one (and the one before that, and the one before that...).

I was under the impression that the reason for those rules was to prevent what happened before, from happening here too; that their specific intent was to stop what happened at the other boards, from happening here, at the outset. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe Dave was just feeling especially verbose that day. *shrug*

But at this point - whatevs. How many of these "forum moderation/changes" type-threads have been created since December? Clearly nothing is happening except regurgitation of the same talking points, by the same people, in every single one of them, so why waste the time talking about it? I know I'm sick of repeating myself.

Flame On!

[Curmudgeon]

Because that's what was done when we (Cooley, FW and I) first started off.

We also shortly decided most were unenforceable without changing the whole demeanor of the forum.

It is why I keep saying be careful what you ask for.

Colts, they have not lost their appeal yet, you are right on that, the verdict will be upheld though since per the woman's own testimony she failed to meet the criteria for SYG.

You figure out how her own testimony doesn't overrule SYG you be sure and point it out.

[CaptainCorruption]

Ahem - Oh dd, might I have a moment of your time please

- Don't "stalk" people. For example, if you're in an argument over in "politics" about whose ideology is slightly less ignorant and your adversary posts "I have a truck for sale" in classifieds, do not follow them into the classifieds forum and say "Do not buy a truck from him; he kills babies and eats them" (unless, of course, the truck has been previously used for the procurement of food-grade babies)."

This morning you posted:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18407&start=15

Quote mining is silly. But in a world where arguments have become little more than one logical falacy after another (and where such arguments get you considered a reasonable thinker)...

Now lessee - though you never name names I certainly know the origins of your above passive aggressive remark - let's retrace them, shall we? It starts with my post, the 13th if I counted right, right here in this thread viewtopic.php?f=25&t=18386&start=15 where, referring to Madchemist, I stated that he was one of the "most level headed" - the quote -

"imzhammer is one of the most level headed folk from either boards, IMO. So, frankly, is MC."

Next, on this thread - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18399&hilit=i+learned#p240061 - you replied to kjk (who was replying to MC) with the first passive aggressive swipe at my above opinion of MC

"Apparently, constant use of some type of logical fallacy or another makes you one of the forum's more level-headed members. I learned that yesterday."

Of course I didnt' actually say that contant use of some type of logical fallacy makes one a level headed member but, well, you're only human, thus you are prone to your own logical fallacies, so I understand.

Thing is a bit later in the same thread amongst other things you said:

"But I get it, mc; You just wouldn't be you, if you could go a day without attacking someone and/or entertaining some logical fallacy

"

and somehwere in there I dared to suggest

I'd say constant use of some type of logical fallacy or another might just make you a typical human

and finally this morning, in yet different thread, was

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18407&start=15

Quote mining is silly. But in a world where arguments have become little more than one logical falacy after another (and where such arguments get you considered a reasonable thinker)...

"typical human" does not equal "reasonable thinker" IMO, quite the oppossite if ya ask me, as typical humans are quite unreasonable thinkers imo. But, your logical fallacies aren't really my point here. My point is -

Just wondering if that passive aggressive swiping behavior across three threads fits the above "stalking" rule you'd like to see enforced?

[Clinton Tyree]

Who needs fucking rules, when nobody visits anyway. Yeah, those IS rascals are really pumping up participation.

11:43PM

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 126 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:33 am

Registered users: No registered users
Legend: Administrators, Global moderators, Registered users
Statistics

Total posts 231747 • Total topics 17352 • Total members 1138 • Our newest member Jimmy229

[NHPats2011]

Who needs fucking rules, when nobody visits anyway. Yeah, those IS rascals are really pumping up participation.

11:43PM

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 126 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:33 am

Registered users: No registered users
Legend: Administrators, Global moderators, Registered users
Statistics

Total posts 231747 • Total topics 17352 • Total members 1138 • Our newest member Jimmy229

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. So far a total of 17 people have weighed in.

[PaPawCarl]

Who needs fucking rules, when nobody visits anyway. Yeah, those IS rascals are really pumping up participation.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. So far a total of 17 people have weighed in.

One possible interpretation/explanation for that phenomena could be that those who would be the most in favor of either option #2 or #3 have have already withdrawn. It is possible that MoBTalk now belongs to those whose think, "Do nothing," is the optimal choice.

The honest dialog that has produced the nearly 50-50 split between do nothing and purgatory has been heartening, but even in this some have found the snarky attack mode to be the way to go. As for whether Internet forums are just for fun and should not be taken seriously, one really should look at the extremist behavior of a few individuals for whom all is represented as a terrible threat to their way of life and opposition must be greeted with a ratcheted up attack, attack until one or the other is actually screamingly approaching insanity.

Clever one-liners, repeated endlessly, have accomplished their purpose -- and neither the one-liner nor the purpose is actually clever any longer. And before the charge, "But you don't say anything to ..." is leveled, the description applies to leftists, centrists, and rightists equally. Perhaps just a little more thought before going for the throat would be appreciated.

[Curmudgeon]

Odd part is this is a high population for regulars, we've had many who and still do only occasionally post, some came for a bit and left well before the merger.... and a few that have left since, on both sides though I'm mainly speaking to who was here before.

[PaPawCarl]

Odd part is this is a high population for regulars, we've had many who and still do only occasionally post, some came for a bit and left well before the merger.... and a few that have left since, on both sides though I'm mainly speaking to who was here before.

Agree. Point well taken.

Does it not, then, boil down to whether the behaviors are a problem or not, irrespective of the audience?

Is it beneficial to be in oneupsmanship mode in every encounter...just for the hilarity of watching someone go batshit crazy? Or is there a place for multi-position dialog without fear of being distracted by someone playing around the edge?

Reminds me of the three men around the grill TV commercial.
#1 Don't you agree that such and such in 1935 was ...?
#2 Actually it was 1938.
#1 Are you sure?
#2 99.99%
#3 So you don't know.
#2 All right. I'm 99.9999999% sure.
#3 If you don't know, you don't know.

[Porterhouse]

Hey Curm- It's apparent from the poll results that whatever action you take (or don't take) will result in your being pilloried here by half the membership. If I were you I'd simply summon up the courage of my convictions, do what I think is right, and fuck what anyone else thinks. Someone wants to get on you for 'censorship', the inevitable First Amendment crap, etc. I would simply reply to the whiners with a well-timed "Whatever" and refuse to explain my position. You are in charge; no need for an explanation to anyone. They all had their chance to run this forum as they saw fit when you offered it up a while back.

[dd]

Ahem - Oh dd, might I have a moment of your time please

Unfortunately for your attempted gotcha, no. If you'll notice my post at the top of this page, dated before those posts you went to so much trouble to copy and paste, you'd have noticed my 'fuck it, game on' comment. See it? Right there at the top of *this* page. "Flame on!"

I'm just sorry that you skipped over that post, to go digging for the ultimate gotcha. If you'd have read it, you might have saved yourself a lot of time.

[CaptainCorruption]

Oh no worries, the effort was my pleasure. I noticed you'd declared "flame on" » Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:14 pm


But two of your three above comments occurred Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:45 am, and Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:50 am

Fun huh?

Either way, thank you for your continued leadership by example!

[imzhammer]

So I voted I want nothing done, but don't agree with the tag line "I like degrading myself and others"

Actually, I want nothing additional done by Curm... though I freely acknowledge its his forum and thus his rules get to rule. Thing is Curm, nothing personal, but you seem to have enough on your plate at the moment with your pop. Plus, you get too involved in the discussion, and take debate with you too personally, to be an objective moderator IMO.



Pats admitted long ago on the IS board that most of the time he's just trolling... what amazes me is how many folks clearly recognize the behavior yet continue to feed the behavior. Come on SG - one of Pat's scatalogical threads was devoid of replies for quite some time yesterday until you jumped in... now its several pages long... so what are you complaining about that you don't support through action?

And CF - the memorial thread - I know Pats started what I complained about. I was ignoring, until you jumped in and fed and the flame war was sparked between you two in that thread. Thats' when I called you two out. Again, I know he dropped the first bomb there, but it could have been the only bomb had it been left alone.

Finally - CF - imzhammer is one of the most level headed folk from either boards, IMO. So, frankly, is MC. They just appear to be tired of your shit. In MC's case, given the accusations of child molestation support you levied his way long ago well - sure makes sense to me the enmity there. Dunno for sure what caused you and hammer to be perma enemies but there appears to be a common denominator to the last three equations.

Epic. izzenhammer is so far above reproach that he can create legal sounding phrases out of whole cloth but I am the asshole for mentioning it. Epic bit of fair and balanced on your part. And MC, you betcha. Brags about the millions of dollars he has and cries nonstop that I am cheating him. I will bookmark you as an unbiased opinion. And for truthfulness I will refer to you bearing false witness by repeating the ingoant and sickening claim that I was the one that accused anyone of anything. So here is a farewll fuck you to your gradeschool living ass.

Be honest colts. You're dislike of me stems from two positions that I take:

A. I oppose defined-benefit retirement plans because they are financially dangerous...especially for public sector workers where it's the unsuspecting taxpayer on the hook for market performance
B. I oppose Obamacare as the same thing we had only bigger

While you and I have debated many things that we didn't see eye-to-eye on, like whether or not you can claim the employer's portion of SS as taxes that you actually paid, it wasn't until I announced my positions on the above that you began to address me as clown, moron, and idiot. From that point we've gone steady downhill. It wasn't until we got here that you were capable of adding the "fucking" variants plus my favorite...POS.

...and for those of you who care the legal sounding phrase from whole cloth is "Obama Precedent." It of course refers to the activity that took place during the GM and Chrysler bailouts and bankruptcies. It is now part of my personal investing language to underline the higher risks now involved when considering the purchase of secured bonds issued by UAW employers. At my age I can't afford such risks.

[imzhammer]

Putting this in its own thread.

Not one to get ahead of myself dd, given my current attitude I'm for crushing all the bullshit to start and get people to mind their manners but that's an idea wholly opposed from the brief discussion we had a short while back.

If I just do it here and there I'm going to rightly be accused of not applying it equally and I'd much rather whack everyone including those that are the biggest offenders.
-----

My moderation method would be just to delete the post... I'm not going to waste my time editing post.

Ok everyone? You go off the reservation with your response and you find your response gone... reword it and try again?

That what you folks want?

Or

We first go through and I edit post telling people this would be deleted and why I would delete it to get you all an idea.

...but know, there is no appeal process, my decision is final word on the matter. The good part, no one gets banned either, they just have to change the wording involved.

Or

I moderate the majority of the forum for relatively polite discussion as is being talked about here.

I make a FLAME forum and move offending threads/post to it and that is no holds barred more or less...still no outting, no threats, etc ...
\

I could live with any of the above although my conservative nature says #1. ...but you walk on water dude, you made laffy go away.

[Porterhouse]

<snip>
...but you walk on water dude, you made laffy go away.

He gets an "attaboy" from me also.

[coltsfan1955]

Because that's what was done when we (Cooley, FW and I) first started off.

We also shortly decided most were unenforceable without changing the whole demeanor of the forum.

It is why I keep saying be careful what you ask for.

Colts, they have not lost their appeal yet, you are right on that, the verdict will be upheld though since per the woman's own testimony she failed to meet the criteria for SYG.

You figure out how her own testimony doesn't overrule SYG you be sure and point it out.

I have never in one post suggested that I thought that SYG laws applied in this instance. I merely pointed out that you banned JeoL for having a valid legal theory due to your lack of even basic knowledge of the law. Lawyers, who have went to school for long years and passed a test to prove they were compentant to debate the law, who you believe you could hold your own with, have filed appeals and raised SYG as an issue on appeal. How can you decide that they don't have enough knowledge to make that claim or that JoeL wasn't free to side with that side of the argument?