I'd rather take political discussions to TNZ but the lack of moderation there made that place a dumping ground for "thread bombs"and all kinds of childish nonsense. You can't have a serious dialog in there. Misc is better because of moderation.
The Politicization of Misc.
- Thread starter thumbtack
- Start date
- Status
I usually don't read 'em.
Political discussion in online forums, as opposed to political action in the real world (or even making financial contributions to causes online) isn't even mildly useful - it's just bear-baiting. "Serious dialog" is mostly intellectual masturbation...and the term "intellectual" dignifies it more than most of it deserves. Therefore...go for the 'nads or go home.
Political discussion in online forums, as opposed to political action in the real world (or even making financial contributions to causes online) isn't even mildly useful - it's just bear-baiting. "Serious dialog" is mostly intellectual masturbation...and the term "intellectual" dignifies it more than most of it deserves. Therefore...go for the 'nads or go home.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Well, it doesn't have to be elevated to "serious dialog". Sometimes people want to talk about something whose nature happens to be serious and that doesn't mean they want to fight, they just want to talk.
It's been known to happen in "real life" so why not online too. I can have a discussion about politics at break when at work or somewhere else in public, and even disagree with who I'm talking to, but it doesn't break into a fight. Why does it have to break out into a fight online?
I'm not saying fights over political discussions don't happen in "real life" but it doesn't always have to happen either. I notice people act differently when they're looking at a person face-to-face as opposed to just seeing a name on a computer screen but it doesn't have to be that way and I think it's changing, if not on bulletin boards.
Everyone has the Internet now, the line between "real life" and online is fading with things like Facebook and Twitter, and not everyone uses it for the same reason. It shouldn't be, "Come on to the Internet for my reasons (i.e. going for the 'nads) or go home!" I just don't agree with that at all. I never have and I never will. I know I'm not alone.
It's been known to happen in "real life" so why not online too. I can have a discussion about politics at break when at work or somewhere else in public, and even disagree with who I'm talking to, but it doesn't break into a fight. Why does it have to break out into a fight online?
I'm not saying fights over political discussions don't happen in "real life" but it doesn't always have to happen either. I notice people act differently when they're looking at a person face-to-face as opposed to just seeing a name on a computer screen but it doesn't have to be that way and I think it's changing, if not on bulletin boards.
Everyone has the Internet now, the line between "real life" and online is fading with things like Facebook and Twitter, and not everyone uses it for the same reason. It shouldn't be, "Come on to the Internet for my reasons (i.e. going for the 'nads) or go home!" I just don't agree with that at all. I never have and I never will. I know I'm not alone.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Yeah, this could be just another one of those 'once in life-time' chances for them.
No, this is a privately-owned message board, and I'm pretty sure the owner is not an American.
A
Amaris
Guest
He's not, but I am a Doctor.
No, it's a message board. You can say whatever you want at home or in public, but not here. Here you have privileges, not rights. It's not America, it's a private message board and we're not the government.
As I've told you several times before, despite my user name the mod staff is not a Collective, and have vastly differing viewpoints on such things. It's very easy to say "Just get rid of the people who are the problem" when you're on the outside and don't have to convince numerous other people with opinions ranging from agreement to indifference to opposition that it's the right decision to make, as I and others have tried to do.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop acting as if we all know the problem and just don't care though, because that's not the case. Some of us care very much.
This topic isn't about the mods trying to shut down lines of discussion this time anyway, it's the posters (I'm opposed to it either way). Personally, I think the poll should have been made public so you can see who voted for what. You shouldn't be able to try and shut down discussion for everyone while hiding behind anonymity. At least the people who said something in the thread made their opinion known.
^I don't think anyone's asking for special rules, or Mods getting together and going above and beyond, though. There are currently rules on the books about baiting and trolling in Misc, and Mods assigned to deal with that. Seems like that should be enough to take care of the problem without having to call committee meetings to ban people, yes?
If you see a problem, and you're a Misc mod, you've the power to issue a warning, yes? Seeing as how they don't reset anymore, and stay on the record for a year, I'd think just using the powers already in place would sort of work itself out, as people that get a lot of warnings for baiting/trolling would be basically banning themselves. Why have rules, and Mods, if the rules aren't to be followed, and the Mods helpless to enforce them?
But, instead, I predict we continue this thread a bit longer, wring our hands at the injustice of the whole thing, talk about maybe banning a few random topics, and then just drop the whole thing and hope it doesn't come back. And it will.
Don't blame this on the committee mentality, or other forces at work. By your posts, it's pretty clear that YOU agree that there's a problem, and have a rough idea of where the problem behavior is coming from. Use your magical, T'Bonz-given Mod powers and see if that helps...
If you see a problem, and you're a Misc mod, you've the power to issue a warning, yes? Seeing as how they don't reset anymore, and stay on the record for a year, I'd think just using the powers already in place would sort of work itself out, as people that get a lot of warnings for baiting/trolling would be basically banning themselves. Why have rules, and Mods, if the rules aren't to be followed, and the Mods helpless to enforce them?
But, instead, I predict we continue this thread a bit longer, wring our hands at the injustice of the whole thing, talk about maybe banning a few random topics, and then just drop the whole thing and hope it doesn't come back. And it will.
Don't blame this on the committee mentality, or other forces at work. By your posts, it's pretty clear that YOU agree that there's a problem, and have a rough idea of where the problem behavior is coming from. Use your magical, T'Bonz-given Mod powers and see if that helps...
How about a cage match? The only problem is that how can anyone guarantee that Squiggy will keep his pants pulled up?
I know. Let's do nothing. Maybe it will go away.
Other mods have given posters trolling warnings in the past and have had them overturned in MA. You have to make sure it's a pretty slam dunk, open-and-shut case before giving a trolling warning, because they have a higher burden than something as simple as a flame.
Despite your usual simplistic and lacking in facts or behind-the-scenes context posts on board policy, I have given trolling infractions to the posters in question on more than one occasion, as well as numerous friendlies when they skirted just under the line. Since I made sure they were slam dunk cases they haven't been challenged or overturned. It's just a matter that it takes a few infractions to get in any serious trouble here.
As a result the posters in question have reduced the number of obvious trolling posts they've made and resorted to the more subtle kind that skirts under infraction level. As easy as it may be in Scout-land, I can't just up and violate the rules myself in order to give them trolling infractions for things that don't actually break the rules.
I can't personally give them infractions for their avatars, sigs, profile pics, and so forth since those are board-wide issues that require board-wide staff and/or admin involvement. I also can't warn or ban them for constant subtle trolling that is beneath the level of a rules violation on an individual basis but when taken as a repeated pattern of behavior constitutes someone who is only here to cause trouble. Again, that is a board-wide staff and/or admin issue that I as a single-forum mod can't handle myself.
So don't tell me what I can or can't talk about or "blame" (explaining is not blaming, but whatever) because you don't know all the details, again, despite me explaining it to you before. Or you're just being obstinate for the hell of it, in which case I don't care to argue it any more. I've always striven to be honest and straightforward with you guys about explaining my actions and mod actions in general, and I don't appreciate what I'm saying being sloughed off as simply not caring or not trying hard enough because you don't find it satisfactory.
That's not what he first amendment grants.
Always love the whole "1st amendment" defense. 9 times out of 10 the people using don't get that the US actually does not have 100% unrestricted free speech, and two that only applies really to congress and not to private companies or individuals, and three you "signed" (agreed to) a "contract" when you join his-- or any other-- online community that mandates the limits of your speech so you really signed away your right to free speech outside the mandates of the TOS.
TNZ's just a boring bunch of Obama circle jerkers in denial these days, certainly doesn't have the vigor or harshness that it once had.
It's more like minnow-infested waters these days.
Are you taken out back and beaten if a warning ends up being overturned? It would at least raise the issue, rather than ignoring it. If you feel there's an issue, and ignore it, have you (general you, not YOU) really helped things?
Didn't realize it was delicate international negotiations or rocket science, either. And as T'Bonz is fond of reminding us, it's not a democracy, the staff can do whatever they want. Can't much speak to my lack of knowlegde of "behind the scenes" stuff, as it's all double-secret, and not often shared with us lowly peons. And as I have no access to the BR, nor interest in being a mod to gain access, all I can do is base things off of what I see in public. Use the extra knowledge as you see fit, but don't blame me for not knowing things that are intentionally hidden from me.
good, that's what you're supposed to do...
Again, are you punished if it's a judgement call, you act on your judgement, and it's later overturned? Not seeing the downside, I guess. Other than going hog-wild with it, Enterpriser-style, and being removed from power, but even then, so what?
A pattern of that still ought to count for something, even if it's just tallied up for an eventually warning for repeated behavior. Or at least it's evidence to bring up if your judgement call warning gets questioned in MA, I guess. Maybe more friendlies is a good start, since you can't really argue or overturn those, anyway?
Can't speak to how often these are discussed behind closed doors, but as an example, TLS's borderline trolling Avatar should be recognized as such, especially since it would only really be appropriate in TNZ, and since he's banned from TNZ, it's mostly just to provoke reaction in Misc threads, like the ones we're discussing. Can't speak to whether you have had these discussions with an Admin or not, since you're telling me you don't have to power to issue any warnings, or PM people asking that they change them.
Wouldn't this be the definition of the "proof" you say is preventing you from making a judgement call and issuing a warning? If you can link to a repeated pattern of behavior, seems like a slam-dunk to me. Then again, I'm just a simplistic, lacking-in-facts poster
Would think it's between the Misc mods and the Admins, not sure why the Trek Lit mod would get a vote, for example. What was the result of the last time you took this issue to the admins? Bonz doesn't seem to be the type to wring her hands and fret over what to do. Seems like usually nothing happens until something HAS to, and then Bonz flies off the handle and arbitrarily bans topics for a random amount of time...
Not BLAMING you, so much as discussing it with someone that appeared to be in a position to help deal with it. You claim to be generally arguing the same point I am, so not sure why you're being defensive about it, as it seems you've done all you can if you've brought it up to the Admins several times and been told to shut up...
Not agreeing with your statements doesn't mean anything personal. You're being addressed as a person in a position of power, as a Mod of the forum. Don't try to equate it to a TNZ argument and get pissy over it. Calling me simplistic and obstinate probably isn't the best way to go about it, either. rarely results in cooler heads prevailing...
when the same problems keep happening, threads keep popping up, and the Staff has to come in and ban discussion topics, who would be the CORRECT person to address? Someone somewhere hasn't done enough, as it keeps happening. You're a Mod of the forum, so you get asked about it first, because it has your name on it. If YOU are arguing these same points to the others, and being shot down, then say so, as we're talking about the PROBLEM, not who to blame. When you get derided for asking the mod of a forum about a problem IN the forum, one that keeps happening, and keeps being started by the same few posters, not sure what you're supposed to do next...
That's not freedom of speech? Which one is it then.
- Status
Similar threads
