Time for a Politics Forum Section?

[QuikSand]

I have long been a pretty adamant supporter of keeping the "General Discussion" forum intact. I like the idea of having all the on-topic and all the off-topic stuff all lumped in together to get maximum exposure for the FOFC poulace. Even though I (as of yet) don't play the werewolf games, for example, I wouldn't want to see them cast off to their own section of the forum -- as long as they are labeled, I have no problem skipping over them. It works fine for me, and I can suffer through an occasional mistake when a thread title doesn't really decribe its contents all that well.

However, the recent escalation of the ever-present partisan political garbage that is pervading this forum looks like it has me rethinking my general position on such matters. I think the time has probbaly come for us to separate out this garbage from the rest of the forum -- and I guess mechanically the best way to do this is to create a separate section. That way, the forum members who want to engage in that sort of mudslinging and what seems to pass for debate can do so, and it doesn't have to have a deleterious effect on the many members who don't really want any part of it. If I go into a labeled political section, I at least know what I'm in for -- I'm there with my eyes open. I don't have to run the constant risk of being enraged by this sort of nonsense seeping into all sort of threads that nominally just deal with current events or the like.

I know the division won't likely be perfect, and I really don't know whether such a thing would make life easier or harder for the site's moderators (a meaningful issue to me). But I really am not wild about the idea that people may be coming to (or being encouraged to come to) FOFC for the primary purpose of engaging in partisan, vitriolic, nasty debates. If that's really the case, then maybe we practically need to just recognize it for what it is -- a bit like we did with Hattrick some time ago -- and set up a separate pen for those folks to do what they want to do.


Maybe, to paraphrase an old political saying that has made the rounds for years and years, "It's a bad idea whose time has come."

[yabanci]

I strongly, strongly support this and have been thinking the exact same thing for the last week.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Adding my support for this suggestion.

[flere-imsaho]

Adding my support for this suggestion.

It worries me that we're increasingly in agreement, but yes.

[Axxon]

I'm in agreement as well.

[sachmo71]

I am against this.

[st.cronin]

I disagree, although not strongly.

Any topic related to current events will inevitably be political. I don't see how you can really separate the two.

[flere-imsaho]

I know the division won't likely be perfect, and I really don't nwo whether such a thing woudl make life easier or harder for the site's moderators (a meaningful issue to me).

I think it would, and here's my rationale:

Currently one of the problems is political discussion popping up in heretofore non-political threads. While the political element of the discussion may continue just fine for a while, it may also spiral out of control into mudslinging quickly.

As it stands now, if politics comes up in a thread, one can't say "look, no politics" because there's no rule against that. So one has to wait for it to spiral out of control before action can be taken.

With a separate section of the forum (or just a ban on politics in general) and a rule about this, the problem is (more or less), solved.

[Axxon]

I disagree, although not strongly.

Any topic related to current events will inevitably be political. I don't see how you can really separate the two.

You can move the thread once it becomes political. Simple.

[gstelmack]

I disagree, although not strongly.

Any topic related to current events will inevitably be political. I don't see how you can really separate the two.
Agreed. The spiralling out-of-control Katrina thread shows how the political garbage will get thrown in anywhere.

[kingfc22]

That new section would set the record for most closed threads.

[QuikSand]

That new section would set the record for most closed threads.

Or not. If everyone there is there with an understanding that things can and will get ugly and partisan, don't you think that the number of truly offended parties would decrease?

Beats me, but it's at least possible.

[Subby]

I also think that folks who repeatedly fail to keep politics/religion in the new forum should aslo be subject to suspension...

[saldana]

i think this is a great idea. another site i am on has their boards broken down into 9 topics, and for the most part threads are started where they should be, but if not, an admin moves them to the proper part of the board. it works very well, as if you want to avoid the politics, just dont go to that part of the board (we actually have features that allow our admins to shut off the 3 off topic boards if users dont even want to see the headers) it makes everything alot less cluttered, and helps users avoid stuff they dont want any part of.

[st.cronin]

You can move the thread once it becomes political. Simple.

My point wasn't that it will BECOME political; it will BE political right away.

What this will mean is that the General Discussion section would become just sports talk, gossip, and personal news.

I don't know if we want that.

For example, the Rehnquist thread - even just the news of his death at first - obviously should go in a politics section, rather then general discussion.

I don't feel too strongly about this; I'm just saying that what is undesirable is NOT all political discussion, but rather distasteful political discussion, and I don't think that's easily separated.

[John Galt]

You can move the thread once it becomes political. Simple.

But that isn't always good for the people that started the thread in an a-political manner.

I'm not sure how I feel overall about this proposal. I think removing political threads will cut down on the total amount of posting. FOFC is probably healthy enough to withstand that loss, but I do believe a board needs a critical mass of posts to keep people interested. In leaner times, politics often keeps things going.

I also think a definition of "politics" is hard. I know albionmoonlight (and others) often posts legal and/or philosophical questions. These are not "partisan" discussions (although they can become them), but may well be "politics." I would hate to see threads like that go away to another forum.

Even though 90%+ of my posts probably fit within the "political" category, I am pretty sure I wouldn't even bother to visit a "politics" forum. I'm not sure that is bad thing (as politics threads rarely make me feel "good" and waste too much of my time sometimes).

So, I'm still on the fence and waiting to see arguments from both sides.

[Ksyrup]

My only concern with moving threads that turn political into a separate forum is that we lose, in this forum, the ability to continue otherwise decent discussions of non-contentious issues. And I think it would somewhat defeat the purpose if everytime that happened, we had to follow the thread into a forum we really don't want to visit and wade through the fighting to continue those discussions.

I guess the question is, would it be easier to stop the fighting in this forum and force those who wish to keep it going to start a new thread in the other forum, or move the thread to the other forum and force those who want to continue non-contentious discussion to start a new thread here?

Either way, I assume this would increase the workload for the moderators.

[Axxon]

That new section would set the record for most closed threads.

Not necessarily. Why bother closing them?

This board is an example of what I mean. I like reading it but I haven't ponied up the money for a subscription.

hxxp://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/

They have a forum called the Pit which is where people go to have more or less unmoderated rants and discussions.

This forum has simple rules but good ones. :)

Pit rules:

1. I don't want anyone posting that they're simply in the thread to watch the fireworks. This means no posts like "::pulls up a lawn chair::"

2. No post parodies without links in the original post. Otherwise, I'm likely to close and/or delete the thread, and get royally pissed off at the thread starter.

3. Don't say or imply that someone is on your ignore list.

4. Absolutely no hate speech.

******************

Now, they do have political and religious discussions in the appropriate forums but once they get heated, bam, they go to the Pit. That way, those who read it can't complain because they're reading in the pit.

We don't need to get that elaborate but the system works and getting a separate forum is a step in the right direction.

[revrew]

I'll voice a similar concern as st.cronin. While I don't like to see mindless partisanship any more than the next guy, as long as "current events" are a part of the general discussion, politics and/or religion will inevitable creep in. Since politics and religion two of the foundations of worldview, it is impossible to divide those topics (I know, nobody said anything about religion until now, but I think it's parallel) from discussion on other topics.

The proposed solution that "as soon as it's political" bump it to a different forum isn't an acceptable solution IMO. I respect the intent, but I disagree with this proposal.

I might offer yet a third option, which would be to create a "politics penalty box," a seperate forum that a mod could throw a thread to if it becomes overtly mudslinging or nasty. This would be a clue to the rest of us that what may have started as a reasonable political discussion ceases to be such.

While I dislike the partisan or religious nastiness that creeps into this discussion board now and then, I would hate to see such topics excluded from our primary discussions.

[Anthony]

i disagree. i'm bothered more by the most retarded theads started by QS than the political threads. QS must think he's the most interesting person in the world, what with the schlock he posts that he thinks passes as entertainment.

it's tricky business deciding what stays in General Discussion and what doesn't. for the most part if something gets moved to its own forum a lot of good info possibly will be missed because only a small percentage of FOFC's visitors utilize the various other forums.

[Butter]

I used to be one of the partisan arguers on here, but got tired of it after a while, and think this idea would definitely help things... I couldn't get through the Katrina thread (actually, 2 of them) without wanting to strangle somebody by the end. I'll keep that kind of crap to myself, but for those that always feel the need to play GOP v. Dems, a separate forum would save the rest of us from having to read the same rehashed attack/defense garbage over and over again.

[sachmo71]

Would it be too much to ask people not to instantly label someone with different viewpoints as an idiot?

[Bee]

I'd like to see this as well. To me the biggest reason is for new users who come here interested in FOF or other text sims and see the general discussion forum cluttered with political garbage may not want to stick around. While I like the fact that there's a wide range of discussions here, the political ones tend to get pretty ugly and it just makes the board as a whole look bad IMO.

[Axxon]

But that isn't always good for the people that started the thread in an a-political manner.

I thought about this but really, why not? It's usually several pages before the breakdown occurs and by that time mostly anyone who is going to read it already has and can follow it to its new home.

[SackAttack]

Would it be too much to ask people not to instantly label someone with different viewpoints as an idiot?

Yes, you idiot. :p

just kidding...

[Ksyrup]

For example, the Rehnquist thread - even just the news of his death at first - obviously should go in a politics section, rather then general discussion.
If that's the definition of "political," then my vote is for no. However, I suspect your definition is way too broad. Current events should definitely be posted here, and I don't see a problem with comments about his passing, or discussion about possible successors, for example. But, if people want to argue over what this means for the country and such, then it becomes a politically-charged discussion and potentially not appropriate for this forum.

[John Galt]

I might offer yet a third option, which would be to create a "politics penalty box," a seperate forum that a mod could throw a thread to if it becomes overtly mudslinging or nasty. This would be a clue to the rest of us that what may have started as a reasonable political discussion ceases to be such.


An interesting idea, but I think the result would just be to threadkill. Only the true crazies would continue the thread after that, and I doubt even they would in most cases.

[Flasch186]

im cool wiht it, although putting POL in front of a thread title was good enough for me too.

[QuikSand]

I'm just saying that what is undesirable is NOT all political discussion, but rather distasteful political discussion, and I don't think that's easily separated.

I absolutely agree with this point, but I fear that there may not be a truly practical way to separate the two.

As I said above, I have always been in the "keep it all together" camp on these mini-debates (and we have had a number of them over the years here at FOFC), but I have been moved to switch sides with respect to the partisan politics stuff. It has just gotten so caustic, that I now make it a point to avoid most any thread in the main forum that is'nt clearly labeled with something that actually interests me and is clearly not political. That has turned my thinking inside out -- it really ought to be the other way around, where I (or a random forum member) could feel free to read most everything, and only should need to steer clear of things with obviously dangerous titles or subjects. We have seen a few threads with a "POL" label or something along those lines - but I don't think we can count on the thread-starters to do this all the time, as we see how current events and other discussions can rapidly turn into nasty politics, despite the thread's original intentions.

[Dutch]

I volunteer to be the mod of the new politics forum. As a selfless-service to the fine folks of FOFC, of course. I will need admin rights to delete threads and modify others posts. k thx.

[st.cronin]

im cool wiht it, although putting POL in front of a thread title was good enough for me too.

exactly - the problem isn't with political threads or current event threads, but with threads that veer into an ugly place that nobody cares about except for those few actually posting. I don't know how you create a separate forum for threads like that - I think it's not really feasible.

[QuikSand]

Would it be too much to ask people not to instantly label someone with different viewpoints as an idiot?

I know this was a rhetoricl question, but I think that actually is too much to ask. Or rather, it's too much to enforce. If "being a jerk" is an actual offense on this board, then we give far too much leeway to our moderators, and put them into untenable positions on making way too many judgment calls on censoring content.

Right now, as I see it, our line is basically drawn at punishing actions that are harmful to the community. It's probably not perfect, as we know people complain on both sides about it, but the goals are the correct ones - to preserve the community.

I don't like name-calling (does anyone?) but the line there is far too gray for me to call for content-driven enforcement along those lines.

[ISiddiqui]

Bah, keep them all together. It makes the community more fun.

Though if we really need to get rid of some, a "Politics Penalty Box" as revrew stated may be the answer.

[revrew]

I also think that folks who repeatedly fail to keep politics/religion in the new forum should aslo be subject to suspension...

Perhaps Subby meant this as satirical, exaggerated humor.

But were this position taken seriously, this is exactly what I would oppose most vehemently. To say a man can't talk his religion is to say the man can't talk. A policy like this would mean I leave the board permanently.

No, that's not some inflammatory ultimatum. I simply mean to point out the consequences of segregating our conversations.

[Subby]

Perhaps Subby meant this as satirical, exaggerated humor.

But were this position taken seriously, this is exactly what I would oppose most vehemently. To say a man can't talk his religion is to say the man can't talk. A policy like this would mean I leave the board permanently.

No, that's not some inflammatory ultimatum. I simply mean to point out the consequences of segregating our conversations.
My point was just to keep it in the appropriate forum, that's all...

[Arles]

My concern on separating this forum is that people will undoubtedly splinter off and might not want to check both. This means that there will be less discussion on the main board. Still, I don't think it would be an awful idea. It may just hurt the overall responsiveness to this board (which is one of the main advantages - in addition to the diverse personalities).

[Icy]

I like the idea so i don't need to skip them, i'm interested on politics but never on discussing about them. I don't see the point on discussing politics, it's like religion, you won't ever convince the other part and there are always fanatics that destroy all the constructive discussion, also some ppl becomes really agressive when discussing politics and they end just insulting when they don't have any other argument.

I always skip that threads and will keep doing it so yeah, another section would be great imho.

[QuikSand]

My concern on separating this forum is that people will undoubtedly splinter off and might not want to check both. This means that there will be less discussion on the main board. Still, I don't think it would be an awful idea. It may just hurt the overall responsiveness to this board (which is one of the main advantages - in addition to the diverse personalities).

I absolutely agree that this is a bad thing to do, and will hurt the general discussion forum. For me, the question is whether that loss is worth it.

[vtbub]

I'm for moving threads that become shitkickers into their own litter box.

Current event threads are one thing, but keeping ones unwanted tireless tripe is another.


Open a new fourm.

[sachmo71]

I know this was a rhetoricl question, but I think that actually is too much to ask. Or rather, it's too much to enforce. If "being a jerk" is an actual offense on this board, then we give far too much leeway to our moderators, and put them into untenable positions on making way too many judgment calls on censoring content.

Right now, as I see it, our line is basically drawn at punishing actions that are harmful to the community. It's probably not perfect, as we know people complain on both sides about it, but the goals are the correct ones - to preserve the community.

I don't like name-calling (does anyone?) but the line there is far too gray for me to call for content-driven enforcement along those lines.


We don't enforce too much around here, nor was I asking for it. What my point is that we should have guidelines, and one of them would to to try to show respect for other posters. It was a lesson I learned long ago, and perhaps just having something like that posted would help. I doubt it, but it might.

[Axxon]

exactly - the problem isn't with political threads or current event threads, but with threads that veer into an ugly place that nobody cares about except for those few actually posting. I don't know how you create a separate forum for threads like that - I think it's not really feasible.

On the board I mentioned above those are the posts that are moved and they can be started anywhere but what generally happens is people know that things are as they are and simply start those threads in the appropriate place.

Of course, that isn't a "politics" forum it's the Pit and it would be nice if we considered a new forum that way, a much less moderated place with more exreme postings.

You'd still have to stop certain behavior but for the most part anything goes and it doesn't mess with the flow in the general forum.

What would be cool is if the post was moved and whoever caused that would be ghost banned everywhere except the unmoderated forum for a while which would discourage people from threadjacking.

[Anthony]

hey, people have to talk about something. jim certainly doesn't do his part to engage his customers. FOF is the common denominator here, if there isn't a steady supply of FOF-related content then people have to have a reason to come here, or else this place would have become irrelevant long ago. if jim wants a pure, on topic FOF only site (and he never gave any indication that he wanted that), let him start his own message board on his site.

the sooner we rename this place "Text Sim Central", the better. this site has long outgrown its dependence on FOF games to have a purpose. if people want to post political garbage then whatever, i generally have a good eye on what threads to avoid, and i generally know when to bow out of a thread once its gone downhill. no one is going to change anyone's opinion by posting something - when people realize that then the need to debate here will subside.

anyway, if the alternative to having political threads here is QS posts more crap about bird watching, his travels, listening to philosophy tapes during his commute or his bad puzzles - i'm sticking with the political threads. at their best they can be quasi-informative.

[Scarecrow]

I'm all for a new section for just political threads, but I want it taken one step further: Political threads do not appear when pressing the new posts button.

That way, noone will stumble into a political thread - they will have to physically enter the political section.

Although I don't know if this is even possible.

[Kodos]

Did QuikSand kill your mother?

[kcchief19]

Would it be too much to ask people not to instantly label someone with different viewpoints as an idiot? You'd think so ... wouldn't you?

It's a tough call ... especially from a moderator standpoint. I think the probably isn't so much the political discussions as the form of "debate" people engage in during these threads. At some point it reaches the name-calling level and it's downhill from there.

Axxon's "The Pit" suggestion has merit. Political threads aren't the only problem. Other threads degenerate into the muck as well, but obviously political threads or threads that turn political have a much higher percentage.

I'd favor a separate "unmoderated" forum aside from the general discussion with limited rules -- no porn, no excessive language, etc. that would get us flagged as a questionable site -- and a couple of tighter rules in the General Discussion, chiefly no name-calling. You call someone on the forum an idiot and you're in the box. I think we do a pretty good job of reporting threads, apparently, so I think for Ryan and Ben it would just be making a call once a thread is reported.

I don't buy the argument that we lose "valuable info" in pointless threads. I think we lose more "valuable info" when good discussions descend into chaos because a handful of people can't control themselves.

I get involved in these discussions much less than I used to, because I try to steer clear of them because they are such a waste of time.

[Marmel]

I like the Pit idea, but I think a better description would be something like "The Dump", where any thread that begins to spiral out of control for any reason is moved there.

I also think it is high time we took a couple more volunteers to help moderate. Ryan is mostly a hand-off guy and Skydog doesn't do a good job, IMO, all on his own. For instance, the Katrina thread was an FOFC embarrassment, but good ole' SD was away and didn't want to deal with it when he returned. A small group of 3 or 4 moderators who can esentially cover most of the clock would be a welcome addition around here.

[kcchief19]

I know this was a rhetoricl question, but I think that actually is too much to ask. Or rather, it's too much to enforce. If "being a jerk" is an actual offense on this board, then we give far too much leeway to our moderators, and put them into untenable positions on making way too many judgment calls on censoring content.

Right now, as I see it, our line is basically drawn at punishing actions that are harmful to the community. It's probably not perfect, as we know people complain on both sides about it, but the goals are the correct ones - to preserve the community.

I don't like name-calling (does anyone?) but the line there is far too gray for me to call for content-driven enforcement along those lines. I do understand that, but I tend to think the exact opposite. I agree that punishments now are typically drawn to what is "harmful" to the community, but that is a huge grey area to me. I think some posts in recent threads were very harmful to the community (this thread alone is evidence of that fallout) but drew no punishment. I don't necessarily disagree with that, because the most infamous thread of late degenerated into such a mess that it was the online equivalent of a hockey fight that included the goalies going at it. You could toss eight or nine people from the game, but it's too late at that point.

I think name-calling is a pretty cut-and-dried area. How many times have we seen someone say, "People like you may me sick" or "You are such a tool"? I won't pretend I'm not guilty of that; I'm certain that I am. If it were against the rules, I certainly woudn't do and if I did I would deserve some time in the box.

[Franklinnoble]

Only a Nazi would want a separate political forum.

[Anthony]

i would be the Emperor and dominate if there was a Pit. tread lightly people, you don't want me on level 10+. once the kid gloves come off you wouldn't have any mod to protect your feelings.

just keep the status quo. there isn't enough entertaining content on this site to make it worthwhile coming to everyday, decreased posting or having to go to separate forums would make it all to easy for me to just move on to something else.

[Axxon]

i would be the Emperor and dominate if there was a Pit. tread lightly people, you don't want me on level 10+. once the kid gloves come off you wouldn't have any mod to protect your feelings.

just keep the status quo. there isn't enough entertaining content on this site to make it worthwhile coming to everyday, decreased posting or having to go to separate forums would make it all to easy for me to just move on to something else.

I'd relish a confrontation with you in the pit but you've already given yourself the weenie way out with your last sentence. :D

[sachmo71]

I think some more mods would help immensely.
They better be thick skinned people, though.

[Kodos]

decreased posting or having to go to separate forums would make it all to easy for me to just move on to something else.

Then it's agreed. We separate the forums!

[st.cronin]

I think some more mods would help immensely.
They better be thick skinned people, though.

I think this is the answer!

[Anthony]

I'd relish a confrontation with you in the pit but you've already given yourself the weenie way out with your last sentence. :D

there isn't anything someone from Phoenix, AZ could say to me that would ever make me feel bad. knowing that, have a go at it. :)

[QuikSand]

With more mods, isn't there a risk that we'll end up with moderation-by-the-toughest? If we have five or six people empowered to hand out suspensions and the like, won't this turn into a system where anyone who offends any of the mods to a certain degree gets punished?

If your opinion is that the forum management is too hands-off now, I can see how this would be attractive. But I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that assessment.

[Senator]

I am sitting on the fence on this issue, testing the political winds, listening to my focus groups before I commit to an opinion.

[sachmo71]

I've seen message board where they have had multiple mods, and it's worked pretty effectively. If they are quality individuals who don't abuse their position, then it can work. I think it would be easier to deal with then 1 or 2 mods having to move threads whenever they get out of control to another forum.

[st.cronin]

With more mods, isn't there a risk that we'll end up with moderation-by-the-toughest? If we have five or six people empowered to hand out suspensions and the like, won't this turn into a system where anyone who offends any of the mods to a certain degree gets punished?

If your opinion is that the forum management is too hands-off now, I can see how this would be attractive. But I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that assessment.

It depends on the mods and the rules; I've been in forums that had multiple (more than 5, even) moderators, and things ran very smooth.

[vtbub]

I am sitting on the fence on this issue, testing the political winds, listening to my focus groups before I commit to an opinion.

Well, well played.

[Franklinnoble]

With more mods, isn't there a risk that we'll end up with moderation-by-the-toughest? If we have five or six people empowered to hand out suspensions and the like, won't this turn into a system where anyone who offends any of the mods to a certain degree gets punished?

If your opinion is that the forum management is too hands-off now, I can see how this would be attractive. But I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that assessment.
Hah. Make me moderator, and I'll un-ban everybody. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[sachmo71]

I am sitting on the fence on this issue, testing the political winds, listening to my focus groups before I commit to an opinion.


moved

[John Galt]

If your opinion is that the forum management is too hands-off now, I can see how this would be attractive. But I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that assessment.

I was out of town for a week, so I've just gone back and read some of the threads that I think triggered this. Wow. I don't know what to say.

I'm generally not of the mind that this board is too hands-off, but after capsicom's (sp?) performance (although I could see some of it was deleted) in the original hurricane thread and the more recent NoMyths thread, how is she not in the penalty box?

If that stuff is going to go on, then I'm tentatively in support of QS's idea. The garbage is just too much and it does reflect very poorly on the board.

[Fritz]

quik is always stirring shit up.

[Marmel]

With more mods, isn't there a risk that we'll end up with moderation-by-the-toughest? If we have five or six people empowered to hand out suspensions and the like, won't this turn into a system where anyone who offends any of the mods to a certain degree gets punished?

If your opinion is that the forum management is too hands-off now, I can see how this would be attractive. But I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that assessment.

I actually think the moderation is pretty poor, and way too hands-ON. Now having said that, I don't see that changing, so what I would like to see is a group of moderators who will enforce the rules across the board, no matter the time of day or the post count of the offender. As it is now, it only happens when the current moderator has time or feels like it. Does that make sense?

[QuikSand]

I actually think the moderation is pretty poor, and way too hands-ON. Now having said that, I don't see that changing, so what I would like to see is a group of moderators who will enforce the rules across the board, no matter the time of day or the post count of the offender. As it is now, it only happens when the current moderator has time or feels like it. Does that make sense?

But there is no circumstance where the forum rules are going to be cut and dried - there will always be judgment calls. Trolling, or offering aggressive opinions? Personal attacks, or just aggressive debate? Harmful to the forum community, or just offensive to me personally? Whatever you define to be against the rules, there are going to be disagreements about where that line should be drawn, and whether it applies to any given circumstance.

If there really exists a council of people who are willing to make these sort of decisions collectively and as fairly as possible, I suppose that sounds fine, though I have rarely seen a situation where creating a bureaucracy really makes things more efficient or effective. By doing so these volunteers would seem to subject themselves to the sort of abuse that SkyDog receives (from people on both sides of nearly every issue of consequence), which seems to me like rather thankless work.

[WSUCougar]

Well, well played.
Partisan lickspittle.

[Bee]

If we open up a political sub-forum, I think the only choice of mod would be Quiksand since he started all this...

:D

[sachmo71]

Partisan lickspittle.


uh-uh.

rotunda cloakroom monkie.

[John Galt]

If we open up a political sub-forum, I think the only choice of mod would be Quiksand since he started all this...

:D

I second the motion. :p

[sachmo71]

monkey. sorry.

i don't know why i have such a hard time with that word.

[WSUCougar]

monkey. sorry.

i don't know why i have such a hard time with that word.
I think you're blinded by lust.

[sachmo71]

I think you're blinded by lust.

bingo.


you know, it might surprise you what a chimp will do for a smoke.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Can't we just convert the Hattrick forum in to a policital forum? I mean, it's not being used, is it? :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

I actually think the moderation is pretty poor, and way too hands-ON.

I agree on the former ... and totally disagree with the latter. Frankly, this forum is about as laxly (is that a word?) moderated as any I've ever been any part of. And I've yet to see one moderated as lightly as this one that has survived in any meaningful form.

BUT ...

I don't put all that on the mods themselves (or at least not on their mod style), I put a lot of that on the lack of clearly defined rules that are then enforced as equitably as human mods can manage.

----
Separately, to the issue of "the main board will lose posts" ... so friggin' what?
We aren't in any post-count competitions I'm aware of, there's no prize for having the most posts per forum, so WTF difference does it make what the post count is or which sub-forum the posts are on?

[John Galt]

Separately, to the issue of "the main board will lose posts" ... so friggin' what?
We aren't in any post-count competitions I'm aware of, there's no prize for having the most posts per forum, so WTF difference does it make what the post count is or which sub-forum the posts are on?

The only fear I have (and it is entirely hypothetical at this point) is that FOFC would dip below a critical mass of posts. Boards die not when everyone stops posting, but when there isn't enough content to maintain a steady supply of viewers who post. In the Sideline days, there were times when there were substantially less threads in a given day. If the number of threads had dipped lower, the board could have easily changed to just-another-fan-site-board. IMO, because of OT: posts, the board survived and thrived. Politics is an important area for maintaining that OT: critical mass. Since FOFC is pretty healthy now, I don't see a risk in board death, but if times get leaner, politics could help keep things "active."

With that being said, however, I'm still tentatively in favor of QS's proposal.

[Kodos]

I think they're saying the more posts in a centralized area, the more interested folks will be in the board. Nobody wants to search for threads in 15 different forums.

[Anthony]

I think they're saying the more posts in a centralized area, the more interested folks will be in the board. Nobody wants to search for threads in 15 different forums.

i certainly don't.

[Subby]

I think they're saying the more posts in a centralized area, the more interested folks will be in the board. Nobody wants to search for threads in 15 different forums. How about "three"? Think you could "handle" that? ;)

[HomerJSimpson]

Bah, keep them all together. It makes the community more fun.

Though if we really need to get rid of some, a "Politics Penalty Box" as revrew stated may be the answer.


Let me note my support for this idea. I also thinking marking threads with pol- is a good idea that should be the norm. Other than that, I'm against a seperate forum.

[sabotai]

I agree with QS. "It's a bad idea whose time has come."

Nothing makes me want to leave this forum more than a thread that is political that degrades to mudslinging or a nonpolitical thread turned political truend to mudslinging. At least with this idea, it would cut it down considerably. If it cuts down a little on me seeing good posts and the activity of GD in general, I feel it's worth it.

It's no exaggeration when I say most of the time I come to FOFC now, it's to read or post in the Dynasty section. It's because of the garbage that threads oftan turn into.

[albionmoonlight]

Having read this thread and weighed the issue, I agree with a separate forum.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think they're saying the more posts in a centralized area, the more interested folks will be in the board. Nobody wants to search for threads in 15 different forums.

General all-purpose thanks to both you & JG for giving a straight answer to what really was a straight question. I really didn't get the point of that whole part of the discussion, at least now I get the point ... even if I don't agree with it.

My counter to that would be that "we aren't talking about 15 different forums", we're talking about (as far as I can tell) ONE "NHB" forum. Somebody mentioned one called "The Pit", one memorable example I recall was simply titled "Enter At Your Own Risk".

Those who choose to visit it know what they're getting, those who want to avoid it can do so. It's one forum.

As far the "critical mass" situation that JG referred to, I think there's a reasonable argument to be considered at this point that goes something like "if the political threads are all that's keeping the forum at critical mass, maybe it's time it be allowed to rest in peace anyway."

I do believe there's a devil of a detail to be worked out in determining whether it's all political items vs all potentially political items (I'd favor the latter, but can at least see where there's a debate on that distinction). And if moderator workload is even a tiny part of the equation as part of the equation then I would strongly support the addition of "specialty mods" to handle the transfer of items to the appropriate forum. Even with the immense political gulfs that exist here, surely 2-4 people chosen from across the spectrum can manage to identify when a thread is political or when it isn't.

Heck, in a rare concession of power to the other side of the aisle(;)) I'd even be very supportive of a model that allowed any one "thread location moderator" to relocate a thread unilaterally; i.e. if I think it's politcal, it moves even if JG disagrees, likewise if he thinks so & I don't. Any one mod is enough to make the call.

[Samdari]

i disagree. i'm bothered more by the most retarded theads started by QS than the political threads. QS must think he's the most interesting person in the world, what with the schlock he posts that he thinks passes as entertainment

Why does every thread here have to entertain YOU? Lots of people post here looking for all kinds of information, why not ask if someone has a favorite towel. It makes as much sense as the werewolf threads, or best song, hottest chicks, asking about recommendations for tv's, computers, recipes, laptops, etc.

[Cuckoo]

Having read this thread and weighed the issue, I'm against a separate forum. I actually agree with Papa Simpson.

[Raiders Army]

I agree with the separate forum and the Politics Penalty Box as well.

I also offer to moderate the Werewolf Forum.

[Franklinnoble]

Having read this thread and weighed the issue, I think people who cry about politics and religion creeping into their precious little threads need to find a better outlet for their frustration.

[JeeberD]

At Clutchfans.net they have a forum called "Debate & Discussion" and that's basically where all the politcal, religious, and other combustable threads go. Basically the rules are not to get personal or else you'll get kicked out of the D&D...either for a predetermined amount of time or permanently if you're a repeat offender. As the forum description reads...

Monkeys flinging poo at each other. Politics, Religion, Race and other heated topics you wouldn't fire away on in polite conversation. Not for the weak of heart, but keep it civilized or you'll get the heave.

If a thread that should be in D&D is started in General Discussion, it gets moved. If I thread starts to spiral out of control, it gets moved to D&D. And that system works pretty well over there, though they do have six or eight mods (some have powers confined to individual forums, though) who report to a central admin.

[terpkristin]

This thread has been an interesting read.

I must confess, I don't read much of the political-related threads here, so this doesn't really affect me...either I skip over the threads in a politics specific "board area" or I skip over them here in the general discussion area.

I find it particularly interesting because of the thread I created for updates on the status of those affected by Katrina. While that thread has stayed very good (thanks to everybody for that!), I don't know that there are many threads with such heavy topics that could.

As weird as it is for me to say this, most of the political threads here revolve around somewhat breaking news/current events. It strikes me that having a place for this type of news in particular would be a breeding ground for political discussion...which isn't necessarily bad, so long as the "news" portion of the thread is covered in the first post (such as Rehnquist's death thread, which covered the important parts in the first post and then got into some interesting debates...).

While I don't necessarily think that there needs to be a special forum section for political discussions, I do think it could work as follows:
Thread on breaking news story in general forum with a link to a parallel thread in political forum for political discussion. Thread in general forum gets used for updating the news aspects (such as in the case of Rehnquist, information on his body lying for repose for public view). Political thread could wend it's way doing whatever it does politically speaking, with a few ground rules including those in a previous post (similar to The Straight Dope's Pit area).

I understand that two "parallel threads" (though they probably wouldn't stay parallel for very long) might get too much for the board to handle, so that's a consideration, too. Just strikes me that there should be a place for actual news and a place for views, and a way to get both if they're wanted but otherwise have that "natural filter" to avoid the "views" if you want...

/tk

[Mountain]

I disagree with the need for a new forum. I enjoy the diversity of threads that are in general discussion. Frequently, I will discuss things with my wife that appear in the political type threads that I may not even have thought about had I not read them. While I have had disagreements with memebers of the board in the past I enjoy a spirited debate and the process of having my position challenged and having to defend it..

If we move these threads then we will inevitably lose some posters to these threads which would be a bad thing IMO. One of the reasons I come to this forum daily is because of all the information that is posted here and politics is a major part of that component.

[flere-imsaho]

Having read this thread and weighed the issue, I think people who cry about politics and religion creeping into their precious little threads need to find a better outlet for their frustration.

...says the guy who wants to turn the U.S. into a Christian theocracy....

[kurtism]

I demand this thread be moved to the political forum.

[WSUCougar]

Here we go...:rolleyes:

[antbacker]

No seperate forum. It will get boring very quickly otherwise

[Franklinnoble]

...says the guy who wants to turn the U.S. into a Christian theocracy....
Christ is already the king. You just haven't acknowledged it yet. If you live long enough, you might see him assume the role in the flesh. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[HomerJSimpson]

Having read this thread and weighed the issue, I'm against a separate forum. I actually agree with Papa Simpson.


Who-Hoo!! In your face, Kickstand!

[flere-imsaho]

Christ is already the king.

You couldn't be more wrong.

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/elvis-portrait2sm.jpg

[Blackadar]

I considered this waaaay back when and rejected it. I still think it's unnecessary.

This is an idea that floats back up to the surface every once in a while and then sinks again. It almost always floats at the start of the football season, when there's enough on-topic (sports, new game by Solecismic) subjects to justify moving it. It's when things get dull where you find you need it so the forums continue to have a hearbeat.

From a mod's standpoint, many subjects can turn into a political thread. Drawing the line is never easy and you're almost forced to move threads constantly. It takes a lot of time and moderating a political forum is rather difficult because the temptation is too great to ban users who disagree loudly with your favorite political position.

We wouldn't even be discussing this seriously if it wasn't for a certain she-who-must-not-be-named bitchtroll (TM, Blackadar 2005). The easy solution is to ban her and if her husband wants to complain, show him the door too.

[Antmeister]

I see where everyone is going with it and I was almost willing to go in this direction, but then I realized why people want a seperate area. The only reason people want a seperate forum is because of how most of them degenerate into name calling, hatred filled posts and some borderline trolling. This happens without the need of politics though.

By creating a seperate section, they will still have to follow the same rules unless you want to make it an "Enter at your own risk area." If that were to happen, most of the people who primarily come to the board motivated to talk about politics will dwindle since a lot of the posters actually like to have a dialouge and not an insult ridden tirades. Now if it weren't a "free to say anything area", I don't see why we have a need for this since everyone will have to follow the same rules.

And what happens when the topic can fall in both areas. The latest hurricane threads can fall into general discussion, but there are politics involved. People will talk about the tragedy (General discussion) and people will talk about what should have been done (Politics). And what if Hell Atlantic were to start another one of his sexual fantasy threads that dealt with Barbara Bush? Or what if someone posts their favorite song from Kanye West? I mean these have the potential to degenerate into political bashing really quick and I don't see how they can be seperated.

To be honest, I would like to see some rules, or at least guidelines to these forums. Sometimes there is that sticky of the top for links, but maybe it could be expanded a bit with some general guidelines.

Yet that is easy for me to say since I have no idea where to start. I mean I actually enjoy reading some of the risque material on the board, but somewhere there is a line that is crossed and I can't really define where the line is. One of the recent threads that was locked is a clear example. Someone posted about an email they received from a friend who knows someone at the Astrodome (hmmmm.....sounds complicated. No this is not a Flasch post). Anyways upon reading the thread, it was pretty much racist and mean spirited. Yet the original poster stated that it was not their opinion. How would you moderate that? Especailly when you see another thread about some guy called the "Amazing Racist?". Sure the Amazing Racist is a comedian, but where the frick is that line for questionable material? I didn't really care for either and promptly left the thread.

So in other words Skydog is basically moderating a place where he trying to balance against not too offensive and not too sterile and that is what has made this place fascinating to me and why I have always come back. That is why it would be difficult to come up with a set of general rules and why having a seperate section may not be a good idea.

[Chapter 1 complete]

[Senator]

That entry, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.

[Franklinnoble]

If you don't like it, ignore it. This "ban the people we don't like" crap is stupid.

[Subby]

My one supporting point would be that I remember this place and the way it was two or three years ago - when there were a lot less in the way of politics and religion.

And it was much better (more civil, etc.).

And we even had a quote of the moment! And more Fritz!

[Klinglerware]

Yeah, I don't think a separate forum is really necessary. If people don't want to go into political threads, they won't go in to the obvious ones and will back away quickly if they do unintentionally enter one.

Perhaps we should bring the FOF/TCY strategy section back to the general discussion? Strategy siphons off some FOF/TCY-related talk on the general discussion section, yet it isn't big enough to be a consistent forum on it's own. There is some overlap between the general FOFC and strategy discussion anyway, so perhaps returning strategy back to the general section will spark more sports text-sim related discussion.

[Blackadar]

If you don't like it, ignore it. This "ban the people we don't like" crap is stupid.

No, it's "ban the bitchtrolls who contribute nothing useful and have no purpose here but to stir things up" crap. Ignoring is virtually impossible when their stupid crap is quoted in the next post, and the post after that, etc.

One of my main measuring sticks was always "do they have an interest in FOF (the product)?" If they don't, they were on a much shorter leash than those who were customers of Solecismic. That was one of my personal litimus tests and not one Solecismic ever endorsed or suggested, but it does weed out a few of those who really shouldn't be here.

[Subby]

Perhaps we should bring the FOF/TCY strategy section back to the general discussion? Strategy siphons off some FOF/TCY-related talk on the general discussion section, yet it isn't big enough to be a consistent forum on it's own. There is some overlap between the general FOFC and strategy discussion anyway, so perhaps returning strategy back to the general section will spark more sports text-sim related discussion. I completely agree that this needs to be done...

[stevew]

I wish the ignore feature worked better.

[Subby]

If you don't like it, ignore it. This "ban the people we don't like" crap is stupid. You're just bitter because your wife can't stay out of the box.

And no, that wasn't meant as a double-entendre. ;)

[wade moore]

If you don't like it, ignore it. This "ban the people we don't like" crap is stupid.
Frankie, I'm usually on the 'ignore it and it will go away' side of things...

However.. you are oversimplifying the solution ... it is pretty difficult to just 'ignore it' when it pervades through a large number of the posts, on a consistent basis... This seems to be happening here (and unlike others i am not pointing only at your wife) on a regular basis, even on seemingly innocent threads...

While I don't know how I feel with the idea put out in the original thread here, I think to say at this point 'ignore it' is a major oversimplification.

[Franklinnoble]

No, it's "ban the bitchtrolls who contribute nothing useful and have no purpose here but to stir things up" crap. Ignoring is virtually impossible when their stupid crap is quoted in the next post, and the post after that, etc.

One of my main measuring sticks was always "do they have an interest in FOF (the product)?" If they don't, they were on a much shorter leash than those who were customers of Solecismic. That was one of my personal litimus tests and not one Solecismic ever endorsed or suggested, but it does weed out a few of those who really shouldn't be here.
Whatever you say asswipe. Talk to me like that in person, and I'll knock your teeth out. You wanna ban the opinions you don't like that come from the people that haven't been here forever. You liberal crybabies love freedom of speech until it's something you don't wanna hear.

Use the ignore button if you don't want to read it. Otherwise knock of the pompous self-righteous crap. This is a bloody internet message board - not a freaking sanctuary of liberal political correctness.

[Bee]

I considered this waaaay back when and rejected it. I still think it's unnecessary.

This is an idea that floats back up to the surface every once in a while and then sinks again. It almost always floats at the start of the football season, when there's enough on-topic (sports, new game by Solecismic) subjects to justify moving it. It's when things get dull where you find you need it so the forums continue to have a hearbeat.



I think that was probably true 4 or 5 years ago, but with the introduction of all the other text sims and independent games that seem to be popular with those who come here, I don't think it's necessarily the case anymore.

[Franklinnoble]

You're just bitter because your wife can't stay out of the box.

And no, that wasn't meant as a double-entendre. ;)
What pisses me off is that others here are just as politically driven, and stir up just as much shit, and aren't treated likewise. The excuse is "you're new, and you haven't contributed anything else." Which is elitist bullshit.

[kcchief19]

I completely agree that this needs to be done... Didn't we initially do that because it was too hard for newbies to find that info? Certain irony there. That said, I think it supports the idea of a politics forum. That's not what the site should be about. It's great if that becomes a sidelight, but if it becomes the focus then it's no different from any other howl-at-the-wind blog or forum that are a dime a dozen online. I think this site is a lot more valuable when it's a FOF and other sports sim discussion site than an online version of Crossfire. They cancelled Crossfire for a reason.

I think it would be mind-blowing irony for a discussion of whether or not there should be a separate politics forum eventually declines into a partisan muckfest.

[sterlingice]

If that's the definition of "political," then my vote is for no. However, I suspect your definition is way too broad. Current events should definitely be posted here, and I don't see a problem with comments about his passing, or discussion about possible successors, for example. But, if people want to argue over what this means for the country and such, then it becomes a politically-charged discussion and potentially not appropriate for this forum.
I'm really opposed to this idea because it will completely gut the General Forums.

I'll use the Renquist thread as an example for the dividing line where a political thread becomes crap in my mind. It is not when there are people debating the possiblity of, say, Roe v Wade being overturned or the political ramifications as to shifting some portion of the country more red or blue. But, it's when someone starts calling someone else a fascist or a baby killer or says one point of view is mindless or says all red staters or blue staters or conservatives or liberals are morons. The problem is that it's a crazy fine line- it's the difference between being able to say President Bush came off as looking dumb answering a question versus he's always an effing moron.

But if anything with any sort of political slant is sent into this other forum, general is just going to suffer greatly for content, and, by extension, I think a lot more people will just eventually leave from boredom than if SD just started banning everyone who started escalating political threads (not that this is a good option, either).

SI

[Bee]

Perhaps we should bring the FOF/TCY strategy section back to the general discussion? Strategy siphons off some FOF/TCY-related talk on the general discussion section, yet it isn't big enough to be a consistent forum on it's own. There is some overlap between the general FOFC and strategy discussion anyway, so perhaps returning strategy back to the general section will spark more sports text-sim related discussion.

I agree with this as well. You could also do the same with the game review discussion which seems to get about 1-2 posts a month.

[Radii]

Whatever you say asswipe. Talk to me like that in person, and I'll knock your teeth out. You wanna ban the opinions you don't like that come from the people that haven't been here forever. You liberal crybabies love freedom of speech until it's something you don't wanna hear.



If your wife had made a single post that wasn't either:

a) laced with ad hominem attacks or thinly veiled attacks towards people here

or

b) apologizing/defending posts made under category a)

I'd be entirely on your side. But I'm pretty sure that's not the case. capsicum is the textbook definition of a message board troll and I'm shocked she hasn't been banned yet. Many people have approached her very nicely and suggested that she could find ways to share her opinions without rubbing 95% of the members of the board the wrong way, she has chosen to ignore those suggestions.

[HomerJSimpson]

That entry, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.


He's got nothing on CR.

[Anthony]

i like how Blackadar will try to give extra importance to his posts by starting off "when i was the mod". fact is, he hasn't been a mod for like how long now, so him saying what he *would* do to people he doesn't like has as much weight as Shorty saying the same thing. just cuz someone *used* to be the top dog don't mean people still wanna hear their bark.

[sterlingice]

Bah, keep them all together. It makes the community more fun.

Though if we really need to get rid of some, a "Politics Penalty Box" as revrew stated may be the answer.
This isn't too bad of an idea. Tho I think some people would just send it down that path just to get it out of the General and into their personal sandbox.

SI

[stevew]

If your wife had made a single post that wasn't either:

a) laced with ad hominem attacks or thinly veiled attacks towards people here

or

b) apologizing/defending posts made under category a)

I'd be entirely on your side. But I'm pretty sure that's not the case. capsicum is the textbook definition of a message board troll and I'm shocked she hasn't been banned yet. Many people have approached her very nicely and suggested that she could find ways to share her opinions without rubbing 95% of the members of the board the wrong way, she has chosen to ignore those suggestions.
Bingo

[Franklinnoble]

If your wife had made a single post that wasn't either:

a) laced with ad hominem attacks or thinly veiled attacks towards people here

or

b) apologizing/defending posts made under category a)

I'd be entirely on your side. But I'm pretty sure that's not the case. capsicum is the textbook definition of a message board troll and I'm shocked she hasn't been banned yet. Many people have approached her very nicely and suggested that she could find ways to share her opinions without rubbing 95% of the members of the board the wrong way, she has chosen to ignore those suggestions.
Why don't you read her entire post history before you crack off with that. She's made a lot of perfectly innocuous posts here - it's just the political ones that draw attention.

[stevew]

We need a "FOOTBALL/SPORTS GAMING ONLY" forum, instead of a "politics" one.

[VPI97]

What pisses me off is that others here are just as politically driven, and stir up just as much shit, and aren't treated likewise. The excuse is "you're new, and you haven't contributed anything else." Which is elitist bullshit.If someone registers on this board and immediately starts pissing people off, that person is normally treated as a troll (see happy29, et al) Just because the topic is politics rather than the normal incoherant bs is no reason to make a distinction between the two.

If we're not going to have a separate forum, could we at least have a thread rating system like there is in the dynasty forum? That way when I see a thread rated crap, I'll know to avoid it completely.

[HomerJSimpson]

Whatever you say asswipe. Talk to me like that in person, and I'll knock your teeth out. You wanna ban the opinions you don't like that come from the people that haven't been here forever. You liberal crybabies love freedom of speech until it's something you don't wanna hear.

Use the ignore button if you don't want to read it. Otherwise knock of the pompous self-righteous crap. This is a bloody internet message board - not a freaking sanctuary of liberal political correctness.



What a great example of the love of Christ. God bless you, too!

[flere-imsaho]

Whatever you say asswipe. Talk to me like that in person, and I'll knock your teeth out.

Lol.

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

:rolleyes:

[Antmeister]

If you don't like it, ignore it. This "ban the people we don't like" crap is stupid.

I don't know if this comment is in general or you were responding to my post, but I would like to say that I didn't think this required a banning. I was just asking where do you draw a line.

You seemed to have drawn that line when Skydog simply pointed out a post, made by druez, on another message board. But you seemed to think that line dissolved when someone posts some very rascist comments made by an alleged worker at the Astrodome. I just find that interesting.

[sabotai]

This was predictable...

[John Galt]

Why don't you read her entire post history before you crack off with that. She's made a lot of perfectly innocuous posts here - it's just the political ones that draw attention.

I did read her post history earlier today. The fact that she has also made innocuous posts seems kind of irrelevant, IMO. Nearly every political post she has made has been troll-like because it insults people, has little to do with the thread overall, and/or seeks to intentionally inflame the discussion. Several people, myself included, have suggested that she might try a different approach, but she has come back with more crap (ie messing up NoMyth's poem thread for no reason I can discern).

[flere-imsaho]

Why don't you read her entire post history before you crack off with that. She's made a lot of perfectly innocuous posts here - it's just the political ones that draw attention.

1. I encourage anyone to read her entire post history and not come to the same conclusion as Radii.

2. Of course, part of the problem is that she's deleted/edited many of the very worst posts in question....

[Franklinnoble]

What a great example of the love of Christ. God bless you, too!
Even Jesus busted open a can of whoop ass on occassion... and it was when someone blatently offended the Father. I think it's alright if I get pissed off at people making personal comments about my wife.

[panerd]

If your wife had made a single post that wasn't either:

a) laced with ad hominem attacks or thinly veiled attacks towards people here

or

b) apologizing/defending posts made under category a)

I'd be entirely on your side. But I'm pretty sure that's not the case. capsicum is the textbook definition of a message board troll and I'm shocked she hasn't been banned yet. Many people have approached her very nicely and suggested that she could find ways to share her opinions without rubbing 95% of the members of the board the wrong way, she has chosen to ignore those suggestions.

Yep. Unfortunatly he can't see how bad she is so don't bother with him or he will "punch your teeth out".

[sterlingice]

I don't buy the argument that we lose "valuable info" in pointless threads. I think we lose more "valuable info" when good discussions descend into chaos because a handful of people can't control themselves.
A lot of people seem to have this view of how things happen here. Which makes me wonder, why not just ban these handful of people rather than screw up the board? Tho I suppose it would result in such a messy upheaval as it stands to reason that it would be some of the more high profile people that would be kicked out and that would lead to a bunch of others to pitch a fit because one side had more people kicked out or vice versa.

SI

[QuikSand]

Honestly, the number of people who have resisted this idea out of concern for the General Discussion forum is heartening to me.

[stevew]

In before the lock.

[Franklinnoble]

Yep. Unfortunatly he can't see how bad she is so don't bother with him or he will "punch your teeth out".
No, it's the rest of you who can't see how hypocritical you're being on the subject.

[Swaggs]

What a great example of the love of Christ. God bless you, too!

At least now we know where the term "holier than thou" came from.

[Antmeister]

This was predictable...

LOL....this is why a seperate section won't work. There is drama just talking about having a different section.

[QuikSand]

I think it would be mind-blowing irony for a discussion of whether or not there should be a separate politics forum eventually declines into a partisan muckfest.

I agree, it was inevitable.

[Radii]

Honestly, the number of people who have resisted this idea out of concern for the General Discussion forum is heartening to me.


Since I helped contribute to the downfall of this thread, I should comment on the acutal topic...


I would totally support a politlcal forum and the suspension/banning of anyone who can't keep that shit out of general discussion. But then again, if things stay the way they are, I'm not going to leave the board or anything, I don't mind wading through a bunch of stuff I don't care about to find the NFL Pick'em games and such, whether it be werewolf of political threads.

[Subby]

Jesus only beat up the gays, silly.

[Franklinnoble]

I agree, it was inevitable.
So, what you're saying is you knew ahead of time that you were going to be contributing to the exact "problem" you're bemoaning.

Nicely done. How about we all shut up and stop playing "internet censor?"

[John Galt]

A lot of people seem to have this view of how things happen here. Which makes me wonder, why not just ban these handful of people rather than screw up the board? Tho I suppose it would result in such a messy upheaval as it stands to reason that it would be some of the more high profile people that would be kicked out and that would lead to a bunch of others to pitch a fit because one side had more people kicked out or vice versa.

SI

I do not think the idea of banning or punishing certain contributors is a per se bad idea. However, like you, I believe it is probably unworkable. I have little doubt some here would think I should be banned although (with a brief period of exception where I stupidly tried something different) I have generally been polite and respectful with people. Nonetheless, I surely piss people off.

And I know if I were to start naming people who I think should be nixed, Arles would be at the top of the list of people who ruin political threads. Yet, he is one of the important game developers that this community is about, so it makes NO sense to ban him.

So, although I think things would be much better with a few choice posters (possibly including myself) being booted, it is not a real solution.

[Klinglerware]

Didn't we initially do that because it was too hard for newbies to find that info?

That's a good reason for splitting it out--but that strategy section really isn't self-perpetuating and seems rarely visited. People ask questions about TCY/FOF strategy in the general discussion section anyway (I would probably do the same, since it would get more exposure from the forum membership), so I think it might be a good idea to think about reconsolidating the two sections...

[panerd]

No, it's the rest of you who can't see how hypocritical you're being on the subject.

Let's see I have been here 4 years and posted about TCY, FOF, and other text sim startagies. Your wife has been here, what 2 weeks? Maybe two people on the board know who I am. How many know who your wife is? Just innocent posts, eh?

[sabotai]

Honestly, the number of people who have resisted this idea out of concern for not getting all of the attention you need from your mudslinging is disheartening to me.
Fixed it for you. :)

[Blackadar]

Whatever you say asswipe. Talk to me like that in person, and I'll knock your teeth out. You wanna ban the opinions you don't like that come from the people that haven't been here forever. You liberal crybabies love freedom of speech until it's something you don't wanna hear.

Use the ignore button if you don't want to read it. Otherwise knock of the pompous self-righteous crap. This is a bloody internet message board - not a freaking sanctuary of liberal political correctness.

See, I didn't name names, but I guess you can identify your own wife's shortcomings without her even being named. I guess it's a "if the shoe fits" scenario for you...

It has nothing to do with "ban the opinions you don't like that come from the people that haven't been here forever". That's laughable. It's largely maintaining this message board by users of FOF for users of FOF. And those who don't buy the product aren't afforded the same leeway. There are 1000s of message boards dedicated to politics. There's one dedicated to FOF. If someone is going to come on here and purposely stir the pot and they don't really have any purpose for doing it HERE vs. those 1000s of other message boards, they really don't belong. And they should be shown the door.

As I said, the ignore button doesn't work since Bitchtroll's (TM Blackadar 2005) posts are quoted repeatedly by other outraged users. Having someone like that around is the political equivalent like someone coming in and posting Tubgirl in every political thread. She leaves a trail of shit wherever she goes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If your wife had made a single post that wasn't either:

a) laced with ad hominem attacks or thinly veiled attacks towards people here

or

b) apologizing/defending posts made under category a)

I'd be entirely on your side. But I'm pretty sure that's not the case. capsicum is the textbook definition of a message board troll and I'm shocked she hasn't been banned yet. Many people have approached her very nicely and suggested that she could find ways to share her opinions without rubbing 95% of the members of the board the wrong way, she has chosen to ignore those suggestions.

Your troll = one of the 10 most interesting & worthwhile posters I think are left on the board in total, regardless of post count. Hell Radii, in, what, less than 100 posts(?) she's already managed to contribute more of any value than a lot of people with thousands of posts.

[Crapshoot]

If your wife had made a single post that wasn't either:

a) laced with ad hominem attacks or thinly veiled attacks towards people here

or

b) apologizing/defending posts made under category a)

I'd be entirely on your side. But I'm pretty sure that's not the case. capsicum is the textbook definition of a message board troll and I'm shocked she hasn't been banned yet. Many people have approached her very nicely and suggested that she could find ways to share her opinions without rubbing 95% of the members of the board the wrong way, she has chosen to ignore those suggestions.

Yup.

[VPI97]

Ideally, you'd want a posting system on the board that would require a thread starter to select a thread type from a dropdown box (like 'General', 'News', 'Football', 'Baseball', 'Religion', 'Politics', etc). And then we could add a thread filter at the top of the forum index that would allow a user to only display those threads that fall into the categories that they want to see.

I don't know anyone who is good at modding a php based board though.

[Blackadar]

Even Jesus busted open a can of whoop ass on occassion... and it was when someone blatently offended the Father. I think it's alright if I get pissed off at people making personal comments about my wife.

As I said, I didn't name your wife. You did. :D

[WSUCougar]

Even Jesus busted open a can of whoop ass on occassion... and it was when someone blatently offended the Father. I think it's alright if I get pissed off at people making personal comments about my wife.
Blessed are the asshats, for they shall posteth crap.

[Subby]

So, what you're saying is you knew ahead of time that you were going to be contributing to the exact "problem" you're bemoaning. Okay, now you've lost me.

[WSUCougar]

In before the lock.
You liberally-conservative locked-thread posting SLUT!!!

[Franklinnoble]

See, I didn't name names, but I guess you can identify your own wife's shortcomings without her even being named. I guess it's a "if the shoe fits" scenario for you...

Please. You knew exactly who you were talking about, and so did everyone else.


It has nothing to do with "ban the opinions you don't like that come from the people that haven't been here forever". That's laughable. It's largely maintaining this message board by users of FOF for users of FOF. And those who don't buy the product aren't afforded the same leeway. There are 1000s of message boards dedicated to politics. There's one dedicated to FOF. If someone is going to come on here and purposely stir the pot and they don't really have any purpose for doing it HERE vs. those 1000s of other message boards, they really don't belong. And they should be shown the door.

As I said, the ignore button doesn't work since Bitchtroll's (TM Blackadar 2005) posts are quoted repeatedly by other outraged users. Having someone like that around is the political equivalent like someone coming in and posting Tubgirl in every political thread. She leaves a trail of shit wherever she goes.
So just keep on crying about it. I don't see you bitching every time flere caps on the Bush administration. But I guess that's OK to you... he has more posts... he makes cute MS Paint diagrams... he doesn't have an opinion different from your own. So, no problem there.

You're full of it. This place hasn't been about FOF for a long time. Maybe if Jim published a new game more than once every two years or so, it might be, but the bottom line is that the on-topic stuff is exhausted. There's nothing left BUT off-topic posts. Get over it. This place isn't the holy grail of the internet. It's just a bloody message board.

[cthomer5000]

I haven't read a word of this, but i think the time has seriously come.

[Kodos]

Your troll = one of the 10 most interesting & worthwhile posters I think are left on the board in total, regardless of post count. Hell Radii, in, what, less than 100 posts(?) she's already managed to contribute more of any value than a lot of people with thousands of posts.

Good Lord.

[sabotai]

I haven't read a word of this, but i think the time has seriously come.
Then you're missing out on one of the more spectacular train wrecks in recent FOFC history.

[WSUCougar]

This place isn't the holy grail of the internet.
Do we at least have a Grail-shaped beacon?

[Antmeister]

...And I know if I were to start naming people who I think should be nixed, Arles would be at the top of the list of people who ruin political threads. Yet, he is one of the important game developers that this community is about, so it makes NO sense to ban him...

John, why Arlie? Although there are people that disagree with him, he hasn't resorted to trolling or name calling (at least with the threads that I read from him). Sure he has a strong opinion on a number of issues, but I don't see how he can be on the top of your list. He actually reads the posts and responds to them (well I will say most of them :D ).

[Schmidty]

No, it's the rest of you who can't see how hypocritical you're being on the subject.

Dude, you are totally being a troll in this thread. You and people like fiere (who took the first cheap-shot) are the exact reason a new forum is necessary.

[Franklinnoble]

Your troll = one of the 10 most interesting & worthwhile posters I think are left on the board in total, regardless of post count. Hell Radii, in, what, less than 100 posts(?) she's already managed to contribute more of any value than a lot of people with thousands of posts.
Sharon says thanks. ;)

She's glad there's at least one other person on here that realizes she was just trying to provide a different point of view.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Bear with me here Ant, at the end you'll (hopefully) see what this has to do with anything.

... some very rascist comments made by an alleged worker at the Astrodome.

Like a ton of stuff that appears on the internet, I'll give you the "alleged" part.
But if you find anything remotely out of the ordinary about the comments attributed to the alleged writer, you're out of touch with a sizable portion of the rest of the country. The word choice may be less prevalent, but the general sentiment it expressed runs quite parallel to the majority sentiment that I've heard expressed IRL since things deteroriated (i.e. I personally know more people who have reached the frustration point that post displayed than I know who are still in "oh those poor people" mode). And that's not a cross section limited to here in "Hooterville" either, so that isn't the sole determinant.

While the form of expression may have been pretty damned harsh, the sentiment behind it, IMO, is a very valid topic (perhaps ultimately THE dominant topic of the whole post-storm period if the discussion ever gets that honest) ... valid, that is, for a political/current events forum.

Which brings us right back to the point of this whole thread -- whether the politics belong in the general forum or not.

[Subby]

There are plenty of folks here who hold views that are fairly different from my own (Cam, Samdari, olliegirl, SkyDog, RyanS and others too numerous to mention) but they are able to keep the level of discourse above-board on most every occasion when it comes to political discussions.

The ones who are incapable of doing that get boxed. It happens to new folks and folks who have been here forever.

[John Galt]

John, why Arlie? Although there are people that disagree with him, he hasn't resorted to trolling or name calling (at least with the threads that I read from him). Sure he has a strong opinion on a number of issues, but I don't see how he can be on the top of your list. He actually reads the posts and responds to them (well I will say most of them :D ).

I don't want to rehash my complaints with Arles here. If you want to know more, feel free to PM me (as Arles already knows my complaints against him) because this thread shouldn't be about that.

[sabotai]

Good Lord.
You should know by now that Jon only considers people worthwhile if they say things he already agrees with. Is this not as known as I thought it was? I'm sure Jon would readily admit to it.

[Klinglerware]

Then you're missing out on one of the more spectacular train wrecks in recent FOFC history.

Don't we have one every other day?

[digamma]

I come down on the don't separate side--partially, I admit, because of laziness--I'm not sure how often I'd go to the "political discussion" forum. That's my problem--and would be my loss (if, indeed, it was a loss).

However, another reason is that I think the political threads (before their degeneration) often contain excellent insights and fantastic local or specialized knowledge. I'd hate to lose that because those types of contributors aren't heading over to the politics board.

I've also seen this happen before on another board. When a separate politics forum was created, it quickly became a partisan bitchfest among a predictable subset of forum members. I don't want to see that happen here (I'd argue, as above, that our political threads often contain worthwhile information from a variety of contributors).

[sabotai]

Don't we have one every other day?
I don't know...I hardly check every thread. Hell, because of what is happening here and the topic in general that we are (at least were) discussing, I check a very small minority of threads. So yeah, I would not be an authority on how many train wrecks we have here. I'm sure I miss most.

[Anthony]

Please. You knew exactly who you were talking about, and so did everyone else.


So just keep on crying about it. I don't see you bitching every time flere caps on the Bush administration. But I guess that's OK to you... he has more posts... he makes cute MS Paint diagrams... he doesn't have an opinion different from your own. So, no problem there.

You're full of it. This place hasn't been about FOF for a long time. Maybe if Jim published a new game more than once every two years or so, it might be, but the bottom line is that the on-topic stuff is exhausted. There's nothing left BUT off-topic posts. Get over it. This place isn't the holy grail of the internet. It's just a bloody message board.

i agree.

[John Galt]

You should know by now that Jon only considers people worthwhile if they say things he already agrees with. Is this not as known as I thought it was? I'm sure Jon would readily admit to it.

Still, even I was surprised anyone would endorse her posts in such strong terms (and I am in 100% agreement that it is common knowledge about Jon).

[Kodos]

You should know by now that Jon only considers people worthwhile if they say things he already agrees with. Is this not as known as I thought it was? I'm sure Jon would readily admit to it.

Oh, I know. After all, my sig is inspired by him. I just have a hard time believing some of the things that get posted. Like when somebody holds an obvious troll as one of the biggest contributors in board history...

[Godzilla Blitz]

I like the idea of creating a separate religion/politics thread. I do think, however, that the same respect that is (theoretically) demanded in the regular forums be demanded there as well. I don't think "Political/Religous" should give you the right to be abusive or disrespectful. Partisan, fine; rude, no.

I don't think the board would suffer from the creation of a separate forum for such discussion. If anything, the board has become so active now that good, active threads drop to page 2 too quickly.

Although this is not intended as a swipe at anyone and I enjoy reading the political posts of several people here, I know that one of the reasons I don't spend as much time here is the particular political nature of the board now. I fully realize that I'm always free to ignore the threads, and I try to. However, their visibility (somewhat like trying to not look at car wrecks) and the fact that good, apolitical threads suddenly turn violently politcal make it hard for me to avoid them. When I get involved in reading them, it invariably leaves me feeling like I could have used my free time better. All things considered, I think I just click on less topics.

[Simms]

When a separate politics forum was created, it quickly became a partisan bitchfest among a predictable subset of forum members. I don't want to see that happen here.
It's already happening here. Which was, I think, the point of Quik's original suggestion.

Take the constant 'partisan bitchfests among (the) predictable subset of form members' and let them sling away in their own forum so everybody else doesn't get hit with the mud.

[Crapshoot]

Hell, I can't stand 95% of Jon's social politics, but I don't think that's the case with him - he sees things in a very black and white world, a view I don't neccessarily agree with, but can understand. He's also shown an ability to have a brain that functions, something that I can't say about capsicum - who is a troll, nothing more.

[cthomer5000]

Then it's agreed. We separate the forums!

:D

[digamma]

It's already happening here. Which was, I think, the point of Quik's original suggestion.

Take the constant 'partisan bitchfests among (the) predictable subset of form members' and let them sling away in their own forum so everybody else doesn't get hit with the mud.
I think that's a fair point. My counter is that I do think there are times when those threads are valuable for their discussion and information. That's what I fear we'd lose. Though, to your point, it may already be gone.

[Blackadar]

Please. You knew exactly who you were talking about, and so did everyone else.

So just keep on crying about it. I don't see you bitching every time flere caps on the Bush administration. But I guess that's OK to you... he has more posts... he makes cute MS Paint diagrams... he doesn't have an opinion different from your own. So, no problem there.

You're full of it. This place hasn't been about FOF for a long time. Maybe if Jim published a new game more than once every two years or so, it might be, but the bottom line is that the on-topic stuff is exhausted. There's nothing left BUT off-topic posts. Get over it. This place isn't the holy grail of the internet. It's just a bloody message board.

As I said, if the shoe fits...

It's only a message board. And you're threatening physical violence because of it. :rolleyes:

This place IS about FOF. That's its primary purpose. Everything else is secondary. If your purpose here isn't - at least in some way - to support and buy FOF, then you don't really belong.

If you're not interested in FOF and choose to hang around, then that's fine. But if you're just going to Tubgirl (used as a noun) the rest of the members (i.e., cover everything in shit), then get the fuck out. And that goes for Bitchtroll or any other poster.

[JonInMiddleGA]

She's glad there's at least one other person on here that realizes she was just trying to provide a different point of view.

Oh, I think the post that has the latest batch of panties wadded up is perhaps THE single most significant thing in the big picture I've seen in all the threads here.

It goes, albeit very bluntly, right to the heart of what will shape the future of New Orleans, the rebuilding process, everything that follows in the years to come hinges on the very things at the core of that post -- I believe the fate of New Orleans will ultimately be decided not on the basis of how it should be rebuilt but whether it deserves to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense.

But because race is involved (although I believe only as a tangent, not as a primary), it's the elephant in the butter that nobody can talk about ... which we've seen pretty clearly just from the amount of crying that the post generated.

It was a lot more truth than most people choose to deal with. maybe even more capable of dealing with. And while I understand & respect her intent in posting it, the reaction to it was so predictable that I probably would have strongly advised her against bothering. This place (nor the vast majority of similar sites online) can't handle that much honesty. She gave it waaaaaay too much credit for handling frank discussions of serious topics.

That really kinda goes back, I think, to why you & I are on opposite sides of the separate forum debate -- IF that's posted in a free-fire zone, then at least you know when you go in there that you may see things that you don't like or can't handle, basically it's buyer-beware. In theory, that should cut down on the whining. In open forum, with virtually no rules & irregular enforcement at best, it brings the sensitive out of the woodwork.

[Franklinnoble]

As I said, if the shoe fits...

It's only a message board. And you're threatening physical violence because of it. :rolleyes:

This place IS about FOF. That's its primary purpose. Everything else is secondary. If your purpose here isn't - at least in some way - to support and buy FOF, then you don't really belong.

If you're not interested in FOF and choose to hang around, then that's fine. But if you're just going to Tubgirl (used as a noun) the rest of the members (i.e., cover everything in shit), then get the fuck out. And that goes for Bitchtroll or any other poster.
I didn't start the personal namecalling in this thread.

If all you want is to talk FOF, then report to the Strategy or Dynasty forums. Because this forum hasn't had anything new to say about the games in a long time.

[Blackadar]

Oh, I think the post that has the latest batch of panties wadded up is perhaps THE single most significant thing in the big picture I've seen in all the threads here.

It goes, albeit very bluntly, right to the heart of what will shape the future of New Orleans, the rebuilding process, everything that follows in the years to come hinges on the very things at the core of that post -- I believe the fate of New Orleans will ultimately be decided not on the basis of how it should be rebuilt but whether it deserves to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense.

But because race is involved (although I believe only as a tangent, not as a primary), it's the elephant in the butter that nobody can talk about ... which we've seen pretty clearly just from the amount of crying that the post generated.

It was a lot more truth than most people choose to deal with. maybe even more capable of dealing with. And while I understand & respect her intent in posting it, the reaction to it was so predictable that I probably would have strongly advised her against bothering. This place (nor the vast majority of similar sites online) can't handle that much honesty. She gave it waaaaaay too much credit for handling frank discussions of serious topics.

That really kinda goes back, I think, to why you & I are on opposite sides of the separate forum debate -- IF that's posted in a free-fire zone, then at least you know when you go in there that you may see things that you don't like or can't handle, basically it's buyer-beware. In theory, that should cut down on the whining. In open forum, with virtually no rules & irregular enforcement at best, it brings the sensitive out of the woodwork.

Funny thing Jon. My guess is that you and I probably agree that NO doesn't deserve to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense and that the "race card" is a crock of shit.

[panerd]

Oh, I think the post that has the latest batch of panties wadded up is perhaps THE single most significant thing in the big picture I've seen in all the threads here.

It goes, albeit very bluntly, right to the heart of what will shape the future of New Orleans, the rebuilding process, everything that follows in the years to come hinges on the very things at the core of that post -- I believe the fate of New Orleans will ultimately be decided not on the basis of how it should be rebuilt but whether it deserves to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense.

But because race is involved (although I believe only as a tangent, not as a primary), it's the elephant in the butter that nobody can talk about ... which we've seen pretty clearly just from the amount of crying that the post generated.

It was a lot more truth than most people choose to deal with. maybe even more capable of dealing with. And while I understand & respect her intent in posting it, the reaction to it was so predictable that I probably would have strongly advised her against bothering. This place (nor the vast majority of similar sites online) can't handle that much honesty. She gave it waaaaaay too much credit for handling frank discussions of serious topics.

That really kinda goes back, I think, to why you & I are on opposite sides of the separate forum debate -- IF that's posted in a free-fire zone, then at least you know when you go in there that you may see things that you don't like or can't handle, basically it's buyer-beware. In theory, that should cut down on the whining. In open forum, with virtually no rules & irregular enforcement at best, it brings the sensitive out of the woodwork.

I feel bad that you think the world is really mostly like her post. (Not at you, for you.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

And you're threatening physical violence because of it.

Or maybe it's just you Blackie, you're certainly in the upper .01% of online posters who I've encountered who are deserving of it to the nth degree.

If your purpose here isn't - at least in some way - to support and buy FOF, then you don't really belong.

Tell ya what, we'll leave if you will ... because you're right at the top of the list of people here who contribute nothing.

[John Galt]

Funny thing Jon. My guess is that you and I probably agree that NO doesn't deserve to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense and that the "race card" is a crock of shit.

That's what you get for trying to play nice. :(

[Franklinnoble]

Oh, I think the post that has the latest batch of panties wadded up is perhaps THE single most significant thing in the big picture I've seen in all the threads here.

It goes, albeit very bluntly, right to the heart of what will shape the future of New Orleans, the rebuilding process, everything that follows in the years to come hinges on the very things at the core of that post -- I believe the fate of New Orleans will ultimately be decided not on the basis of how it should be rebuilt but whether it deserves to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense.

But because race is involved (although I believe only as a tangent, not as a primary), it's the elephant in the butter that nobody can talk about ... which we've seen pretty clearly just from the amount of crying that the post generated.

It was a lot more truth than most people choose to deal with. maybe even more capable of dealing with. And while I understand & respect her intent in posting it, the reaction to it was so predictable that I probably would have strongly advised her against bothering. This place (nor the vast majority of similar sites online) can't handle that much honesty. She gave it waaaaaay too much credit for handling frank discussions of serious topics.

That really kinda goes back, I think, to why you & I are on opposite sides of the separate forum debate -- IF that's posted in a free-fire zone, then at least you know when you go in there that you may see things that you don't like or can't handle, basically it's buyer-beware. In theory, that should cut down on the whining. In open forum, with virtually no rules & irregular enforcement at best, it brings the sensitive out of the woodwork.
What's funny is that I didn't realize she'd posted that letter until she IM'ed me to tell me about it, and my reaction was, "Crap... there's no way anyone's going to see anything but racism in that." Even I had a hard time getting past that aspect of it - but you're right - it does point to a larger issue that no one wants to talk about. There is a real problem with racism down there, and it's not the whites being prejudiced against the blacks.

[flere-imsaho]

I didn't start the personal namecalling in this thread.

Oh? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=889518&postcount=48)

Only a Nazi would want a separate political forum.

[Blackadar]

I didn't start the personal namecalling in this thread.

If all you want is to talk FOF, then report to the Strategy or Dynasty forums. Because this forum hasn't had anything new to say about the games in a long time.

Simply put, your Bitchtroll wife came in, slung shit all over the place and you expect us to put up with it because she's your wife. Blow me. She's a friggin' troll, pure and simple and should have been banned. She's not even as intelligent of a troll as Wignifty or a few others. If you didn't like it, you should have followed her out the fucking door and back to whatever rock she crawled out under.

[sterlingice]

it's the elephant in the butter
That's a new one on me :D

SI

[John Galt]

Oh? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=889518&postcount=48)

Even I read that post as tongue-in-cheek.

[Franklinnoble]

Oh? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showpost.php?p=889518&postcount=48)
Please. Like you can't recognize a sarcastic post when you see it.

[HomerJSimpson]

Simply put, your Bitchtroll wife came in, slung shit all over the place and you expect us to put up with it because she's your wife. Blow me. She's a friggin' troll, pure and simple and should have been banned. She's not even as intelligent of a troll as Wignifty or a few others. If you didn't like it, you should have followed her out the fucking door and back to whatever rock she crawled out under.


But tell us how you really feel.

[Subby]

Simply put, your Bitchtroll wife came in... No offense, but that is completely out of line.

As "the former mod of this board" you should know better.

[Antmeister]

Bear with me here Ant, at the end you'll (hopefully) see what this has to do with anything.



Like a ton of stuff that appears on the internet, I'll give you the "alleged" part.
But if you find anything remotely out of the ordinary about the comments attributed to the alleged writer, you're out of touch with a sizable portion of the rest of the country. The word choice may be less prevalent, but the general sentiment it expressed runs quite parallel to the majority sentiment that I've heard expressed IRL since things deteroriated (i.e. I personally know more people who have reached the frustration point that post displayed than I know who are still in "oh those poor people" mode). And that's not a cross section limited to here in "Hooterville" either, so that isn't the sole determinant.

While the form of expression may have been pretty damned harsh, the sentiment behind it, IMO, is a very valid topic (perhaps ultimately THE dominant topic of the whole post-storm period if the discussion ever gets that honest) ... valid, that is, for a political/current events forum.

Which brings us right back to the point of this whole thread -- whether the politics belong in the general forum or not.


Jon, the whole point I was making is that the post can rub people the wrong way. Why not post a newpaper article or even blog entry that discusses this with less venom and more data to back it? I say "alleged" only because if the poster were just sending a simple email, why did he/she have to explain how his personality is to people that already knew how he/she is like before telling the story. Of course there could be other reasons for this, but in my opinion, it is not likely.

Plus it is hard for me to believe that while we have news networks that cover both sides of politics, one side would have already jumped all over that. Especially considering that we did hear about rapes, looting and shootings on certain news networks.

There are a number of things that set a person off. Most of the time, those things are race, religion, politics and family. If you talk about any one of these regarding a person to insult and/or humilate them, it is bound to set a person off. As you can see Franklinnoble didn't take too kindly to some of the harsh words against his wife or politics. You tend to get crazy when someone says something against your politics or your pets. :D , etc...etc.

[Franklinnoble]

Simply put, your Bitchtroll wife came in, slung shit all over the place and you expect us to put up with it because she's your wife. Blow me. She's a friggin' troll, pure and simple and should have been banned. She's not even as intelligent of a troll as Wignifty or a few others. If you didn't like it, you should have followed her out the fucking door and back to whatever rock she crawled out under.
No, I expect you to put up with strong opinions regardless of whether or not they're in accordance with your own worldview, you hypocritical moron.

[Blackadar]

Or maybe it's just you Blackie, you're certainly in the upper .01% of online posters who I've encountered who are deserving of it to the nth degree.

Tell ya what, we'll leave if you will ... because you're right at the top of the list of people here who contribute nothing.

Coming from you Jon, I'll take that as a compliment. I'm always happy to piss off a member of the Georgia Jackboot party.

Shit, you, Bitchtroll and the rest will leave if I will? I'll take you up on that deal. Head on out bucko. I'll take the ban if that means that you and a couple of your facist friends are out of here too. Seriously. You made the offer. I'm accepting. Or are you so pathetic that you'll go back on your word?

[flere-imsaho]

Please. Like you can't recognize a sarcastic post when you see it.

It's hard to tell with you these days.

[MrBigglesworth]

Perhaps we should bring the FOF/TCY strategy section back to the general discussion? Strategy siphons off some FOF/TCY-related talk on the general discussion section, yet it isn't big enough to be a consistent forum on it's own. There is some overlap between the general FOFC and strategy discussion anyway, so perhaps returning strategy back to the general section will spark more sports text-sim related discussion.
I think this is a terrible idea. When I came here as an FOF newbie in December trying to learn about FOF, I had to wade through pages and pages of useless OT threads to find a single decent FOF strategy thread. Also, I sometimes log on just to learn about FOF, and I bet a lot of other people do that too. It's great to have one forum to check for that, instead of wading through the 2 or 3 pages of new threads that have started in the day or two since your last login, just to find maybe one FOF thread.

[flere-imsaho]

I'll read the rest of this thread after it's locked.

[Antmeister]

I'll read the rest of this thread after it's locked.

I wonder how many pages it will get to before it gets locked. Any bets?

I say 7.

[Klinglerware]

I think this is a terrible idea. When I came here as an FOF newbie in December trying to learn about FOF, I had to wade through pages and pages of useless OT threads to find a single decent FOF strategy thread. Also, I sometimes log on just to learn about FOF, and I bet a lot of other people do that too. It's great to have one forum to check for that, instead of wading through the 2 or 3 pages of new threads that have started in the day or two since your last login, just to find maybe one FOF thread.

Fair point. But some people are complaining about the lack of actual FOF discussion in the general discussion board, so I was thinking that it might spark more FOF/TCY related discussion on the main board if the two sections were put back together.

Personally, I don't check the strategy section, since there is rarely anything in there. I am likely to contribute to TCY threads, if they are posted on the main board. Also, FAQs relating to FOF/TCY basics are listed in the sticky on the main board...

[Passacaglia]

Even Jesus busted open a can of whoop ass on occassion...

WTF?

[SirFozzie]

Blacky.. you're out of line dude. You're a good guy, and all that, but the line was passed about four states ago, and I think you really need to shut down the monitor, take a couple deep breaths and chill out for a while, man.

It's a message board. It's a meeting house for folks with common interests, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, to meet and discuss things that pertain to their common interests.

What it's not.. or at least what it shouldn't be.. is a place that makes you so angry or pissed that this kind of hatred comes out.

I think both sides of this case are wrong, and over the line, but then again, it's the Godwin's Law, FOFC Corollary.

"The longer a thread goes, the more certain it will devolve into a political slap fight that will send a majority of the readers out of the thread, and preventing further discussion of whatever issue that thread was about. Any further threads created to foster discussion that deal with the topic will resume the political slap fight"

With regards to the Politics Forum?

I don't think it'd work. We've seen how innocent threads devolve into polticial fights at the drop of a hat. Unless you had a guy constantly monitoring each thread, it would get really nasty/partisan/whatever before it got moved

[Anthony]

All things considered, I think I just click on less topics.

ditto. between the werewolf threads and political threads i find less and less content that i'm interested in. still a nice place, but i used to be interested in more of what was discussed here. this message board is like a clean innocent little girl who has grown up to be a crack whore with AIDS.

[TroyF]

I wonder how many pages it will get to before it gets locked. Any bets?

I say 7.

Hopefully sooner.

[Subby]

this message board is like a clean innocent little girl who has grown up to be a crack whore with AIDS. You and your crazy masturbation fantasies! http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Anthony]

Or maybe it's just you Blackie, you're certainly in the upper .01% of online posters who I've encountered who are deserving of it to the nth degree.



Tell ya what, we'll leave if you will ... because you're right at the top of the list of people here who contribute nothing.

no, it's ok Jon, you see Blacky used to be the mod here, so even though he contributes nothing other than to call out people he views as being trolls - it's all right. :)

[sabotai]

You and your crazy masturbation fantasies! http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
That line almost makes this whole thread wirth it. :D

[Raiders Army]

Dude Blacky, you need some serious help. While I don't agree with your views a lot of the time, you've crossed the line, IMHO with your name calling of someone's wife. I would not stand for that, not even on a message board, and I would hunt you down and beat the everlovin shit out of you.

How would Arlie feel if someone called Farrah a bitch or a slut?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't think there need to be a separate political forum. I think if people start threads with "POL" or "POLITICAL" in them, that should be enough. Sure, threads (see: this one) that start off as non-political can devolve quickly (quicker and quicker each day it seems), well then the folks can stop reading it or hope that who ever started the thread will change the title (don't ask Easy Mac to do this, he doesn't like changing titles of his threads).

Also, adding "No Politics" to a thread titel seems to work. People have been respectful of the Terps' Katrina thread and I would hope that would be respectful to other threads.

At the end of the day, however, I don't really care. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

How would Arlie feel if someone called Farrah a bitch or a slut?
He'd probably agree. I mean he did knock me up. :p

[Crapshoot]

Dude Blacky, you need some serious help. While I don't agree with your views a lot of the time, you've crossed the line, IMHO with your name calling of someone's wife. I would not stand for that, not even on a message board, and I would hunt you down and beat the everlovin shit out of you.

How would Arlie feel if someone called Farrah a bitch or a slut?


Hold on - when she comes onto this board, she's not here as Franklin's wife - she here's as a message board poster. When she talks about San Francisco having something similar happen to it because the gays live there, she is a bitch - being someone's wife is absolutely irrelevant to the treatment she justly recievd.

[sterlingice]

Hold on - when she comes onto this board, she's not here as Franklin's wife - she here's as a message board poster. When she talks about San Francisco having something similar happen to it because the gays live there, she is a bitch - being someone's wife is absolutely irrelevant to the treatment she justly recievd.
If people are supposed to turn a blind eye to someone because of their number of posts, the fact that they are an "elistist" wife should probably also not be a consideration, right?

SI

[Franklinnoble]

Hold on - when she comes onto this board, she's not here as Franklin's wife - she here's as a message board poster. When she talks about San Francisco having something similar happen to it because the gays live there, she is a bitch - being someone's wife is absolutely irrelevant to the treatment she justly recievd.
You're misquoting her now. Re-read the thread. She was trying to say that the "wrath of God" crap that they say about NO is nothing new... they say that all the time about SF.

[Schmidty]

No offense, but that is completely out of line.

As "the former mod of this board" you should know better.

Yep.

Lots of posts that deserve to be reported in this thread.

[Buccaneer]

Damn, I got to post #50 and thought, well that was an interesting discussion...and then I saw there were 4 more pages!!!! :(

[Schmidty]

Dola.

The fact that a thread started to solve the problems that some of our more childish members cause, was then turned into a warzone by those same members is very telling. Those same people either need their own forum, or they need to be banned, If they can't play nicely with each other, that's their own porblem, but they shouldn't be allowed to turn every thread they touch into a cesspool of enmity.

[Marmel]

Dola.

The fact that a thread started to solve the problems that some of our more childish members cause, was then turned into a warzone by those same members is very telling. Those same people either need their own forum, or they need to be banned, If they can't play nicely with each other, that's their own porblem, but they shouldn't be allowed to turn every thread they touch into a cesspool of enmity.

for the first time EVER, I agree with Schmidty. :)

Anyway, anyone fed up with the way things are going here and just want to discuss sports, I encourage to visit: http://www.vtbub.com/sgs/

It is a fledgling message board started up by vtbub in conjunction with this world famous sports blog. We just need some people to get started posting there. :(

[Buccaneer]

Sheesh, now why did I have to read the rest of that?

Fwiw, I am not in favor of a separate forum solely because it would be too hard to discern. There are obvious political threads but there are also many other threads that are quasi-political or more cultural oriented. For example, if SkyDog posts another one of those black rage rap lyrics and some voice strong opinions against that, is'nt that just like a political thread without the politics? Sports threads can be the same way, esp. when punks like TO or Moss are the topics. Again, more cultural but not political.

I think it would be hard-pressed to find a single thread in GD that does not have a strong political/cultural/sociological/religious post in it.

In all, I think the IGNORE function works very well and acts as a self-policing or segregational element to GD.

[Blackadar]

To anyone who thinks I'm "over the line". Simply put, I call it as I see it. I didn't name a soul. Franklin instantly recognized his significant other and spoke on up. Guess what...the shoe fit perfectly.

I have no problem calling Cas an ignorant, borderline racist troll. She came here and Tubgirl'd all over the friggin' board, putting it in an uproar of the likes I've never seen in the 7-8 years this place has been active. She should have been banned and I have no qualms about calling it as I see it. If Franklin doesn't like it, then he can take a short walk off a tall bridge for all I care. I don't give a shit whether it's his wife, girlfriend, mother or arch-enemy. She wants to come here and shit all over the place, then she deserves to be called out for it. If Franklin thinks we need to put up with it because it's his wife, he has another thing coming. I'm not going to pull punches because he might get his panties in a wad, nor dance around the issue.

I'll always call it as I see it. If I really wanted to attack his wife, I would have used much more inflammatory words and be really vicious, I could have used words like cunt, or slut, or something else. I didn't. I called her a Bitchtroll, pure and simple. That's what she is - or that's what her posts make her out to be - and I won't apologize for pointing out the blatently obvious.

JMIG, I'm still waiting a response to my acceptance of your offer.

[Blackadar]

Dola.

The fact that a thread started to solve the problems that some of our more childish members cause, was then turned into a warzone by those same members is very telling. Those same people either need their own forum, or they need to be banned, If they can't play nicely with each other, that's their own porblem, but they shouldn't be allowed to turn every thread they touch into a cesspool of enmity.

Schmidty, I agree with you. Some of us need to go, and I'm sure I'm part of the problem. HA, JMIG, Arles, Franklin, Cas, John Galt, me...we all probably need to be banned from all future political discussions, if not from the board entirely. Everyone's going to read a list of bannings/restrictions and say "oh, not him!", but guess what...we're all part of the issue.

I've always said that this is Skydog's board. And as long as he's even handed, I don't mind being swept out the door with the others because it may be the best thing for FOFC.

[Ryan S]

I wonder how many pages it will get to before it gets locked. Any bets?

I say 7.
I say 5.

Right now I would like everyone to take a step back from the edge and start posting about the upcoming NFL season or anything else. I don't mind political threads, but many of the threads recently have been downright hostile from all sides of the political divide.

If you want to continue the discussion about a politics forum, move to VPI's thread, but don't turn it into another warzone.

I also want to eliminate personal attacks right now when emotions are running so high, so for the forseeable future, personal attacks on another forum member may result in a suspension. I will use common sense when deciding punishment, but don't force me into having to make a decision about you. You have been warned.

[QuikSand]

Fun times.