Modding stuff lately....

[Ben E Lou]

First, let me recap the boxings/bannings/warnings since the new system came to be.

1. A banned user, (Play2Win) posts under a new name. Automatic banning. Always has been. No-brainer. Jeeber D catches it, and lowers the hammer.

2. (This is the part that most of you don't know). A discussion gets over the line. The mods discuss it privately, and decide NOT to be hasty, so they privately ask both primary parties to stand down. Both primary parties stand down, no further action taken.

3. FN posts from a banned user (Play2Win), and gets edited by me. As several have pointed out, this isn't the first time this has happened. FN was not disciplined for this, but was specifically told not to do it again. (Exact words: "Everyone, henceforth before posting anything from a banned or suspended user, it needs to be run by me first.") LESS THAN 24 HOURS LATER, he does it again, so wademoore, (with the approval of every mod who was around at the time, by the way) suspends him for 5 days. Now, you may agree or disagree with the idea behind the warning I issued him, but that's immaterial. If you break a known law in real life because you disagree with it, it's called "civil disobedience," and you usually go to jail for it. If you want to view FN's act of posting from a banned user as some sort of "civil disobedience," then that's your prerogative. However, it is utterly laughable that anyone can question that when someone ignores a warning and repeats the exact same behavior on the very same day, then there are only two choices: board anarchy, or some form of penalty.

Two facts that I think are important to note here:

1. Other than warning FN, I had basically nothing to do with the three actions above, other than after-the-fact "Do you think we're on the right track here?" questions from the mods to me.
2. IF I WERE STILL DOING EVERYING UNILATERALLY, THE ABOVE ACTIONS ARE *EXACTLY* THE SAME ONES I WOULD HAVE TAKEN!

So, to recap, the "overbearing new mods" :rolleyes: have issued two automatic-no-brainer punishments and made one decision to give people a chance to calm down and back off, and some of you are going nuts.

I really don't get it at all. I really don't.

I'm pretty busy today, and won't have time to respond much, but you can use this thread if you want to vent, or if you feel the need to contact me privately, know that it will likely be this evening before you get any response.

--Ben

[albionmoonlight]

So, to recap, the "overbearing new mods" :rolleyes: have issued two automatic-no-brainer punishments and made one decision to give people a chance to calm down and back off, and some of you are going nuts.

I really don't get it at all. I really don't.
Because the new system allows people to see the process in action, and they feel that that gives them a right to comment on the process. I understand the mods' desire to do these things in public so as to demonstrate that they are not dictators sometimes. We all know that sunshine is the best disinfectant. And in public life, I am all for more and more disclosure.

But you are not the government, and none of us have a right to know what is going on behind closed doors. It might not be as "fair" to not let us see behind the curtain--but you don't owe us fairness. Just run the board well. You borrow too much trouble when you start showing us how the engine works.

[VPI97]

People just lke to bitch about mods.


Cause they would always know the best thing to do.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--"You" there being plural, addressed to all the mods, not just SkyDog.

[flere-imsaho]

People just lke to bitch about mods.

++

The thread can end now.

[B & B]

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/wallpaper/puckett_kirby.jpg

[Qwikshot]

People just lke to bitch about mods.


Cause they would always know the best thing to do.

Ike Turner?

[cartman]

y'all can be such a cabal of dictators at times..

:D

[WSUCougar]

+10 literacy points for use of the word "cabal" in a sentence ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

" 2. IF I WERE STILL DOING EVERYING UNILATERALLY, THE ABOVE ACTIONS ARE *EXACTLY* THE SAME ONES I WOULD HAVE TAKEN!"

Then, I'm sorry to say, Ben but you've become as piss poor a moderator as those you chose.

It's time that you either drop the personal agendas you have with certain posters or at least apply the rules evenly across the board. You've cut the liberal wing of this forum slack to infinity & beyond and I believe that you've done it in a misguided attempt to prove that you're not too conservative yourself. Here's a novel approach I'd suggest: Treat everybody on both sides of the aisle the same way. Period.

If that turns out to be viewed as harsh, fine.
It that turns out to be viewed as lenient, fine.
But consistency is sorely needed.

Right now, the only thing that appears to be consistent is those who are the subject of some personal agenda/vendetta are consistently hammered & those who have become sacred cows,especially those who are darlings of the left wing of this forum, or those whom taking action against would upset our precious liberal contingent can pretty much do as they please and MOST especially if they direct their actions at a conservative member of the forum.

There's a lot of bullshit here Ben, and some of it is of your own making (no matter how good or noble or whatever your intentions might be) and it's time that you either get it under control or step the fuck down. And the last thing on earth this place needed was for you to add more of the same to the mix, which appears to be exactly what you've done.

Maybe it's time that you consider putting this place out of its misery altogether, an option I'd prefer than to have things remain the same or get any worse (which is pretty much always a possibility).

Sincerely,
Jon

[sachmo71]

wow

[Draft Dodger]

man, did I pick the wrong clusterfuck of a thread to stumble into...

[flere-imsaho]

Of course, I disagree with Jon. Jesse springs to mind, for instance.

BTW, those of you who are re-thinking capsicum's banning (and maybe going over her posting history) need to remember that she deleted a lot of her posts including, memorably, an entire thread. It was many of these posts that prompted the bulk of the ire directed at her. Unfortunately, due to her actions, we no longer have this "evidence".

[WSUCougar]

Since it comes from a vitriolic guy who gets more slack cut for him than virtually anyone on the board, I have a hard time taking anything Jon says seriously anymore.

And if you're so righteously offended by what goes down here, why do you stay?

[JonInMiddleGA]

... that she deleted a lot of her posts including, memorably, an entire thread. It was many of these posts that prompted the bulk of the ire directed at her. Unfortunately, due to her actions, we no longer have this "evidence".

Remember, I saw a lot of those threads live as they happened (again, I won't claim "all", but the whole scenario last such a relatively short time that I feel pretty comfortable about "most"). So the lack of "evidence" isn't any sort of handicap for everyone, I dare say many of those who give a damn on either side watched a lot of it live.

[Huckleberry]

JIMG, you're not very good at playing the "my people are being persecuted" board role. I'd recommend giving it up before it gets any worse.

The idea that left-wing people are any more protected than right-wing people around here is a joke. I've noticed that people that post like morons run a much higher risk of getting in trouble regardless of their flavor.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And if you're so righteously offended by what goes down here, why do you stay?

There's still some value here, unfortunately just not nearly as much as there could be. That's a pretty clear cut, straightforward simple answer I believe.

[Qwikshot]

Someone's gonna go IKE Turner in here in a minute; I can feel it.

[JPhillips]

Jon: I hope you get hit by a bus.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The idea that left-wing people are any more protected than right-wing people around here is a joke.

And I disagree wholeheartedly. And question the reasoning/judgemental ability of anyone who hasn't figured that out already.

Then again, Dan Rather believes he's "mainstream", so I guess it isn't hard to imagine that some people won't get it.

[FrogMan]

man, did I pick the wrong clusterfuck of a thread to stumble into...
Don't know why, but amidst all the serious stuff, this little gem has me laughing like crazy... :D

FM

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon: I hope you get hit by a bus.

Love you too sweetums.
As long as you don't procreate, I think your existence won't really do much harm, you really don't seem relevant enough or capable enough to do any damage otherwise.

[Coder]

Jon, to be honest, I think you're more or less proving that SkyDog is "on line" rather than "off line".. why? Because you're feeling that he's been more benevolent against liberals, while liberals feel he's being more forgiving when it comes to conservatives.

I've been vocal against some of his decisions and my criticism has been basically what you're saying.. to quote you:

It's time that you either drop the personal agendas you have with certain posters or at least apply the rules evenly across the board.

But it's funny how the two sides perceive the same thing but from different angles :)

[John Galt]

You've cut the liberal wing of this forum slack to infinity & beyond and I believe that you've done it in a misguided attempt to prove that you're not too conservative yourself.

I haven't laughed this hard since the Maximum Football thread was at its peak. Thanks, Jon.

[Bee]

And if you're so righteously offended by what goes down here, why do you stay?

I understand that Franklinnoble has a forum....

:D

[JonInMiddleGA]

... while liberals feel he's being more forgiving when it comes to conservatives.

But since that group is right no more frequently than a stopped clock ...

I get what you're trying to say but their inability to be right about anything with any frequency kind of kills the validity of it, y'know.

[jeff061]

It's time that you either drop the personal agendas you have with certain posters or at least apply the rules evenly across the board. You've cut the liberal wing of this forum slack to infinity & beyond and I believe that you've done it in a misguided attempt to prove that you're not too conservative yourself.lol

[rkmsuf]

you guys should just arm wrestle

[cartman]

But since that group is right no more frequently than a stopped clock ...

Well, I guess they are right at least twice a day then. That's more credit than he usually gives them. :D

[sachmo71]

There's still some value here, unfortunately just not nearly as much as there could be. That's a pretty clear cut, straightforward simple answer I believe.


And this is because of the moderation? It's been that pervasive in your FOFC life? I find that very had to accept.

[JPhillips]

Jon: I'm tired of the whole "Wah wah my pussy hurts" routine. Why do you insist on looking at the world as out to get you? Over and over and over you go back to the same tired argument of "Liberals are out to destroy everything I love!" Its gotten to a level of paranoina that probably needs professional help.

Its a message board. Liberals get boxed and banned. Conservatives get boxed and banned. Asshats of all stripes get boxed and banned. Do I agree with every decision? No. Do I think Skydog is out to appease liberals? Fucking laughable.

Now lets see if you can refrain from wishing me death. My advice would be to back out of the thread and buy your new home. Enjoy some of your life, Jon. It seems from the outside that you're blessed with a good family and good job. Not everything has to be soaked in anger.

[Coder]

My take on this is that we shouldn't ban people left and right based on their political affiliations, it should be all about if they're doing harm or not. Conservative or Liberal shouldn't matter..

I don't have a problem with political threads or opinions, other than the fact that unfortunately they have a tendency to bring out the worst in people, and namecalling usually ensues after two people have different opinion on a matter.

I see great FOFC contributors on both sides of the fences here, which makes me a bit worried when this becomes a fight between the two sides.

[Qwikshot]

you guys should just arm wrestle

in a tank with sharks with laser beams attached to their frickin' heads TO THE DEATH!

[Subby]

Remember, I saw a lot of those threads live as they happened (again, I won't claim "all", but the whole scenario last such a relatively short time that I feel pretty comfortable about "most"). So the lack of "evidence" isn't any sort of handicap for everyone, I dare say many of those who give a damn on either side watched a lot of it live.As I see it, no one on this board gets more slack than you. No one on this board, outside of maybe Grantdawg, is seen as more of "One of Ben's Boys", than you. There are a number of people at this board that would have liked to have seen you suspended or banned at one time or another.

I like that you are here. I think you provide a good foil for a lot of the general opinions without being a out and out troll. Make no mistake about it though...if Ben moderated the way you accuse him of moderating - or if any of the other moderators took that approach, you'd be gone already.

[Coffee Warlord]

Holy clusterfuck, batman.

[rkmsuf]

in a tank with sharks with laser beams attached to their frickin' heads TO THE DEATH!

It would be far more manly than this.

[Raiders Army]

I see great FOFC contributors on both sides of the fences here, which makes me a bit worried when this becomes a fight between the two sides.Is it like when your parents are fighting?

[Qwikshot]

It would be far more manly than this.

Ice Weasels then?

[Qwikshot]

Is it like when your parents are fighting?

Cue Civil War music...

[Coder]

Is it like when your parents are fighting?

I wouldn't know.

[Kodos]

I think when you have to resort to a label in your arguments almost every time, it shows how limited your thinking must be. With Jon, it's always "liberals" this or that. Go back to your cave and eat some squirrels or rats that you half-cooked on a stick. You'll feel better.

[jeff061]

As I see it, no one on this board gets more slack than youI always ranked him #2.

[rkmsuf]

"I was initially hurt by his words. He said some mean awful things..."

"Did you injure your body in any way."

"Yes, then I fell down some stairs and bashed my head and my shoes fell off"

[panerd]

Jon: I'm tired of the whole "Wah wah my pussy hurts" routine. Why do you insist on looking at the world as out to get you? Over and over and over you go back to the same tired argument of "Liberals are out to destroy everything I love!" Its gotten to a level of paranoina that probably needs professional help.

Its a message board. Liberals get boxed and banned. Conservatives get boxed and banned. Asshats of all stripes get boxed and banned. Do I agree with every decision? No. Do I think Skydog is out to appease liberals? Fucking laughable.

Now lets see if you can refrain from wishing me death. My advice would be to back out of the thread and buy your new home. Enjoy some of your life, Jon. It seems from the outside that you're blessed with a good family and good job. Not everything has to be soaked in anger.

This sums up my opinion 100%. I have never really had a one on one conversation with JIMGA on any topic, but I have been involved in quite a few topics about advertising, sports, or other areas where I appreciated and enjoyed his input. Never had any problems at all.

But since I think Bush is doing a bad job he wishes my ilk (never specifically me, but people who think like me) dead. I really think he might have some issues also. And I don't mean this is a ripping on him as "You got issues man" but in a seriously concerned for your very strange political views way.

Plus I have to agree that him and one other poster seem to get more leeway than anyone. And I don't really care, but his crazy post above seems to be a bad case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[BYU 14]

"I was initially hurt by his words. He said some mean awful things..."

"Did you injure your body in any way."

"Yes, then I fell down some stairs and bashed my head and my shoes fell off"

Your such a sizzle chest Sol!!

[sachmo71]

My take on this is that we shouldn't ban people left and right based on their political affiliations, it should be all about if they're doing harm or not. Conservative or Liberal shouldn't matter..




It doesn't matter. If someone feels that it did, it won't anymore.

[rkmsuf]

Your such a sizzle chest Sol!!

see ya little later there nitz

[Kodos]

I don't even see him as unintelligent. It's just that his anti-liberal bias taints his entire worldview. Everything is seen through the anti-liberal glasses.

[KWhit]

As I see it, no one on this board gets more slack than you.
Absolutely 100% true. You have posted more hate on this board than anyone here. For you to whine about how the liberals are coddled around here is a joke. If I didn't know you better, I'd think your post was an attempt at satire - a little poking fun at yourself and what you constantly get away with here. Alas, I think that you were being serious.

[saldana]

ben, i dont think people have a problem with either of the two actions you described above...from everything i have seen, there has been widespread support for both those boxing/bannings...the issue has been the actions that HAVE NOT happened...the fact that blatant insults and personal attacks on former board members are unpunished, but mr bigglesworth is sitting in the box for calling you a fuc**** a**hole twice....i know that is my beef at this point.

[Samdari]

I get what you're trying to say but their inability to be right about anything with any frequency kind of kills the validity of it, y'know.

And your inability to consider what individuals say based on its or their own merit pretty much makes what you say have absolutely no validity whatsoever, even to conservatives. Seriously, Jon, you don't even need to post anymore, we could all write them for you. Your posts might be taken seriously if you ever thought, rather than mindlessly attack people you have labeled liberals, and worship those you have labeled conservative.

[Radii]

I'm really confused as to why there is any controversy here at all. I think VPI(and all those that agreed with him/said similar things) has it right. People apparently just want to bitch about things. All decisions made in the past couple of days here seem very straight forward and simple.

[jeff061]

I thought he just put all perceived liberals on ignore. Though maybe he leaves some off so he has a reason to post.

[sachmo71]

It also might be nice if people give the new system a chance...maybe a month? See how things go?

Four days to perfection is a bit much to ask, even to those who want it to fail.

[John Galt]

It also might be nice if people give the new system a chance...maybe a month? See how things go?

Four days to perfection is a bit much to ask, even to those who want it to fail.

Words of wisdom from the boy who called trout.

[kcchief19]

As I see it, no one on this board gets more slack than you. No one on this board, outside of maybe Grantdawg, is seen as more of "One of Ben's Boys", than you. There are a number of people at this board that would have liked to have seen you suspended or banned at one time or another.

I like that you are here. I think you provide a good foil for a lot of the general opinions without being a out and out troll. Make no mistake about it though...if Ben moderated the way you accuse him of moderating - or if any of the other moderators took that approach, you'd be gone already.I know for a certainty that there are a lot of longtime members here who feel the exact same way. If anything proves how "online" Ben is with this community, I think you can see it in that no one is backing up Jon. How far outside the mainstream must you be on this board where NO ONE will have your back?

[John Galt]

I know for a certainty that there are a lot of longtime members here who feel the exact same way. If anything proves how "online" Ben is with this community, I think you can see it in that no one is backing up Jon. How far outside the mainstream must you be on this board where NO ONE will have your back?

It is because all the "real" conservatives have been banned. It just proves the conspiracy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Make no mistake about it though...if Ben moderated the way you accuse him of moderating - or if any of the other moderators took that approach, you'd be gone already.

Chris, in all seriousness & complete sincerity -- if this board didn't have such a strong tendency to tolerate dozens who attack conservatives while allowing only a scant few conservatives the leeway to answer them just as strongly, I'd be happy enough to take my leave permanently.

In other words, I'd go away pretty readily and of my own accord, as long as the same percentage of the staunchest liberals who post with equal fervor for their viewpoints were gone too.

I won't disagree that I'm allowed a good bit of leeway to answer socio-political topics with passion. The problem is that too few other equally capable (and willing) conservatives have (or have any reason to believe they have) the same amount of leeway. That leaves quite literally dozens on the left with clear & consistent free reign that isn't equally afforded to the same number on the right.

Again, I'd have no issue at all with being boxed, banned, permabanned, exiled, or whatever term you choose IF every liberal who stepped over the same line got the same treatment. But that hasn't happened, it doesn't happen, nor do I believe for more than the slightest moment of faint forlorn hope it'll ever happen (for reasons I referenced in my initial post in this thread). Absent that equitable treatment, then I don't feel the slightest bit apologetic about being among the few conservatives here who have been allowed to reply in kind to the sacred cows of the left.

[John Galt]

Chris, in all seriousness & complete sincerity -- if this board didn't have such a strong tendency to tolerate dozens who attack conservatives while allowing only a scant few conservatives the leeway to answer them just as strongly, I'd be happy enough to take my leave permanently.

In other words, I'd go away pretty readily and of my own accord, as long as the same percentage of the staunchest liberals who post with equal fervor for their viewpoints were gone too.

I won't disagree that I'm allowed a good bit of leeway to answer socio-political topics with passion. The problem is that too few other equally capable (and willing) conservatives have (or have any reason to believe they have) the same amount of leeway. That leaves quite literally dozens on the left with clear & consistent free reign that isn't equally afforded to the same number on the right.

Again, I'd have no issue at all with being boxed, banned, permabanned, exiled, or whatever term you choose IF every liberal who stepped over the same line got the same treatment. But that hasn't happened, it doesn't happen, nor do I believe for more than the slightest moment of faint forlorn hope it'll ever happen (for reasons I referenced in my initial post in this thread). Absent that equitable treatment, then I don't feel the slightest bit apologetic about being among the few conservatives here who have been allowed to reply in kind to the sacred cows of the left.

Who are these liberals that have wished conservatives would step in front of bus and die? Which liberals said we should lock up and exterminate conservatives as traitors? Who on this board are you talking about? I can't figure out who the "dozens" of liberals are who have posted at the level of hate that you have.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... and worship those you have labeled conservative.

Do some checking, see how many of those "conservatives" I've taken to task and/or vehemently opposed. I believe you'll find that I don't hesitate to call bullshit on them either, only that you'll find I don't believe it necessary as often.

Nor do I deny credit to even self-identified liberals when I believe they get something right (and examples of this are common enough that it's a friggin' running joke between me & several of them for crying out loud, it isn't exactly unheard of).

Given that, what's left is you accusing me of agreeing with conservatives more often than I agree with liberals. Well ... damn, you got me there.

[Bee]

Can SkyDog be banned for not putting the (POL) thing on the thread title? :D

[WSUCougar]

Jon, in all seriousness & complete sincerity, your view of FOFC reality is so severely angled that I'm not sure there's a frame of reference for discussion. Suffice to say that, from my personal perspective, you are dead wrong in your beliefs about what is and isn't allowed around here. And I find it remarkable almost to the point of stunning that you say what you do with an apparently straight face.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Alas, I think that you were being serious.

Well, you got that part right at least.

As for the rest of your post, well, {sigh} it ain't exactly like we had dinner together twice a week & sent each other birthday & Christmas cards either.
I'll probably manage to muddle through & survive your disapproval somehow.

[CamEdwards]

I gotta say, I don't see Jon as worshipping any conservatives. He seems to think he and he alone has all the right answers. :D

I won't defend Jon's original post to Skydog, because I happen to not agree with it, but I do find it amusing to see JPhillips accuse Jon of being a woman, considering the sheer number of people who get offended by any mention of homosexuality in a joking context.

I guess if the phrase "waaahwaaahwaah, my pussy hurts" is considered acceptable, then it'd be all right to tell someone "I can't make sense of what you're saying. Take the dick out of your mouth and speak clearly"?

[Senator]

The wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon, in all seriousness & complete sincerity, your view of FOFC reality is so severely angled that I'm not sure there's a frame of reference for discussion. Suffice to say that, from my personal perspective, you are dead wrong in your beliefs about what is and isn't allowed around here. And I find it remarkable almost to the point of stunning that you say what you do with an apparently straight face.

Oddly enough, I think that's cool (as in "okay by me", not as in "Fonzie cool").

I honestly find it "remarkable to the point of stunning" that any sane, rational person doesn't see it, so we're pretty much even on that account.

And I'm not mocking your choice of words with that quote or anything, I'm just borrowing them because they really do a good job of expressing my own disbelief (albeit at the opposite end of the subject).

It's kinda weird in a way, I mean, I know that what I would term a lack of comprehension (or whatever, I'm not looking for a pejorative phrase, I'm actually searching for one that is as benign as possible) exists ... I just can't understand how it exists. I think that's pretty much what you were saying, so maybe all I'm saying is that I know exactly what an odd feeling that is.

[oliegirl]

I won't disagree that I'm allowed a good bit of leeway to answer socio-political topics with passion. The problem is that too few other equally capable (and willing) conservatives have (or have any reason to believe they have) the same amount of leeway. That leaves quite literally dozens on the left with clear & consistent free reign that isn't equally afforded to the same number on the right.

Jon, did it ever occur to you that MAYBE the other conservatives on the board CHOOSE not to post in the political threads as "passionately" as you because they have come to the realization that doing so is tantamount to banging your head against a wall while being yelled at because someone/some people dont' agree with your opinion? Just because you choose to engage in the political discussions, don't assume that the rest of us live in fear of expressing our opinion when we don't follow suit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I gotta say, I don't see Jon as worshipping any conservatives. He seems to think he and he alone has all the right answers.

And don't you forget it RadioBoy, don't you forget it ;)

[rkmsuf]

Sorry to interrupt this fascinating circle jerk but what is the point of all this again?

Ok bye.

[miked]

If you're so concerned about the treatment of conservatives on a football game board, why don't you go ring up your post count on some Foxnews message board or something. The very idea that you are so troubled by the liberal-slanted punishment of political posting is laughable at best. Who really cares? If the messageboard were deleted tomorrow, your life would still go on, so why do you put forth so much effort and care into something that matters so little.

Why don't we talk about why Jim has yet to put out a baseball game?

[John Galt]

I won't defend Jon's original post to Skydog, because I happen to not agree with it, but I do find it amusing to see JPhillips accuse Jon of being a woman, considering the sheer number of people who get offended by any mention of homosexuality in a joking context.

I guess if the phrase "waaahwaaahwaah, my pussy hurts" is considered acceptable, then it'd be all right to tell someone "I can't make sense of what you're saying. Take the dick out of your mouth and speak clearly"?

I think that is pretty normal language here. I don't find it too nice, but I gave up that fight a long time ago. As far as I know, slurs (like "faggot") are what most people here are complaining about. "Pussy" and references to homosexual sex seem like par for the course, IMO.

[sachmo71]

Can SkyDog be banned for not putting the (POL) thing on the thread title? :D


No, because no one else would be, either. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just because you choose to engage in the political discussions, don't assume that the rest of us live in fear of expressing our opinion when we don't follow suit.

I didn't assume that "all" do.

I know for a fact that some do, it's been expressed to me several times privately by a number of members. All of whom (AFAIK) still frequent the forum (i.e. I'm not talking about anybody who has been banned or left on their own).

If you read me as meaning, or even implying that "all" don't participate for that reason, then I'm sorry I wasn't clearer on that (I thought the "some" would be obvious I guess, maybe it wasn't).

[CamEdwards]

If you're so concerned about the treatment of conservatives on a football game board, why don't you go ring up your post count on some Foxnews message board or something. The very idea that you are so troubled by the liberal-slanted punishment of political posting is laughable at best. Who really cares? If the messageboard were deleted tomorrow, your life would still go on, so why do you put forth so much effort and care into something that matters so little.

Why don't we talk about why Jim has yet to put out a baseball game?

You know, I've seen this argument come up before, and frankly, I call bullshit.

We care (or at least I do) because this is a community. No, most of us have never met one another and we never will, but there is something here that keeps us coming back for more. Perhaps it provides some needed drama to our boring lives, perhaps it enables us to talk about things like text-sims when we don't know anyone who plays them, perhaps it's just a fun place to talk with smart people about the issues of the day.

This is a fun place to hang out for the most part, and it's pretty special to me. I don't find this type of discourse on such a wide range of topics anywhere else, other than Fark. And with Fark, you have to deal with absolute idiots.

[JPhillips]

Cam: I didn't mark you as someone who would get upset by an impolite phrase. To be clear that particular phrase is one I picked up from a woman improv friend. She used it regularly and I've always liked the ridiculousness of it. It has no connotations for me besides someone whining with little cause.

Jon: Besides Capiscum who do you think has been punished for a conservative viewpoint?And what liberal should be boxed/banned and why?

[CamEdwards]

Cam: I didn't mark you as someone who would get upset by an impolite phrase. To be clear that particular phrase is one I picked up from a woman improv friend. She used it regularly and I've always liked the ridiculousness of it. It has no connotations for me besides someone whining with little cause.

Jon: Besides Capiscum who do you think has been punished for a conservative viewpoint?And what liberal should be boxed/banned and why?

I'm not upset. I just like consistency. If we're going to call someone a woman in an attempt to tease them, then I'm assuming it's okay to call someone gay.

[WSUCougar]

I'm not upset. I just like consistency. If we're going to call someone a woman in an attempt to tease them, then I'm assuming it's okay to call someone gay.
I think your line of thinking is a little queer.

[Barkeep49]

See Cam I think saying your phrase "take the dick out of your mouth" to a woman is far more the proper analogy here then to gay.

[JPhillips]

Cam: Allso notice that I have never been involved in word debates. I don't care what words are used. If they offend me so be it, but I don't have a right to silence anyone else. I'll call them an asshole if I see fit, but limiting what can be said is a long term bad idea.

[Bee]

No, because no one else would be, either. :)

oh well...worth a shot. ;)

[CamEdwards]

See Cam I think saying your phrase "take the dick out of your mouth" to a woman is far more the proper analogy here then to gay.

Well no, because if JPhillips is saying that JiMGA has a pussy, then that implies that he's a woman.

If I say "take the dick out your mouth so I can understand you", that implies that you like to suck dick.

Now that I think about it, since about 10% of the population is gay, then that means there'd be a 90% chance I'd be calling you a dick sucking woman rather than a dick sucking gay man. So really, that phrase should be in the clear. :p

And once again, Jon... I seem to have threadjacked. :D

[bbor]

This thread contains 5 minutes of my life i will never get back :(

[Butter]

Jon, did it ever occur to you that MAYBE the other conservatives on the board CHOOSE not to post in the political threads as "passionately" as you because they have come to the realization that doing so is tantamount to banging your head against a wall while being yelled at because someone/some people dont' agree with your opinion? Just because you choose to engage in the political discussions, don't assume that the rest of us live in fear of expressing our opinion when we don't follow suit.

I'm going with the thumbs up here. Or maybe there just aren't as many staunch conservatives around here. But to suggest the discussion is being stifled is wonderously laughable.

[Desnudo]

Sorry to interrupt this fascinating circle jerk but what is the point of all this again?

Ok bye.

Text sim football players that don't like each other and aren't afraid to express those feelings in message board format.

L8R

[KWhit]

Again, I'd have no issue at all with being boxed, banned, permabanned, exiled, or whatever term you choose IF every liberal who stepped over the same line got the same treatment.
That's the key here. Many people here would say that nobody has stepped over the same line as you. have repeatedly. I can't recall anybody else say over and over that he wanted another board member to die. I think I recall HA saying it once, but it seems to come from you once every week.

I've learned to ignore the filth and hatred you spew. I've never asked for you to be boxed or banned. But for you to claim that the conservatives don't get a fair shake is absurd. If you wanted stricter moderation without bias, you'd quite literally be the first who should go.

[Desnudo]

I'm going with the thumbs up here. Or maybe there just aren't as many staunch conservatives around here. But to suggest the discussion is being stifled is wonderously laughable.

Or maybe most people just don't care that much and would rather talk about hot child molesters.

[jeff061]

if you wanted stricter moderation without bias, you'd quite literally be the first who should go.You're only say that because you hate conservatives. Dirty liberal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And once again, Jon... I seem to have threadjacked. :D

Hell, I don't mind the threadjack much ... but after your last post I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to be:
a) a woman
b) gay
c) a gay woman
d) all of the above
e) none of the above

[gkb]

But you are not the government, and none of us have a right to know what is going on behind closed doors. It might not be as "fair" to not let us see behind the curtain--but you don't owe us fairness. Just run the board well. You borrow too much trouble when you start showing us how the engine works.

I agree with this completely. I don't need to know what's going on behind the scenes here. I'm not a very vocal contributor here, but I have been a member for a quite awhile. I think the forum is well run and I don't have any issues with any of the warnings or bannings that have been issued. This is, by far, my favorite forum online and I think it's well run...keep up the good work.

[FrogMan]

Or maybe most people just don't care that much and would rather talk about hot child molesters.
or how their kids discovered that some part of their bodies can extend beyond their usual length...

FM

[JonInMiddleGA]

I've learned to ignore the filth and hatred you spew.


If honesty bothers you, I implore you to ignore me.

And if anything I've said posting here qualifies as "filth and hatred" to you, I don't think having you ignore me hurts a thing, you're too far gone for there to be any hope for you anyway.

Au revoir.

[Subby]

I won't disagree that I'm allowed a good bit of leeway to answer socio-political topics with passion. The problem is that too few other equally capable (and willing) conservatives have (or have any reason to believe they have) the same amount of leeway. That leaves quite literally dozens on the left with clear & consistent free reign that isn't equally afforded to the same number on the right.I guess this is where I disagree. To my memory, there has only been one staunch conservative that has been "disciplined" on this board for expressing their views (capsicum) and her forced departure had more to do with her ham-handed entry into the communty than anything else. Are there specific instances you can cite where SFLCat, Cam, Farrah, WVUFan, duckman, revrew, Arles, olliegirl et al. have been prevented from fervently engaging in political discourse?

Reading back over your post again, there is a lot of the emphasis on the word "leeway". You get it. "Dozens on the left get it." Others don't. Is the leeway defined as personal attacks? Intensity of opinion? I agree the discourse could be more civil at times, but that's the nature of a message board. If anything, I see the moderation of the past three years encouraging free debate from both sides.

[chinaski]

since when did this become a democracy?

JiMG, Skydog mods this board for free, out of the goodness of his heart, you dont like it? shut the fuck up or leave.

[JPhillips]

Cam: You're working way too hard to make this about gay slurs.

[Desnudo]

Getting back to the original point, I would like to reiterate my call for people's titles to include the reason why they were boxed. It would save a lot of time and effort, imo.

You can say, oh the mods don't have to explain, but they really do. Otherwise people get confused and anarchy results. The only complaining about FN's boxing I saw was because people thought he'd been boxed for his response to Stevew's comment about his wife being an orifice.

[Buzzbee]

Deep thoughts on JiMGA:

I consider myself a conservative and agree with a lot of the pricipals that JiMGA does. However, I don't believe them to the extreme that he does. I respect JiMGA because he can generally back up his comments with facts or with evidence that he has given the issue a lot of thought. He believes what he believes because he has thought about it, unlike others who believe what they believe because someone told them to. It is his extreme view where JiMGA rubs people the wrong way. If someone flies a plane into the White House most of us would consider them traitors and would want them punished up to and including death. JiMGA takes that principle and extends it much further than almost all of us are willing to take it. A traitor is a traitor and should be treated as such. There is not much grey area. JiMGA takes that approach for most/all his beliefs. This is where there is a disconnect with many on the board.

Because he participates in a lot of political threads, he becomes a target and participates in a lot of heated exchanges. His black or white attitude comes out and as a result he can come across as quite an asshole. Many times he is.

I also percieve JiMGA as quite a pessimist and generally a person with a generally negative outlook. That also affects how people react to him, mainly because very little of what he says is positive. I don't wish or expect him to change. That's just the way it is.

So, while I find myself agreeing with JiMGA more and more often, I don't dislike him. I do believe he crosses the line more than he should and probably gets reprimanded less than he should. I'd like to see him tone down some of the more extreme things he says, but I'd also like to see the Atlanta Hawks win an NBA title. Some things just won't ever happen.


Just figured I'd toss that out there. Move along.

[JeeberD]

All I'm gonna say is that I don't give a rat's ass about an individual's politcal leanings. Hell, I tend to stay way the hell away from politcal threads, so I probably don't even know where most people lean...

[kcchief19]

I'm not upset. I just like consistency. If we're going to call someone a woman in an attempt to tease them, then I'm assuming it's okay to call someone gay.I see this a tad bit differently. If you call someone a women, I don't infer that you are trying to insult them by suggesting they are gay; I think you are trying to insult them because you think a woman is inferior to a man -- it's not a slur against homesexuals, it's a slur against women, implying that that they are weaker in someone than a man.

If you use the term "gay" as insult, then I think you're implying that heterosexuals are in someone better han homesexuals. I think they both insult different groups.

End threadjack. Back to the nonsense.

[Deattribution]

You can say, oh the mods don't have to explain, but they really do. Otherwise people get confused and anarchy results.

Whether they explain or not, people are going to piss and moan.

There's not a win situation with this board, SD and everyone else could step down as mod and people would complain about the next mod within a month or two (or less) even if he were completely unbiased. Rinse and repeat.

[CamEdwards]

Hell, I don't mind the threadjack much ... but after your last post I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to be:
a) a woman
b) gay
c) a gay woman
d) all of the above
e) none of the above

This poll needs a trout option. :)

[Desnudo]

Whether they explain or not, people are going to piss and moan.

There's not a win situation with this board, SD and everyone else could step down as mod and people would complain about the next mod within a month or two (or less) even if he were completely unbiased. Rinse and repeat.

While that's true, and this thread is a prime example, explaining actions is a hallmark of good communication. If no one had explained the FN thing, that thread would be 10 times longer right now since most people assumed he'd been boxed for defending his wife from a trolling comment, while the troller got away with it.

[CamEdwards]

Cam: You're working way too hard to make this about gay slurs.

Nah, I'm just trying to amuse myself at this point. I do think there's a double standard at work here, but I find it funny rather than something that makes me angry.

[oliegirl]

Nah, I'm just trying to amuse myself at this point. I do think there's a double standard at work here, but I find it funny rather than something that makes me angry.


At least you have something to talk about on your show this afternoon...how one person can give all conservatives a bad name :)

[saldana]

most people assumed he'd been boxed for defending his wife from a trolling comment, while the troller got away with it.


the troll did get away with it.

[CamEdwards]

At least you have something to talk about on your show this afternoon...how one person can give all conservatives a bad name :)

Nah, I talked about Bill O'Reilly yesterday. :p

[oliegirl]

Nah, I talked about Bill O'Reilly yesterday. :p


HA! Good one!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is the leeway defined as personal attacks? Intensity of opinion?

Interesting and fair question (especially since you would probably have had to read my mind to know what I meant since I failed to define it at all).

I think there's occasionally stuff that goes under "personal attacks" that would qualify, but that isn't where I would say the majority of the leeway I see falls.

Mostly, I'm referring to the blatant trolling that takes place here by members of the left. It's consistent, it borders on constant, and it's definitely perpetual.

Bear in mind, I'm probably one of the leading proponents of the "ban all political threads" philosophy here. I'm active in them, I'm certainly not bashful in them, but I do not believe they serve much purpose here. And, relevant to the topic at hand, the origin of the majority of them is trolling. They aren't designed to generate meaningful discussion, they aren't meant to obtain additional food for thought, they're designed to bash one group & the purpose of that bashing is to create controversy, dissension, and often as not just a good old fashioned flame war. Well damn, isn't trying to start a flame war part of the essence of trolling? That's where I'm coming from with that, that a lot of this stuff

But it's not only tolerated, it's downright accepted. And I believe that a primary reason for the "tolerance" and "acceptance" is that the perpetrators are, most often, from the far left of the political spectrum. (Okay, talk to the camera moment for my biggest fans here: I did NOT say "all" or "always", I said "most often". There's a few that sit on my side of the aisle who do it too.)

That plays a big part in why I don't feel much restraint is needed when I comment -- what I'm doing in political threads is answering damn trolls. Yeah, I know, it's generally better not to feed them, but in the absence of adequate moderation control, at some point most people give in to the urge to respond.
It's like "internet human nature" or something, there are some who can totally control the need to respond 100% of the time but I believe most people would agree that those are rare.

Most of the ill-well towards me, best I can figure, comes from my politically oriented postings (or socio-political if you want to split the hair) Fair enough, because that's the root of 90%+ of the people who I've got on ignore too.

I don't come here wanting to know that there's people here who have views I find intolerable. I don't come here wanting to find people I can't stomach the sight or sound of (yeah, like anybody thinks I've got a shortage of those from day to day, internet not withstanding). It doesn't have to be all about FOF or computer games.

You wanna tell me about your kids? Have at it. You wanna talk about how drunk you are right now? Cool, wish I was too. Want to get advice on buying plasma TV's, scented candles, patio furniture, or styrofoam cups? Good place to ask AFAIC, if I know the answer I'll try to help if I can. But for the love of Pete, WTF is there such a compulsion to go down the two roads that are generally less traveled for very good reason? Everybody over the age of 3 knows that politics and religion are conversational third rails -- touch them & die.
(Note to my fan club: I'm not suggesting, recommending, or threatening death to anybody. It's a reference to the fatal nature of touching the third rail of an "electrical power distribution system for trains that uses an exposed conductor")

But on a regular & consistent basis, that's where things head here -- straight for the third rail(s) just as surely as a politician irresistably gravitates toward money. And so you get a near perfect storm scenario -- A thread that is started with full knowledge & intention of starting a flame war. On a topic that is known far & wide to be highly flammable. Add me (and others, but I'll take my fair share of the description) who is rarely inclined to allow the intolerable to go unchallenged/unanswered. I do the exact same thing if the situation arises in "real life". I subscribe to the basic philosophy that the 'net is basically an extension of "real life", most akin to the telephone. So it's a safe bet that I'm going to react here the same way -- I'm going to challenge behaviors that I find intolerable. Failing to do so is too closely akin to acceptance or approval IMO, and pretty obviously if something is intolerable then acceptance or approval is the last thing you want to imply.
(that last bit seems kinda like a "duh" statement to me, but I've sucked at not explaining everything today, so I spelled it out just in case).

And right back to the matter of "leeway" -- that's most frequently the leeway given to blantant trolling from the left to be allowed/accepted while from another quarter (say, non-political at all) would get squashed for the trolling it is. So you get trolling from the left, responded to by me/others, and then there's this great hue & cry for the heads of those who dared to respond. Bluntly stated: Fuck that shit. If you're going to let people pour gasoline & throw dynamite onto a otherwise safe campfire, don't blame the subsequent explosion on the marshmellow roast. And the answer to preventing the explosion is NOT to ban marshmellow roasts or even campfire. The problem is the gang with the dynamite & the cans of super unleaded. (Which cuts right to the root of my "feedback" to SD at the beginning of the thread. I finally snapped about his failure/unwillingness to control the dynamite & gasoline gang. It isn't the first time he's heard me voice my feelings on the subject, although it's maybe the most blunt & definitely the most public. Pretty much the only thing I regret at this point, doing it publically instead of privately. But when I read "but you can use this thread if you want to vent" my immediate reaction was "Vent? You're damned right I want to vent" and what followed was a vent that had been a long time coming. I want him to do a good job here because I believe he can do a good job here, but that only makes me exponentially angrier when he doesn't.)

Okay, whew. More than you asked, but as I typed an answer, it seemed like that a lot of it was part of/relevant to the answer. If I explain what I was referring to, I might as well go ahead & explain where that's coming from too.

[Desnudo]

Help me, I'm being crushed by the post above me!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Help me, I'm being crushed by the post above me!

Sorry about that Des, I didn't see you standing there ;)

(It was f'n loooooong. It wasn't intended that way but I guess I figured I'd try to avoid some of the inevitable/obvious questions by answering them right along with the post that would prompt them. Truth of the matter, I didn't realize how long it was myself until I saw it after posting. I think combining all that together probably just cost me a little post count)

[rkmsuf]

I can't fathom writing that much. Like dude, nobody cares.

Ok, I can't speak for nobody. I don't care.

And you don't care that I don't care.

Thread over.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't fathom writing that much. Like dude, nobody cares.

You would tend to think so, wouldn't you?

But given the amount of energy some like to devote to villifying me here, somebody must care in some way, no matter how twisted it may seem.

Besides, I'm just waiting for a couple of returned calls & an email, I can't do much that's more productive until those come in anyway. I mean, yeah, I could empty that trashcan or finally put those folders in the filing cabinet, but ... even this was preferrable to those options.

[Desnudo]

I can't fathom writing that much. Like dude, nobody cares.

Ok, I can't speak for nobody. I don't care.

And you don't care that I don't care.

Thread over.

BLANK!

If you can't speak for nobody, then you do care? Or am I confused?

[st.cronin]

Tom Brady

[Schmidty]

I thought this thread was going to be about moderation discussion, not whether or not Jon has a vagina. :D

[rkmsuf]

is

[Raiders Army]

FWIW, I think most of the conservative bashing that's been done on this board is par for the course. Just like most of the conservative bashing that was done in the news for the past six years has been par for the course.

#1: We've had a Republican president since SkyDog took over.
#2: General consensus in the media and in general is to bash the President.
#3: 1+2=3

That's why I think there may be a liberal slant to this messageboard. Let the Dems win the White House in 2008 and we'll see what happens then.

What terrifies me is that I agreed with Isquiddi in the Mens' rights thread this morning. :)

[saldana]

not to belittle Jon's left vs right issue, because i really dont have an opinion on it, but how about we condense the entirety of his 3 page post to just: How about we try an put an end to trolling. period. no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from, or how many posts they have, or how long they have been a member. How about we just use some standard civility in the way we talk to each other....i know that at times things i have posted have bothered people, and when that happens, I immediately apologize and stop whatever it is that i was doing...anything else is trolling, and i just dont understand how/why it is tolerated from any direction.

[Desnudo]

faster at posting than rkmsuf

[rkmsuf]

faster at posting than rkmsuf

dammit I want a recount. he retro timestamp bugged me.

[Raiders Army]

I can't fathom writing that much. Like dude, nobody cares.

Ok, I can't speak for nobody. I don't care.

And you don't care that I don't care.

Thread over.I believe this thread may be your Moby Dick, Master of the Succinct.

[Raiders Army]

not to belittle Jon's left vs right issue, because i really dont have an opinion on it, but how about we condense the entirety of his 3 page post to just: How about we try an put an end to trolling. period. no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from, or how many posts they have, or how long they have been a member. How about we just use some standard civility in the way we talk to each other....i know that at times things i have posted have bothered people, and when that happens, I immediately apologize and stop whatever it is that i was doing...anything else is trolling, and i just dont understand how/why it is tolerated from any direction.I'm sorry for calling you a n00b.

[rkmsuf]

I believe this thread may be your Moby Dick, Master of the Succinct.

I thought I was the Black Pope of Love and Tolerance.

Master of the Succinct is good too.

[Desnudo]

I was going to call you Zen Master for your "is" post.

[st.cronin]

!

[Raiders Army]

I thought I was the Black Pope of Love and Tolerance.

Master of the Succinct is good too.Some mod should give you a unique title like that...or maybe something shorter that references smurfs.

[JeeberD]

or maybe something shorter that references smurfs.


Hmmmm...Vanity Smurf?

[Bee]

Some mod should give you a unique title like that...or maybe something shorter that references smurfs.

Angry Smurf would be my suggestion...:D

[rkmsuf]

Some mod should give you a unique title like that...or maybe something shorter that references smurfs.

only if it references stuff I did to smurfette and how she loved it

[Desnudo]

!

*

[kcchief19]

the troll did get away with it.So does that mean we need a rule calling for an automatic boxing if you mention FN's wife in a derogatory way? Should we box everyone who speaks poorly about a former board member? I don't think we need to have a double standard for treating people differently just because two people on the board are members.

I'll admit Steve used a word (* included) I wouldn't use, and I could see if we had a rule against using that word or if we a had a rule against calling anyone a name that included an obscenity. But we don't.

As for Jon's speaking of a double standard, I think FN is another case of someone who has repeatedly broken board rules and doesn't get a banning. How many times do you need to get boxed before you earn yourself a lifetime achievement banning? Then of course we have the Jesse banning, which most rational people see as simply the flip side of the Capsicum banning. But I guess facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

I think we ever we get into this hissy fits over board moderation, all we do is here from the vocal majority -- the fact that the majority of forum members are quiet on the issue suggests to me that board moderation is just about right.

[st.cronin]

*

troll

[Desnudo]

troll

Are you calling my wife an orifice?

[rkmsuf]

Are you calling my wife an orifice?

he called her a baboon, thinks she's his wife.

[sabotai]

I thought this thread was going to be about moderation discussion, not whether or not Jon has a vagina. :DAfter reading this thread, I'm ALMOST convinced that these two issues are one in the same...almost there.

[Daimyo]

JiMGA complaining of a moderation bias against him and conservatives is the best UIC (?) moment here since the whole "cocky and funny" hornsmaniac thread. I totally thought it was intended as sarcasm at first!

[Desnudo]

he called her a baboon, thinks she's his wife.

Also sums up this thread pretty well.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/baboon.jpg

[st.cronin]

are you saying this thread really chaps your ass?

[WSUCougar]

I've always wondered this...in a baboon pack, when they gather around to mate and stuff, do they talk to each other in baboon-speak and say things like:

"Hey, Joe. Check out the sweet pink ass on THAT!"

[oliegirl]

Bear in mind, I'm probably one of the leading proponents of the "ban all political threads" philosophy here. I'm active in them, I'm certainly not bashful in them, but I do not believe they serve much purpose here. And, relevant to the topic at hand, the origin of the majority of them is trolling. They aren't designed to generate meaningful discussion, they aren't meant to obtain additional food for thought, they're designed to bash one group & the purpose of that bashing is to create controversy, dissension, and often as not just a good old fashioned flame war. Well damn, isn't trying to start a flame war part of the essence of trolling? That's where I'm coming from with that, that a lot of this stuff

So according to this statement, you are a troll. You post in political threads which according to you are an example of trolling...and beyond that, you admit to being "not bashful" in them. Your posts are more troll-like than many of the actual trolls that post here. You bash and insult the people who disagree with you more than just about anyone else here. I can't speak for anyone else here, but it seems to me that you often go so far over the line when trying to make your point that you have absolutley no chance of anyone having anything positive to say about you. And you bring it all on yourself...this thread, and more specifically, your posts in this thread is the perfect example.

[Desnudo]

I've always wondered this...in a baboon pack, when they gather around to mate and stuff, do they talk to each other in baboon-speak and say things like:

"Hey, Joe. Check out the sweet pink ass on THAT!"

Funny you should ask.

Big bottomed baboons make better mates

UK researchers have proved that the big-bottomed female baboons which male baboons find most sexually attractive are also the most successful at reproducing.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s256942.htm

[AlexB]

Chris, in all seriousness & complete sincerity -- if this board didn't have such a strong tendency to tolerate dozens who attack conservatives while allowing only a scant few conservatives the leeway to answer them just as strongly, I'd be happy enough to take my leave permanently.

In other words, I'd go away pretty readily and of my own accord, as long as the same percentage of the staunchest liberals who post with equal fervor for their viewpoints were gone too.

I won't disagree that I'm allowed a good bit of leeway to answer socio-political topics with passion. The problem is that too few other equally capable (and willing) conservatives have (or have any reason to believe they have) the same amount of leeway. That leaves quite literally dozens on the left with clear & consistent free reign that isn't equally afforded to the same number on the right.

Again, I'd have no issue at all with being boxed, banned, permabanned, exiled, or whatever term you choose IF every liberal who stepped over the same line got the same treatment. But that hasn't happened, it doesn't happen, nor do I believe for more than the slightest moment of faint forlorn hope it'll ever happen (for reasons I referenced in my initial post in this thread). Absent that equitable treatment, then I don't feel the slightest bit apologetic about being among the few conservatives here who have been allowed to reply in kind to the sacred cows of the left.

A true political patriot - prepared to sacrifice himself if he can take a few of the other side with him... Remind you of anything? ;)

[rkmsuf]

you are all things baboon

[Desnudo]

are you saying this thread really chaps your ass?

More directly, I was saying this thread is ass. However, I feel like we're in a dual thread now. I like what we are doing with the space.

[saldana]

So does that mean we need a rule calling for an automatic boxing if you mention FN's wife in a derogatory way?

again, i'm not defending anyone in particular...i didnt really even pay attention to when capsicum was here....my point is that civility is lacking...SteveW's post is merely the most recent example


and RA, i'm still not over it...i plan on sending you my shrink bills when i complete my therapy :p

[st.cronin]

More directly, I was saying this thread is ass. However, I feel like we're in a dual thread now. I like what we are doing with the space.

My socks that I am wearing don't match.

[Desnudo]

you are all things baboon

Learn it. Know it. Live it.

[AlexB]

You would tend to think so, wouldn't you?

But given the amount of energy some like to devote to villifying me here, somebody must care in some way, no matter how twisted it may seem.

Besides, I'm just waiting for a couple of returned calls & an email, I can't do much that's more productive until those come in anyway. I mean, yeah, I could empty that trashcan or finally put those folders in the filing cabinet, but ... even this was preferrable to those options.

See this is the perceived problem: other than the comments in this thread by some, I haven't seen evidence of people trying to vilify you (although I haven't read all of the political threads, only those that seem to have interest / application to the situation over here).

From what I have seen you are somebody who is secure in what you believe, argue your points passionately, but see anybody who doesn't agree with you, or maybe cannot make their points as coherently or definitively as you, as being out to get you.

Some might be I suppose, but my guess is they just don't have the same opinions as you. Just my tuppence worth.

[oliegirl]

See this is the perceived problem: other than the comments in this thread by some, I haven't seen evidence of people trying to vilify you (although I haven't read all of the political threads, only those that seem to have interest / application to the situation over here).

From what I have seen you are somebody who is secure in what you believe, argue your points passionately, but see anybody who doesn't agree with you, or maybe cannot make their points as coherently or definitively as you, as being out to get you.

Some might be I suppose, but my guess is they just don't have the same opinions as you. Just my tuppence worth.


I need an English translation for tuppence please :)

[SackAttack]

It's time that you either drop the personal agendas you have with certain posters or at least apply the rules evenly across the board.

Is this Jon I'm reading?

You've cut the liberal wing of this forum slack to infinity & beyond and I believe that you've done it in a misguided attempt to prove that you're not too conservative yourself.

Ah. There it is.


Here's a novel approach I'd suggest: Treat everybody on both sides of the aisle the same way. Period.

Should be happening anyway. I don't think it has been - I think the "liberals" have caught it in the shorts more as far as boxings and bannings go (and I say this as a conservative), but I think both sides ought to be receiving equal treatment regardless of what's come before.

[DaddyTorgo]

Interesting and fair question (especially since you would probably have had to read my mind to know what I meant since I failed to define it at all).

I think there's occasionally stuff that goes under "personal attacks" that would qualify, but that isn't where I would say the majority of the leeway I see falls.

Mostly, I'm referring to the blatant trolling that takes place here by members of the left. It's consistent, it borders on constant, and it's definitely perpetual.

Bear in mind, I'm probably one of the leading proponents of the "ban all political threads" philosophy here. I'm active in them, I'm certainly not bashful in them, but I do not believe they serve much purpose here. And, relevant to the topic at hand, the origin of the majority of them is trolling. They aren't designed to generate meaningful discussion, they aren't meant to obtain additional food for thought, they're designed to bash one group & the purpose of that bashing is to create controversy, dissension, and often as not just a good old fashioned flame war. Well damn, isn't trying to start a flame war part of the essence of trolling? That's where I'm coming from with that, that a lot of this stuff

But it's not only tolerated, it's downright accepted. And I believe that a primary reason for the "tolerance" and "acceptance" is that the perpetrators are, most often, from the far left of the political spectrum. (Okay, talk to the camera moment for my biggest fans here: I did NOT say "all" or "always", I said "most often". There's a few that sit on my side of the aisle who do it too.)

That plays a big part in why I don't feel much restraint is needed when I comment -- what I'm doing in political threads is answering damn trolls. Yeah, I know, it's generally better not to feed them, but in the absence of adequate moderation control, at some point most people give in to the urge to respond.
It's like "internet human nature" or something, there are some who can totally control the need to respond 100% of the time but I believe most people would agree that those are rare.

Most of the ill-well towards me, best I can figure, comes from my politically oriented postings (or socio-political if you want to split the hair) Fair enough, because that's the root of 90%+ of the people who I've got on ignore too.

I don't come here wanting to know that there's people here who have views I find intolerable. I don't come here wanting to find people I can't stomach the sight or sound of (yeah, like anybody thinks I've got a shortage of those from day to day, internet not withstanding). It doesn't have to be all about FOF or computer games.

You wanna tell me about your kids? Have at it. You wanna talk about how drunk you are right now? Cool, wish I was too. Want to get advice on buying plasma TV's, scented candles, patio furniture, or styrofoam cups? Good place to ask AFAIC, if I know the answer I'll try to help if I can. But for the love of Pete, WTF is there such a compulsion to go down the two roads that are generally less traveled for very good reason? Everybody over the age of 3 knows that politics and religion are conversational third rails -- touch them & die.
(Note to my fan club: I'm not suggesting, recommending, or threatening death to anybody. It's a reference to the fatal nature of touching the third rail of an "electrical power distribution system for trains that uses an exposed conductor")

But on a regular & consistent basis, that's where things head here -- straight for the third rail(s) just as surely as a politician irresistably gravitates toward money. And so you get a near perfect storm scenario -- A thread that is started with full knowledge & intention of starting a flame war. On a topic that is known far & wide to be highly flammable. Add me (and others, but I'll take my fair share of the description) who is rarely inclined to allow the intolerable to go unchallenged/unanswered. I do the exact same thing if the situation arises in "real life". I subscribe to the basic philosophy that the 'net is basically an extension of "real life", most akin to the telephone. So it's a safe bet that I'm going to react here the same way -- I'm going to challenge behaviors that I find intolerable. Failing to do so is too closely akin to acceptance or approval IMO, and pretty obviously if something is intolerable then acceptance or approval is the last thing you want to imply.
(that last bit seems kinda like a "duh" statement to me, but I've sucked at not explaining everything today, so I spelled it out just in case).

And right back to the matter of "leeway" -- that's most frequently the leeway given to blantant trolling from the left to be allowed/accepted while from another quarter (say, non-political at all) would get squashed for the trolling it is. So you get trolling from the left, responded to by me/others, and then there's this great hue & cry for the heads of those who dared to respond. Bluntly stated: Fuck that shit. If you're going to let people pour gasoline & throw dynamite onto a otherwise safe campfire, don't blame the subsequent explosion on the marshmellow roast. And the answer to preventing the explosion is NOT to ban marshmellow roasts or even campfire. The problem is the gang with the dynamite & the cans of super unleaded. (Which cuts right to the root of my "feedback" to SD at the beginning of the thread. I finally snapped about his failure/unwillingness to control the dynamite & gasoline gang. It isn't the first time he's heard me voice my feelings on the subject, although it's maybe the most blunt & definitely the most public. Pretty much the only thing I regret at this point, doing it publically instead of privately. But when I read "but you can use this thread if you want to vent" my immediate reaction was "Vent? You're damned right I want to vent" and what followed was a vent that had been a long time coming. I want him to do a good job here because I believe he can do a good job here, but that only makes me exponentially angrier when he doesn't.)

Okay, whew. More than you asked, but as I typed an answer, it seemed like that a lot of it was part of/relevant to the answer. If I explain what I was referring to, I might as well go ahead & explain where that's coming from too.file this under "WHY [POL] THREADS NEED THEIR OWN FORUM"

I think this is the first lengthy JiMG post that I have agreed with pretty much in its entirety (I got overwhelmed partway through and skimmed a bunch of it). Political threads really are generated LARGELY (not always, but largely) for the purpose of inciting flamewars, for bashing people and calling people names, for beating ones head against a wall. And this comes from the left as well as the right (although the majority of the posts are started by those on the left it is a definate fact that if the left was in power in this country we would see a lot more POL threads started by the right). It's because people like to vent their frustrations with the current system...be it left or right. The only difference is who is starting the threads, once the gloves come off in a POL thread, right and left hurl insulsts back and forth across the aisle equally. From "traitor" to "nazi" it happens all the time.

Politics and religion ARE the "third rail" of polite conversation. You'd never have most of these conversations at say a town picnic at an audible volume, so why are we having them here, in such a diverse community, at such a "volume" if you will. Discussing them IN PRIVATE with friends, or just going out to a bar and starting a political fistfight are really the only times you'd discuss these subjects. Which AGAIN is why I think Political/Religious (although this is far from the problem the political threads are) threads need their own "anything goes" forum. That way people have to seperately click to enter it, and acknowledge the "anything goes" aspect of it. And if people choose to ignore it then and the opinions of people in it, then so be it. And if they choose to play in it, they know that they will likely end up with a bloody nose. But then at least we won't have Political/Religious stuff spilling over cross-thread in the main forum and coloring our opinions of each other (unless we choose to go play in that forum).

[AlexB]

I need an English translation for tuppence please :)

Equivalent of 2c :)

[flere-imsaho]

All I'm gonna say is that I don't give a rat's ass about an individual's politcal leanings. Hell, I tend to stay way the hell away from politcal threads, so I probably don't even know where most people lean...

That's too bad, because you're missing excellent chances to pad your post count. ;)

[oliegirl]

Equivalent of 2c :)


Thanks for the clarification...I figured that was what it was, but couldn't resist the chance to type tuppence...figured I might not get many chances to use that word :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

... having anything positive to say about you. And you bring it all on yourself...

Actually, as unpopular as I am, I dare say even I've got as many fans as you do.
So please, don't get all holier than thou with me, you've got zero ground to do so.

[st.cronin]

Actually, as unpopular as I am, I dare say even I've got as many fans as you do.
So please, don't get all holier than thou with me, you've got zero ground to do so.

I have always liked you. I think I've said that before, too.

[oliegirl]

Actually, as unpopular as I am, I dare say even I've got as many fans as you do.
So please, don't get all holier than thou with me, you've got zero ground to do so.


See, that is the difference between you and I. I'm not here to accumulate fans. I'm not here to piss people off. I'm here to engage in a few discussions and maybe learn something new.

[JonInMiddleGA]

See this is the perceived problem: other than the comments in this thread by some, I haven't seen evidence of people trying to vilify you

JRS, all I can say to that is that this thread is pretty much what I get on a regular basis. Other than a couple of new "contributors" to the dogpile, there's really nothing new in my direction in this thread.
{shrug}

I'm just a GOP'er at Coretta's funeral ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have always liked you. I think I've said that before, too.

Well, there goes your invitation to the FOFC Christmas party.

[JonInMiddleGA]

maybe learn something new.

Well honey, keep trying, I dunno what else to tell you.
If my style bothers you, there's not one thing I can do about that other than to suggest the "ignore" feature.

But your personal opinion of me really isn't something that matters a helluva lot one way or the other to be honest, so I probably ought to give you your two cents back.

[st.cronin]

Well, there goes your invitation to the FOFC Christmas party.

darn

[st.cronin]

dola

I would like Jimga more if he played werewolf.

[ice4277]

dola

I would like Jimga more if he played werewolf.
I hear he's a big Tom Brady fan though.

[kcchief19]

I had no idea FOFC was a such a bastion of liberalism. Huh. Who'da thunk that?

[flere-imsaho]

Well, there goes your invitation to the FOFC Christmas party.

Holiday party, damnit, you insensitive, un-PC prick! ;)

[FrogMan]

Well honey, keep trying, I dunno what else to tell you.
If my style bothers you, there's not one thing I can do about that other than to suggest the "ignore" feature.

But your personal opinion of me really isn't something that matters a helluva lot one way or the other to be honest, so I probably ought to give you your two cents back.
see Jon, IMO, and yeah, you probably don't need it anyway, this is what's got some people to "vilify" you in some ways. That reply was not really needed and you too could use the "ignore" feature, or simply read her post and let it flow.

Honestly, I like many aspects of what you bring to the board. You seem passionate in many aspects of your life, like when you speak demographics and such, or about your son, or your possible new house. The political stuff, I don't read it, or almost never read it, but you're just as passionate in that part of it. I just decide to ignore that part...

just my 1.73913 american cents, (yep canadian dollars is just that close ;))

FM

[kcchief19]

again, i'm not defending anyone in particular...i didnt really even pay attention to when capsicum was here....my point is that civility is lacking...SteveW's post is merely the most recent exampleI think context is part of it. I didn't see what Steve did as being any different than when people here speak ill of Hornsmaniac or mrskippy.

If the mods proposed having a rule against direct insults against another person (or just direct insults using vulgarity), I'd endorse it. I'd even support a banning of the C-word, since it's not on my list of civil words.

[DaddyTorgo]

if we ban c*nt we also ought to ban f*g and f*ggoty and all forms of that too.

[rkmsuf]

maybe we could move the forum to satellite

[Crapshoot]

Should be happening anyway. I don't think it has been - I think the "liberals" have caught it in the shorts more as far as boxings and bannings go (and I say this as a conservative), but I think both sides ought to be receiving equal treatment regardless of what's come before.

Yup. I'm a frigging liberal here, even though I would have voted for Bush in 2000 and not voted in 2004. I think this boards leans conservative, as much of the older crowd appears to lean that way (I'd guess the average age on this board is in the high 30's).

[oliegirl]

Well honey, keep trying, I dunno what else to tell you.
If my style bothers you, there's not one thing I can do about that other than to suggest the "ignore" feature.

But your personal opinion of me really isn't something that matters a helluva lot one way or the other to be honest, so I probably ought to give you your two cents back.


Do not call me honey...ever

[Raiders Army]

I think context is part of it. I didn't see what Steve did as being any different than when people here speak ill of Hornsmaniac or mrskippy.

If the mods proposed having a rule against direct insults against another person (or just direct insults using vulgarity), I'd endorse it. I'd even support a banning of the C-word, since it's not on my list of civil words.]

I see it more as he insulted FN's wife, not another banned person. He insulted her and he knew capsicum was FN's wife. There's a big difference between that and insulting HM or mrskippy.

[Desnudo]

]

I see it more as he insulted FN's wife, not another banned person. He insulted her and he knew capsicum was FN's wife. There's a big difference between that and insulting HM or mrskippy.

You do know that hornsmaniac is married to mrskippy?

[chinaski]

all i know is, no person should ever spend this much time worrying about a message board. Slowly, step away from the computer. its text on a screen, in a fantasy land of sim sports. how about instead of spending hours online posting pointless messages on a interent board, why not spend those hours with your wife? Job? Hobby? Kids? Is there anything else so vital?

[DaddyTorgo]

all i know is, no person should ever spend this much time worrying about a message board. Slowly, step away from the computer. its text on a screen, in a fantasy land of sim sports. how about instead of spending hours online posting pointless messages on a interent board, why not spend those hours with your wife? Job? Hobby? Kids? Is there anything else so vital?well said. i try not to ever get too wrapped up in the drama. when i do i like to shut down my browser and take a deep breath and go "there's still a whole nother world out here of people who know nothing about JiMG or FN or Hornsmanic or capsicum."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Holiday party, damnit, you insensitive, un-PC prick! ;)

And, for perhaps the first time today (although Cam came pretty close), somebody gets an LOL from me. Good job ;)

[astrosfan64]

I gotta say, I don't see Jon as worshipping any conservatives. He seems to think he and he alone has all the right answers. :D

I won't defend Jon's original post to Skydog, because I happen to not agree with it, but I do find it amusing to see JPhillips accuse Jon of being a woman, considering the sheer number of people who get offended by any mention of homosexuality in a joking context.

I guess if the phrase "waaahwaaahwaah, my pussy hurts" is considered acceptable, then it'd be all right to tell someone "I can't make sense of what you're saying. Take the dick out of your mouth and speak clearly"?

LOL great post.

[Raiders Army]

You do know that hornsmaniac is married to mrskippy?For a while there, I thought it was mr skippy instead of mrs kippy. Nope. Didn't know.

[Toddzilla]

I had no idea FOFC was a such a bastion of liberalism. Huh. Who'da thunk that?It's kinda like the "Liberal" Media....

[JonInMiddleGA]

That reply was not really needed and you too could use the "ignore" feature, or simply read her post and let it flow.

Here's the thing FrogMan, I hope it makes some sense.

"Let it flow" isn't in me much, and especially not when I feel like I'm getting shit from someone who I don't feel like has any business giving me any. Take a shot at me, I tend to shoot back. And it's a pretty short list of people I believe have any business giving me much crap in life. Doesn't mean I don't get any crap, far from it really (pretty much like the rest of the world), just means that I've probably got a little lower percentage of people who do it to me without getting some back in return.

I kinda believe that there's a finite amount of shit any one person will take in their life. Some people have a high amount, some people have a low amount. And at some point in my life, a number of years ago (by my count it's about 19-20 years ago), I ran all out of "take shit".

[rkmsuf]

not even the baboons could wind this thread down

[FrogMan]

Here's the thing FrogMan, I hope it makes some sense.

"Let it flow" isn't in me much, and especially not when I feel like I'm getting shit from someone who I don't feel like has any business giving me any. Take a shot at me, I tend to shoot back. And it's a pretty short list of people I believe have any business giving me much crap in life. Doesn't mean I don't get any crap, far from it really (pretty much like the rest of the world), just means that I've probably got a little lower percentage of people who do it to me without getting some back in return.

I kinda believe that there's a finite amount of shit any one person will take in their life. Some people have a high amount, some people have a low amount. And at some point in my life, a number of years ago (by my count it's about 19-20 years ago), I ran all out of "take shit".
LOL! Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought it was with you, the "let it flow" not being in you :)

It's how you are, I can understand that, but when you start responding to people you have to know you will get responded to too, if that makes sense, then you will respond again and to which they will respond again, and... (guess you get the point ;))

The being out of "take shit" kinda means to me you that you'll always be on the fighting end of the stick, and this with still a long time to go in your life. That's a long time to be always fighting...

FM

[JonInMiddleGA]

Do not call me honey...ever

Okay ... honey.

(Yep, predictable reply from me. But it's also predictable from a good 90% of the people who post here too. It's right up there next to px plz thks k)

[FrogMan]

you broke my dola without me having a chance to dola...

to add that yeah, it made sense, to me at least.

FM

[Schmidty]

Here's the thing FrogMan, I hope it makes some sense.

"Let it flow" isn't in me much, and especially not when I feel like I'm getting shit from someone who I don't feel like has any business giving me any. Take a shot at me, I tend to shoot back. And it's a pretty short list of people I believe have any business giving me much crap in life. Doesn't mean I don't get any crap, far from it really (pretty much like the rest of the world), just means that I've probably got a little lower percentage of people who do it to me without getting some back in return.

I kinda believe that there's a finite amount of shit any one person will take in their life. Some people have a high amount, some people have a low amount. And at some point in my life, a number of years ago (by my count it's about 19-20 years ago), I ran all out of "take shit".

I take shits all the time, but I don't mind as long as there's some quilted Northern around.

[Schmidty]

I take shits all the time, but I don't mind as long as there's some quilted Northern around.

What a lame attempt at humor, jackass.

[astrosfan64]

Can we ban chicks from the board?

[CamEdwards]

Do not call me honey...ever

I don't know why, but this cracked me up. It reminds me of some sort of threat by the U.N.

"Don't call me honey... ever."

"Or what?"

"Or.... I will ask you again. And not so nicely this time."

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's a long time to be always fighting...

Yep FM, it is.
But it appears pretty likely that it'll be right up until the day I die.

[Klinglerware]

What a lame attempt at humor, jackass.

I don't know what's more classic, your original one-liner, or your attack on said one-liner

[JonInMiddleGA]

What a lame attempt at humor, jackass.

And people think I've got issues?
I think you just just flamed yourself.

Oddly enough, that may be the highlight of the thread to date.

[FrogMan]

Yep FM, it is.
But it appears pretty likely that it'll be right up until the day I die.
good luck with that :)

Sometimes, I think that "live and let live" is better for my blood pressure :)

FM

[Schmidty]

Yep FM, it is.
But it appears pretty likely that it'll be right up until the day I die.

When I just read that, I had a weepy, tragic strings arrangement playing in my mind.

[AlexB]

And people think I've got issues?
I think you just just flamed yourself.

Oddly enough, that may be the highlight of the thread to date.

I had to reread the posts, double check I hadn't missed something, but no - you were right: within 3 minutes there was a self-flame :eek:

Beautiful stuff :D

[Raiders Army]

What just happened?

[JonInMiddleGA]

What just happened?

Not much really, mostly SSDD.
Although Schmidty did manage to flame himself.

[kcchief19]

I see it more as he insulted FN's wife, not another banned person. He insulted her and he knew capsicum was FN's wife. There's a big difference between that and insulting HM or mrskippy.But that logic suggests that it's OK to call everyone on the board by an obscene name, so long as they aren't married to another board member and their spouse will go Jean Claude on your ass. That suggests there is some kind of magic shield protecting married board members. It can't work that way.

The mods have to have a "veil of ignorance" about these kind of things. You can't take those things into consideration.

Then again, FN took the high road and played the "your momma" card, so I think he loses any "don't pick on my wife" credibility.

[kcchief19]

You should check out the RWBL message boards from a few weeks ago when Schmidty got drunk on a couple of wine coolers, went ape on a couple of other owners, quit the league and showed up sober the next trying to remember what the hell happened. Good stuff.

[CamEdwards]

okay, apparently I missed the thread that led to FN's boxing. Who called his wife the "c word"?

[Honolulu_Blue]

okay, apparently I missed the thread that led to FN's boxing. Who called his wife the "c word"?
stevew

[Desnudo]

not even the baboons could wind this thread down

That's because it's the baboons that are winding it up!

Oh snap!

[Schmidty]

You should check out the RWBL message boards from a few weeks ago when Schmidty got drunk on a couple of wine coolers, went ape on a couple of other owners, quit the league and showed up sober the next trying to remember what the hell happened. Good stuff.

That was a true highlight of my year so far.

I still have no recollection of anything that night. I don't drink often anymore, but when I do, I go balls to the wall. :D

[Ben E Lou]

So...I glanced at this thread around lunch time today...do I need to read through it all? :p

[Raiders Army]

But that logic suggests that it's OK to call everyone on the board by an obscene name, so long as they aren't married to another board member and their spouse will go Jean Claude on your ass. That suggests there is some kind of magic shield protecting married board members. It can't work that way.

The mods have to have a "veil of ignorance" about these kind of things. You can't take those things into consideration.

Then again, FN took the high road and played the "your momma" card, so I think he loses any "don't pick on my wife" credibility.I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying that the way I interpreted it was that stevew was insulting FN's wife and used the excuse of she's a banned member to do it...however, after re-looking the conversation, I see that I was wrong.

I agree that he lost the high road when he said that stevew's mom was a whore.

Edit--There is a huge difference between calling someone's mom a whore and someone's wife a cunt in my mind though.

[Schmidty]

So...I glanced at this thread around lunch time today...do I need to read through it all? :p

It's pretty entertaining, so I say yes. :)

[sachmo71]

So...I glanced at this thread around lunch time today...do I need to read through it all? :p


Not. Even. Close.

[Honolulu_Blue]

That was a true highlight of my year so far.

I still have no recollection of anything that night. I don't drink often anymore, but when I do, I go balls to the wall. :DYou go balls to the wall on wine coolers? Sparty... Come on, they taught you better than that in Lansing. I know they did.

[WSUCougar]

Edit--There is a huge difference between calling someone's mom a whore and someone's wife a cunt in my mind though.
What about calling your sister a diseased yak?

[Schmidty]

You go balls to the wall on wine coolers? Sparty... Come on, they taught you better than that in Lansing. I know they did.

He was making a joke about the wine coolers. I was actually drinking straight Listerine.

[WVUFAN]

My opinion on the modding thing is twofold:

1. It seems that it isn't just conservatives or liberals that are being banned, but rather people who choose to spend most of their time in political discussions. Jesse Ewick and Capsicum come to mind. People may think them to be trolls, but I've read their posts and they're not. They're just either VERY liberal or VERY conservative. Having "extreme" viewpoints should not be grounds for banning, and neither should posting exclusively in political threads if a person wants to. So, while I agree with JoninMiddleGA in much of his point, the "banning" swing both ways. Which leads me to ...

2. I think the problem I have with the banning and boxing isn't that they're being banned or boxed, it's because there's no set rules in place to determine what constitutes a banning or boxing. I think it's great Skydog set new mods in place, but again, without a clear definition of what would cause a ban or box, people are left with more confusion. Example:

Jesse Ewick was banned for posting 70% in political threads. Others,
myself included, post quite a bit in POL threads. As far as it was
indicated, he was never warned, and really did nothing wrong.

Mr.Bigglesworth was boxed for calling Skydog a curse word. However,
when SteveW called a person a curseword FAR worse, nothing was done.

When you have one sheriff and no laws, the sheriff either has NO power, or too much. When you have 10 sheriffs and no laws, expand the same problem ten fold. The solution is to set new laws, which are in place to protect BOTH the people here and the mods, as people would have clear cut understanding on what is allowed and what isn't.

"Don't be an asshat", while cute, just doesn't cut it.

[Raiders Army]

What about calling your sister a diseased yak?
I have no sister that I know of...unless she's my twin and I am strong in the Force. In that case, she would be a princess, not a diseased yak.

[Honolulu_Blue]

He was making a joke about the wine coolers. I was actually drinking straight Listerine.
Gotcha. And the crazy ass posts and quitting the league are sort of like burning couches on the internets? ;)

[jeff061]

without a clear definition of what would cause a ban or box, people are left with more confusionThis is not possible.

The only thing more idiotic than every word being typed out on Jon's keyboard are the people supporting Capsicum. Damn republicans.

[Groundhog]

blah blah blah blah blah.

[illinifan999]

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5912/munch9hc.gif

Mr. Fluffles has decided to EAT this thread.

[Blade6119]

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5912/munch9hc.gif

Mr. Fluffles has decided to EAT this thread.
Quiet Dansik...go whore CQB or something ;)

[Ben E Lou]

My opinion on the modding thing is twofold:

1. It seems that it isn't just conservatives or liberals that are being banned, but rather people who choose to spend most of their time in political discussions. Jesse Ewick and Capsicum come to mind. People may think them to be trolls, but I've read their posts and they're not. They're just either VERY liberal or VERY conservative. Having "extreme" viewpoints should not be grounds for banning, and neither should posting exclusively in political threads if a person wants to. So, while I agree with JoninMiddleGA in much of his point, the "banning" swing both ways. Which leads me to ...

2. I think the problem I have with the banning and boxing isn't that they're being banned or boxed, it's because there's no set rules in place to determine what constitutes a banning or boxing. I think it's great Skydog set new mods in place, but again, without a clear definition of what would cause a ban or box, people are left with more confusion. Example:

Jesse Ewick was banned for posting 70% in political threads. Others,
myself included, post quite a bit in POL threads. As far as it was
indicated, he was never warned, and really did nothing wrong.

Mr.Bigglesworth was boxed for calling Skydog a curse word. However,
when SteveW called a person a curseword FAR worse, nothing was done.

When you have one sheriff and no laws, the sheriff either has NO power, or too much. When you have 10 sheriffs and no laws, expand the same problem ten fold. The solution is to set new laws, which are in place to protect BOTH the people here and the mods, as people would have clear cut understanding on what is allowed and what isn't.

"Don't be an asshat", while cute, just doesn't cut it.You weren't around when, for example, mrskippy and wignifty were here, so I can understand why you'd think that. The problem is that while, in theory, a clearly-defined-and-spelled out set of rules sounds great, in practice, it is another headache entirely: a whole lot of work put into a set of guidelines that certain types of people delight in figuring out how they can adhere to the letter of the law while causing as many problems as possible.

I'll guarantee this: we could draw up x number of clearly-defined rules, with rule #(x+1) saying, "The moderators reserve the right to edit or delete posts, or suspend or ban users, when behaviors not detailed in the above x rules yet deemed by the mods to be detrimental to the community occur." We'd then spend the vast majority of disciplinary actions with people arguing over whether that person's behavior was "detrimental to the community...." and that's not to mention the various behaviors that some people would routinely engage in to push the envelope of every single one of the x rules. Then, when that person who intentionally lived on the edge of all x rules and never broke one finally got a suspension (likely for behavior not quite breaking the rules), the defenders would be up in arms: HE NEVER EVER EVER EVER BROKE A RULE!!! HOW CAN YOU DO THIS!!! OMG!!! LOL!! WTF!!!!!11111

[dawgfan]

Jesse Ewick and Capsicum come to mind. People may think them to be trolls, but I've read their posts and they're not. They're just either VERY liberal or VERY conservative. Having "extreme" viewpoints should not be grounds for banning, and neither should posting exclusively in political threads if a person wants to.
Turns out capsicum deleted a number of her most controversial threads, so not all of the evidence is still around for the reasons she was banned. I read many of them, and they were extremely inflammatory - she earned her banning. And it wasn't simply the content (i.e. very conservative christian), it was the manner in which the content was delivered, and the fact that those inflammatory posts were the vast majority of her posting history right out of the gate.

[Honolulu_Blue]

HE NEVER EVER EVER EVER BROKE A RULE!!! HOW CAN YOU DO THIS!!! OMG!!! LOL!! WTF!!!!!11111
This made me laugh.

[Deattribution]

Something alot of people don't seem to get - certain people are trying to make it out like there aren't clearly enough defined rules....

if I come here and I post someone needs to get hit by a bus, or I call someone a cunt, or a faggot.. I don't need to see a rule that says it isn't allowed to know that it's questionable and could lead to me being banned... not unless I'm an idiot. Even if someone else was given the benefit of the doubt, or more leeway cause they're buddy buddy... it doesn't change the fact *I* and anyone with half a brain should know it's questionable.

Same if I came here and spewed political shit constantly, it's one thing to take a side passionately, it's another to constantly just attack another side. Eventually you gotta know you're pushing buttons, and sometimes that comes back and bites you.

Fact of the matter is, I'm sure 90% of the people here haven't ever even came close to being banned, yet I don't get why all the dramatic BS about how fuzzy the rules are. If you have to question whether you could get banned for saying something, even if someone else has said it before - maybe you better just go participate in one of the boards other 12,000 threads.

[st.cronin]

Willie McGinest

[Achilles]

Something alot of people don't seem to get - certain people are trying to make it out like there aren't clearly enough defined rules....

if I come here and I post someone needs to get hit by a bus, or I call someone a cunt, or a faggot.. I don't need to see a rule that says it isn't allowed to know that it's questionable and could lead to me being banned... not unless I'm an idiot. Even if someone else was given the benefit of the doubt, or more leeway cause they're buddy buddy... it doesn't change the fact *I* and anyone with half a brain should know it's questionable.

Same if I came here and spewed political shit constantly, it's one thing to take a side passionately, it's another to constantly just attack another side. Eventually you gotta know you're pushing buttons, and sometimes that comes back and bites you.

Fact of the matter is, I'm sure 90% of the people here haven't ever even came close to being banned, yet I don't get why all the dramatic BS about how fuzzy the rules are. If you have to question whether you could get banned for saying something, even if someone else has said it before - maybe you better just go participate in one of the boards other 12,000 threads.
What just happened....makes too much sense...does not compute!

[jeff061]

I used to think I was borderline(or not) childish about bannings and other authority related stuff. But now I find myself agreeing with SD and Deattribution and similar posts.

So is it me floating back to the middle or are you all just damn nuts?

[VPI97]

I don't get why all the dramatic BS about how fuzzy the rules are.
People just lke to bitch about mods..

[WVUFAN]

Something alot of people don't seem to get - certain people are trying to make it out like there aren't clearly enough defined rules....
Those certain people are me, and that's because there aren't clearly defined rules.


if I come here and I post someone needs to get hit by a bus, or I call someone a cunt, or a faggot.. I don't need to see a rule that says it isn't allowed to know that it's questionable and could lead to me being banned... not unless I'm an idiot. Even if someone else was given the benefit of the doubt, or more leeway cause they're buddy buddy... it doesn't change the fact *I* and anyone with half a brain should know it's questionable.
You're missing the point. What's "acceptable" or "questionable" for you or I may not be for another person. Having "half a brain" has nothing to do with it, it's a matter of experience. Plus, when you see people calling people those words or telling people to die and not getting banned says to MOST that it must be acceptable, because there should be no bias on acceptablility at all. What's good or bad for one should be good or bad for another.


Same if I came here and spewed political shit constantly, it's one thing to take a side passionately, it's another to constantly just attack another side. Eventually you gotta know you're pushing buttons, and sometimes that comes back and bites you.
Where's the line? Who defines it? You? Me? How does one know he's moved from "passionately defending one's viewpoint" to "bashing for no reason". Again, it's a matter of viewpoint -- what one person may consider bashing, another may see it as rough discussion. That's WHY most boards have clearly defined rules.


Fact of the matter is, I'm sure 90% of the people here haven't ever even came close to being banned, yet I don't get why all the dramatic BS about how fuzzy the rules are. If you have to question whether you could get banned for saying something, even if someone else has said it before - maybe you better just go participate in one of the boards other 12,000 threads.
Or, better yet, have rules that at least ATTEMPT to define what is and is not acceptable. If, as Skydog says people try to take advantage comes true, then tackle the issue when that comes. Without rules, you're gonna have this every time a mod takes an action on someone, right or wrong.

[Desnudo]

Willie McGinest

Who is someone who has never been in my kitchen?

[st.cronin]

Who is someone who has never been in my kitchen?

wrong

[Blade6119]

Willie McGinest
Who is Overrated?

[Draft Dodger]

I still have no recollection of anything that night. I don't drink often anymore, but when I do, I go balls to the wall. :D

and, usually there's a PM or 2 headed my way

[JonInMiddleGA]

Willie McGinest

Who is: your suggested replacement for the reference formally made to Kirby Puckett at FOFC?

[st.cronin]

Who is Overrated?

Well, that depends on how you rate him. If you rate him as Better Than Every Other Linebacker Ever Put Together, then he's slightly overrated, yeah.

[McSweeny]

Well, that depends on how you rate him. If you rate him as Better Than Every Other Linebacker Ever Put Together, then he's slightly overrated, yeah.and even then it's debatable

[TazFTW]

Who is Overrated?
Tedy Bruschi

[Blade6119]

Im sorry, i think i just threw up in my mouth

[Blade6119]

dola, that was to jon and mcsweeney, not taz

[st.cronin]

and even then it's debatable

Now, if you rate him as Somebody Who Peyton Manning is Afraid Of, then quite clearly he is UNDERrated.

[Desnudo]

Who was better? Andre Tippett? Vincent Brown?

[st.cronin]

Who was better? Andre Tippett? Vincent Brown?

Well, I say Tippett.

[Deattribution]

You're missing the point. What's "acceptable" or "questionable" for you or I may not be for another person. Having "half a brain" has nothing to do with it, it's a matter of experience. Plus, when you see people calling people those words or telling people to die and not getting banned says to MOST that it must be acceptable, because there should be no bias on acceptablility at all. What's good or bad for one should be good or bad for another.

There is no situation where a person should think they can come here and call a person a cunt, or a faggot or anything racial/deregatory. At the same time, some people have been here for literally years.

So, it's a no brainer if a guy that's been here since 2000 gets into a fit of anger and calls someone a cunt or something is going to get more leeway than a guy that just registered. It's easy for you (seemingly here since nov 2005), or someone else to say there should be no bias but when someone has contributed for 5 or 6 years to the forum they get the benefit of the doubt. I don't expect to be able to come here and mouth off like JIMGA does sometimes, but also - I don't have any interest in doing it, so I don't complain about not being able to and that he can.. cause I don't care.

Where's the line? Who defines it? You? Me? How does one know he's moved from "passionately defending one's viewpoint" to "bashing for no reason". Again, it's a matter of viewpoint -- what one person may consider bashing, another may see it as rough discussion. That's WHY most boards have clearly defined rules.

Obviously the line is defined by the mod, and talking political in this case, when you go from fuck those republican fucks (ala jesse ewok), ect.. you're walking the line, if you don't know that, the forum is better off without you.


Or, better yet, have rules that at least ATTEMPT to define what is and is not acceptable. If, as Skydog says people try to take advantage comes true, then tackle the issue when that comes. Without rules, you're gonna have this every time a mod takes an action on someone, right or wrong.

SD, or any of the other mods could write a rule book the size of the NFL regulation book, and all they'd accomplish is wasting an evening. People don't come here to follow rules, the ones that do don't break them, and the ones that break them generally are looking for loopholes in the rules to point out and test.

[Achilles]

There is no situation where a person should think they can come here and call a person a cunt, or a faggot or anything racial/deregatory. At the same time, some people have been here for literally years.

So, it's a no brainer if a guy that's been here since 2000 gets into a fit of anger and calls someone a cunt or something is going to get more leeway than a guy that just registered. It's easy for you (seemingly here since nov 2005), or someone else to say there should be no bias but when someone has contributed for 5 or 6 years to the forum they get the benefit of the doubt. I don't expect to be able to come here and mouth off like JIMGA does sometimes, but also - I don't have any interest in doing it, so I don't complain about not being able to and that he can.. cause I don't care.



Obviously the line is defined by the mod, and talking political in this case, when you go from fuck those republican fucks (ala jesse ewok), ect.. you're walking the line, if you don't know that, the forum is better off without you.




SD, or any of the other mods could write a rule book the size of the NFL regulation book, and all they'd accomplish is wasting an evening. People don't come here to follow rules, the ones that do don't break them, and the ones that break them generally are looking for loopholes in the rules to point out and test.
THIS MAKES SOOO MUCH SENSE IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE!!! HOW CAN ONE MAN BE SOO RIGHT??? MY HEAD HURTS!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: ;)

[st.cronin]

thread's dead, baby. thread's dead

[McSweeny]

thread's dead, baby. thread's deada job well done

[Desnudo]

I now declare this thread the domain of Great Patriot Linebackers: 1980-2005, a Retrospective.

[Desnudo]

Steve Nelson #57, North Dakota State

[Deattribution]

thread's dead, baby. thread's dead

What?? A 5 page thread about moderating that doesn't change anything? NO WAY - that NEVER happens... man ,this is a new precedent, we need a new thread about how this board is falling apart or something cause of this.

[Desnudo]

Don Blackmon, Tulsa

[Desnudo]

Johnny Rembert, Clemson

[st.cronin]

Johnny Rembert!!!!

[WVUFAN]

There is no situation where a person should think they can come here and call a person a cunt, or a faggot or anything racial/deregatory. At the same time, some people have been here for literally years.
But yet they do, and have. Just recently. No boxing. No banning.


So, it's a no brainer if a guy that's been here since 2000 gets into a fit of anger and calls someone a cunt or something is going to get more leeway than a guy that just registered.
No, it isn't a no-brainer. The people who have been here for years, by your logic, should KNOW not to do that. The newbies have no such knowledge. The leeway should go to the newbies. Or, better yet, no leeway at all for anyone. Anything less is favoritism.


It's easy for you (seemingly here since nov 2005), or someone else to say there should be no bias but when someone has contributed for 5 or 6 years to the forum they get the benefit of the doubt. I don't expect to be able to come here and mouth off like JIMGA does sometimes, but also - I don't have any interest in doing it, so I don't complain about not being able to and that he can.. cause I don't care.
I'm not speaking from someone who is a newbie, as I don't think I've done anything to cause a box or ban, but in general, there should be an even playing field of punishment.


Obviously the line is defined by the mod, and talking political in this case, when you go from fuck those republican fucks (ala jesse ewok), ect.. you're walking the line, if you don't know that, the forum is better off without you.

Wow. Did Jesse say that? I remember reading the thread, and while I felt it was kinda strange, I also say the title as being an attempt at a joke. Nothing to constitute a banning. But I disgress, since that conversation is already discussed.

Look, all I'm doing is trying something that will stop the rash of boxing and bannings. I guess I'm in the minority. The current method of box/ban on a mod's whim just isn't working.


SD, or any of the other mods could write a rule book the size of the NFL regulation book, and all they'd accomplish is wasting an evening. People don't come here to follow rules, the ones that do don't break them, and the ones that break them generally are looking for loopholes in the rules to point out and test.[/QUOTE]

[Desnudo]

*cough* Chris Singleton, Arizona

[st.cronin]

d'oh too slow