Damn it's sad when a thread falls apart due to a pissing match

[Stunt]

"Are there 2 separate threads in this? Was this a clever ploy to act out a 3-way pissing match before us as an example of how not to act?"
Heheh
Yeah pretty much
In don cherry voice "OK kids, this is what not to do:... and remember to keep you head up and dump it in"

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"The US fuels the Canadian economy."
ugh...the world fuels your economy...$500bill in trade deficit...theres a reason they call it deficit...it's bad.
It's so you can get your cheap clothes to buy at walmart...that is exactly what im talking about...The US's biggest company is only in exsistence because of the rest of the world working their asses off to serve you.

And the US fuels Canada's economy. 75% of total trade! That is what I'm talking about. The world fuels almost everyone's economy.

 

[Stunt]

"And the US fuels Canada's economy. 75% of total trade!"
true...but tell me what the US's gdp would be without imports...and take that new number and 3.2% and that's your new military budget...won't be nearly as impressive...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"And the US fuels Canada's economy. 75% of total trade!"
true...but tell me what the US's gdp would be without imports...and take that new number and 3.2% and that's your new military budget...won't be nearly as impressive...

And the same could be said of every single country. Even more so with Canada and its relation to the US. The Canadian economy is almost completely dependent on the US - a single entity. The US should then be able to leech far more off of Canada than Canada can from the US....according to your logic.

 

[Infohawk]

Why don't the moderators use their powers more? I read a post Cad linked to and he was saying moderators didn't take the call of P&Ners calling for more moderation. Anyone know why? Have they given a reason?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Damn rabid you are preoccupied by what ppl think of you here eh?

Hehehhehe, he wouldn't last one thread of he was dmcowen674

 

[Stunt]

This is utterly pointless, we are honestly debating who benifits more from trade, the buyer or the seller.
Lets just leave it.
Point still stands. We are allies and we both do our part to share the global responsibility of peacekeeping.
We help out when you need it (afganistan) and you help out when we need it (SK)
is that good enough for you>?
you had the rights to our army for the afganistan thing...same applies here...is that something you can agree with?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Why don't the moderators use their powers more? I read a post Cad linked to and he was saying moderators didn't take the call of P&Ners calling for more moderation. Anyone know why? Have they given a reason?

Can you imagine how hard it would be to not look partisan? Some people question the bias of the MODs even now - imagine what it'd be like if certain people still got away with(according to some) what others don't if the MODs put their foot down.

It's a tough job I'm sure - but they seem to want to keep their distance. I'm sure they'll notify us of any policy change - right MODs?

Anyway - reminder threads pop up every once in a while and things seem to chill out for a bit. However I have a feeling that the closer to the election we get the less effective these "reminder" threads will be.

CkG

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
This is utterly pointless, we are honestly debating who benifits more from trade, the buyer or the seller.
Lets just leave it.

We're not debating on who benefits more from trade. Obviously both the seller and buyer benefits from trade. However, you are saying that because of this trade, one country has inherent rights to another country's institutions. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Point still stands. We are allies and we both do our part to share the global responsibility of peacekeeping.
We help out when you need it (afganistan) and you help out when we need it (SK)
is that good enough for you>?
you had the rights to our army for the afganistan thing...same applies here...is that something you can agree with?

We had the rights to the army after it was given. The US did not have the right to take that army into Iraq. That is what we are arguing about. You are saying that Canada (along with many other countries) has an inherent right to 'mooch' off of the US military. I am saying that no country has that right to another country because of trade.

The US has an obligation to protect its allies, but these allies do not have an inherent right to 'mooch' off of the US because of trade involved between them. It can be a priviledge, not a right.

 

[Stunt]

"one country has inherent rights to another country's institutions"
not rights in terms of giving direct orders as if it were it's own
but rights in terms of we have similar visions and we have the right to rely on you for missions as you have sometimes relied on us for missions.

The trade aspect just exemplifies the strong need to keep these relationships in tacked.
We do very little trade with SK, but you guys do a lot (gotta love that hynix ram and hyundais/kias)
therefore it is more of a priority for you and we have the right to blow it off...

i think it is a good thing that we are able to distribute forces in areas different than yours we are not obligated to be in SK.
im glad we can cooperate together and you do value the relationship we have. We are able to give you the resources to have a large military and you have the money to do the majority of our (US and canada) enforcing of peace gobally.

 

[RabidMongoose]

not rights in terms of giving direct orders as if it were it's own
but rights in terms of we have similar visions and we have the right to rely on you for missions as you have sometimes relied on us for missions.

Nice to see that you are now backing off of your statement. In addition, it is more of a priviledge - not a right. Obviously we are allies and you can be under an 'umbrella of protection' but you have no inherent right to that.

The trade aspect just exemplifies the strong need to keep these relationships in tacked.
We do very little trade with SK, but you guys do a lot (gotta love that hynix ram and hyundais/kias)
therefore it is more of a priority for you and we have the right to blow it off...

Actually, you have basically said that Canada has no moral right to 'blow it off'. Canada should have always been in South Korea according to you.

i think it is a good thing that we are able to distribute forces in areas different than yours we are not obligated to be in SK.
im glad we can cooperate together and you do value the relationship we have. We are able to give you the resources to have a large military and you have the money to do the majority of our (US and canada) enforcing of peace gobally.

Yes, you are obligated to be in South Korea if you follow your own logic. You have a moral obligation to be there.

You dont' really give the US resources to have a large military, unless you also want to admit that the US is largely responsible for allowing Canada to function as a modern society. Everyone gives everyone the resources for whatever they have.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Why don't the moderators use their powers more? I read a post Cad linked to and he was saying moderators didn't take the call of P&Ners calling for more moderation. Anyone know why? Have they given a reason?

Can you imagine how hard it would be to not look partisan? Some people question the bias of the MODs even now - imagine what it'd be like if certain people still got away with(according to some) what others don't if the MODs put their foot down.

It's a tough job I'm sure - but they seem to want to keep their distance. I'm sure they'll notify us of any policy change - right MODs?

Anyway - reminder threads pop up every once in a while and things seem to chill out for a bit. However I have a feeling that the closer to the election we get the less effective these "reminder" threads will be.

CkG

I think there are rules that apply to both sides. No flames. They just need more enforcement. Can't they get more mods if they are too thinly spread out. Seriously, I don't see how hard it would be just to warn people once that you can't say, "you [something personal]" in P&N and then vacation afterwards.

The pattern I've noticed in my short time is that only the fully flaming posts trigger punishment e.g., format c:. If a post has even some kernel of truth or a serious point mixed in, they let the post slide.

If they make the rule clear enough, I don't see how party has to come in.

 

[Stunt]

"Canada should have always been in South Korea according to you."
huh? I never advocated troops in SK, we share the tasks, and like i said, much more valuable to you than us.
Just exemplifies my point that the US is very protectionist over its trading partners as we are a very important part of your economy and they dont want to lose that.

"give the US resources to have a large military"
oil, gas, steel, electronics, software, norad...
yeah that doesnt help at all...but military aside, the cheaper goods you buy from us keeps ur costs down in manufacturing and allows for greater productivity (gdp for military.)

look up how much we helped you with afganistan...i think you will see we did much more than our share as you so much want us to do in SK.
Im out ... i dont spend friday nights in front of a computer...
laters bud...i'll let you stir in your juices as you seem pretty involved with this...haha...have fun...

 

[RabidMongoose]

huh? I never advocated troops in SK, we share the tasks, and like i said, much more valuable to you than us.
Just exemplifies my point that the US is very protectionist over its trading partners as we are a very important part of your economy and they dont want to lose that.

You said that the US has a 'moral obligation' to protect SK because we were involved in the Korean War. Canada was involved in the Korean War. Therefore, according to your logic, Canada should have always been in South Korea. You are being inconsistent.

Sure, the US protects its allies. That is a priviledge, not an inherent right. The fact that trade happens between these two countries does not mean that the other country has the right to 'mooch' off of the US military.

oil, gas, steel, electronics, software, norad...
yeah that doesnt help at all...but military aside, the cheaper goods you buy from us keeps ur costs down in manufacturing and allows for greater productivity (gdp for military.)

And these other countries are not selling the oil, gas, steel, etc? Again, the US accounts for nearly 75% of Canadian trade. We are by far your largest trade partner. This trade allows Canada to be a first world country (gdp for healthcare).

ook up how much we helped you with afganistan...i think you will see we did much more than our share as you so much want us to do in SK.

According to you, Canada has a moral obligation to be in SK. You either have to back off of your statement or admit that you are inconsistent with your arguments.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Why don't the moderators use their powers more? I read a post Cad linked to and he was saying moderators didn't take the call of P&Ners calling for more moderation. Anyone know why? Have they given a reason?

Can you imagine how hard it would be to not look partisan? Some people question the bias of the MODs even now - imagine what it'd be like if certain people still got away with(according to some) what others don't if the MODs put their foot down.

It's a tough job I'm sure - but they seem to want to keep their distance. I'm sure they'll notify us of any policy change - right MODs?

Anyway - reminder threads pop up every once in a while and things seem to chill out for a bit. However I have a feeling that the closer to the election we get the less effective these "reminder" threads will be.

CkG

I think they're are rules that apply to both sides. No flames. They just need more enforcement. Can't they get more mods if they are too thinly spread out. Seriously, I don't see how hard it would be just to warn people once that you can't say, "you [something personal]" in P&N and then vacation afterwards.

The pattern I've noticed in my short time is that only the fully flaming posts trigger punishment (e.g., format c. If a post has even some kernel of truth or a serious point mixed in, they let the post slide.

If they make the rule clear enough, I don't see how party has to come in.

Ummm...welll....It's sort of difficult to explain without sounding accusatory. But I'll try it this way - It seems as though the Moderator corps is a closed group. Suspicious of new or different MODs. How do I know? I don't perse - but I've conversed with them enough to get a good feel for how they think - plus I've read what they post in threads and edits of posts. So in short - they don't "want" more MODs as it would "dilute" their control. Again this isn't meant to be a rant or a slam against them - it's just sort of a reality. The more who have control - the more problems among those who have control arise.

Sure there are rules that apply to both sides but it seems there have been some instances where equal action was not taken. I've addressed this with them privately as that is where the discussion belongs - not here.

We've asked for a specific list of "rules" but there doesn't seem to be a list of "No Nos" -because again -that would mean there would have to be constant and equal action by the MODs - it wouldn't give them any wiggle room and just lead to the accusatory situation I described earlier if they "missed" one.

All I can say is that I know it's gotta be a tough job to try to stay neutral in this sort of place when you have that much "power". I think choosing to keep their distance has provided enough room for them to atleast try to appear "neutral".

I'll repeat this one more time incase people don't understand - this isn't a slam against the MODs - I'm just posting possible explanations based on my experience with them and how I've seen them handle a variety of situations. I appreciate the job they do even though we sometimes have differing opinions on matters.

CkG

 

[Perknose]

This Canada/South Korea (or whatever) alternate thread within this one is positively surreal, like a Beckett play gone bad. :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Perknose
This Canada/South Korea (or whatever) alternate thread within this one is positively surreal, like a Beckett play gone bad. :roll:

hehe - I was thinking the same thing.:Q

CkG

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Perknose
This Canada/South Korea (or whatever) alternate thread within this one is positively surreal, like a Beckett play gone bad. :roll:

I charge $10 in admission!

 

[shiner]

Stunt.......honestly please shut up. You started the pissing match in this thread and you can end it. Be a man, SHUT UP and take it elsewhere. There is no need for you to hijack this thread about the civility of the forums and turn it into your own person version of the Jerry Springer Show.

Thanks though for providing an excellent example of what I think is wrong with this forum.

 

[Infohawk]

From what Cad says, it sounds like we're stuck with this format.

What if there was a thread where shameful posts (you know ones with personal attacks) was posted and it could be evidence of poor behavior-- so that nobody could forget? It would be sort of like a hall of shame to deter people. Maybe it could start over every week so as not to permanently disgrace people. It could be used as a sort of "you've misbhaved, talk to the hand" kind of thing which could be linked to.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
From what Cad says, it sounds like we're stuck with this format.

What if there was a thread where shameful posts (you know ones with personal attacks) was posted and it could be evidence of poor behavior-- so that nobody could forget? It would be sort of like a hall of shame to deter people. Maybe it could start over every week so as not to permanently disgrace people. It could be used as a sort of "you've misbhaved, talk to the hand" kind of thing which could be linked to.

It's an interesting idea, but unless it was EXCLUSIVELY controlled by the mods, it would instantly turn into Flame Central. Even then it would spark companion threads full of complaints and flames.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: Infohawk
From what Cad says, it sounds like we're stuck with this format.

What if there was a thread where shameful posts (you know ones with personal attacks) was posted and it could be evidence of poor behavior-- so that nobody could forget? It would be sort of like a hall of shame to deter people. Maybe it could start over every week so as not to permanently disgrace people. It could be used as a sort of "you've misbhaved, talk to the hand" kind of thing which could be linked to.

It's an interesting idea, but unless it was EXCLUSIVELY controlled by the mods, it would instantly turn into Flame Central. Even then it would spark companion threads full of complaints and flames.

Yep. There isn't an "easy" solution.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Why don't the moderators use their powers more? I read a post Cad linked to and he was saying moderators didn't take the call of P&Ners calling for more moderation. Anyone know why? Have they given a reason?

Can you imagine how hard it would be to not look partisan? Some people question the bias of the MODs even now - imagine what it'd be like if certain people still got away with(according to some) what others don't if the MODs put their foot down.

It's a tough job I'm sure - but they seem to want to keep their distance. I'm sure they'll notify us of any policy change - right MODs?

Anyway - reminder threads pop up every once in a while and things seem to chill out for a bit. However I have a feeling that the closer to the election we get the less effective these "reminder" threads will be.

CkG

I think they're are rules that apply to both sides. No flames. They just need more enforcement. Can't they get more mods if they are too thinly spread out. Seriously, I don't see how hard it would be just to warn people once that you can't say, "you [something personal]" in P&N and then vacation afterwards.

The pattern I've noticed in my short time is that only the fully flaming posts trigger punishment (e.g., format c. If a post has even some kernel of truth or a serious point mixed in, they let the post slide.

If they make the rule clear enough, I don't see how party has to come in.

Ummm...welll....It's sort of difficult to explain without sounding accusatory. But I'll try it this way - It seems as though the Moderator corps is a closed group. Suspicious of new or different MODs. How do I know? I don't perse - but I've conversed with them enough to get a good feel for how they think - plus I've read what they post in threads and edits of posts. So in short - they don't "want" more MODs as it would "dilute" their control. Again this isn't meant to be a rant or a slam against them - it's just sort of a reality. The more who have control - the more problems among those who have control arise.

Sure there are rules that apply to both sides but it seems there have been some instances where equal action was not taken. I've addressed this with them privately as that is where the discussion belongs - not here.

We've asked for a specific list of "rules" but there doesn't seem to be a list of "No Nos" -because again -that would mean there would have to be constant and equal action by the MODs - it wouldn't give them any wiggle room and just lead to the accusatory situation I described earlier if they "missed" one.

All I can say is that I know it's gotta be a tough job to try to stay neutral in this sort of place when you have that much "power". I think choosing to keep their distance has provided enough room for them to atleast try to appear "neutral".

I'll repeat this one more time incase people don't understand - this isn't a slam against the MODs - I'm just posting possible explanations based on my experience with them and how I've seen them handle a variety of situations. I appreciate the job they do even though we sometimes have differing opinions on matters.

CkG

Sounds like , even though you respect them, you don't have a lot of confidence in them.

Sorry, it was just laying there...begging me to say it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yep. There isn't an "easy" solution.

CkG

The thing is, it strikes me the only fix for the constant flame battles would be to ban or suspend the accounts of chronic offenders (Passions, say, or Edge3D, and no doubt others who don't readily come to mind), and I don't think that's a satisfactory solution either.

I don't have a problem with anyone speaking his mind, even if I wholly disagree, but some posters contribute nothing but friction. That said, I am very wary of restricting speech, and I wouldn't want to see people banned just because they have poor self-discipline as to the quality of their posts. I suppose the mods might be able to lock them out of this particular forum if they persist in posting nothing but flamebaiting.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Sounds like , even though you respect them, you don't have a lot of confidence in them.

Sorry, it was just laying there...begging me to say it.

Nope. I may disagree with them(alot) but I have full confidence in the institution of Forum Moderation.

CkG