Re-Opened: The P&N Improvement Association -- Please Read & Contribute

[nextJin]

The issue can be broken down pretty plainly;

- Lack of Moderation

What needs to be done is to get a Libertarian on board to moderate the Republicans and Democrats who wouldn't be biased.

If I was a moderator I could name 5 people automatically who would be banned outright from both sides of the aisle. This forum is filled with folks who are from all spectrums of political ideology that can hold civil arguments and not go insane. People can even get a little rilled up, its fine.

The problem has ALWAYS been with a select few posters, this is not a democracy Perk. It's ya'lls forum have some pride in ownership and clean it up. It's just like being a Guild Leader, District Manager, NCO in the Army, etc. if you have a problem child you correct that individual or let them go.

Look at dmcowen, I do not like his views at all. But he actually posts quite a bit of good articles and "sometimes" brings valid arguments to the table. Sometimes its a bit much which could be addressed via PM but nothing serious. Everyone here likely falls into this category.

Then you have your Incorruptibles and whoever else is on my ignore list that post absolute nonsense that never drives a dialogue.

 

[Jaskalas]

What needs to be done is to get a Libertarian on board to moderate the Republicans and Democrats who wouldn't be biased.

Libertarian is the last thing friendly to our two fascist parties.
I'll openly admit to not treating them fairly, though that may just be my background and attempted Republican upbringing.

In concept with the strictest rules (I'd imagine) for this forum, there would need to be a moderator (or few) representing each side of the debate - and THEY are in charge of content quality control. Shepherds tending to their own flock, so as to preserve both moderation and a culture of debate.

It may not be easy or pretty to select representatives to police us, maybe the wrong people would get the job... or heck, who would even want to do it? But it may be a far cry better than having a single view point in charge of this. Politics is doomed by perception, as perception defines reality and we'll find our own truths and facts while claiming the other side is "intellectually dishonest", their sources don't count, etc.

If the admins were to clean house here - it might fall more heavily on one side or the other and stifle debate. OTOH, if we had moderators guiding each side into what is considered reasonable.... if they were our filters who wrangle outlying radicals and misbehaviors.... then this might work better.

 

[nextJin]

Libertarian is the last thing friendly to our two fascist parties.
I'll openly admit to not treating them fairly, though that may just be my background and attempted Republican upbringing.

In concept with the strictest rules (I'd imagine) for this forum, there would need to be a moderator (or few) representing each side of the debate - and THEY are in charge of content quality control. Shepards tending to their own flock, so as to preserve both moderation and a culture of debate.

It may not be easy or pretty to select representatives to police us, maybe the wrong people would get the job... or heck, who would even want to do it? But it may be a far cry better than having a single view point in charge of this. Politics is doomed by perception, as perception defines reality and we'll find our own truths and facts while claiming the other side is "intellectually dishonest", their sources don't count, etc.

If the admins were to clean house here - it might fall more heavily on one side or the other and stifle debate. OTOH, if we had moderators guding each side into what is considered reasonable.... if they were our filters who wrangle outlying radicals and misbehaviors.... then this might work better.

In all seriousness hardforums soapbox should be the example. There is heated debate but there are strict rules in place to keep it civil.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

If there's one thing I've learned about P&N it's that if someone's opinion differs from yours they must be a racist and a troll.


P&N needs 4-6 permanent moderators, specifically picked to allow for a balanced "left vs right" political viewpoint moderation. Some of these more...... problematic members need to have a vote put up to the mods as to whether or not they need banned from P&N.

P&N also should have a sub forum for the most controversial threads. Call it the soapbox, boxing ring, whatever. Everyone should have access, just know that when you enter do have your thick skin on.


Past that, my biggest issue is that just because someone constantly broadcasts their opinion, and said opinion differs from yours, does NOT make them a troll. Banning someone for posting their legitimate opinion is a very slippery slope.

 

[Whiskey16]

Just so we're clear, are the mods OK with members posting overtly racist things? I ask because of this post - http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34530151&postcount=76 - which is just the one I've noticed most recently.

Agreed, the lack of moderation of fostering the proliferation of extremism, hatred, and trolling.

This place is often a cesspool because it has been tolerated and thereby encouraged to become what it is. I have supported such condemnation and posted upon such many times.

The basics of moderation are what many expect. What is not tolerated elsewhere in the forum should face the same zero tolerance here. Only a few are regularly the problem -- get rid of them.

 

[umbrella39]

If there's one thing I've learned about P&N it's that if someone's opinion differs from yours they must be a racist and a troll.


P&N needs 4-6 permanent moderators, specifically picked to allow for a balanced "left vs right" political viewpoint moderation. Some of these more...... problematic members need to have a vote put up to the mods as to whether or not they need banned from P&N.

P&N also should have a sub forum for the most controversial threads. Call it the soapbox, boxing ring, whatever. Everyone should have access, just know that when you enter do have your thick skin on.


Past that, my biggest issue is that just because someone constantly broadcasts their opinion, and said opinion differs from yours, does NOT make them a troll. Banning someone for posting their legitimate opinion is a very slippery slope.

Says the guy guilty of posting opinions and trying to pass them of as facts in any thread that deals with race. It's one thing to disagree with someones opinion... it's quite another to pass off personal bias as factual information and when called on it troll your boat away...

 

[sandorski]

What is it with the American obsession with involving Political Affiliations with every facet of life?

All you need are clear rules and Moderators that apply those Rules. The Political Affiliation of the Moderators need not have any importance whatsoever.

 

[Jaskalas]

What is it with the American obsession with involving Political Affiliations with every facet of life?

All you need are clear rules and Moderators that apply those Rules. The Political Affiliation of the Moderators need not have any importance whatsoever.

Involving Political Affiliation with Political Debate seems like a logical choice.

Doesn't matter how you try to avoid it, IMO, moderators will apply rules according to their world view. If they are going to filter allowable content, then they control what their opposition says. My solution to prevent bias and abuse is to have the moderators belong to each side and police their own. To act as a filter between you and your ideological opponent.

If you at least understand and sympathize with a person, then IMO it means you can moderate them better than if you hate them and their ideology. A jury of one's peers, as it were.

 

[sandorski]

Involving Political Affiliation with Political Debate seems like a logical choice.

Doesn't matter how you try to avoid it, IMO, moderators will apply rules according to their world view. If they are going to filter allowable content, then they control what their opposition says. My solution to prevent bias and abuse is to have the moderators belong to each side and police their own. To act as a filter between you and your ideological opponent.

If you at least understand and sympathize with a person, then IMO it means you can moderate them better than if you hate them and their ideology. A jury of one's peers, as it were.

I disagree. It just adds bias into the process, not eliminate it. The rules just need to be clear.

 

[Incorruptible]

The problem with P&N is that some people are way too partisan and only want to attack the other side rather than engage in debate and this tends to cause a lot of the insults being hurled back and forth

The partisan hacks have to be dealt with if you really want to improve P&N.

This thread right here is one of the problems with P&N, Someone makes a topic and some people instead of debating prefer to troll and derail, if they dont like the thread they should ignore it

Just look at some of the posts where people who have different views are attacked and implied there racist

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2297527


I also agree that a Libertarian mod would help fix things up around here.

The personal insults rule should be changed since many people just resort to insults when there wrong or there not happy with the thread and then it causes endless bickering

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The problem with P&N is that some people are way too partisan and only want to attack the other side rather than engage in debate and this tends to cause a lot of the insults being hurled back and forth

The partisan hacks have to be dealt with if you really want to improve P&N.

This thread right here is one of the problems with P&N, Someone makes a topic and some people instead of debating prefer to troll and derail, if they dont like the thread they should ignore it

Just look at some of the posts where people who have different views are attacked and implied there racist

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2297527


I also agree that a Libertarian mod would help fix things up around here.

The personal insults rule should be changed since many people just resort to insults when there wrong or there not happy with the thread and then it causes endless bickering

I can not believe you posted this. You are guiltier than just about anyone on this forum of everything you just said. All you post is partisan nonsense and all you respond with is insults to anyone who disagrees with you with some variant of "leftist" thrown in. You take every opportunity to work "POS Obama" into as many posts as you can no matter what the topic is.

Even the thread you linked your only contribution was to generalize and insult people who don't agree with your point of view.

Jesus you have to be a parody. There's no other way to explain it at this point.

 

[Incorruptible]

I can not believe you posted this. You are guiltier than just about anyone on this forum of everything you just said. All you post is partisan nonsense and all you respond with is insults to anyone who disagrees with you with some variant of "leftist" thrown in. You take every opportunity to work "POS Obama" into as many posts as you can no matter what the topic is.

Jesus you have to be a parody. There's no other way to explain it at this point.

To be fair if ANYONE attacks freedom then I will attack/criticize them. I am a Libertarian and I go after the democrats and republicans, Haven't you noticed my attacks against both of them?

If I was here when gwb was president then I would have attacked him all the time, I go after obama since he is the one in the whitehouse now. There are plenty of past presidents who I am harshly critical of from both the democrats and republicans but I dont attack them often since they are not president.

I do tend to attack people who violate freedom in any way so it makes it look like I am partisan but really I am not. I did not vote for obama or romney, does that sound like someone who is partisan and just a hack to you?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

To be fair if ANYONE attacks freedom then I will attack/criticize them. I am a Libertarian and I go after the democrats and republicans, Haven't you noticed my attacks against both of them?

If I was here when gwb was president then I would have attacked him all the time, I go after obama since he is the one in the whitehouse now. There are plenty of past presidents who I am harshly critical of from both the democrats and republicans but I dont attack them often since they are not president.

I do tend to attack people who violate freedom in any way so it makes it look like I am partisan but really I am not. I did not vote for obama or romney, does that sound like someone who is partisan and just a hack to you?

Sounds like someone trying to blindly justify their actions without taking any pause to actually evaluate their body of work and see how they truly present themselves.

 

[UberNeuman]

Sounds like someone trying to blindly justify their actions without taking any pause to actually evaluate their body of work and see how they truly present themselves.

There's a lack of honesty in it...

 

[CrackRabbit]

nm

 

[umbrella39]

I can not believe you posted this. You are guiltier than just about anyone on this forum of everything you just said. All you post is partisan nonsense and all you respond with is insults to anyone who disagrees with you with some variant of "leftist" thrown in. You take every opportunity to work "POS Obama" into as many posts as you can no matter what the topic is.

Even the thread you linked your only contribution was to generalize and insult people who don't agree with your point of view.

Jesus you have to be a parody. There's no other way to explain it at this point.

He has completely shown his parody hand now. If you recount his posting history here is it almost comical how his persona has morphed into just yet another of the bitter, young politihack that pisses and moans about how HIS people are treated so unfairly and how if the shoe were on the other foot, THEN, THEN we'd see how things really are. This was not his MO when he 'showed up' This schtick is getting old no matter how many times someone comes along with a new one...

 

[umbrella39]

There's a lack of honesty in it...

Some intellectual honesty would be a breath of fresh air.

 

[nextJin]

To be fair if ANYONE attacks freedom then I will attack/criticize them. I am a Libertarian and I go after the democrats and republicans, Haven't you noticed my attacks against both of them?

If I was here when gwb was president then I would have attacked him all the time, I go after obama since he is the one in the whitehouse now. There are plenty of past presidents who I am harshly critical of from both the democrats and republicans but I dont attack them often since they are not president.

I do tend to attack people who violate freedom in any way so it makes it look like I am partisan but really I am not. I did not vote for obama or romney, does that sound like someone who is partisan and just a hack to you?

Do you see this mods? He says he is a libertarian and he couldn't be further from it spouting ridiculous statements like "if you attack freedom I attack you" I mean what is that?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Not to be a wet blanket -- because I certainly have my own views on Incorruptible -- but Perk pretty clearly did say he didn't want any personal attacks here.

I do think I can say this objectively, and without it being a personal attack: I agree with others that this comment -- "The problem with P&N is that some people are way too partisan and only want to attack the other side rather than engage in debate and this tends to cause a lot of the insults being hurled back and forth" -- is utterly inconsistent with the behavior of the person who posted it.

 

[boomerang]

Do you see this mods? He says he is a libertarian and he couldn't be further from it spouting ridiculous statements like "if you attack freedom I attack you" I mean what is that?

I submit Exhibit "A". The root source driving the whiners. It boils down to the following. X person doesn't think the way I want them to think, (feel they should think, desire them to think, demand that they think, etc.) therefore changes must be made to accommodate my needs and desires.

We all carry baggage with us. It gets thrusted upon us and we have no real say in the matter. There is a school of thought that by age 3 our personalities are pretty much set.

My own story in brief. Raised in a two parent household with a mother that told me continually and several times each day that I was perfect. My mind being an empty shell, it was filled with thoughts of me being a perfect being. Because I was perfect, everyone must therefore be flawed. That thought I developed on my own because logic told me it had to be true. When I got out into the working world, things got a little ugly. I don't know how I held onto those first jobs. It took many, many years for me to understand that I was not perfect and was as flawed as the next person. My life became much happier. I learned to live and let live.

In my opinion, making changes to this forum to accommodate those that have been ill-equipped to deal with differing opinions, different ways of communicating and people who are able to hold beliefs of different political philosophies concurrently is a mistake. It will be nothing more than an experiment and it will fail. While it's going on, life will become harder for the powers that be.

But let the grand experiment begin. It's said we learn from our mistakes. It's certainly no skin off my nose.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I submit Exhibit "A". The root source driving the whiners. It boils down to the following. X person doesn't think the way I want them to think, (feel they should think, desire them to think, demand that they think, etc.) therefore changes must be made to accommodate my needs and desires.

No, actually, that is not what the complaints are about. They are not about viewpoints, they are about behavior.

I'm sorry, but I cannot take your "whining about the whiners" seriously, due to you previously having openly expressed that you enjoy trying to get a rise out of people, and responding to people by basically saying that you don't care about what happens here because none of it matters. If it doesn't matter to you, then you really shouldn't care about the decisions made to change it.

Case in point: three weeks ago you posted this. The title, the introductory comments, and the article itself -- all were designed specifically to elicit a strong partisan response.

And that's exactly what happened.

A regular right-wing poster quoted your entire post and commented: "Damn Boomer, you sure got the resident pinkos stirred up with that post."

And you replied thusly, in part:

This room has always been easy. I must say that I do get enjoyment from jerking the chains of those educated in our public schools. I should say those that soaked it all up, believed it and still believe it.

This is an open admission of trolling. You posted the piece not to have a discussion, just to piss people off. And then proceeded to basically mock anyone who responded to you.

That thread is the real Exhibit "A" of the problems with P&N in its current state.

The point is not, as you put it, to "make changes to this forum to accommodate those that have been ill-equipped to deal with differing opinions."

The point is to eliminate the negative behaviors that make the discussion of differing opinions nearly impossible.

 

[Perknose]

Thanks, everyone. Despite a late descent into even more back and forth personal bickering, I feel this has been quite the productive thread.

We lordly Admins will now retire to our inner sanctum, slay a goat, scatter its entrails, and divine the way forward. Let it be so!