Vote on Adopting "No Thread-crapping, etc" Rule (A Mod Sponsored Community Poll)

[RabidMongoose]

I see. I didnt realize you had to click the numbers. I will send papa johns cheese pizzas to all who vote no!

Maybe you can set up your own super PAC for this issue, too!

Can I change my vote? I wouldn't mind a pizza.

 

[Infohawk]

I see. I didnt realize you had to click the numbers. I will send papa johns cheese pizzas to all who vote no!

A pizza isn't worth having to read thread after derailed thread.

 

[JSt0rm]

A pizza isn't worth having to read thread after derailed thread.

ok and 6 wings

 

[JSt0rm]

:|

I chose, poorly

Maybe you can set up your own super PAC for this issue, too!

Can I change my vote? I wouldn't mind a pizza.

lmao

 

[sandorski]

ok and 6 wings

..... and 2 litre Coke?

 

[Idontcare]

Also, what will be the punishments for violations of this issue? How exactly would it be enforced? Or is this the topic of a subsequent poll? Sorry that I have all of these questions, but I figure that it's better to get more questions and concerns out instead of leaving it all private.

As an example, say a poster goes off topic in a thread. Is that poster banned from the forum and if so for how long, is the poster banned from posting in that thread again, is the poster just warned, etc.?

This is covered here:

It comes down to individual member history.

A member who runs afoul of the rule once is going to be handled very differently from a member who is violating the rule on a weekly basis.

(again, to keep re-emphasizing the reality of this situation, no different than how it is handled in all the other subforums on this site)

 

[MotF Bane]

See my and others' posts. Because it's overly broad. Too much lumped together.

The next time someone starts a thread about a talking point being spread in right-wing media, and I want to point out that they're parroting, I don't want it to be 'off topic'.

The next time someone posts saying we should nuke Iran and I want to make a comment about militarism, I don't want it to be 'off topic'.

I don't like having to agree with Craig, but I must, novel as it may be. In this case, he's completely correct. It is a dangerously broad rule, and subject to far too much variation.

 

[dank69]

do we really need yet another vote on this? last one out of 4 choices it took the majority.

I was thinking the same thing. It seems to me this poll should have been broken out multiple choice with an option for each specific thing. Oh well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In that vane, would a "Draw Mohamed" thread also be a Troll?

I admit the "Is God a Rapist" thread is very provocative and the responses are predictable, however, the question is pretty straight forward and supported by the OP with good Reasoning. It may Offend, but the question is a Good one, given what the purported "facts" are and how we define "Rape".

That's fine as long as the moderators agree with your perspective and each others, but how about this? "Why do liberals support someone who kills innocent civilians?" Why do Democrats support keeping blacks as second class citizens".

I can provide good reasoning for each of those. Sorry but referring to Republicans is a thread crap. That has nothing to do with the topics, liberals and democrats. What fun that would be to have people gagged, eh?

 

[Infohawk]

do we really need yet another vote on this? last one out of 4 choices it took the majority.

Looking at it again, it took the plurality at 40%. Although it does seem unlikely all 60% of the people who voted for other options would vote against this one. It looks like this one is going to win.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't like having to agree with Craig, but I must, novel as it may be. In this case, he's completely correct. It is a dangerously broad rule, and subject to far too much variation.

See my previous post. Craig would be effectively gagged if I posted something like I just referred to. There at times when I wish he and others would stick to the topic at hand without trotting something else, however I don't want it forced. I will say that if anyone else is sanctioned then he damn well better be as well as anyone else.

 

[JEDIYoda]

See my previous post. Craig would be effectively gagged if I posted something like I just referred to. There at times when I wish he and others would stick to the topic at hand without trotting something else, however I don't want it forced. I will say that if anyone else is sanctioned then he damn well better be as well as anyone else.

Let me point out that as much as I disagree with some people on these forums. We e-mail each other and as humans care about them. I think I can safely say that I have made friends with a few. Some of us have even explained to the "opposing side" why we are so adamant concerning certain subjects.

My take on this whole thing is people try to pad there thread count by posting such nonesense as its all Obamas fault when the subject does not mention anything Obama did. In fact those people who pop in with sort little smart saying should be silenced or forced to explain them selves using links...not just there opinions. But I do understand the mods are volunteers.....and they do a good job dealing with those of us who are hard headed!

 

[Jhhnn]

This is covered here:

It comes down to individual member history.

A member who runs afoul of the rule once is going to be handled very differently from a member who is violating the rule on a weekly basis.

(again, to keep re-emphasizing the reality of this situation, no different than how it is handled in all the other subforums on this site)

I voted no, partially because I think the proposition is too broad & moderator objectivity an issue, and because some of our most amusing posters simply have nothing else to say & no other way to say it.

Is there a flow chart like that for whining to the mods about issues real & imagined? Just curious...

 

[EagleKeeper]

This is a black, white and shades of subjective grey..

One person's junk is anothers undiscovered treasure.

A recent example is the thread aboug Israel preemptively attacking Iran.
Someone stretched it to other countries coming to Iran's aid.
That interaction stretched to the world nuking Israel.

The initial premise had no reference of nukes.

Then Israeli children showed up in the thread throwing rocks at Palestinians and what was being taught in school of hatred to Palestinians.

While each may be a valid subject, they left the initial thead premise along time before.

So where should the line be drawn and penalty for testing the depth of the water just one step more than the previous poster did?

 

[EagleKeeper]

While I despise thread crapping, derailment and trolling, it unrealistic to penalize human nature. Scold them yes, penalize them no. Let the collective wrath of the community descend in the guilty party.
As stated in the above post, the professionals at this art will know how to play the injured party in the grey zone.

 

[Bowfinger]

Ah that's the crux of it, isn't it?

The requirement to post would then be for every poster to maintain a very well organized and easy to access catalog of specific links for each subject of argument.

Then for every poster to construct EACH post containing statements with online references specific to each point made. Valid posts will look like wiki articles themselves. Prevailing 'wisdom' need not apply, but everyone else will risk sanction otherwise.

I think that's a straw man. Nobody is expecting anything so formal. It is quite reasonable, however, to expect people to be able to back up their claims with objective and credible evidence. Either that or be honest enough to oneself to admit that his opinions are based solely on emotions, i.e., a faith-based ideology. Certainly that's fine, one is absolutely entitled to believe whatever he wants, whether there are valid reasons for it or not. But for purposes of discussion and debate, faith-based beliefs have no real merit to others and can be summarily dismissed.

 

[Bowfinger]

I think that would also qualify as a personal attack. If you disagree with the person and feel that they are just repeating something that is a media misrepresentation, then I think that you should be able to use a better phrase than 'parroting' as that has a very negative connotation and does nothing but attack someone.

You've touched on one of my concerns, that we're going to so "wussify" P&N to appease the crybabies that we'll no longer be able to hold frank, adult discussions. What's next, green Participant ribbons for everyone?

Sorry, politics is a rough and tumble sport, not for the meek or thin-skinned. If we want meaningful discussion, often it's best to just call a spade a spade. Mindlessly parroting partisan talking points, with no original thought, no reasoned discussion, and no supporting evidence is disruptive. It drowns out informed discussion with empty partisan noise.

Indeed, it often falls under the broad umbrella of "Misinformation", one of the posting sins under discussion in this thread. Why, then, should we be prohibited from calling it out when we see it? Because it hurts someone's feelings? Too bad. How about putting the accountability where it belongs, on the person parroting talking points without adding any value?

My $0.02.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You've touched on one of my concerns, that we're going to so "wussify" P&N to appease the crybabies that we'll no longer be able to hold frank, adult discussions. What's next, green Participant ribbons for everyone?

Sorry, politics is a rough and tumble sport, not for the meek or thin-skinned. If we want meaningful discussion, often it's best to just call a spade a spade. Mindlessly parroting partisan talking points, with no original thought, no reasoned discussion, and no supporting evidence is disruptive. It drowns out informed discussion with empty partisan noise.

Indeed, it often falls under the broad umbrella of "Misinformation", one of the posting sins under discussion in this thread. Why, then, should we be prohibited from calling it out when we see it? Because it hurts someone's feelings? Too bad. How about putting the accountability where it belongs, on the person parroting talking points without adding any value?

My $0.02.

What value does a personal attack have in an adult conversation? None. All it does is cause the other poster to respond in kind and it causes the thread to get derailed.

Although maybe some minor personal attacks should be ok? I suppose that's up for the next discussion. I would vote for zero personal attacks whatsoever.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
The personal attacks issue is much more important and a real problem.

Sorry, Dave, but personal attacks are so important to you because of your own personal choice to make them so. You could choose differently, to adopt a thicker skin and disregard such personal attacks as irrelevant noise ... because that's generally all they are. Instead, you've created a situation where you incite personal attacks, partly by your provocative, often trolling, posting style, and partly because you are so easily baited into overreacting to such attacks.

In short, just ignore them and you'll find they are not important and not a real problem. Food for thought.

 

[Bowfinger]

What value does a personal attack have in an adult conversation? None. All it does is cause the other poster to respond in kind and it causes the thread to get derailed.

Although maybe some minor personal attacks should be ok? I suppose that's up for the next discussion. I would vote for zero personal attacks whatsoever.

I believe I already answered your question. There is substantial benefit in adult discussion to calling a spade a spade. Shoveling loads of phony sunshine to avoid hurting feelings just obfuscates the point and encourages continued misbehavior. If someone truly is trolling or lying or parroting talking points or whatever, there's nothing wrong with calling it out and putting the accountability where it belongs, on the person exhibiting the disruptive behavior. If they don't like that, they can stop the behavior ... which is the whole point of calling it out.

 

[KK]

After the 3 month trial-period we would have another community poll to determine if the community still wants to keep the policy or if the community changed its mind based on the experience generated while the policy was in effect.

Think of it as a "try before you buy" type opportunity.

Administrator Idontcare

Yeah, just like the poll to keep the garage separated from ot....oh yeah, that didn't happen....

 

[Infohawk]

Yeah, just like the poll to keep the garage separated from ot....oh yeah, that didn't happen....

What part? The trial? The poll to undo the trial?

 

[KK]

What part? The trial? The poll to undo the trial?

the undo portion.

 

[Infohawk]

the undo portion.

Oh. That is interesting. Was there any demand for it?

 

[KK]

Oh. That is interesting. Was there any demand for it?

I dunno if there was demand for it or not. Never had the poll to see if there was demand like they said there was going to be.