What is The Podium?

The purpose of The Podium is to provide a community where controversial topics can be discussed in an environment that is conducive to open conversation. Everyone has an opinion and should be able to share it without fear of attack or reprisal.

How do we maintain this environment of open conversation?

First, some rules have been put in place below as a guideline to follow. This is just a guideline and will be updated as needed. Next, well thought out posts encourage a back-and-forth discussion. Based on previous experiences, we have found that members who continually criticize the opinions of others but rarely share their own side tend to kill off discussions. With that in mind, the moderators will remove members who we believe have a negative impact on the community as a whole. This decision will be based on a consensus of the moderators.

What makes a good post?

This is a place of opinions and not everyone will share the same opinion. To help stimulate discussion, when you post an opinion, we encourage you to include facts or experiences that enforce your opinion. If your post is an article, we also encourage you to state the reason you are posting this if it is not evident and your thoughts on the subject.

What should be avoided in posts?

Besides the rules listed below, making statements of absolutes are generally not advised. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is very rare to get someone to change their opinion so keep that in mind when replying and strive for clarity of your opinion, not trying to show them why their opinion is wrong.

What are the rules?

1. No personal attacks are allowed. Personal attacks will be deleted. Controversial conversations always tend to get heated, so in order to enjoy the debates, personal attacks will not be tolerated.

2. Use common sense when posting. The same rules that apply to other forums also apply to The Podium. No nudity, no heavy profanity (which is filtered anyway), no obscene photographs or pictures.

3. No complaining about politics in The Podium. That is what it is for. If you don't want to get involved in political debates, then feel free to leave The Podium and join any other forum on the site.

4. Whenever you post an article, include a link back to the original article in order to give credit to the original author and to allow others to verify the authenticity of the source. If the source requires registration, please link to it anyway, and state that registration is required. Don't post just the link, post the article as well. If you chose to post only an excerpt of the article, please state that the article is not posted in its entirety.

5. Please refrain from posting content from chain emails. Most chain email chains have been proven to be untrue in some form or fashion, and they are simply not good sources for topics of debate. If for you some reason you just feel that you have to post this kind of stuff, please verify the contents with www.breakthechain.org or www.snopes.com. If proven untrue, just don't post it. If you do post the content from a chain email, expect to be heavily ridiculed by the group. The title of the thread will be updated to express the fact that it is indeed a chain email, and not to be taken seriously.

6. No spamming of the message boards. Spamming includes, but is not limited to, starting several new threads on the same topic and bumping several threads on similar subjects to the front page. If similar threads are active at the same time, one of the threads will be left open to continue discussions and all others will be closed.

7. No trolling. There have been lengthy discussions on what is trolling. The official definition that we use is seen here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Trolling_in_different_Internet_media). You can also see a short list here (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=1708830&postcount=7) of what we consider trolling.

8. No post-and-run. This is directed at members who stop by The Podium only to post an article and leave with contributing to discussions in The Podium otherwise.

9. Rule violations should be mod alerted.

Ray, is this thread going to be a mod sticky or are you going to allow it to float?

Ray, is this thread going to be a mod sticky or are you going to allow it to float?

Already fixed. We have an option to stick a thread when it is created but I do not think it worked :mad:

For reference, here is the last discussion thread link (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=5258&t=282894) It was closed so we could continue discussions in one thread.

How nebulous are the rules going to be? I was warned for questioning someones courage for their consistant refusal to acknowledge and address a significant issue directly related to the premise of the thread in the first place, within a thread that specific user had created. It seems that was what was required to gain a response from that user, as after that was done, it was finally acknowledged and addressed. I think there should be a distinction between a personal attack and questioning the reasoning behind what would appear to be deceptive argument.

Already fixed. We have an option to stick a thread when it is created but I do not think it worked :mad:

:lol: Thanks ray. Appearantly it was mad at you for some reason :dontknow: :)

Since the other thread was closed, is this the new discussion thread for the "Podium Renewal"?

Since the other thread was closed, is this the new discussion thread for the "Podium Renewal"?

Already fixed. We have an option to stick a thread when it is created but I do not think it worked :mad:

For reference, here is the last discussion thread link (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=5258&t=282894) It was closed so we could continue discussions in one thread.

Yes. :nod:

A new Podium Renewal? Oh Snap

How nebulous are the rules going to be? I was warned for questioning someones courage for their consistant refusal to acknowledge and address a significant issue directly related to the premise of the thread in the first place, within a thread that specific user had created. It seems that was what was required to gain a response from that user, as after that was done, it was finally acknowledged and addressed. I think there should be a distinction between a personal attack and questioning the reasoning behind what would appear to be deceptive argument.

I understand what you're saying. But what you're talking about is a more delicate matter and one that will require much skill to pull it off w/o offending or getting a warning. Not to say that it can't be done ... but it's probably something that needs to be done artfully ... with a measure of diplomacy.

I think the reasoning behind an argument can be questioned. But I don't think that's a good habit for us. I don't think we'll often hear an answer. I also don't think that the ends justify the means in terms of getting an answer.

This may still be rather nebulous though. Not sure i've made things more clear.

I understand what you're saying. But what you're talking about is a more delicate matter and one that will require much skill to pull it off w/o offending or getting a warning. Not to say that it can't be done ... but it's probably something that needs to be done artfully ... with a measure of diplomacy.

I think the reasoning behind an argument can be questioned. But I don't think that's a good habit for us. I don't think we'll often hear an answer. I also don't think that the ends justify the means in terms of getting an answer.

This may still be rather nebulous though. Not sure i've made things more clear.

How To Keep Hostile Jerks From Taking Over Your Online Community

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199600005

In the wake of the Kathy Sierra mess, Tim O'Reilly proposed a Blogger's Code of Conduct as a way of preventing a recurrence of the vile, misogynist attacks that Sierra suffered. The idea was that bloggers could choose to follow the Code and post a little badge to their sites affirming their adherence to it, putting message-board posters on notice of the house rules. Although it sounds like a reasonable idea on the face of it, bloggers were incredibly skeptical of the proposal, if not actively hostile. The objections seemed to boil down to this: "We're not uncivil, and neither are those message-board posters we regularly see on the boards. It's the trolls that we have trouble with, and they're pathological psychos, already ignoring our implicit code of conduct. They're going to ignore your explicit code of conduct, too." (There was more, of course -- like the fact that a set of articulated rules only invite people to hold you to them when they violate the spirit but not the letter of the law).

Is politico.com a legit news source? Until yeturday the only time I heard of them was for inventing the term "slow bleed."

Their mission statement (http://www.politico.com/aboutus/missionstatement.html)

"Reading a story should be just as interesting as talking with the reporter over a sandwich or a beer. It's a curiosity of journalism that this often isn't true. The traditional newspaper story is written with austere, voice-of-God detachment. These newspaper conventions tend to muffle personality, humor, accumulated insight -- all the things readers hunger for as they try to make sense of the news and understand what politicians are really like. Whenever we can, we'll push against these limits. In the process, we'll share with readers a lot more of what we know instead of leaving it in our notebooks."

I'm not sure how much I trust a "news source" that wants to have "personality" in their stories to know what is actual fact and what is their commentary (that they would tell me over a beer).

I think over the past couple of weeks we've managed to post every story that's appeared on Drudge Report. Not sure that's a good thing.

We have? :scratchh:

We have? :scratchh:I was puzzled about that too, especially when looking at the archive of headlines and comparing it to threads here:

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_recap.htm (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&t=508394&u2=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_recap.htm)

I don't think it's too puzzling. I have a perception. I've seen an uptick in the last 10 days or so.

It is my understanding that the moderators here are tasked with exercising their powers to moderate discussion, and that within those guidelines should be establishing rules that will help to promote honest debate and stifle discussions that have little to no chance of sparking an honest debate. If I am incorrect about this, please let me know because it sort of negates the rest of my post.

My suggestion is that a rule be drafted that threads started that have little or no intention of sparking actual honest debate be immediately deleted, whether or not they are mod-alerted. Yes, this would be a wholly subjective rule. Yes it will probably tick the occassional thread-starter off.

But it will also (IMO) cause people to think twice before posting trolling threads that are simply meant to inflame an entire side of the debate while sparking "high-fives" from the other for making a cheap shot. These types of threads have been littering the Podium for far too long.

If you (we) want things to get better in the Podium and people to start having more mature discussions you (we) have to change something. Allowing "almosttrolling" posts from anyone should be unacceptable. When we allow this sort of thing, or only address it when enough people complain, we end up with a bunch of users seeing how close they can get to the "trolling" line without crossing it. Having a real discussion seems to be the LAST thing on these people's minds.

And before I get responses like "both sides are doing it" or any other crappy cop-out like that, I want ALL "almosttrolling" threads to be removed, at the sole discretion of the moderators. Simply classifying some threads as "drive-bys" is obviously not working well enough. Relying on the mod-alert system is not working well enough. It seems that nothing that is being done is working well enough. How many good posters will leave before the moderators decide that there is a problem that needs to be addresses? I'm sick of seeing threads like these and the time people waste on them, and I know I'm not alone.

Ignoring them is also not an option. In order for that to work, EVERYONE would have to ignore them, and often what happens is that the people that are feeling all "ra-ra" about some borderline-trolling thread they just saw started are going to post a bunch of "iagree"s in there. That bumps the thread, and eventually someone will respond with a logical rebuttal. At that point the thread should die. But they don't. The person making the logical rebuttal is attacked, flamed, and otherwise completely discouraged from having a logical discussion. The end result if a trolling thread, and why should anyone expect anything different, given the titles and/or content of some of these threads?

It's time for something to change. It's time for the Podium renewal to start being enforced more judiciously.

Please feel free let me know how wrong I am on this one. I want to hear what everyone thinks about this.

Start more, better threads. Participate in such threads started by others.

I've tried to use the "Niceville" threads as a way to discuss real-world, local issues in a non-partisan fashion. The latest one (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=527938) has zero responses.

My suggestion is that a rule be drafted that threads started that have little or no intention of sparking actual honest debate be immediately deleted, whether or not they are mod-alerted. Yes, this would be a wholly subjective rule. Yes it will probably tick the occassional thread-starter off.

Maybe we could try it for awhile and see how people like it.

But I still see a couple of problems. For one... even with 3 mods we aren't on 24/7... so some threads are started and grow to a good size before we see them. But we could still just flush them when we see them, so that only means that there will be times when we don't get to things quickly.

The larger problem is of course the idea that we can detect intent very often. I'd say most of the threads I'd be deleting are ones that could be defended as intending to start a debate about _________ . There's always an angle... and most posters are savvy enough to come up with something. The reality is if it's decided that we should be more restrictive in this fashion, the threads that are going to be deleted are just going to be the ones the mods think are trivial. And in my own opinion that's about 85% of the new threads at this point.



Having a real discussion seems to be the LAST thing on these people's minds.

I was actually preparing a response to brbubba on this subject, in another thread... i'll post it here and now it's for both of you...


As a rule of thumb I would say no to OP's original statement, but the Podium has turned into a circus and every thread and every conversation turns into a partisan crap fiesta. So keeping in mind the current politically motivate atmosphere I would say that this behavior can no longer be tolerated in order to maintain a sense of decorum. Not to mention it completely undermines the purpose of the Podium.

I really think there are 2 conflicting ideas as to what the podium should be. Some people see it as a place where they can seek the truth, talk about ideas, and hold a conversation about subjects that some find uncomfortable.

That's a close approximation of my own view of this place. And that's what I do here. I have conversations.

But this being a place that is generally open to people, and a place that is generally political... we attract some who aren't interested in conversations about the truth of things. Partisans are the most hostile to such things. They have a very hard time with this... as they are party loyalists. But even the idea people, the Ideologues, have a hard time with conversations from time to time. You can get them to talk more about their ideas, but they aren't really open to the possibility they are wrong. Though, generally speaking, I think most of the people in this forum are here b/c they are convinced of their own rightness.

So we have two views. The first that we should be in search of the truth via conversation... the second that this is a political playground and that people interested in politics should be able to 'talk at each other' about politics, politicians, policy, and parties... the members of this latter group contain those who are overtly political, and committed to a cause.

And it may not even be that complicated. America is today taught about political conversations by Hannity and Colmes, Crossfire, and talk radio shock jocks.

The reality is that thoughtful conversation needs certain conditions in order to survive. If the forum contains too much 'noise' or is too 'busy' or is too hostile... it's going to drown out conversations. So one of our problems is always going to be the threat of growth. As Slickdeals grows, the podium will too... and that's, in a way, a threat to conversations.

But i think even the debate between the two conceptions of what the podium should be is itself a political debate. ... and I think that may be something that the holders of the first view might reject. They may be inclined to say that it's not political, it's just a matter of good taste.

I've always thought that if I was as restrictive in here as I think you'd have me be... it'd be me talking to about 7 other people. Now maybe that would draw in others, I suppose it's possible.



I'm sick of seeing threads like these and the time people waste on them, and I know I'm not alone.

Sure. I think I feel the same way. I mean... how much more can we say about the war, or the democrats, or bush, or liberals... ? Those who are convinced that Bush is bad, or the worst president ever don't need to see another thread about it... and those who think that's overblown aren't going to be influenced by that thread. But yet... both sides still post. Some in support, others to criticize.

We live in a democracy... and that means that certain things are important to us. If we lived in a heriditary monarchy... more of us would tend to be indifferent towards the king. But people in a democracy are going to have an opinion about the president. He's the president. If you don't like him... that sux for you, b/c he's still there. And he's going to be there for another 18 months. And if you think he's the origin of most of our problems... then every day he's your leader is annoying.

People in a Democracy are sensitive to inequality. And the President might be the most un-equal man of all. He is THE executive. He represents the regime in the body of one individual man. And if you don't like him... his prominence and singulairty are irritating, especially for lovers of equality, such as ourselves.

Somehow people find the energy to care, and post, and bicker about so many things that I find unimportant. My answer to that reality has been to participate only in those threads I find interesting. Some people find everything interesting. What are we to do?

If you want to draw others into the podium, you need to bend the rules a bit, not make them stricter. People are reluctant to post here because they are intimidated.

If you want to draw others into the podium, you need to bend the rules a bit, not make them stricter. People are reluctant to post here because they are intimidated.

It doesn't happen often, but it's happening right here in this thread. I agree with catluver.

Great post, Wu. Although I'm a quality over quantity guy so I'd rather have the 7 not getting drowned out than have 30 posters yelling at each other trying to find out how many poor arguements they can post in a row so other people can say they agree while others can refute the simple arguements and "prove" themselves correct since the last "good" response was 5 pages ago.

If you want to draw others into the podium, you need to bend the rules a bit, not make them stricter. People are reluctant to post here because they are intimidated.

And you think bending the rules by allowing people to be attacked more and for more trash to be thrown at them will make them less intimidated?

If you want to draw others into the podium, you need to bend the rules a bit, not make them stricter. People are reluctant to post here because they are intimidated.

From my discussions with people who do not post in the podium, it is not the rules but the inability of many people here to have an intelligent, logical debate without resorting to personal attacks that makes them not want to post. We have seen that it is the people who tend to dominate debates because they have nothing else to do than sit and post all day that tend to be the problem, not the rules.

Why is it a personal attack to identify a troll post?

Numerous people have done this time after time with no apparent repercussions.

Saying a post is a troll is not an attack on a person, it is only identifying the nature of a post.

It seems this is a new rule without any warning of its implementation.

Why is it a personal attack to identify a troll post?

Numerous people have done this time after time with no apparent repercussions.

Saying a post is a troll is not an attack on a person, it is only identifying the nature of a post.

It seems this is a new rule without any warning of its implementation.

I believe it is because that is the reason there is mod-alert.

Why is it a personal attack to identify a troll post?

Numerous people have done this time after time with no apparent repercussions.

Saying a post is a troll is not an attack on a person, it is only identifying the nature of a post.

It seems this is a new rule without any warning of its implementation.

I'm pretty confident that was mentioned in the other podium renewal thread.

And numerous others have been warned and had their posts edited or removed... repercussions are not always visible.

As for the use of a 'personal attack' warning ... don't get bogged down in the details of the warning system nomenclature. It's just a one point warning. Perhaps we should use 'ignoring podium charter'. Either way...


I believe it is because that is the reason there is mod-alert.

Also true.

Why is it a personal attack to identify a troll post?

Numerous people have done this time after time with no apparent repercussions.

Saying a post is a troll is not an attack on a person, it is only identifying the nature of a post.

It seems this is a new rule without any warning of its implementation.

IMO, when you're calling the post a troll you are insulting the poster because you don't agree with their message. There is a mod-alert, so only moderators see your comment.
But... anyways.. I gotta say that all your posts are trolls, including this one! muahahaha! just kidding ;):lol:

How would anyone know whether or not someone had "nothing else to do all day than post here?"

How would anyone know whether or not someone had "nothing else to do all day than post here?"

By the number and frequency of posts?

Great post, Wu. Although I'm a quality over quantity guy so I'd rather have the 7 not getting drowned out than have 30 posters yelling at each other trying to find out how many poor arguements they can post in a row so other people can say they agree while others can refute the simple arguements and "prove" themselves correct since the last "good" response was 5 pages ago.

Wanted to reiterate the "great post, Wu" bit. It should be mandatory reading. Your voice is the only one here that consistently seems to speak above the din.

As a poster, I'm inconsistent. I strive for quality, but really enjoy pithy jokes at times. And I may well be as partisan against partisans as they are partisan.

Your [Wu's] voice is the only one here that consistently seems to speak above the din.That used to be enough to make me come to the Podium again and again- Wu and a few others (most of which are gone).

I got sick of saying and reading the same things over and over and over. I was posting in the Lounge for a while too, mostly because every once in a while a fantastic thread would come up- a life problem, or a deep and meaningful question that wasn't political or religious in nature. I enjoyed those discussions more than most I've had in the Podium. But in the end, it took too much time to find those threads, and so I post less and less frequently. It also doesn't hurt that I'm half way around the word, which has made it more difficult to communicate regularly, but I don't think that's the main reason I'm on less.

Wu has said before that I think it is important to have discussions like these, and I agree. I hope in the end that it leads to a more thoughtful and productive Podium, but that's probably overly optimistic. Again, Wu's post says most of what needed to be said.

IMO, when you're calling the post a troll you are insulting the poster because you don't agree with their message. There is a mod-alert, so only moderators see your comment.

If that were the case I would do nothing but mod alerting, ha ha. I think the new definition of trolling by Ray is a good one, thanks for that Ray!

Also thanks to Dr. Wu for addressing my previous post. Its at least good to know that the mods notice that there is a problem and are working towards a fix!!!

What happened to the "no blog" or "no links that can't be backed up" rule?

What happened to the "no blog" or "no links that can't be backed up" rule?

I don't recall there ever being one. Might have been discussion on one, but I don't think it was ever resolved to have one in place.

I don't recall there ever being one. Might have been discussion on one, but I don't think it was ever resolved to have one in place.
I was "called out" for posting something that was blog-like in my early days at the Podium and have seen many blog entries deleted for being blogs since. My last 2 mod-alerts of blogs had Wu differentiating between blogs starting an OP and blogs being a reply. IMO, if its not proper for one post it shouldn't be proper for a post later down the line.

I was "called out" for posting something that was blog-like in my early days at the Podium and have seen many blog entries deleted for being blogs since. My last 2 mod-alerts of blogs had Wu differentiating between blogs starting an OP and blogs being a reply. IMO, if its not proper for one post it shouldn't be proper for a post later down the line.

Didn't know that. I guess I haven't paid that much attention to notice.

Probably need to have a debate about blogs.

Probably need to have a debate about blogs....and letters to the editor (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=6940236&postcount=218).

...and letters to the editor (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=6940236&postcount=218).

...and blogs (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3849466&postcount=16).

Blogs present a special problem... sometimes you have a blog from a real newsperson, or mainstream opinion writer... other times you have blogs from total unknowns... and then there are kook blogs.

What I'm trying to determine is how are blogs different from op eds. I'm not really sure they are. They are just op eds from an unknown, or a side piece from a known media persona. I think blogs have a propensity to be flame bait more often... but there are many opinion writers who are pretty worthless too...

I think it's an open question at this point. Feel free to try to convince me either way...

Aren't blogs (in an ideal world) representing opinions, rather than a call to authority? In other words, when someone posts a blog about something, is it more to get the opinions of the podiumites, or is it a "look at what Jim WhoCares said. He's a genius."? [sic] (sidenote: after reading a book on punctuation, the British do it right.)

Perhaps it's the latter we should mod-alert...

Blogs present a special problem... sometimes you have a blog from a real newsperson, or mainstream opinion writer... other times you have blogs from total unknowns... and then there are kook blogs.

What I'm trying to determine is how are blogs different from op eds. I'm not really sure they are. They are just op eds from an unknown, or a side piece from a known media persona. I think blogs have a propensity to be flame bait more often... but there are many opinion writers who are pretty worthless too...

I think it's an open question at this point. Feel free to try to convince me either way...
IMO, there is more "legitimacy" to newspaper editorial Op-ed writers. They write professionally. If they get too out of hand, they get fired. If they lie, it is a big deal. Most importantly, they can't just make claims without anything to back them up. You can find links and stories that cause them to come to their conclusions rather than a blog where the guy can talk out of his ass based on some rumor he heard who knows where.

IMO, there is more "legitimacy" to newspaper editorial Op-ed writers. They write professionally. If they get too out of hand, they get fired. If they lie, it is a big deal. Most importantly, they can't just make claims without anything to back them up. You can find links and stories that cause them to come to their conclusions rather than a blog where the guy can talk out of his ass based on some rumor he heard who knows where.

:iagree:

Letters to the editor rate below blogs in terms of contribution to meaningful discourse here on the Podium.

I'll offer KC Johnson's Durham-in-Wonderland blog as an example that has been consistently light-years more informative about the Duke case than any mainstream media outlet.

I also sense that may be the exception rather than the rule (Johnson's blog seems much better researched, and as he has focused on one topic he has become an expert on the case in ways normal reporters can't or won't). Case-by-case examination makes sense, but I wouldn't discard anything just for being "one man's opinion".

Is it appropriate to bitchslap a troll, or is that feeding the troll?

Letters to the editor rate below blogs in terms of contribution to meaningful discourse here on the Podium.

Letters to the editor and blogs, as well as most of the posts on the podium are opinions. If I come across a well articulated point of view I share but not personally able to express it in such eloquent or economical fashion, I see no problem with posting such. I do have problems with "news" sites that slant and inflame, though.

Where do I get my pass?

Is it appropriate to bitchslap a troll, or is that feeding the troll?Mod alert trolling instead of retaliating or using the troll label in a post.

Mod alert trolling instead of retaliating or using the troll label in a post.

I can get no satisfaction.

Is it trolling if a poster doesn't post links with "stats" they are posting?

Is it trolling if a poster doesn't post links with "stats" they are posting?

Only about 32% of the posters do that, so I don't think it's that big of a deal...

Only about 32% of the posters do that, so I don't think it's that big of a deal...

Have you read the MM healthcare thread?

I'm sure there is only a small percentage of people that troll, but that is a big deal.

Perhaps we should decide if not providing a link when asked can be mod-alerted before it becomes a majority problem.

Have you read the MM healthcare thread?

I'm sure there is only a small percentage of people that troll, but that is a big deal.

Perhaps we should decide if not providing a link when asked can be mod-alerted before it becomes a majority problem.AFAIK, links are required for quoted articles, which would include quoted statistics.

AFAIK, links are required for quoted articles, which would include quoted statistics.

Should posters be allowed to post stats without providing a basis for them? Especially if they have been requested? Multiple times?

Have you read the MM healthcare thread?

I'm sure there is only a small percentage of people that troll, but that is a big deal.

Perhaps we should decide if not providing a link when asked can be mod-alerted before it becomes a majority problem.
It was a joke.

It was a joke.

My bad, :sadwalk:

Should posters be allowed to post stats without providing a basis for them? Especially if they have been requested? Multiple times?If someone is quoting stats pretending they are factual, then indeed those stats should be supported by links. IMNHO, that's just like quoting an article without a link.

If someone is pretending to quote stats as if they are factual, then indeed those stats should be supported by links. IMNHO, that's just like quoting an article without a link.

:iagree:

It was a joke.

:iagree:

:lol:

What about those who constantly respond with, "Where's the link" reply solely for the lame purpose of discrediting a poster? That's pretty close to trolling, I would imagine.

What about those who constantly respond with, "Where's the link" reply solely for the lame purpose of discrediting a poster? That's pretty close to trolling, I would imagine.

Explain how? If someone is posting "facts" without backing up what they said, do you think that other posters shouldn't be allowed to call them on it? Especially if the initial poster said they will provide links?

What about those who constantly respond with, "Where's the link" reply solely for the lame purpose of discrediting a poster? That's pretty close to trolling, I would imagine.Got a link to illustrate what you mean? :sly:

It would be helpful to know exactly to what you refer, rather than to deal in generalities.

GOD FORBID!
The health insurance companies are bad enough as it is, and you want them to start acting like the the auto insurance industry? This has to be the worst idea I have seen in the podium since it was started.

The health insurance companies already employ people who's sole purpose is to find some way to deny as many claims as possible. These same people are given bonuses for denying claims from consumers who have purchased health insurance in good faith, believing it would pay for any health care when needed. The health insurance companies are curropt beyond imagination.


Link? I mean if it is so rampant and the bonuses aparently company policies, it would be easy to back that up.

Exactly what do you want a link to? Secret insurance document listing bonuses paid out for denied claims?

Bman, how do you deal with all of the people who work and pay taxes but cannot get affordable health insurance because they either have a pre-existing condition or have been ill before. They make too much money to qualify for medicare/medicaid, but nowhere near enough to afford the prohibitive premiums set forth by insurers in these cases?

Do you just say "Tough luck" or maybe "go to Canada", or do you just try not to think about them? Do you think they are just unlucky or do you just believe that there are very few people that fall into this bracket?

You could start by posting a link of how many people actually do fall in this bracket.

Better yet, if you had a link that disputes the validity of the previous post and you posted a link, wouldn't that make a more effective case?

It just amazes me we give our houses universal healthcare (fire department) but not our own bodies.

THAT one I'll never get over.

Since it was deleted, please provide links of the breakdowns of local/state taxes that pay the budgets for fire departments vs. federal taxes that pay for fire departments.

I have no idea which fire department budget you are asking for.

I think asking for links to clarify a position can be taken to an extreme to a point of trolling.

Exactly what do you want a link to? Secret insurance document listing bonuses paid out for denied claims?
Then why make such drastic claims if you can't back them up?


Better yet, if you had a link that disputes the validity of the previous post and you posted a link, wouldn't that make a more effective case?
Perhaps a link that would provide the percentages of people would help another poster base his opinion on the "question" being asked.


I have no idea which fire department budget you are asking for.
Any of them.

I think asking for links to clarify a position can be taken to an extreme to a point of trolling.
I think posting baseless claims (and not clarifying them as opinion) without backing up one's position with facts is trolling.

Is providing links to quoted articles a requirement or a recommendation?

Are accusations of rules violations to be made via mod alert or in open commentary inside threads?

Are accusations of rules violations to be made via mod alert or in open commentary inside threads?

Mod alert.

Mod alert.
Although mods are still free to delete any such actual rule violations at their own discretion, correct? :dontknow: In other words, mod alerting would not be a mandatory prerequiste to a post being deleted.

Although mods are still free to delete any such actual rule violations at their own discretion, correct? :

Sure.

In other words, mod alerting would not be a mandatory prerequisite to a post being deleted.

It wouldn't. But mods are not always around... and we are also very much like other Podiumites in that we have certain conversations to which we pay more attention than others. That's why mod alerts are helpful.

Further... mods don't always see a post the same way twice. Sometimes items within posts are glossed over or not fully understood by us as we are not directly involved in the conversation at hand. There are times when members mod alert posts containing something that flew under the radar... something that was either not seen, or not seen in the proper light.

Any problem with creating an "Old Political Scandals" type thread?

I'm thinking of a place where people can rehash/debate Tammany Hall, Chappaquiddick, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Paula Jones, etc. to their heart's content. And hopefully leave these discussions out of more current arguments.

Any problem with creating an "Old Political Scandals" type thread?

I'm thinking of a place where people can rehash/debate Tammany Hall, Chappaquiddick, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Paula Jones, etc. to their heart's content. And hopefully leave these discussions out of more current arguments.

They all look the same to me...

Just to avoid any confusion, posts that accuse others of rules violations such as trolling or getting off topic will get you warned. If you feel a rule is being broken, mod alert and let the moderators make the decision.

There is a recent circumstance that I find a touch troubling. Recently a poster made an observation regarding a post that a mod had made. Granted, it was a bit snide, but the fact that it was deleted and the person given warning points for spamming, seems a bit odd to me. I do not question the mod for deleting the post, it did make sense to do so on that one. But the assigning of warning points arbitrarily like that seems a bit odd to me and makes me wonder about how things are going to progress with handling things in this manner.

There is a recent circumstance that I find a touch troubling. Recently a poster made an observation regarding a post that a mod had made. Granted, it was a bit snide, but the fact that it was deleted and the person given warning points for spamming, seems a bit odd to me. I do not question the mod for deleting the post, it did make sense to do so on that one. But the assigning of warning points arbitrarily like that seems a bit odd to me and makes me wonder about how things are going to progress with handling things in this manner.

You know he got warning points or are you assuming?

You know he got warning points or are you assuming?

I was fwd'd the warning message, in entirety.

There is a recent circumstance that I find a touch troubling. Recently a poster made an observation regarding a post that a mod had made. Granted, it was a bit snide, but the fact that it was deleted and the person given warning points for spamming, seems a bit odd to me. I do not question the mod for deleting the post, it did make sense to do so on that one. But the assigning of warning points arbitrarily like that seems a bit odd to me and makes me wonder about how things are going to progress with handling things in this manner.

:confused:

What do you mean by arbitrarily?

... rules violations such as getting off topic will get you warned.

Ray, can I get a little clarification on that? Is telling someone that s/he is off topic now a warnable offense?

There is a recent circumstance that I find a touch troubling. Recently a poster made an observation regarding a post that a mod had made. Granted, it was a bit snide, but the fact that it was deleted and the person given warning points for spamming, seems a bit odd to me. I do not question the mod for deleting the post, it did make sense to do so on that one. But the assigning of warning points arbitrarily like that seems a bit odd to me and makes me wonder about how things are going to progress with handling things in this manner.

Deleting the other posts did not get the point across, the warning point did the trick.

Ray, can I get a little clarification on that? Is telling someone that s/he is off topic now a warnable offense?

As long as it is done within reason. When several threads consist of the same person telling people they are off topic, that is spamming and not allowed. It's sad we have to make new rules for the minority who abuse the message boards.

As long as it is done within reason. When several threads consist of the same person telling people they are off topic, that is spamming and not allowed. It's sad we have to make new rules for the minority who abuse the message boards.

Gotcha. Thanks.

Poster A posts ABC123 in one thread and gets challenge by Poster D.

Poster B posts a very similar thing to ABC123 in another thread and gets the same challenge from Poster D.

Poster C does the same thing with post ACB123 in the same thread and receives the same challenge from Poster D.

Poster A posts ABC132 in the original thread and gets the same response by Poster D.

It appears that Poster D gets warning points for happening to choose similar wording to address similar posts.

The offense seems to be that when similar actions and posts receive a similar response, it's the response that is inappropriate.

That's the way it seems to work. Apparently the key to avoiding the spamming charge is not to use the same wording even when the precedent posts are of a common theme or approach.

Apparently the key to avoiding the spamming charge is not to use the same wording even when the precedent posts are of a common theme or approach.

I think that'll work. We appreciate variety.

That's the way it seems to work. Apparently the key to avoiding the spamming charge is not to use the same wording even when the precedent posts are of a common theme or approach.

Considering this is a relativley new thing, the key here is to stop abusing the system. Do not attempt to act like a mod and tell others how to post or what they are doing wrong and we will not have problems. Clear enough?

Considering this is a relativley new thing, the key here is to stop abusing the system. Do not attempt to act like a mod and tell others how to post or what they are doing wrong and we will not have problems. Clear enough?I understand that you are saying that you want posters not to tell others what they are doing wrong or how to post. Is that right?

I fully appreciate the frustration of when someone attempts to act like a mod but isn't legitimately filling that role.

I understand that you are saying that you want posters not to tell others what they are doing wrong or how to post. Is that right?

I fully appreciate the frustration of when someone attempts to act like a mod but isn't legitimately filling that role.

I am glad you understand and I will accept this as your word that your actions will be corrected. Thank you.

Are there currently any rules regarding retaining the focus of a thread? I can't imagine I'm the only one tired of seeing any mention of "Bush", "White House", or "Administration" turn into a history lesson about Clinton or some other Dem that is unrelated to the OP. There are, of course, threads in which juxtaposing the behavior of a previous administration or president to the current one is cogent, but the vast majority of these comparisons are simply a means to derail the current discussion and bait partisan bickering.

If it were happening in the opposite manner I'd also be complaining (before someone tries to derail this by saying the equivalent of "If it was lefties doing it you wouldn't be complaining"); regardless of who it's coming from, it makes for a boring Podium. When having to constantly read the same old, unrelated, information (sometimes verbatim) in thread after thread it's hard to stay interested.

Partisan bickering is a mainstay of The Podium, of course, but this behavior goes a step farther and derails what could otherwise have been intelligent discourse. I know the folks that adore engaging in this topic-hijacking will scoff at the idea, but I'm hoping someone will take it seriously enough to discuss it. What are our options? Do we just need to put up with it (perhaps I'm the only one so bothered by it), or is there something that can be done?

Like this (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7680237&postcount=659) post?

Like this (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7680237&postcount=659) post?

I haven't taken the time to read the entire thread, but based on the quick skim I did I'd say that fits the bill. It's not exactly what I was talking about but in the nieghborhood enough to be under the same umbrella IMO. Do you agree that it's a problem? (That's a serious question, not an attempt to bait)

I haven't taken the time to read the entire thread, but based on the quick skim I did I'd say that fits the bill. It's not exactly what I was talking about but in the nieghborhood enough to be under the same umbrella IMO. Do you agree that it's a problem? (That's a serious question, not an attempt to bait)I think that the one thing on which we'll find agreement is that "the other side does it more!" :D

OT posts, diversions, distractions, and thread creep are not conditions that can be easily regulated or fixed.

We don't see the transgressions of posters with whom we agree and we're more sensitive to those against our cause.

I think that the one thing on which we'll find agreement is that "the other side does it more!" :D

OT posts, diversions, distractions, and thread creep are not conditions that can be easily regulated or fixed.

We don't see the transgressions of posters with whom we agree and we're more sensitive to those against our cause.

(I didn't miss the irony of you doing exactly what I was talking about by posting a link to someone you assumedly think I agree with btw ;) -- it just didn't click until this morning :))

While there's certainly a tendency to be more forgiving of those whom one agrees with, I don't think that applies in this case. It doesn't matter which side does it most IMO, the fact that it's all over the place which matteres. It isn't a valid method of debate, and in some cases it's clearly trolling. I sometimes call people on it, but I really don't think that's my place.

There are only 3 motives I can think of for the "Oh yeah, well you're guy did this" argument:

1) Attack the OP by labeling him/her a hypocrite because a politician from his/her side of the political spectrum did something similar.

2) Derail the conversation because one lacks information to refute the topic at hand, or cannot find a way to justify the actions of his/her favored politician.

3) Troll.

None of the above add anything to the debate, in fact they all detract from it. If someone has a valid example of how the "Oh yeah, well your guy did this" argument contributes to a debate I'm eager to hear it. I really don't think one exists.

I'm not arguing in favor of going off-topic and bringing in extraneous issues, just pointing out that it's close to impossible to regulate and still have open discussion.

There are some very valid reasons for allowing discussion that puts things in historical perspective, which at times may require mentioning someone or something from the past.

What solution do you propose and how would you implement it?

I'm not arguing in favor of going off-topic and bringing in extraneous issues, just pointing out that it's close to impossible to regulate and still have open discussion.

There are some very valid reasons for allowing discussion that puts things in historical perspective, which at times may require mentioning someone or something from the past.

What solution do you propose and how would you implement it?

While there are valid reasons for putting things in historical perspective, that is not what I'm describing. Simply posting a link about what y politician did in the past as a response for what x politician recently doesn't fit that description.

IMO there should be a rule regarding this behavior. It is quite clear when someone is posting something to present historical perspective, especially since it will be paired with explanation tying the information directly to the matter at hand. If a poster cannot explain how their drudging up the past is relevant to the topic at hand I don't think it's unreasonable to have that post removed from the thread and a warning point assigned. I believe that would be sufficient to stem the behavior.

While there are valid reasons for putting things in historical perspective, that is not what I'm describing. Simply posting a link about what y politician did in the past as a response for what x politician recently doesn't fit that description.

IMO there should be a rule regarding this behavior. It is quite clear when someone is posting something to present historical perspective, especially since it will be paired with explanation tying the information directly to the matter at hand. If a poster cannot explain how their drudging up the past is relevant to the topic at hand I don't think it's unreasonable to have that post removed from the thread and a warning point assigned. I believe that would be sufficient to stem the behavior.What might be the wording for such a rule?

What might be the wording for such a rule?

Do you know offhand where I'd find the other rules in order to model the syntax? I thought there was a sticky here at one time but maybe I inadvertently removed it from my view. Am I imagining the fact that there is a list of rules somewhere?

Do you know offhand where I'd find the other rules in order to model the syntax? I thought there was a sticky here at one time but maybe I inadvertently removed it from my view. Am I imagining the fact that there is a list of rules somewhere?

Rules are located in the Guide to the Podium... 3rd thread in the forum currently.

Rules are located in the Guide to the Podium... 3rd thread in the forum currently.

:doh: I'm a newbie, I swear. :blush:

Thank you.

Hrm. I hadn't read the rules in a bit. They're pretty concise and to add the issue I'm talking about to them wouldn't really make sense as they're general rather than specific.

It seems to fall under the umbrella of trolling, the more I think about it. Would you agree?

There are only 3 motives I can think of for the "Oh yeah, well you're guy did this" argument:

In the context of "whose guy does what..." the debate is already starting off as one that's pretty lame. Everybody's guy has done something... and to begin a thread with "Rep/Dem __(insert name)__ does __(insert deed)__", ... invites comparison. Doesn't it?

Especially when were sitting here amongst partisans who are just sure they have knowledge of common personality traits of the other side.

1) Attack the OP by labeling him/her a hypocrite because a politician from his/her side of the political spectrum did something similar.

That's a real motivation. But why wouldn't we look at that? I mean... we've got some people around who are pretty sure that bad behavior is more prevalent on one side vs the other. If they are starting threads that continually go one direction... isn't it natural to want to respond in this fashion?


2) Derail the conversation because one lacks information to refute the topic at hand, or cannot find a way to justify the actions of his/her favored politician.

There's no question this happens. But what is the conversation in the first place? Most often it something like this ...

"Did you see where Rep/Dem __(insert name)__ did __(insert deed)__ ... that was total BS. That person should be ___ashamed/ impeached / fired / brought up on charges / etc____."

Reply 1. :iagree: they totally suck.

Reply 2 "Here's another article about how this person is bad...."

Sometimes we see the partisan who crosses the asile...

Reply 3 "I used to support _______ but not anymore... it's time for him to go."

Eventually the unabashed partisan chimes in....

Reply 4 "But your man _(insert name)_ did the same thing in __(insert year)___.



None of the above add anything to the debate, in fact they all detract from it. If someone has a valid example of how the "Oh yeah, well your guy did this" argument contributes to a debate I'm eager to hear it. I really don't think one exists.


I'm not exactly convinced that these threads add quality to the podium in the first place. They generally don't go anywhere substantive. They flare up when the scandal is new and has people's passions involved... then they die down and sink into the podium abyss...

There are many good debates here... some are very long, have some well considered posts... and there's kindof an 'eternal return' to all the standard issue debates, ie - abortion, gay marriage, questions of rights, et al.

But the debates over personalities ... I just don't think they are as good. Maybe it's b/c they are a bit more subjective as they deal with the merits of individual human beings. Something that is obviously very difficult to pin down.

Though we should not overlook the fact that debates over personalities often spawn other more substantive debates about ideas... and those are good. What you generally see there is the people who are just throwing out opinions about the person tend to fade into the background as the issue or idea debate takes over.

Hrm. I hadn't read the rules in a bit. They're pretty concise and to add the issue I'm talking about to them wouldn't really make sense as they're general rather than specific.

General rules have a greater freedom in interpetation, removing the need to create newer rules, as the interpretaion of an existing rule can be modified with less effort than creating a plethora of superfluous ones. The current rules system is pretty efficient in that. Somehwat like the UCMJ. It fits into a nice digest form, but covers almost everything.

In the context of "whose guy does what..." the debate is already starting off as one that's pretty lame. Everybody's guy has done something... and to begin a thread with "Rep/Dem __(insert name)__ does __(insert deed)__", ... invites comparison. Doesn't it?

Especially when were sitting here amongst partisans who are just sure they have knowledge of common personality traits of the other side.

It isn't always threads that begin with such articles that contain this behavior. Even if it was, wouldn't leaving the thread to die due to lack of discussion be more appropriate than posting an "Oh yeah, well..." troll?



That's a real motivation. But why wouldn't we look at that? I mean... we've got some people around who are pretty sure that bad behavior is more prevalent on one side vs the other. If they are starting threads that continually go one direction... isn't it natural to want to respond in this fashion?

It may be natural to want to respond childishly, but that doesn't make it good debate. Besides, posting information related to someone who isn't even in office anymore to justify the negatives of someone who is doesn't hold water. In many cases there is an actual negative action being highlighted by the OP, rather than just an attack on some politician's person. To dig up an old article of someone from the other side doing something similar (and in many cases the stuff dug up isn't even related) and post it in answer is trollish behavior.



There's no question this happens. But what is the conversation in the first place? Most often it something like this ...

"Did you see where Rep/Dem __(insert name)__ did __(insert deed)__ ... that was total BS. That person should be ___ashamed/ impeached / fired / brought up on charges / etc____."

Reply 1. :iagree: they totally suck.

Reply 2 "Here's another article about how this person is bad...."

Sometimes we see the partisan who crosses the asile...

Reply 3 "I used to support _______ but not anymore... it's time for him to go."

Eventually the unabashed partisan chimes in....

Reply 4 "But your man _(insert name)_ did the same thing in __(insert year)___.

Therein lies the problem. If poster 4 had put some effort into actually trying to defend the actions of the person in the OP, or at least offer some reasoning as to why what appears to be a negative action actually has some benefit, there could have been a conversation. Instead, poster 4 went for the comfortable trolling option and obliterated any possibility of intelligent debate.





I'm not exactly convinced that these threads add quality to the podium in the first place. They generally don't go anywhere substantive. They flare up when the scandal is new and has people's passions involved... then they die down and sink into the podium abyss...

I agree that some of them really have no hope of being discussed (especially when the action in the OP is clearly negative and there's no defending it), those should just die without ending up like so many do in regurgitation of old information over and over. Not all fit that description though, some topics that could lead to good discussion don't because of the trolls.


There are many good debates here... some are very long, have some well considered posts... and there's kindof an 'eternal return' to all the standard issue debates, ie - abortion, gay marriage, questions of rights, et al.

But the debates over personalities ... I just don't think they are as good. Maybe it's b/c they are a bit more subjective as they deal with the merits of individual human beings. Something that is obviously very difficult to pin down.

Though we should not overlook the fact that debates over personalities often spawn other more substantive debates about ideas... and those are good. What you generally see there is the people who are just throwing out opinions about the person tend to fade into the background as the issue or idea debate takes over.

I certainly see what you're saying, but I wasn't referring to topics related to personality. I'm talking about situations when a thread is criticizing the actions of an individual or entity. The classic example is:

"Yesterday, President Bush did x" to which the answer is "Well, years ago Clinton did y" Not only is y often irrelevant because of subject matter, it's usually from many years ago making it even more irrelevant. Another favorite is:

"Here's the latest crappy thing about the Iraq war" to which the answer is "Here's a hackneyed list of old quotes regarding Hussien/Iraq by some prominent Democrats" Even if the list was modern, the Dem quotes in no way address the topic at hand.

The most recent example that finally prompted me to ask about this went something like:

"Here's an event in which a document authored by the current administration may have lead to the stifling of free speech" to which the answer was "Oh yeah, x and y ex-presidents had an office in charge of the same thing which may have had a similar document". This type of response adds nothing; it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, whether or not there may or may not have been a similar document commissioned by an elected official. What matters is that one exists now and it may have been the cause of the event mentioned above.

"Here's an event in which a document authored by the current administration may have lead to the stifling of free speech" to which the answer was "Oh yeah, x and y ex-presidents had an office in charge of the same thing which may have had a similar document". This type of response adds nothing; it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, whether or not there may or may not have been a similar document commissioned by an elected official. What matters is that one exists now and it may have been the cause of the event mentioned above.

Well if said poster (me in your case) was using that as an example of why Presidet w shouldn't be blamed for something then it would indeed add something when a previous poster was trying to blame some action on President W's admin (White House).

"Yesterday, President Bush did x" to which the answer is "Well, years ago Clinton did y" Not only is y often irrelevant because of subject matter, it's usually from many years ago making it even more irrelevant. Another favorite is:
Or the times that are well look at the up and comers in the presidential race and the response is "well Bush is an idiot",

"Here's the latest crappy thing about the Iraq war" to which the answer is "Here's a hackneyed list of old quotes regarding Hussien/Iraq by some prominent Democrats" Even if the list was modern, the Dem quotes in no way address the topic at hand.
Or "Here's the latest positive in the war" to which the response is "oh well there have been hundreds of thousands dead and everything is way worse"


There is trolling and off-topic on both sides.

Only another year and a half, and the dems might get someone in the oval office... And you choose to advocate for this now? :rofl2: You might regret giving up referencing past presidents, when a potential dem POTUS does something stupid and gets in the spotlight.

Well if said poster (me in your case) was using that as an example of why Presidet w shouldn't be blamed for something then it would indeed add something when a previous poster was trying to blame some action on President W's admin (White House).

That's two-wrongs-make-a-right reasoning though, don't you think?

Even if we had some way of laying our hands on the manuals (if they exist) of former presidents, and they contained similar verbiage, it does nothing to explain why the protesters should have been handcuffed and removed from a premises for wearing Anti-Bush shirts. Thus, it is irrelevant to suggest previous presidents had manuals. Am I making sense?

Or the times that are well look at the up and comers in the presidential race and the response is "well Bush is an idiot",

I'm not sure I follow. If you mean what I think you mean then, yes that is very much the same thing.


Or "Here's the latest positive in the war" to which the response is "oh well there have been hundreds of thousands dead and everything is way worse"


There is trolling and off-topic on both sides.

True, when the rare positive piece pops up it is given similar treatment. I'd argue that at least the detractors are talking about the same war though. Your example would be closer to what I'm talking about if the response was "Oh yeah, well there was this positive and that positive in the Gulf War."

Only another year and a half, and the dems might get someone in the oval office... And you choose to advocate for this now? :rofl2: You might regret giving up referencing past presidents, when a potential dem POTUS does something stupid and gets in the spotlight.

I assure you I won't regret it; it would be absolutely hypocritical for me to display the same trolling behavior I'm criticizing now. I'm sure if there's a Dem pres he/she will do a number of stupid things that make it into the spotlight, but it wouldn't make any sense for me to try to justify them by pointing to stupid things Bush has done. If I have no justification for the gaff I'll just leave it alone rather than trying to derail the conversation. :nod:

That's two-wrongs-make-a-right reasoning though, don't you think?

Even if we had some way of laying our hands on the manuals (if they exist) of former presidents, and they contained similar verbiage, it does nothing to explain why the protesters should have been handcuffed and removed from a premises for wearing Anti-Bush shirts. Thus, it is irrelevant to suggest previous presidents had manuals. Am I making sense?

Yes you are, but I never said that. I said that IMO it seems more of some overzealous advance team members rather than the fault of Bush, like Rebound was trying to portray. And I used the previous admins to show that they indeed also had an Office of Presidential Advance and if there were no cases or outcrys for them having one (assuming they also had a similar manual), there should be no outcrys for Bush having one and doing so is just partisan bickering.

True, when the rare positive piece pops up it is given similar treatment. I'd argue that at least the detractors are talking about the same war though. Your example would be closer to what I'm talking about if the response was "Oh yeah, well there was this positive and that positive in the Gulf War."

Well then I could argue that it is the same office of Presidency of the US, so you can compare them.

And my point about those was that your hypotheticals were biased against Conservatives/Republicans and that Liberals/Democrats do it also. Not defending anyone, but your post was a little misleading (for the lack of a better word).

..."Yesterday, President Bush did x"I swear it was only that one time, he was wearing his flight suit, and I was drunk....:D

Sorry, couldn't resist. :lmao: :teehee:

Yes you are, but I never said that. I said that IMO it seems more of some overzealous advance team members rather than the fault of Bush, like Rebound was trying to portray. And I used the previous admins to show that they indeed also had an Office of Presidential Advance and if there were no cases or outcrys for them having one (assuming they also had a similar manual), there should be no outcrys for Bush having one and doing so is just partisan bickering.

I agree that it was some team member's fault.

I guess what I was trying to say is that pointing out that previous admins had manuals doesn't address the chance that this manual may have had instructions that caused the issue that was being discussed. Simply having manuals wasn't reason for outcry because there weren't abuses (at least that I've seen mentioned thus far) whose sources point to the existence of said manual. Perhaps he/she was headed there, but Rebound had not (as far as I could tell) pinned the responsibility on Bush.

edit: I see he/she has now gone off entirely on a Bush rant, mayhaps you knew his history better than I and were attempting to nip it in the bud. If so, you totally called that one.

Well then I could argue that it is the same office of Presidency of the US, so you can compare them.

And my point about those was that your hypotheticals were biased against Conservatives/Republicans and that Liberals/Democrats do it also. Not defending anyone, but your post was a little misleading (for the lack of a better word).

I was hoping my complaint would be taken at face value, rather than taken as an attack against one side. However, I figured I'd have to explain eventually because no matter how I worded it it would appear as such. :(

My hypotheticals were biased against conservatives because it is conservatives I see making these posts currently; the tables would most likely be flipped if it was a Dem in office. Surely there must be ones that are similar posts that come from the left (similar to what Xnarg linked). I really don't think it's a Rep/Dem issue though, it's just that the Reps are in the position to abuse it more often in the current political environment.

It'd be foolish to claim only one side does it, but the examples I have to work with are what is going on currently. I don't think the history of the Podium goes back far enough to see if the roles were reversed when there was a Dem in office. If it did, I'm sure we'd see similar tactics from the left. It's an easy cop-out ploy that I consider trolling. No matter who does it, it reeks.

I was hoping my complaint would be taken at face value, rather than taken as an attack against one side. However, I figured I'd have to explain eventually because no matter how I worded it it would appear as such. :(

My hypotheticals were biased against conservatives because it is conservatives I see making these posts currently; the tables would most likely be flipped if it was a Dem in office. Surely there must be ones that are similar posts that come from the left (similar to what Xnarg linked). I really don't think it's a Rep/Dem issue though, it's just that the Reps are in the position to abuse it more often in the current political environment.

It'd be foolish to claim only one side does it, but the examples I have to work with are what is going on currently. I don't think the history of the Podium goes back far enough to see if the roles were reversed when there was a Dem in office. If it did, I'm sure we'd see similar tactics from the left. It's an easy cop-out ploy that I consider trolling. No matter who does it, it reeks.You don't need to look back at all. We don't have to reverse roles.

You ignore that many many threads start out as or quickly degenerate into Bush-bashing fests. This is just another aspect of the same phenomenon.

I quit talking about Clinton for a long time. When I did mention him a few times, I immediately got charged with "talking about him all the time," when I hand't been at all.

Any criticism or commentary about him is disallowed by the Left. They'd prefer to say something like, "Bush is so bad he can't solve ABC," but they fail to note that no President has solved it or that Clinton may have done something to make it worse.

Or they say, "The economy is terrible under Bush" but they do not accept how we came into the recession and ignoring the facts about unemployment (higher under WJC) or corrupt corruption (Enron, etc., ran rampant during the bubble of the 90s).

They say, "Bush manipulated oil prices to affect the outcome of the election," but they do not accept that the only proven usage like that was done by Clinton, who released the Strategic Petroleum Reserve shortly before the 2000 election, to help his VP. Or they ignore that Clinton sold off parts of the SPR to goose the economy into overdrive in the 90s - and never refilled it.

I mention Clinton usually when the anti-Bush BS gets so think one needs an entire case of doubleply Charmin to swab it out of the way.

BTW, did I miss the proposed wording for the rule you seek? I would seriously love to see a serious proposal for something that I think can't be solved except by the complete willingness of the participants, which just isn't going to happen in this case.

It isn't always threads that begin with such articles that contain this behavior. Even if it was, wouldn't leaving the thread to die due to lack of discussion be more appropriate than posting an "Oh yeah, well..." troll?


Yes.

Therein lies the problem. If poster 4 had put some effort into actually trying to defend the actions of the person in the OP, or at least offer some reasoning as to why what appears to be a negative action actually has some benefit, there could have been a conversation. Instead, poster 4 went for the comfortable trolling option and obliterated any possibility of intelligent debate.

As you say there are some things that cannot be defended, or would take too much effort to defend... in some cases the threads would die were it not for the troll. To turn the coin onto the other side... people feed trolls too. They appear to like them.


I agree that some of them really have no hope of being discussed (especially when the action in the OP is clearly negative and there's no defending it), those should just die without ending up like so many do in regurgitation of old information over and over. Not all fit that description though, some topics that could lead to good discussion don't because of the trolls.

That's why we had a scandal master thread for awhile... b/c all the threads were beginning to look alike.


I certainly see what you're saying, but I wasn't referring to topics related to personality. I'm talking about situations when a thread is criticizing the actions of an individual or entity. The classic example is:

"Yesterday, President Bush did x" to which the answer is "Well, years ago Clinton did y" Not only is y often irrelevant because of subject matter, it's usually from many years ago making it even more irrelevant.


We're back to a problem I talked about earlier in this thread. This is not only a debate or conversation forum... it is also a political forum. And that means that some people treat it politically. There are people who bring up things about the parties, or individual politicians for the purposes of spreading ridicule or praise towards those individuals or the party.

When you've got people who are such partisans that they are bringing up trivial crap as thread starters in addition to legitimate beefs ... their reputation as being fully one sided grows. That speaks to people. And it suggests a lack of perspective... but it also suggests that this person treats the forum politically. I think that both items induce people to make these comparisons.

A lot of times there are cases where Bush does things that Clinton also did. So what we're talking about here is a rule that would suggest that that kind of discussion is off limits... but we can't have that kind of rule, as there are obviously times when the comparison is legitimate. And then there are times when the comparison is legitimate only from the perspective of one side... that presents a different problem. Who is to say if it's legitimate? That would be left to the mods. If we had a rule... what would happen is almost all instances of comparison would be mod alerted, if for no other reason than the 'political' attitude towards the forum and the desire to achieve equity for one's side.

You were asked how you'd word the rule, and if you think this is a good idea, then we should consider what the rule would say.

Further... I don't see how this isn't an issue of debating personalities. Yes we're talking about the actions of Bush... but a lot of those actions when raised as thread starters include further commentary about how this is typical of Republicans, or typical of the Bush admin... or further evidence that Bush is the worst president ever. But even when that kind of commentary is not in the OP, you often see it from later posters who agree and are just tossing in their two cents. That kind of hyperbole often generates comparisons.


Another favorite is:

"Here's the latest crappy thing about the Iraq war" to which the answer is "Here's a hackneyed list of old quotes regarding Hussien/Iraq by some prominent Democrats" Even if the list was modern, the Dem quotes in no way address the topic at hand.



And a lot of times these threads include a commentary on how this war was a mistake and how Bush lied and people died, or some other frequently heard item. Yes, the list of democrat quotes appears... but does it appear out of thin air?? Or does it appear as a response to some person who's issued a commentary about Bush or Republicans? I think most of the time it's the latter.

Does that list matter to the issue of the latest bad news? No. Does the "Bush lied and people died" type commentary matter?

Does the 'worst president ever' kind of commentary need to be restricted too?


The most recent example that finally prompted me to ask about this went something like:

"Here's an event in which a document authored by the current administration may have lead to the stifling of free speech" to which the answer was "Oh yeah, x and y ex-presidents had an office in charge of the same thing which may have had a similar document". This type of response adds nothing; it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, whether or not there may or may not have been a similar document commissioned by an elected official. What matters is that one exists now and it may have been the cause of the event mentioned above.

That's what matters to you.

The response may add nothing from your perspective... and may not be relevant to your view of the matter at hand. Unfortunately we've had other presidents and will continue to have them... and they will all be compared to their predacessors. In another unfortunate circumstance we have a number of posters who are committed to convincing us that Bush is bad, or the worst ever, or the Hillary Clinton is the worst ever... or Barak Obama... and they start threads about these people. IMO the personalities who are starting these threads and participating in them generates at least 50% of these kinds of comparisons.

If some are committed to telling us what's so bad about Bush or Clinton... then others will be ready to tell us how these people are similiar to others in history and in turn they're not that bad after all. That's one of the issues that surrounds the presidency... he is a singluar figure in our nation. There's no other person equal to him in the nation, today. The only comparison that can be made is historical.

If we could take the topic in the abstract and remove the personalities of both the posters and the politicians we're speaking about ... THEN maybe we'd have a discussion about the merits of things on their basis.

---

I think there's another issue here that's not been mentioned. Some of us have been here a long time... and Bush has also been president a long time. I think many of us suffer from a kind of fatigue. Just as many are tired of seeing these 'off topic comparisons'... many are also tired of seeing every news item surrounding Bush posted as a thread in this fourm.

You don't need to look back at all. You ignore that many many threads are corrupted into Bush-bashing fests.

I quit talking about Clinton for a long time. When I did mention him a few times, I immediately got charged with "talking about him all the time," when I hand't been at all.

Any criticism or commentary about him is disallowed by the Left. They'd prefer to say something like, "Bush is so bad he can't solve ABC," but they fail to note that no President has solved it or that Clinton may have done something to make it worse.

Or they say, "The economy is terrible under Bush" but they do not accept how we came into the recession and ignoring the facts about unemployment (higher under WJC) or corrupt corruption (Enron, etc., ran rampant during the bubble of the 90s).

They say, "Bush manipulated oil prices to affect the outcome of the election," but they do not accept that the only proven usage like that was done by Clinton, who released the Strategic Petroleum Reserve shortly before the 2000 election, to help his VP. Or they ignore that Clinton sold off parts of the SPR to goose the economy into overdrive in the 90s - and never refilled it.

I mention Clinton usually when the anti-Bush BS gets so think one could swab it out of the way with an entire case of Charmin.

I don't ignore that many threads turn into "Bush bashing" threads, that is simply not the topic I'm talking about at the moment. Those would die quickly if not egged on, IMO.

When you mentioned Clinton was it in a new thread to address a modern issue, or was it as an attempt to rebuke a criticism of Bush with recent history? I don't subscribe to the "Oh yeah, well your guy did this" method of discourse. I think it's valid to complain that Bush isn't working on x, y, or z the way he should (assuming, of course, these items are within his control). To say that Clinton did a crappy job too doesn't do anything but derail the discussion (if one has had a chance to begin) into silly partisan bs.

I can't argue with countering with old info from an old president if it is clear that the actions of that president lead to the problem the current one is in, but I don't think it's always that cut and dried. That's not to say it isn't worth discussing if proof can be made, but I think in some cases folks just post what they would like to be the truth and pass it off as gospel.

BTW, did I miss the proposed wording for the rule you seek? I would seriously love to see a serious proposal for something that I think can't be solved except by the complete willingness of the participants, which just isn't going to happen in this case.

BTW, did I miss the proposed wording for the rule you seek? I would seriously love to see a serious proposal for something that I think can't be solved except by the complete willingness of the participants, which just isn't going to happen in this case.

You didn't miss it (but you already knew that). As stated above, the rules aren't specific enough for a rule such as what I propose to have any place. The best place it can fit under the current rule set is under the umbrella of trolling IMO.

I'm not sure that it couldn't be resolved by willingness of participants, it is a small and very vocal group that tend to portray this behavior. Surely, there's a spattering of folks who act out of character and do it occassionaly but the biggest offenders are a handful of podiumites.

You didn't miss it (but you already knew that). As stated above, the rules aren't specific enough for a rule such as what I propose to have any place. The best place it can fit under the current rule set is under the umbrella of trolling IMO.I too was unable to come up with a generic rule to address the issue you raised.

I too was unable to come up with a generic rule to address the issue you raised. That's unfortunate, I appreciate your trying. I find it disheartening that Wu doesn't seem to think it's an issue at all. I'm found wondering if perhaps I didn't explain it eloquently enough. When I try to rephrase it I find myself repeating myself and that's no good.

That's unfortunate, I appreciate your trying. I find it disheartening that Wu doesn't seem to think it's an issue at all. I'm found wondering if perhaps I didn't explain it eloquently enough. When I try to rephrase it I find myself repeating myself and that's no good.
I think you should reread Wu's last post. I have PMed with him occasionally which lead to a couple of my suggestions. From those threads and others it has been quite clear that there are many that like the partisan-ness of The Podium. With this being true, it seems rather odd to ban your specific type of replies. Especially since, as Wu stated, it is one of the hardest to determine if the comparison is indeed relevant to any post in the thread.

I think you should reread Wu's last post. I have PMed with him occasionally which lead to a couple of my suggestions. From those threads and others it has been quite clear that there are many that like the partisan-ness of The Podium. With this being true, it seems rather odd to ban your specific type of replies. Especially since, as Wu stated, it is one of the hardest to determine if the comparison is indeed relevant to any post in the thread.

Agreed, when it's obviously trolling, it reflects on posters who resort to such desperate measures. I admit I get tired of those posters and their subsequent posts get less attention from me.

It appears that the only posters who are inconsiderate or violate the rules are those other guys and certainly not I!. :teehee:

I think you should reread Wu's last post. I have PMed with him occasionally which lead to a couple of my suggestions. From those threads and others it has been quite clear that there are many that like the partisan-ness of The Podium. With this being true, it seems rather odd to ban your specific type of replies. Especially since, as Wu stated, it is one of the hardest to determine if the comparison is indeed relevant to any post in the thread.

I just reread the post with what you said in mind and am disappointed. If the majority really enjoys being partisan for partisanship's sake then there's no point in me arguing this further. I expected more from this populace.

I agree that it was some team member's fault.

I guess what I was trying to say is that pointing out that previous admins had manuals doesn't address the chance that this manual may have had instructions that caused the issue that was being discussed. Simply having manuals wasn't reason for outcry because there weren't abuses (at least that I've seen mentioned thus far) whose sources point to the existence of said manual. Perhaps he/she was headed there, but Rebound had not (as far as I could tell) pinned the responsibility on Bush.

edit: I see he/she has now gone off entirely on a Bush rant, mayhaps you knew his history better than I and were attempting to nip it in the bud. If so, you totally called that one.
Yeah, I kind of figured where he was going. Sorry if my response was long winded.

That's unfortunate, I appreciate your trying. I find it disheartening that Wu doesn't seem to think it's an issue at all. I'm found wondering if perhaps I didn't explain it eloquently enough. When I try to rephrase it I find myself repeating myself and that's no good.
I don't think that's the case. It's obviously an issue, but addressing it is where things get sticky. Do we really want to make this kind of behavior against the rules? Or is it sufficient that, in general, the people who post here look down on it?

I guess an important aspect of this discussion is what can be called "almost-trolling". People judge where the line is, and they attempt to get as close as possible to that line without stepping over. The question is whether we really want to move that line.

When drawing historical perspective comparisons between 2 figures representing competing political philosophies, determine if the conditions existing at the time of the predecessor's occupation of the position were identical to those that reign currently.

IF the two situations are sufficiently similar and the conditions surrounding the exercise of a particular power are done with similar constraints/opportunities, then it is a valid comparison.

If world conditions, political circumstances, or relative strength of position are even moderately different, and the comparison demonstrates a complete lack of analysis of the governing conditions, it can be said to have been made purely for political & agitative purposes - it is trolling.

What's so hard about defining trolling in this particular case?
It's no different than any other troll, wherein the statement is made and no explanation, reasoned listing of causation or results, or comparison - other than the singular statement of "Who dun it" is made. All such deadpan knee-jerk reactions without a thoughtful construct posted to back up the statement ARE trolling - there is no "almost" attached.

When drawing historical perspective comparisons between 2 figures representing competing political philosophies, determine if the conditions existing at the time of the predecessor's occupation of the position were identical to those that reign currently.

That would likely work in isolated circumstances where policy is the only question. Unfortunately, many of the attacks on politicians are in regards to their various levels of character and moral fiber. In that instance, the surrounding circumstances become largely irrelevant. Your argument would only work when contrasting Clinton to Bush, as there are few circumstances where they had truly similar situations to contend with. It would not work when discussing the various questions of character/hypocrisy of congresspersons and senators.

:scratchh: I wonder why you would advocate it the way you worded it? Could it be that you are just as tired of seeing the same old crap said about a leader from a party that more closely connects with your ideals?

"The mods give too many warnings!" ("to him")

"The mods don't give enough warnings!" ("to others he doesn't like")

:doh: The mods can't win.

That would likely work in isolated circumstances where policy is the only question. Unfortunately, many of the attacks on politicians are in regards to their various levels of character and moral fiber. In that instance, the surrounding circumstances become largely irrelevant. Your argument would only work when contrasting Clinton to Bush, as there are few circumstances where they had truly similar situations to contend with. It would not work when discussing the various questions of character/hypocrisy of congresspersons and senators.

:scratchh: I wonder why you would advocate it the way you worded it? Could it be that you are just as tired of seeing the same old crap said about a leader from a party that more closely connects with your ideals?I believe you fully understood my point, there are few occassions where making a retort such as "He did it before this guy" are actually valid - circumstance changes too rapidly and unraveling the context is too difficult to make such a "blame the guy from the other party" comparison meaningful.
As such, approximately 99% of such comments should be considered trolling, deleted, and if the behavior persists, warnings issued. ONLY where a poster demonstrates an effort at "good faith" should such a comment be allowed to remain on the board.

If the remaining 1% are willing to go to the bother of digging up a reasonable or even UNreasonable basis for making the comparison and posts those arguments as a basis for supporting their statement, they have evaded the label "TROLL" and done what is required to support a contention in debate. One liners do NOT count as a reasonable effort in ANYONE'S book, I should think.

Asking for links is reaching epidemic levels in this forum.

Quit using it as a cheap shot.

Asking for links is reaching epidemic levels in this forum.

Quit using it as a cheap shot.

:iagree:

I think asking for links to clarify a position can be taken to an extreme to a point of trolling.

Claims of logical fallacy are similarly overplayed. Logical fallacio is the Podium's version of the race card.Asking for links is reaching epidemic levels in this forum.

Quit using it as a cheap shot.I assume that links are still required for quotes and statements of fact but are not required for statements of opinion.

Claims of logical fallacy are similarly overplayed. Logical fallacio is the Podium's version of the race card.I assume that links are still required for quotes and statements of fact but are not required for statements of opinion.Agree to some extent - with qualification.

N00b posters shouldn't be held to the same standard of non-reliance on logical fallacies, but expecting Senior members to avoid them is both good debate, raising the quality of their counterpoints, and a valuable lesson that n00bs can learn from.

Senior members SHOULD avoid using them because they know better, and when one of us continues to do so, we SHOULD be called on it because we CAN do better without them.

I have long greeted n00bs with the Nizkor fallacies linky (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/), some take the tip and learn them and some don't, but it SHOULD be a primary linky in the Rules and Introduction to the Podium sticky.

Claims of logical fallacy are similarly overplayed. Logical fallacio is the Podium's version of the race card.
Its sad that you think that way. Its even more sad that claims of logical fallacy are retorted the way they are (usually attacking the claimer or retorting with another fallacy) rather than avoiding such types of fallacies in the future.

Its sad that you think that way. Its even more sad that claims of logical fallacy are retorted the way they are (usually attacking the claimer or retorting with another fallacy) rather than avoiding such types of fallacies in the future.It's sad that you think that way.

First, logical fallacio is often in the eye of the beholder; the claimant misinterprets the gist of the post and derives that fallacy from his fantasy, not from the meaning of the argument.

Second, we see it applied with discrimination, administered with a jackhammer by elitists against those they oppose while they give their buddies passes.

Hiding behind logical fallacio is a way to avoid the issues. Such arrogance!

First, logical fallacio is often in the eye of the beholder; the claimant misinterprets the gist of the post and derives that fallacy from his fantasy, not from the meaning of the argument.


There is something to be said for the fact that they are not always identified accurately. I have seen instances in here where a logical fallacy was called improperly... that kind of accident looks a lot like a straw man. What irony.

Too bad calling "irony" on somebody doesn't carry the same impact.

Second, we see it applied with discrimination, administered with a jackhammer by elitists against they oppose while they give their buddies passes.
That arguement itself is a logical fallacy.

That arguement itself is a logical fallacy.Call that argument what you will, it's true.

It would be more accurate, say, to point out spelling errors, but that too would be avoiding issues.

Call that argument what you will, it's true.

It would be more accurate, say, to point out spelling errors, but that too would be avoiding issues.
Spelling errors do not do anything to the arguement (unless the spelling is causing confusion). I think its rather pathetic here that not only are logical fallacies not mod-alertable offenses, but now they are so common that them being pointed out is considered to be a bad thing. Instead of the response being "there's too many logical fallacies being used and the ones using them should curtail it" the response is "those pointing it out should curtail their claims."

Spelling errors do not do anything to the arguement (unless the spelling is causing confusion). I think its rather pathetic here that not only are logical fallacies not mod-alertable offenses, but now they are so common that them being pointed out is considered to be a bad thing. Instead of the response being "there's too many logical fallacies being used and the ones using them should curtail it" the response is "those pointing it out should curtail their claims."That's a logicial fallacy.

That's a logicial fallacy.
What is and what is the fallacy?

What is and what is the fallacy?Oh, as we've seen on the board, all it takes to toss out the label of logical fallacy is for one person to misinterpret the statement and then criticize it based on their misinterpretation or over-focus on aspect of the argument.

This isn't a high school debate club/TV show where one team get points based on pressing the logical fallacy button first.

Stop hiding behind claims of logical fallacy so as to avoid issues.

Oh, as we've seen on the board, all it takes to toss out the label of logical fallacy is for one person to misinterpret the statement and then criticize it based on their misinterpretation or over-focus on aspect of the argument.

This isn't a high school debate club/TV show where one team get points based on pressing the logical fallacy button.

Stop hiding behind claims of logical fallacy so as to avoid issues.
Stop making logical fallacies to make cheap points.

The list of fallacy descriptions developed by Nizkor serves a very important purpose.
In a day and age where the people are being sold everything from pap smears to politicians, very few of them have had a sophisticated education on the principles of advertising and marketing. They are ignorant of the power of subtle manipulation and how Madison Avenue uses it to bend the public will toward a desired end.

Nizkor, in conjuction with some folks attempting to prevent the sort of tragedy that occured in 1930s Germany and the eradication of entire groups of people, have striven to show HOW we are manipulated and why those methods do nothing to promote the truth of a matter, simply get people to more willingly swallow outright falsehoods and believe in things that ultimately are not in the best interests of humanity and themselves.

Without the assistance of the Nizkor project, a lot more people would be getting away with telling bald faced lies for devious ends and nobody the wiser - except a few in the "intelligensia" who have had the benefit of an edumacation in those basics of selling and mental coercion.

The Podium discusses issues that affect the real lives of those who read these words. If lies and propaganda are allowed to stand unchallenged, others may trot off and make REAL life decisions based on the foolishness they read in these threads. Giving weight to those who tell the lies and perpetrate the continuation of such BS - even though they themselves know full well they are lies and what they are doing, but continue it because it serves their own ends, purposes, or beliefs - is both bad citizenship and abdication, by good men, of their responsibility to fight untruth in the world.

To ban either the calling of logical fallacies or the use of them to demonstrate WHY they are poor debate is counterproductive in the Podium. Without being able to demonstrate WHY something that sounds good at first blush is patently false, and using the shorthand of the Nizkor list, allows the sustaining of a loser argument and often ends up in some pretty nasty charges being exchanged....and to what end?

Is the conversation furthered by bickering over whether something is a lie, myth, or fallacy,.- debating the finer points of the several details of the argument - or are we better off being able to smite down such fallacies with a simple demonstration of such, by name, and moving on to the construction of BETTER arguments?
The calling of logical fallacies, with the restrictions on who gets pegged and by whom that I suggested earlier, is both a necessary part of good debate and does much to further the careful crafting of SOLID arguments by the participants.

Just because this isn't the GE College Bowl doesn't mean the underlying principles of that type of debate are not good or shouldn't apply here. The rules exist to further TRUTHFUL debate, not further the power of the most appealing or popular debater. Often those qualities are in opposition to the best arguments since the popular speaker is very often feeding pablum to the masses.

I wish the moderators would take a more proactive stance and publicly warn those few people that continually rely on personal attacks and generalistic smears to "make" their case. Regardless of how stupid their arguments seem to those of us educated enough to see through them, they are still mean-spirited and do not belong in a forum like this.

Allowing such posts to exist until they are mod-alerted (especially when it's often blatantly obvious that a mod couldn't have "missed" the post because they posted in the same thread) is a not-so-subtle way of condoning them.

I wish the moderators would take a more proactive stance and publicly warn those few people that continually rely on personal attacks and generalistic smears to "make" their case. Regardless of how stupid their arguments seem to those of us educated enough to see through them, they are still mean-spirited and do not belong in a forum like this.

Allowing such posts to exist until they are mod-alerted (especially when it's often blatantly obvious that a mod couldn't have "missed" the post because they posted in the same thread) is a not-so-subtle way of condoning them.

It's great that you read every post, but most people don't (even in threads they post in). The best thing we have right now is the Mod-Alert. Trying to police posts yourself by "calling out" other SDers isn't the "right" way to do it.

But, hey, if they want to publically shame posts, such as gross generalizations (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=8087561&postcount=45), they should feel free to.

It's great that you read every post, but most people don't (even in threads they post in). The best thing we have right now is the Mod-Alert. Trying to police posts yourself by "calling out" other SDers isn't the "right" way to do it.

But, hey, if they want to publically shame posts, such as gross generalizations (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=8087561&postcount=45), they should feel free to.Spare me the lecture. I wasn't calling you out on anything, so unless you have something constructive to add, please keep it to yourself. This is a suggestion thread, and I made a suggestion.

1) I do not read every post, nor do I expect anyone, including moderators to. You'd think that with the number of times you try and tell other people that they're using a strawman fallacy that you'd understand it well yourself now (and therefore attempt to avoid it). I stated that I WISH that moderators wouldn't rely exclusively on mod-alerting and would notice some of these offenses themselves. It's readily apparent that some posters here have a very bad habit of doing this, so you don't even have to read every post to notice this stuff; you merely have to look at a few posters who routinely do this sort of crap and establish a pattern from there. From then on it's just a matter of scrutinizing their posts a little bit more than others. Do not misrepresent my opinion again please.

2) I'm not trying to "police" posts; I'm asking the "post police" to do a more proactive job of it on their own.

Unless you're one of the ones doing the things I was talking about in my original post, you shouldn't be so defensive about this.

Spare me the lecture. I wasn't calling you out on anything, so unless you have something constructive to add, please keep it to yourself. This is a suggestion thread, and I made a suggestion.
And I gave a response. I didn't know that wasn't allowed.

1) I do not read every post, nor do I expect anyone, including moderators to. You'd think that with the number of times you try and tell other people that they're using a strawman fallacy that you'd understand it well yourself now (and therefore attempt to avoid it). I stated that I WISH that moderators wouldn't rely exclusively on mod-alerting and would notice some of these offenses themselves. It's readily apparent that some posters here have a very bad habit of doing this, so you don't even have to read every post to notice this stuff; you merely have to look at a few posters who routinely do this sort of crap and establish a pattern from there. From then on it's just a matter of scrutinizing their posts a little bit more than others. Do not misrepresent my opinion again please.
You said no such wish. You implied that the Mods are purposely not reading posts or not acting on posts you implied they read: "especially when it's often blatantly obvious that a mod couldn't have "missed" the post because they posted in the same thread." Since you just admitted that not everyone reads all posts, then you would also know that not everything is "blatantly obvious" with regards to posts, even in threads one has posted in. And if YOU feel that posters do this too much, then MOD ALERT the post. That is what it is there for. The mods can't follow posters around all day making sure their posts are up to code.

2) I'm not trying to "police" posts; I'm asking the "post police" to do a more proactive job of it on their own.
Yes you are trying to police posts (as evident with your recent tirades in the Iran thread). If you weren't you would have just mod-alerted the posts and the mods would have taken care of them when they could.

Unless you're one of the ones doing the things I was talking about in my original post, you shouldn't be so defensive about this.
I wasn't offended, until your baseless generalization, which showed your hypocrisy on the issue.

And I gave a response. I didn't know that wasn't allowed. I do not dictate what is "allowed" here; please take such things up with the moderation staff. I merely asked that if you didn't have anything constructive to add to my suggestion that you keep it to yourself. I suppose that is too much to ask, yes?

You said no such wish.
What do you call this?

I wish the moderators would take a more proactive stance and publicly warn those few people that continually rely on personal attacks and generalistic smears to "make" their case.

Yes you are trying to police posts (as evident with your recent tirades in the Iran thread). If you weren't you would have just mod-alerted the posts and the mods would have taken care of them when they could.
Please re-read my original post. You are over-reacting to my post. My wish is that they won't have to so heavly depend on mod-alerts for such things. I understand the need for mod-alerting and expressed such opinions in this very thread. My WISH is that moderators are more proactive about deleting posts that aren't necessarily mod-alerted but violate the new Podium charter, but also that they make such actions more public from time to time. The current system of relying on posters to mod-alert isn't working, or I wouldn't have seen the dozen or so veiled personal attacks I did when I first read the forum this morning. If this is exemplary of the "system" working, then it's probably time for a new system, hence my suggestion.

I wasn't offended, until your baseless generalization, which showed your hypocrisy on the issue.It's not baseless, but it is a generalization; I'll give you that much. Not all conservatives on this board exhibit such behavior, but every single post that exhibited the behavior I'm talking about this morning was posted by a conservative.

I do not dictate what is "allowed" here; please take such things up with the moderation staff. I merely asked that if you didn't have anything constructive to add to my suggestion that you keep it to yourself. I suppose that is too much to ask, yes?
And if you don't like people responding to your suggestions, PM a mod.


What do you call this?[/qoute]
You said you wish initially, then you imply that the mods are purposely not doing anything, which is it?



[qutoe]Please re-read my original post. You are over-reacting to my post. My wish is that they won't have to so heavly depend on mod-alerts for such things. I understand the need for mod-alerting and expressed such opinions in this very thread. My WISH is that moderators are more proactive about deleting posts that aren't necessarily mod-alerted but violate the new Podium charter, but also that they make such actions more public from time to time. The current system of relying on posters to mod-alert isn't working, or I wouldn't have seen the dozen or so veiled personal attacks I did when I first read the forum this morning. If this is exemplary of the "system" working, then it's probably time for a new system, hence my suggestion.
They do look over posts, but they have to rely on Mod Alerts because they all have lives outside of SD. I'm sure each of them can't dedicate a couple hours scanning threads or searching through posts to find offensive posts. That is why we have the MA to make things easier, more timely.

It's not baseless, but it is a generalization; I'll give you that much. Not all conservatives on this board exhibit such behavior, but every single post that exhibited the behavior I'm talking about this morning was posted by a conservative.

Perhaps you are seeing what you want to see?

APerhaps you are seeing what you want to see?It's more likely liberals wouldn't have bothered attacking him as they agree with his position. The distinction is one of circumstance mostly. Were he to assume a contraventional stance, liberals might engage him similarly.
Attack politics has no single address to call home.

My wish is that they won't have to so heavly depend on mod-alerts for such things. I understand the need for mod-alerting and expressed such opinions in this very thread. My WISH is that moderators are more proactive about deleting posts that aren't necessarily mod-alerted but violate the new Podium charter, but also that they make such actions more public from time to time.



I do delete posts w/o mod alerts... many times I open a thread and delete posts that i later find mod alerted...(i don't generally look at mod alerts first thing). Likewise, I do not delete every mod alerted post.

I also make actions public from time to time by closing threads that have turned into crap fests. Sometimes I even mention that the thread being closed has devolved into a crap fest.



The current system of relying on posters to mod-alert isn't working, or I wouldn't have seen the dozen or so veiled personal attacks I did when I first read the forum this morning. If this is exemplary of the "system" working, then it's probably time for a new system, hence my suggestion.

I'm not sure what kind of system can eradicate the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.



Allowing such posts to exist until they are mod-alerted (especially when it's often blatantly obvious that a mod couldn't have "missed" the post because they posted in the same thread) is a not-so-subtle way of condoning them.

Sometimes I post in threads where I've not read all the posts. Often I find one idea that I wish to respond to. This is sometimes an effort at moderation. But it is more time consuming than simple skimming and warning, or answering mod alerts only.

I gather that the other mods also post in threads where they've not read all the posts. There's also something to be said for the fact that different comments will strike people differently. The mods don't always have the same reaction to the same post. That's one of the reasons there's 3 of us.

I wish the moderators would take a more proactive stance and publicly warn those few people that continually rely on personal attacks and generalistic smears to "make" their case. Regardless of how stupid their arguments seem to those of us educated enough to see through them, they are still mean-spirited and do not belong in a forum like this.

The public rebuke may be a cure that brings unfortunate side effects. The public rebuke has been employed a couple of times. But not many. There's a couple of things about a public rebuke that I find unappealing. For one, public rebukes resemble the man in the stocks getting garbage thrown in his face. Many times those whom people would like to see rebuked by the authorities have in fact been called out by others already. Most of the time those informal rebukes are conducted in an immoderate fashion. Such measures are of course, not condoned. But for the 'moderators' to issue a public rebuke offers a tacit vindication to claims of the accusers and we would probably see small celebrations breaking out after the official 'rebuke'. I don't see these as appropriate either.

A public rebuke will tend to invite discussion of the rebuke by all involved. I believe this to be true b/c some who are privately warned already seek to make their warning public with the desire to engage in a debate about the justice system here. Indignation is a powerful motivator... and public shame will create more indignation than private warnings.

First of all Wu, thank you for the very thoughtful reply. It is very comforting to know that you and the other moderators are always open to suggestion, and you always do a very good job of addressing questions posed of you.

I do delete posts w/o mod alerts... many times I open a thread and delete posts that i later find mod alerted...(i don't generally look at mod alerts first thing). Likewise, I do not delete every mod alerted post.

I also make actions public from time to time by closing threads that have turned into crap fests. Sometimes I even mention that the thread being closed has devolved into a crap fest. I've seen you post in threads things like "these comments are getting out of hand" or something to that effect, and such comments always seemed to have had a calming effect on the thread, at least for awhile. When a moderator posts his or her comments in a thread, I think it carries with it an almost tacit approval for the thread as a whole. If people were getting out of hand before the comment and didn't have their posts deleted, it becomes almost a license for them to continue such behavior until they are finally mod-alerted and/or warned. And if a thread was getting out of hand and a moderator steps in to correct a post or post(s), it has the reverse effect; sort of like a sibling dispute that "resolves itself" when "mom and dad" show up in the room.

I've always enjoyed seeing yours and the comments of the other moderators in threads, and I believe that's one reason that the people picked to be moderators are picked in the first place. They tend to have a very calm demeanor about themselves, and such a demeanor oftentimes seems to carry over into the threads themselves. So in effect, moderators, please post more! :D

I'm not sure what kind of system can eradicate the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. Neither do I. This is actually one of the very few discussion boards that I frequent with any kind of regularity, and while another has it's own proprietary system of user-based moderation, it probably wouldn't work very well here. Sometimes it just helps to "vent" and see what kind of feedback I get.

The public rebuke may be a cure that brings unfortunate side effects. The public rebuke has been employed a couple of times. But not many. There's a couple of things about a public rebuke that I find unappealing. For one, public rebukes resemble the man in the stocks getting garbage thrown in his face. Many times those whom people would like to see rebuked by the authorities have in fact been called out by others already. Most of the time those informal rebukes are conducted in an immoderate fashion. Such measures are of course, not condoned. But for the 'moderators' to issue a public rebuke offers a tacit vindication to claims of the accusers and we would probably see small celebrations breaking out after the official 'rebuke'. I don't see these as appropriate either.

A public rebuke will tend to invite discussion of the rebuke by all involved. I believe this to be true b/c some who are privately warned already seek to make their warning public with the desire to engage in a debate about the justice system here. Indignation is a powerful motivator... and public shame will create more indignation than private warnings.Very interesting points, and I can't disagree with any of them. Again, sometimes it just feels better to vent frustrations in a thread like this one. Perhaps what I was aiming for subconciously was a very generalistic "public rebuke", and that those that were engaged in such inflammatory posting behaviors might actually think twice about attempting to humiliate somebody in a thread rather than simply speak their mind to make their point.

And that brings me to my lone question for you and the other moderators - do you think it would be a good idea to post the Peggy Noonan piece (the one you posted here (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=5932048&postcount=103)) as part of the Podium charter (or at least incorporate some of the ideas brought up in her piece as rules for acceptable Podium conduct?)

The parts that I think are especially applicable to this forum in particular are:
Our country now puts less of an emphasis on public decorum, courtliness, self-discipline, decency. America no longer says, "That's not nice." [and such a practice would have to be implemented and followed by the Podium members, not the moderators, of course] It doesn't want to make value judgments on "good" and "bad." We have come to rely on censorship to maintain decorum. We are very good at letting people know that if they say something we don't like, we'll shame them and shun them, even ruin them.

But censorship doesn't make people improve themselves; it makes people want to rebel. It tells them to toe the line or pay a price. People who are urged in the right direction and taught in the right direction will usually try to discipline and improve themselves from within. But they do not enjoy censorship from without. They fight back. They are rude in order to show they are unbroken.

...

We should forbid less and demand more. We should exert less pressure from without and encourage more discipline from within. We should ask people to be dignified, hope they'll be generous, expect them to be fair. When they're not, we should correct them. But we shouldn't beat them to a pulp. Because that's not nice.

Are hypotheticals really personal attacks?

I did not think so, but apparently mods disagree.


If I post:

"If rayz kills someone in cold blood, he is a murderer."

That is a statement of fact, not attacking rayz; not saying he is a murderer.

Not even implying it.

Why can't mods admit that they make mistakes?

Are hypotheticals really personal attacks?

I did not think so, but apparently mods disagree.

I could see how it could be construed as one.

Perhaps use made up names to get rid of any personal aspect of it. :dontknow:

I'm not sure what kind of system can eradicate the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.The Shadow knows. :muahaha:
http://ia.media-imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/26/69/06m.jpg

What do people think about threads that begin with just a link to a youtube or other video where the commentary is basically, "Look at this" and nothing else.

What do people think about threads that begin with just a link to a youtube or other video where the commentary is basically, "Look at this" and nothing else.
Not a fan and up until recently I thought it was not allowed.

You know? It's irritating viewing mod alerts that were closed without any comments left by the mods. A simple yes, no, deleted, whatever would suffice. IMO, it is an indication that action was taken (or not).

You know? It's irritating viewing mod alerts that were closed without any comments left by the mods. A simple yes, no, deleted, whatever would suffice. IMO, it is an indication that action was taken (or not).

Most of the time when I don't comment the action I took is visible in public. Either the post is gone, edited, or unchanged.

I'll comment more. But I may also wish to not comment sometimes. Often when I take no action I don't comment.

What do people think about threads that begin with just a link to a youtube or other video where the commentary is basically, "Look at this" and nothing else.
I think it's been discouraged for a while now, hasn't it? I don't have a problem with it if there is some kind of story or synopsis attached to the video link. Ideally, we should be able to take part in a debate without having to watch a video first.

I think it's been discouraged for a while now, hasn't it? I don't have a problem with it if there is some kind of story or synopsis attached to the video link. Ideally, we should be able to take part in a debate without having to watch a video first.That's what I thought, but we've had several threads that don't really comply.

Is this don't-just-link-a-video rule the reason I can no longer find the latest when-police-attack thread?

Is this don't-just-link-a-video rule the reason I can no longer find the latest when-police-attack thread?
In all likelihood, yes. Simply posting a video with no attached story presents several problems. First, you provide little to no context for the event in question. Second, you limit the users who can participate in the discussion, since many posters can't, or don't wish to, view a video in order to take part in the debate. Also, quoting and isolating certain parts of the event become problematic.

What is the moderator stance on sources that can not be verified?

I ask because I recently had a circumstance where a proprietary database was cited, and the whole reference was not posted (it would not have been practical anyway, with 10 pages of data). I think it is highly questionable to use information sources that are not available and can not be verified reasonably.

What is the moderator stance on sources that can not be verified?

I ask because I recently had a circumstance where a proprietary database was cited, and the whole reference was not posted (it would not have been practical anyway, with 10 pages of data). I think it is highly questionable to use information sources that are not available and can not be verified reasonably.

Do you have reason to believe the info is false?

Or do you just question it cause it proves you wrong?

Do you have reason to believe the info is false?

Or do you just question it cause it proves you wrong?
Also, it can be verified. Just have to put money where your mouth is. :lol:

Do you have reason to believe the info is false?

Or do you just question it cause it proves you wrong?

I actually found the information provided to be incomplete and it was only peripheral to what was being discussed, as it was not a direct comparison. I honestly don't know if it is true, or not, because I have no way to verify it. Much like the Swift Boater's claims about John Kerry or the claims about George W. Bush's Nat'l Guard service. I believe everything is a lie or at least inaccurate, until I can verify it.

Until I can verify it, it proves nothing. A source I cannot look at is a non existant source, and should not be a valid reference.

I question everything. Including your motive for your post. Did it serve a purpose, aside from using text to stick your tongue out at me? It certainly proved nothing to me, as it is not directly verifiable.

Also, it can be verified. Just have to put money where your mouth is. :lol:

Really? If that is the case, then sodaseller is in direct violation of podium rules, as you are required to provide links, even if they require a sign up fee. However, if it is an exhorbant price, then it really should not be used as a reference here. If what he said was valid, and cut and dried, then he should be able to find it somewhere on the internet that is reasonably accessable. Otherwise, his post is just his own words on the screen.

Really? If that is the case, then sodaseller is in direct violation of podium rules, as you are required to provide links, even if they require a sign up fee. However, if it is an exhorbant price, then it really should not be used as a reference here. If what he said was valid, and cut and dried, then he should be able to find it somewhere on the internet that is reasonably accessable. Otherwise, his post is just his own words on the screen.
I believe Smeg has kindly posted a pdf.

I believe Smeg has kindly posted a pdf.

I just noticed that. However, that burden did not fall on her. By him posting that information, it was his responsibility to provide substantiation for it.

Really? If that is the case, then sodaseller is in direct violation of podium rules, as you are required to provide links, even if they require a sign up fee. However, if it is an exhorbant price, then it really should not be used as a reference here. If what he said was valid, and cut and dried, then he should be able to find it somewhere on the internet that is reasonably accessable. Otherwise, his post is just his own words on the screen.
What would you rather, "I have the prefect response and facts to counter with but I cannot post it due it not being available free online"?

What would you rather, "I have the prefect response and facts to counter with but I cannot post it due it not being available free online"?
In KT's defense (and meant as no attack on Sodaseller), it was pretty darn easy to find the free version. A simple Google search of the case name resulted in the pdf version I posted.

I don't think it's asking too much for a poster to make a valid attempt at finding an accessible source when quoting/citing evidence. If such a source still remains unavailable, then perhaps the information could still be posted, but with a *disclaimer* of sorts that it is only accessible for a price. :dontknow:

FWIW, my days of free Lexis & Westlaw ended a little over a year ago, so I've become much more familiar with some of the "alternative means" of legal research... :lol:

What would you rather, "I have the prefect response and facts to counter with but I cannot post it due it not being available free online"?

A source that can not be verified is just as bad as a source that is biased. Perhaps more so. At least the biased source can be reasonably proven to exist and reviewed.

A source that can not be verified is just as bad as a source that is biased. Perhaps more so. At least the biased source can be reasonably proven to exist and reviewed.
IMO, a simple "take my word for it, its in Lexus" should suffice.

I just can't believe we've come to the point where a text is a less valuable source than a website.

IMO, a simple "take my word for it, its in Lexus" should suffice.

I just can't believe we've come to the point where a text is a less valuable source than a website.

We all have standards for what we accept as far as reference websites, too. How many of us have legal texts laying around the house? We could not have the debates we do here, were it not for the existance of ready reference from credible sources. Otherwise, we can all just wave our hands above our heads and effluviate hot air, and have equal credibility. Do any of us just take anyone else's word on anything around here? We are people that like to argue points. We even argue about eachothers references, when they are available.

Were it a text that the average person has access to, then it would have a reasonable level of credibility as a source and useful here.

IMO, a simple "take my word for it, its in Lexus" should suffice.

I just can't believe we've come to the point where a text is a less valuable source than a website.
For me, it's not so much whether the quoted (yet unverified) material was really excerpted from a case on Lexis. As KT already pointed out in the applicable thread, even assuming that it is in Lexis, that doesn't mean the poster has correctly identified and quoted the proper holding of the case. Perhaps the Court did a 180-degree turn in reasoning two paragraphs later (stranger things have happened ;)) Perhaps it was a plurality opinion with a strong dissent (which would suggest the court *could* be persuaded otherwise...).

I have been in discussions here before where a poster provides merely a portion of a law or case law without a link to the overall source. But it's always important to have the *entire* source available for comment/analysis (if at all possible). Context is valuable.

Yet if I found a link that only had the exerpt there would not be a demand or a violation for posting that link. We see these exerpts all the time, often never or multiple pages in finding the text of the law, why should it be different when the source changes?

Yet if I found a link that only had the exerpt there would not be a demand or a violation for posting that link.
Well, if I was involved in the discussion, you just might see a *request* for additional information. ;) Or I would simply find it myself, make it available and quote the portions I found most relevant (which I have done on a number of occasions).

We see these exerpts all the time, often never or multiple pages in finding the text of the law, why should it be different when the source changes?
Not sure I understand the question... :confused: (Then again, it is 2 am! :eek:)

At the very least, a link to the source of the excerpt should be made included in the post. If even that's impossible, then my only suggestion can be to keep looking...

Well, if I was involved in the discussion, you just might see a *request* for additional information. ;)
Normally I see those requests as being general to the board, not a demand that the OP of the exerpt must do so.

Not sure I understand the question... :confused: (Then again, it is 2 am! :eek:)

At the very least, a link to the source of the excerpt should be made included in the post. If even that's impossible, then my only suggestion can be to keep looking...
That's my point. How is a link to the source of the exceprt useful if the source does not show the full document?

Just to clarify the point: if you say "this is an exerpt but its not available online" I don't see how that's really any different from "here's an Op Ed that says this and provides no source." The only difference is the poster has some obligation to defend the exerpt if it is wrong instead of saying that he just copied the article and doesn't need to defend it.

What is the moderator stance on sources that can not be verified?

I ask because I recently had a circumstance where a proprietary database was cited, and the whole reference was not posted (it would not have been practical anyway, with 10 pages of data). I think it is highly questionable to use information sources that are not available and can not be verified reasonably.

I don't see them as against the rules. Sometimes I post excerpts from books that are unavailable on line. I don't see a need for a rule for this... it doesn't happen often... and podium custom and good sense dictate that if one is making the case for something one ought to use sources that can be examined by others. And that's what happens almost all the time.

That said... at the end of the day, we still choose what we're willing to pay attention to...

Are threads like this one (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=14757&t=588044), started by John W K (aka the Tax Troll (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=8389&t=588044&u2=http://flashpoint.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/the-tax-troll/)), a violation of Podium charter? He does not respond to counter-posts except to post other pre-canned stuff that he's posted on many other message boards. This doesn't seem to fit well with a debate forum - he's just trying to use this place as his personal soapbox.

Are threads like this one (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=14757&t=588044), started by John W K (aka the Tax Troll (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=8389&t=588044&u2=http://flashpoint.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/the-tax-troll/)), a violation of Podium charter? He does not respond to counter-posts except to post other pre-canned stuff that he's posted on many other message boards. This doesn't seem to fit well with a debate forum - he's just trying to use this place as his personal soapbox.
Ignored List?

Ignored List?
I don't have anyone on my ignore list - I can do that all on my own. ;)

I just think that the Tax Troll is using this board for his own personal soapbox, and that seems to be to be counter to the function of this board. I wanted to know what the mods and others here thought about the thread before I mod-alerted it.

Are threads like this one (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=14757&t=588044), started by John W K (aka the Tax Troll (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=8389&t=588044&u2=http://flashpoint.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/the-tax-troll/)), a violation of Podium charter? He does not respond to counter-posts except to post other pre-canned stuff that he's posted on many other message boards. This doesn't seem to fit well with a debate forum - he's just trying to use this place as his personal soapbox.

:iagree:

I wanted to know what the mods and others here thought about the thread before I mod-alerted it.

The thread in question contains a robust debate over the concept of federalism. What would you have me do?

The thread in question contains a robust debate over the concept of federalism. What would you have me do?Not sure - majority opinion might be that it's completely valid. But as the regular posters here have discovered by responding to his posts, it's not a "robust debate" - it's one poster that is posting pre-canned information and not responding to any counter-points. That's not a debate; that's a speech.

Not sure - majority opinion might be that it's completely valid. But as the regular posters here have discovered by responding to his posts, it's not a "robust debate" - it's one poster that is posting pre-canned information and not responding to any counter-points. That's not a debate; that's a speech.

When I read the thread I saw several people participating in the debate.

When I read the thread I saw several people participating in the debate.Read more closely - the only responses that John WK offers are basically form-letters.

Read more closely - the only responses that John WK offers are basically form-letters.

I'm not talking about his posts right now man. I am asking a simple question about the thread ... now, I don't know if you read the whole thread going back to august... but there's quite a few people in there talking about federalism and its understanding today vs what it once was. Not just JWK. That's why i said the debate was robust, and that's also why I mentioned that the thread contains several contributors. Is the problem that the rest of the people have gone away... and so that portion of the debate is atrophied and all that's left is the periodic bump by JWK?

You said you would mod alert the thread. I'm asking... what would you have me do? I understand the complaint against JWK. I agree that he is a prepackaged commodity. Although he appears to have authored his own posts. I think I saw somewhere that he responds with boilerplate... however... we are not strangers to that kind of response. Boilerplate is pretty common here. I suppose he could be banned. Though as far as genuine trolls go... he seems to be one of the more benign ones we've managed to draw into our orbit.

I'm not talking about his posts right now man. I am asking a simple question about the thread ... now, I don't know if you read the whole thread going back to august... but there's quite a few people in there talking about federalism and its understanding today vs what it once was. Not just JWK. That's why i said the debate was robust, and that's also why I mentioned that the thread contains several contributors. Is the problem that the rest of the people have gone away... and so that portion of the debate is atrophied and all that's left is the periodic bump by JWK?

You said you would mod alert the thread. I'm asking... what would you have me do? I understand the complaint against JWK. I agree that he is a prepackaged commodity. Although he appears to have authored his own posts. I think I saw somewhere that he responds with boilerplate... however... we are not strangers to that kind of response. Boilerplate is pretty common here. I suppose he could be banned. Though as far as genuine trolls go... he seems to be one of the more benign ones we've managed to draw into our orbit.I haven't read every post in the thread, but probably most of them. My personal opinion is that the thread itself is valid, as is the idea being debated by the other posters. My issue was with the nature of the postings of JWK specifically. Sorry for the confusion.

And I'm not sure what I'd have you do - I wanted to start off by asking what you (and everyone else) thought about it.

A moderator alert to said OP about the idea of debate, giving one's own thoughts in respnse to other comments, and participating and maintaining the flow of any OP started by a poster - may be the appropriate solution.

The idea is we post a subject and participate for some unspecified amount of time by giving our OWN thoughts, not pre-packaged & canned speeches - though those are also allowed as support or negation of a point/counter-point - and solicit debate and opinions of other Podiumites on the given subject.
If OP isn't with the program, perhaps OP could be encouraged to go elsewhere and post their canned material.

The idea is we post a subject and participate for some unspecified amount of time by giving our OWN thoughts, not pre-packaged & canned speeches - though those are also allowed as support or negation of a point/counter-point - and solicit debate and opinions of other Podiumites on the given subject.

If OP isn't with the program, perhaps OP could be encouraged to go elsewhere and post their canned material.:iagree:

Dear Moderators,

I'm sorry, I don't complain much about the format and/or tone but you guys gota stop closing threads when they have over a hundred posts and there's really no substantial mudslinging going on. It is mighty frustrating and counter-productive. Either close them when they're started or when there's a lot of non-sense off-topic personal stuff going on.

There seem to be 4 or 5 threads talking about water boarding/torture. I agree that it is a bit too much but you should either act to merge (or close) them soon after they've started or let them continue and meet their natural death.

Most of the water boarding/torture threads originated with questions that were, at least in the minds of the OPs, different from each other. Sure, the discussions were ovelapping but, as in the case of NJDevils, the OPs were trying to bring them back on-topic... which is how it should be ...


Doc Wu, I hope you won't mind me saying a word about how you closed this this (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=108640&t=685596) thread ... First, I think your prosecution of robo was the only "off-topic" and personal, back-n-forth that was going on there (NJD and robo stopped much sooner). You should've conducted that discussion in a thread like this one to begin with (or over the PM). It did nothing to contribute to the discussion at hand and then you made your final statement against robo and closed the thread. At the very least, it look very childish. It actually look arrogant AND childish. Either don't discuss these things in public or let the member have the final word.

Frankly, I think you had a valid point against robo . It wasn't as big a deal as you made it to be (I feel that this sort of veiled attack goes on all the time here -- usually under the guise of "some people" when everyone knows who's the intended target). Where you went wrong, in my judgment at least, was with your overly condescending tone. It was almost like a father scolding a teenage son. And, then suddenly you took the toys and walked out ... like a toddler.

You guys do a good job around here ... Please don't spoil the fun by making impulsive decisions (or decisions that seem impulsive). :)

Dear Moderators,

I'm sorry, I don't complain much about the format and/or tone but you guys gota stop closing threads when they have over a hundred posts and there's really no substantial mudslinging going on. It is mighty frustrating and counter-productive. Either close them when they're started or when there's a lot of non-sense off-topic personal stuff going on.

There seem to be 4 or 5 threads talking about water boarding/torture. I agree that it is a bit too much but you should either act to merge (or close) them soon after they've started or let them continue and meet their natural death.

Most of the water boarding/torture threads originated with questions that were, at least in the minds of the OPs, different from each other. Sure, the discussions were ovelapping but, as in the case of NJDevils, the OPs were trying to bring them back on-topic... which is how it should be ...


Doc Wu, I hope you won't mind me saying a word about how you closed this this (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=108640&t=685596) thread ... First, I think your prosecution of robo was the only "off-topic" and personal, back-n-forth that was going on there (NJD and robo stopped much sooner). You should've conducted that discussion in a thread like this one to begin with (or over the PM). It did nothing to contribute to the discussion at hand and then you made your final statement against robo and closed the thread. At the very least, it look very childish. It actually look arrogant AND childish. Either don't discuss these things in public or let the member have the final word.

Frankly, I think you had a valid point against robo . It wasn't as big a deal as you made it to be (I feel that this sort of veiled attack goes on all the time here -- usually under the guise of "some people" when everyone knows who's the intended target). Where you went wrong, in my judgment at least, was with your overly condescending tone. It was almost like a father scolding a teenage son. And, then suddenly you took the toys and walked out ... like a toddler.

You guys do a good job around here ... Please don't spoil the fun by making impulsive decisions (or decisions that seem impulsive). :)

I agree with most of this, though I don't think I'd stoop to the "...like a toddler" bit. It did seem abrupt.

I'd rather that all of the threads were merged so that the valid replies could be responded to. And the personal attacks that went on in the one thread could just be deleted as has been done before.

IMNHO, there was a lot of redundancy in those threads.

If one feels the need to continue a particular vein of discussion, one could copy and link the appropriate material from the closed thread and paste it into the surviving thread.

An OP always feels that his thread is important, but seriously, how many variations on threads do we really need on any particular and distinct topic?

I seriously doubt that the merging of the threads was impulsive.

IMNHO, there was a lot of redundancy in those threads.

If one feels the need to continue a particular vein of discussion, one could copy and link the appropriate material from the closed thread and paste it into the surviving thread.

An OP always feels that his thread is important, but seriously, how many variations on threads do we really need on any particular and distinct topic?

I seriously doubt that the merging of the threads was impulsive.

There was certainly redundancy, and there shouldn't have been more than one thread. And I don't think the others were closed impulsively, although Dr. Wu's comments in that thread offered the interpretation taken by Neo above.

Again, I'm for merging rather than locking, but I do think that there's merit in the latter method.

Again, I'm for merging rather than locking, but I do think that there's merit in the latter method. I think the argument against merging is that it creates confusion such as when a poster refers to "the above post" or doesn't quote the actual post he/she is replying to. After the merge it's hard to track who's responding to whom.

Both options are bad. So, I think the decision should be made sooner rather than later. As I said, these threads started with questions that were somewhat different (one was about water boarding being illegal, the other was about the ticking dirty bomb scenario, the third about torture to save Americans, and so on). There were a couple of more threads (Raddish's thread, for example) that disappeared from the front page because people moved over to the other threads. Those were easier/better candidates for merger if it had been done early (I understand that mods are not here 24x7).

If a thread is redundant, it should get merged or closed pretty quickly (within a few posts). And, that's really the only time this option (mering/deleting/locking) should be used.

It's not a big deal but something significant enough that I thought I'd mention.

....If a thread is redundant, it should get merged or closed pretty quickly (within a few posts)...Our mods have their own lives. It would unfair and unrealistic of us to demand that they, as volunteers, react as fast as you request.

If you think multiple threads should be merged, then use mod alert, to help them out.

IMNHO, there are very few topics that merit multiple threads, especially when they are so close in topic. For a while we were getting a new thread whenever a new Ron Paul video became available.

People often create "extra" threads when they are unsatisfied with the options on one poll. At least that's what seemed to be the case with the waterboarding threads. They were effectively just three different poll questions:

"Is waterboarding illegal?"

"Would you torture to save American lives?"

and

"What if there was a dirty bomb set to go off - is torture okay then?"

(paraphrasing all)

Maybe in the case of threads like those, merging them could wait for a bit since the various questions were different even though the topic was the same.

My thread (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=143009) on the topic one the topic of torture, which predates the new ones by two years and totals more posts than all the others combined, was closed. That's fine with me.

If people are dissatisfied with the poll options, then they can state their position in the thread. I've yet to see a single poll where everyone was satisfied with the options. Does that mean that we need multiple threads for every topic, to accommodate these slight variations?

My thread (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=143009) on the topic one the topic of torture, which predates the new ones by two years and totals more posts than all the others combined, was closed. That's fine with me.

If people are dissatisfied with the poll options, then they can state their position in the thread. I've yet to see a single poll where everyone was satisfied with the options. Does that mean that we need multiple threads for every topic, to accommodate these slight variations?I think that adding the ability to edit polls after the fact would be a much cleaner option myself. Having lots of threads for one topic is pretty redundant. I was just pointing out why it might be a good idea to leave them separate for a period of time, and not to merge poll-related threads immediately (or maybe even at all, since you can't have two polls in one thread).

Our mods have their own lives. It would unfair and unrealistic of us to demand that they, as volunteers, react as fast as you request. I completely understand that and will alert them IF I believe there is redundancy in threads. I felt that the OPs in each thread was sufficiently different that it warranted its own thread (especially because of the polls).

If people are dissatisfied with the poll options, then they can state their position in the thread. I've yet to see a single poll where everyone was satisfied with the options. Does that mean that we need multiple threads for every topic, to accommodate these slight variations? It's not the options in the poll, it's the question in the poll.

As far as I can see, the question of "Is torture illegal" was different from what NJ Devils, for instance, was asking. I'm sure NJ Devils and those who posted in that thread felt the same ... to some extend at least.

It was better to close them than merge them. (An action that is easier to undo if people persuade us to open a particular item back up) As has been stated, conversations that seek continuance can be quoted from the old thread to the new one, with only slightly more labor.

This issue was mod alerted more than once. That's part of the reason this action was taken. My first reaction was to close them, then I decided to let them play themselves out, and see if one or two questions were more interesting to people. That first mod alert was closed with no action.

When they were mod alerted again... there was a different result... but in as much as it was my first reaction as well (to close them)... I can't say I really disagree with the decision.

I do believe that it probably would have been better to consolidate the conversations earlier rather than later.

I think that adding the ability to edit polls after the fact would be a much cleaner option myself...Poll editing would be chaotic. Changing their selected options afterwards would really irritate people. We'd a lot of, "I didn't choose that option, I never would have selected it if it said what it now does..."

If the polls themselves were merged, that too would upset people.

It was better to close them than merge them. (An action that is easier to undo if people persuade us to open a particular item back up) As has been stated, conversations that seek continuance can be quoted from the old thread to the new one, with only slightly more labor.

Your point makes sense, even though I find the other way superior.

I should note that I think the mods here do an excellent job, which far outweighs any quibble I may have with fairly trivial decisions.

Poll editing would be chaotic. Changing their selected options afterwards would really irritate people. We'd a lot of, "I didn't choose that option, I never would have selected it if it said what it now does..."

If the polls themselves were merged, that too would upset people.
I was thinking more along the lines of if the options are edited then it's the same as adding a new poll; people's choices would be cleared as well.

Otherwise we could potentially see lots of polls where you voted for Obama. ;)

...Otherwise we could potentially see lots of polls where you voted for Obama. ;)I actually contributed to BHO's campaign.

I think either he or HRC make ideal candidates, from a GOP perspective :D

What's up with all the torture threads??? Can we just have them all merged into the All Time Torture Thread or somethin'?

What's up with all the torture threads??? Can we just have them all merged into the All Time Torture Thread or somethin'?:iagree:

I actually thought they were all funny together like that for a bit. It seemed to be a bit like a "forum conversation" that might have gone something like this:

Thread Poster: Is torture okay?
Some Responder: Hell Yeah.
Another Responder: No way.
Thread Poster: Seriously? What about if it were like this "..."
Another Responder: Still nope.
New Thread Poster: Okay, seriously this time, is torture okay?
Some New Responder: I'd torture some pedophile all "24" style.
Another New Responder: No way.
New Thread Poster: Seriously? What about if it were like this "...<new scenario>..."
Another New Responder: Still nope.
Some Even Newer Thread Poster : All right, you were all just kidding last time I know it. So for real guys - is torture okay?
...

;)

:whee:



Yes, I'm waiting for paint to dry. :D

BTW, It would be really cool if we could vote on changing polls for any "superthread" that might get created. Not sure if it's possible, but it would be nifty.

I think it is quite obvious that Podium renewal has failed once again. Any thought that may be it was just me thinking this was put to rest when I saw a post in a Lounge thread with a bunch of "I agree"s talking about how the Podium is just a personal attack fest.

Just looking at many threads can show how many posts are arguing about the poster rather than the topic. The number of trolling threads and posts isn't going down. Many of them I "know" aren't being mod alerted. Many that are are being replied to about 4 times over before the post is deleted. Others are considered borderline enough that they are allowed to stay on. The posts that are deleted have a 50/50 chance of having the poster complain publicly that it was erased.

Sorry, Wu, but I put you as the biggest "Oh no, not you too!" You see a personal attack and choose not to delete/give warning points/whatever it is you mods usually do. To compound that, you chastise the posters publicly further derailing the topic. When a mod is engaging in such behavior, I know this is something that is not going away.

I think it is quite obvious that Podium renewal has failed once again. Any thought that may be it was just me thinking this was put to rest when I saw a post in a Lounge thread with a bunch of "I agree"s talking about how the Podium is just a personal attack fest.In the Lounge, they always say stuff like that about the Podium, yet they attack much more over there.Just looking at many threads can show how many posts are arguing about the poster rather than the topic. The number of trolling threads and posts isn't going down.Unless we know how many posts are removed and how many warnings assigned, how would we know how many violations the mods actually handle?Many of them I "know" aren't being mod alerted. Many that are are being replied to about 4 times over before the post is deleted. Others are considered borderline enough that they are allowed to stay on. The posts that are deleted have a 50/50 chance of having the poster complain publicly that it was erased.

Sorry, Wu, but I put you as the biggest "Oh no, not you too!" You see a personal attack and choose not to delete/give warning points/whatever it is you mods usually do. To compound that, you chastise the posters publicly further derailing the topic. When a mod is engaging in such behavior, I know this is something that is not going away.Your concern appears to be that the mods are not being strict enough. Earlier in the thread we can find posts saying they are too strict. We can't have it both ways, can we? Finding a balance which is acceptable to all is impossible.

In the Lounge, they always say stuff like that about the Podium, yet they attack much more over there.
Actually, they don't. Just look at their Christmas thread. Or any other "Podium type" topic that is allowed to stay on that side of the board.
Unless we know how many posts are removed and how many warnings assigned, how would we know how many violations the mods actually handle?
I know what posts I still see and what posters have yet to be suspended.
Your concern appears to be that the mods are not being strict enough. Earlier in the thread we can find posts saying they are too strict. We can't have it both ways, can we? Finding a balance which is acceptable to all is impossible.
Never said it was possible but if you're going to set rules and ideals, you should be moderating in a way that satisfies these ideals. If you're not going to remove and repremand posts because some are saying it would be too strict, there's no point in having this OP or even possibly this thread in the first place.

Actually, they don't. Just look at their Christmas thread. Or any other "Podium type" topic that is allowed to stay on that side of the board....OK, they sometimes (but not ALWAYS) disparage the Podium.

They do indeed say things against each other that would not be accepted here.The OP is a moron for thinking she is above the law/rules/policy. The other family was simply trying to protect their child within the extent of the rules. And the OP, some stupid idiot with absolutely no respect for others, decide to fark with a concerned parent.I totally agree. Those who are still supporting him [Michael Vick]...are you absolutely nuts??Time to go back on your medication?Some of these posts are sick.So, one could correctly say that AFX is going to visit the brown valley?

And all this time I thought you wanted us to STOP with the gay jokes.u sure u are married to a woman?This thread is only half as gay as the last one. Then again, the last one was gayer then elton john in a tutu cruising the streets of San Fransisco in a pink caddy waving rainbow flags and tossing out free buttplugs.WOW.JUST.WOW. You people on this board are seriously retarded.....So fark you too bitch!! :slap:WOW.JUST. WOW

Ya know what briang, I never thought I'd say this. But you are truly one of the biggest assholes I have ever come across on here. Spoof threads tend to be funny. THIS IS NOT. You are sicker then people on anti-depressants. I wish you went through it. Being someone who contributed a lot in that thread, I can't even believe you would make fun of some of us fellow SD'ers like this. May you rot in hell you sick fark.:rolleyes:

And the rest of you who are laughing, fark you as well.:nod:

OK, they sometimes (but not ALWAYS) disparage the Podium.

They do indeed say things against each other that would not be accepted here.
As always, I'm amazed how out of context your quotes can be.

As always, I'm amazed how out of context your quotes can be.

So context takes away personal attacks and improper language?

So context takes away personal attacks and improper language?
If they are joking they do. And if it is a "non-podium" type thread, it takes away any relevancy to the issue at hand.

Did I mention he even quoted a post that was bumped to the Lounge from Hot Deals?

I think it is quite obvious that Podium renewal has failed once again. Any thought that may be it was just me thinking this was put to rest when I saw a post in a Lounge thread with a bunch of "I agree"s talking about how the Podium is just a personal attack fest.

Just looking at many threads can show how many posts are arguing about the poster rather than the topic. The number of trolling threads and posts isn't going down. Many of them I "know" aren't being mod alerted. Many that are are being replied to about 4 times over before the post is deleted. Others are considered borderline enough that they are allowed to stay on. The posts that are deleted have a 50/50 chance of having the poster complain publicly that it was erased.

Sorry, Wu, but I put you as the biggest "Oh no, not you too!" You see a personal attack and choose not to delete/give warning points/whatever it is you mods usually do. To compound that, you chastise the posters publicly further derailing the topic. When a mod is engaging in such behavior, I know this is something that is not going away.

I think ASG is suggesting a "surge" strategy.

As always, I'm amazed how out of context your quotes can be.

I have stopped being amazed. Its a 'sheer volume industry'.

I think it's crazy that trollers like JWK who rarely, if ever respond to rebuttals to their "arguments" and who use personal attacks as a matter of practice, are given their own threads here. I thought we wanted to discourage that kind of behavior, and carving out a thread that advertises the user's name seems very counterproductive, imo.

I'm on here quite a bit, but not enough to notice how many posts might have been deleted, and I've often wondered the same thing that ASG does - how can some of these people that seem to "default" to personal attacks not be banned yet? I think a few of them simply get new user names from time to time. I'm not sure it's fair to pick on Wu specifically though (especially when he's the only mod that seems to participate here on a regular basis anymore anyway), but I do agree that the problem of veiled personal attacks still exists.

And Wu, you told me about the pros/cons of the public disparage before, and I tend to agree with them, but given that most of us know that you lean pretty conservatively, if you're going to utilize such a method to combat personal attacks IMO it would be beneficial for you to make a conscious effort to "pick on" both conservative and liberal targets. The only time in recent memory I've seen you chastise a poster is when you chastised rooob in the torture thread, and given both of your leanings it seemed to be that you were picking on him for his behavior as well as his viewpoint.

Here's a question - can mod-alerts be made visible? If someone has posted something and someone else has mod-alerted the post, can it be setup so that the fact the post was mod-alerted is noticeable? I can see this being abused, but I can also see it working as sort of a meta-moderation task for all of us that actually lets us have greater visibility into the process. I haven't thought this through very well (just had the idea), so let me know if there are huge problems with it that I'm missing.

....Here's a question - can mod-alerts be made visible? If someone has posted something and someone else has mod-alerted the post, can it be setup so that the fact the post was mod-alerted is noticeable? I can see this being abused, but I can also see it working as sort of a meta-moderation task for all of us that actually lets us have greater visibility into the process. I haven't thought this through very well (just had the idea), so let me know if there are huge problems with it that I'm missing.I'm wondering in such a scenario how the original posts would be handled.

In order to determine the applicability of a mod-alert, one must also evaluate the post that was alerted. Many such posts contain personal attacks, name-calling, etc.. Making the source posts visible to non-mods would defeat the purpose of their removal.

Another issue is that it sets the mods up for intense scrutiny and second-guessing.

One mod may let a certain phrase remain intact, in a particular context. Another mod in another discussion may remove that same phrase or one similar to it, while yet another mod may issue warning points. One the surface, all we'd see would be the exact same phrase, yet each mod would have a valid reason based on the context of the thread. This opens the door for discussions as to why something was allowed in one context yet denied in another.

Another issue concerns mod comments. A mod may have warned a poster against making a certain type of comment, which he may accept from others. So, we'd all need to see all comments that mods made when issuing warnings. Somehow that just doesn't seem right.

This is a just a discussion forum, moderated by volunteers, in which a lot of different people participate. It's not going to be close to a perfect situation, ever.

The last page of the surge strategy thread reads like a bunch of eight year-olds arguing at the playground over whose dad is better.

As always, I'm amazed how out of context your quotes can be."As always?" Is that an example of the type of Podium Renewal you'd like to see?

I could have posted more of each post, but so what? People DO say things in the Lounge that would not be acceptable here. Do you agree or disagree? Are you going to nit pick like you always do? :teehee:

Is it really so hard for people here just to discuss and argue things like "adults"?

Is it really so hard for people here just to discuss and argue things like "adults"?Apparently it is.

"As always?" Is that an example of the type of Podium Renewal you'd like to see?
No, I'd like to see posts relevant to what they are replying to so those comments are replied to with a :huh:

I could have posted more of each post, but so what? People DO say things in the Lounge that would not be acceptable here. Do you agree or disagree? Are you going to nit pick like you always do? :teehee:
I disagree that it is in anyway relevant to either what I said or the spirit of what I said.

BTW, much of what you quoted would be allowed to be posted here without being deleted.

No, I'd like to see posts relevant to what they are replying to so those comments are replied to with a :huh:That's what the links are for. The quotes I provided should be adequate to get the point across and if you want more you can find it. It would be inconsiderate to quote those threads in their entirety....BTW, much of what you quoted would be allowed to be posted here without being deleted.Oh really? WOW.JUST. WOW

Ya know what briang, I never thought I'd say this. But you are truly one of the biggest assholes I have ever come across on here. Spoof threads tend to be funny. THIS IS NOT. You are sicker then people on anti-depressants. I wish you went through it. Being someone who contributed a lot in that thread, I can't even believe you would make fun of some of us fellow SD'ers like this. May you rot in hell you sick fark.:rolleyes:

And the rest of you who are laughing, fark you as well.:nod:Do you really believe that the Lounge is a superior example of taste and fair play in posting?

Oh really? Do you really believe that the Lounge is a superior example of taste and fair play in posting?
A spoof thread would not be allowed in The Podium to begin with.

And, once again, yes "much of" (I'm counting probably 3 out of at most 6 non-joking posts you quoted) the posts you quoted would fly here under the current rules.

Not that any of this has to do with my original post.

Do you really believe that the Lounge is a superior example of taste and fair play in posting?

Overall, when it comes to the "controversial topics," yes. The Podium has turned that much and it appears to be only getting worse. Even not counting just the "controversial topics," sheer volume of posters and posts alone should give The Lounge the edge.

I'm wondering in such a scenario how the original posts would be handled.

In order to determine the applicability of a mod-alert, one must also evaluate the post that was alerted. Many such posts contain personal attacks, name-calling, etc.. Making the source posts visible to non-mods would defeat the purpose of their removal.

Another issue is that it sets the mods up for intense scrutiny and second-guessing.

One mod may let a certain phrase remain intact, in a particular context. Another mod in another discussion may remove that same phrase or one similar to it, while yet another mod may issue warning points. One the surface, all we'd see would be the exact same phrase, yet each mod would have a valid reason based on the context of the thread. This opens the door for discussions as to why something was allowed in one context yet denied in another.

Another issue concerns mod comments. A mod may have warned a poster against making a certain type of comment, which he may accept from others. So, we'd all need to see all comments that mods made when issuing warnings. Somehow that just doesn't seem right.

This is a just a discussion forum, moderated by volunteers, in which a lot of different people participate. It's not going to be close to a perfect situation, ever.That sounds a lot like an open invitation & argument for selective enforcement and favoritism based on who's sucked up to whom the hardest and longest or who's political viewpoint is more in line with the moderator in question.
You wouldn't personally benefit from such a selective standard, would you? :lol:

Considering how much money Mr. Slickdeals makes off this site, and it's plenty, trust me on that, it is either an act of foolishness, a real insecurity problem to want to play mod in the first place, or there is some arrangement beyond simple "volunteerism" at work here.
I cannot see someone with Dr_Wu's level of intelligence spending all that time on moderation without being compensated in some fashion.

Of course, I also understand why we will likely never know exactly how it's being handled or what is going on between the principles - and likely hear denials of said compensation even if we had copies of signed 1099 forms in hand - but anyone who spends the amount of time it takes to moderate a site with this many posts and participants would have to be a lunatic to waste their entire lives, other than work, on moderating this nuthouse for free.

So the question of the day becomes, "Are the lunatics running the asylum?" :confused:

Overall, when it comes to the "controversial topics," yes. The Podium has turned that much and it appears to be only getting worse. Even not counting just the "controversial topics," sheer volume of posters and posts alone should give The Lounge the edge.

I sympathize with what you are saying, and I agree with much of it. But I think there is something you are overlooking. The lounge has its own problems, nobody denies that. There are some vendettas that develop there and there are some fights too. But by and large what goes on there is just casual conversation. That's important. The people there are just there to hang out and have fun. And they have gotten to know the people around them. There are friendships in the lounge.

The lounge discusses controversial topics infrequently... which is helpful... b/c during the other periods... it's just people talking to each other as people, not as combatants in "internet political wars" as one person here put it recently. That view turns these other people here into 'the enemy'.

When the lounge takes up a political topic... they are all very careful to go out of their way to be respectful as they know they are dealing in the unfamiliar, yet easily recognized territory of "the controversial". They know that they are at risk to offend... and so they are cautious, b/c they do not want to hurt their friends' feelings. This is b/c they care about their friends, and their friends' opinions of them. They are invested in the relationships they have developed there. The podium is not like that.

The people in the lounge know the podium is not like that, and that is why it is the object of their derision. They may not know why the podium is different, but they know it is different. To them it is a barren place that is harsh and very impolite. It is brutal. It is full of a few people who's souls are out of proper alignment ... whether by accident or by overexposure to arguments.

The podium is the exact opposite of the lounge. It is full of constant arguments and controversy. The arguments are the raison d'être for the podium. Our world is upside down b/c people here become invested in the arguments... in the partisanship. They forget that the other people are humans, or perhaps they are enraged that the other people are humans... "how could any human being hold such an insane opinion?", or so the thinking might go.

The perspective of some people here, perhaps more than a few, has become corrupted by the investment in the argument... that investment turns every person into a potential enemy. From issue to issue people find some who become enemies and others who become comrades. That situation resembles Hobbes 'State of Nature' where the "war of every man against every man" goes on uninterrupted.

I don't know that we're all that bad here...I saw Hawk, Hurricane, and Paperboy hugging Liberals the other day. :lol:

Seriously though, thanks for that explanation Wu; I've not spent much time in the Lounge and your post highlights the underlying sociological differences between the forums. I didn't understand why some Loungers (If we're Podiumites, what do they call themselves? Does Loungers work, or does it sound derogatory?) shied away from here. I always thought they were being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in the gusto with which they flee from threads that land here.

I sympathize with what you are saying, and I agree with much of it. But I think there is something you are overlooking. The lounge has its own problems, nobody denies that. There are some vendettas that develop there and there are some fights too. But by and large what goes on there is just casual conversation. That's important. The people there are just there to hang out and have fun. And they have gotten to know the people around them. There are friendships in the lounge.

The lounge discusses controversial topics infrequently... which is helpful... b/c during the other periods... it's just people talking to each other as people, not as combatants in "internet political wars" as one person here put it recently. That view turns these other people here into 'the enemy'.

When the lounge takes up a political topic... they are all very careful to go out of their way to be respectful as they know they are dealing in the unfamiliar, yet easily recognized territory of "the controversial". They know that they are at risk to offend... and so they are cautious, b/c they do not want to hurt their friends' feelings. This is b/c they care about their friends, and their friends' opinions of them. They are invested in the relationships they have developed there. The podium is not like that.

The people in the lounge know the podium is not like that, and that is why it is the object of their derision. They may not know why the podium is different, but they know it is different. To them it is a barren place that is harsh and very impolite. It is brutal. It is full of a few people who's souls are out of proper alignment ... whether by accident or by overexposure to arguments.

The podium is the exact opposite of the lounge. It is full of constant arguments and controversy. The arguments are the raison d'être for the podium. Our world is upside down b/c people here become invested in the arguments... in the partisanship. They forget that the other people are humans, or perhaps they are enraged that the other people are humans... "how could any human being hold such an insane opinion?", or so the thinking might go.

The perspective of some people here, perhaps more than a few, has become corrupted by the investment in the argument... that investment turns every person into a potential enemy. From issue to issue people find some who become enemies and others who become comrades. That situation resembles Hobbes 'State of Nature' where the "war of every man against every man" goes on uninterrupted.
I agree with much of what you said, I think my original post just got sidetracked. My OP just mentioned what The Lounge thinks of "us" in passing as just a reinforcement of what I was thinking.

I'm not sure of all the rules, but since we are using terms like *the right* and *the left*, why cant we just use conservatives and liberals?

I'm not sure of all the rules, but since we are using terms like *the right* and *the left*, why cant we just use conservatives and liberals?

I'm constantly amazed at how quick many people are to label themselves and others.

I'm not sure of all the rules, but since we are using terms like *the right* and *the left*, why cant we just use conservatives and liberals?

There are very few actual terms that are frowned upon. You can say conservative or the right or liberal or the left... it's all about the context.

I have seen many complaints recently regarding thread titles. Should a rule be put into place that if a member is posting a news article, the title of the thread should be the title of the article? Other thoughts?

I have seen many complaints recently regarding thread titles. Should a rule be put into place that if a member is posting a news article, the title of the thread should be the title of the article? Other thoughts?
I'd be in favor of that rule. Many thread titles are misleading and purposely inflammatory.

I have seen many complaints recently regarding thread titles. Should a rule be put into place that if a member is posting a news article, the title of the thread should be the title of the article? Other thoughts?Moderators exercise a lot of discretion with regards to the contents of posts; why not extend such discretion over the titles of threads as well? You could allow for some leeway in the titles, and if there's any debate (i.e. a thread gets mod-alerted and edited, and the poster doesn't like the edit) then the fallback for those cases can be that the thread title must match the title of the article posted.

I have no problem with obviously "catchy" titles of threads to attract attention to them, but some threads are so contrary to the facts in the accompanying article as to make them completely false. I think that in a lot of cases those thread titles should be mod-alertable and edited by either the OP or the mods.

Many of the threads I've seen titled as such lately would meet the criteria for "trolling" as I've heard bryantq define it in the "censorship" thread; so shouldn't those threads be removed and/or re-titled, or do the trolling rules only apply to the contents of the posts themselves?

...Many of the threads I've seen titled as such lately would meet the criteria for "trolling" as I've heard bryantq define it in the "censorship" thread; so shouldn't those threads be removed and/or re-titled, or do the trolling rules only apply to the contents of the posts themselves?Were these many titles changed once you mod alerted them?

Were these many titles changed once you mod alerted them?I don't know. The only thread I've ever mod-alerted was deleted. I don't usually mod-alert the threads for the titles, but I have seen a few of them changed. I don't usually know if its the mods or the thread posters changing the titles though.

If a title is so misleading as to be completely contrary to the message in the OP, I usually just ignore the whole thread anyway, and in those cases I don't take the time to mod-alert them. However, I wasn't aware I had to have a near-perfect track record of mod-alerting every title I found to be misleading in order to have an opinion about them.

Do you agree or disagree that there are (and have been) a lot of misleading thread titles that are phrased in such ways just to cause a stir? If you agree that they exist, how about instead of attempting to point out deficiencies you perceive other posters to have, you tell us all what you think should be done about misleading thread titles?

...Do you agree or disagree that there are (and have been) a lot of misleading thread titles that are phrased in such ways just to cause a stir?

If you agree that they exist, how about instead of attempting to point out deficiencies you perceive other posters to have, you tell us all what you think should be done about misleading thread titles?If people were equally concerned about unfairness of false titles then I'd be concerned, but if when people get bent out of shape over only those they don't like, I don't think they can claim a moral high ground or demand action against and rules targeting those with whom they disagree.

If people were equally concerned about unfairness of false titles then I'd be concerned, but if when people get bent out of shape over only those they don't like, I don't think they can claim a moral high ground or demand action against and rules targeting those with whom they disagree.
Does the "I say you're a hypocrite - so your opinion doesn't count" argument ever get old?

One poster in particular has made inflammatory titles his signature move recently and brought it to the forefront; that doesn't mean it's not annoying when others have done it in the past, it's just become fairly common recently and caught the attention of at least a few of us.

I'd be in favor of that rule. Many thread titles are misleading and purposely inflammatory.

I agree, there should be minimal opinion in the titles of threads.

I understand the issue, but citing an opinionated article would yield an opinionated title, which would meet the criterion but sidestep the goal. We've seen that here.

I understand the issue, but citing an opinionated article would yield an opinionated title, which would meet the criterion but sidestep the goal. We've seen that here.

Good point.

...One poster in particular has made inflammatory titles his signature move recently and brought it to the forefront; that doesn't mean it's not annoying when others have done it in the past, it's just become fairly common recently and caught the attention of at least a few of us.Yes, that's true:

Have the reps learned nothing from bush mistakes? (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=708310)

Why do some fail to fight unfairness? (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=694923)

How Conservatives Manipulate People Into Voting Against Their Best Interests (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=692440)

Yes, that's true:

Have the reps learned nothing from bush mistakes? (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=708310)

Why do some fail to fight unfairness? (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=694923)

How Conservatives Manipulate People Into Voting Against Their Best Interests (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=692440)
The first link you provided is a fair question and not misleading at all. It could certainly be interpreted to have a negative connotation, yes - but we were not discussing titles that are simply "negative" - we were on the subject of titles that are intentionally "misleading" and "inflammatory." Even those that might think that Bush has made no mistakes can see that there is merit to the question. Only those with an agenda to mask any such mistakes would want to point to such a title as somehow "misleading."

The second two are biased, but not misleading in any way that I can tell. It's not like conservatives on this board clicked either one of those links thinking they might find some glowing commentary on the state of conservatism in the world or anything.

And finally, I would remind you of your reply to me where you attempted to insinuate that I was being hypocritical when I commented that there have been some misleading thread titles posted lately:

If people were equally concerned about unfairness of false titles then I'd be concerned, but if when people get bent out of shape over only those they don't like, I don't think they can claim a moral high ground or demand action against and rules targeting those with whom they disagree.

...I would remind you of your reply to me where you attempted to insinuate that I was being hypocritical when I commented that there have been some misleading thread titles posted lately:Oh, I think it's just fine that people reveal their character through biased and slanderous titles - and through defending them or attacking others for doing the same thing.

Oh, I think it's just fine that people reveal their character through biased and slanderous titles - and through defending them or attacking others for doing the same thing.
It takes a big man to admit his shortcomings, kudos!

:cheers:

Yes, that's true:

Have the reps learned nothing from bush mistakes? (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=708310)

Why do some fail to fight unfairness? (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=694923)

How Conservatives Manipulate People Into Voting Against Their Best Interests (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=16556&t=692440)

I appreciate your attention X; I am honored.

But I don't understand how the "unfairness" title is inflamatory.

Afterall, it was derived directly from the statement of your colleague TR who strongly implied that one should not fight unfairness.