Forum reset

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 01:37 PM)djs7685 Wrote: That option is just another "enforce the rules when it's convenient for me but not the people debating with me" type of thing though.

There is no perfect system here, and as I said earlier, the mods are in a tough spot with how to proceed going forward with the subforum. I don't know if my personal beliefs are the answer, but I do surely know that "let people say racist things because you can ignore them since you aren't saving the world" definitely isn't the answer.

Guess what they will do if you continue to ignore them? Do you not think there are those (me included) that do things simply because they know it will pull someone's chain? And as I said, you absolutely have the right to call someone out for bigotry; but perhaps we should strive to do so in a constructive instead of destructive manner.

[fredtoast]

I agree with Phil and DJS. Politics and religion have always been the source of heated debate in the real world. In fact almost every war in human history was fought over religious pr political beliefs. So it is almost impossible to avoid insulting a person in a Political and/or religious debate because a person's political and religious beliefs often define who they are as a person.

Instead of making a rule that no one can come here and claim that black people are just violent hairless monkeys we should allow then to do it and then have a debate on why they are wrong (or right). If people result to nothing but name calling then they are the ones failing in the debate.

It gets very complicated to start deciding who is allowed to have an opinion and who is not. I say the only option is to allow every opinion to be voiced. And if you can't take people disagreeing with you or calling you names then you just don't need to come here. If you let name calling bother you then you need to find somewhere else to discuss politics and religion.

[Rotobeast]

(11-02-2015, 01:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I absolutely feel this forum needs moderation; it's just that I am not the person for the job.

Not true, if we considered two diametrically opposed Mods.
A two party system, just like the cluster-funk in Washington.
How interesting (chaotic) would that be ?
:slapping:

[djs7685]

(11-02-2015, 01:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Guess what they will do if you continue to ignore them? Do you not think there are those (me included) that do things simply because they know it will pull someone's chain? 2. And as I said, you absolutely have the right to call someone out for bigotry; but perhaps we should strive to do so in a constructive instead of destructive manner.

1. That's just saying that 1 side is allowed to have an opinion and the other isn't allowed to have an opinion on their opinion, which definitely isn't "fair". It's sort of ridiculous to suggest that one side should just ignore racism because it will "go away" if they ignore it. C'mon, now, let's be realistic at least. This is a good thread and I'm happy the mods are allowing this discussion to happen, but we need to throw out ideas that make some amount of sense. Intentionally saying something racist to "pull someone's chain" shouldn't be allowed if you're going to complain when people call you an idiot for saying something racist. Either both or neither of those things need to be tolerated.

2. That's fine, but it's just as subjective to say whether it's constructive or destructive, just as it's subjective as to whether something is bigotry or not. I really think DA, Phil, and whoever else mentioned that letting the place be a free-for-all of sorts may just be the best idea to realistically employ here.

This is just my opinion, but I don't see this subforum lasting past 2015 as it stands right now. Something HAS to be done, but that's up for the moderation team to decide the best course of action. As of right now, it seems they're taking the approach where they're being less lenient than they have been in the past of what makes it through.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

Even though I disagreed with that nerd often, I hope Lucie is not banned for good.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 01:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree with Phil and DJS.  Politics and religion have always been the source of heated debate in the real world.  In fact almost every war in human history was fought over religious pr political beliefs.  So it is almost impossible to avoid insulting a person in a Political and/or religious debate because a person's political and religious beliefs often define who they are as a person.

Instead of making a rule that no one can come here and claim that black people are just violent hairless monkeys we should allow then to do it and then have a debate on why they are wrong (or right).  If people result to nothing but name calling then they are the ones failing in the debate.

It gets very complicated to start deciding who is allowed to have an opinion and who is not.  I say the only option is to allow every opinion to be voiced.  And if you can't take people disagreeing with you or calling you names then you just don't need to come here.  If you let name calling bother you then you need to find somewhere else to discuss politics and religion.

..and there inlies the fundemental difference. There are those that suggest that a forum that has the propensity to turn personal and toxic requires no moderation and should be allowed to fester, while there are others that feel such a forum requires stiffer moderation to keep conversations out of the gutter.

Just because the decision can be complicated doesn't mean it is one that shouldn't be made. If you cannot refrain from calling others names then you need to find somewhere else to discuss politics and religion.

[Rotobeast]

(11-02-2015, 02:26 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Even though I disagreed with that nerd often, I hope Lucie is not banned for good.

I really could not fathom a perma-ban, unless there were progressive discipline which we were unaware of.

Regardless of personal opinion, there needs to be the whole yin-yang thing here for the forum to even exist.

I hope both of the people that were recently banned return and refrain from being subject to the action again.

[Vas Deferens]

(11-02-2015, 02:04 PM)djs7685 Wrote: 2. That's fine, but it's just as subjective to say whether it's constructive or destructive, just as it's subjective as to whether something is bigotry or not. I really think DA, Phil, and whoever else mentioned that letting the place be a free-for-all of sorts may just be the best idea to realistically employ here.

I have to agree with this.  

[djs7685]

(11-02-2015, 02:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you cannot refrain from calling others names then you need to find somewhere else to discuss politics and religion.

Why is that the only part of the CoC that you seem to want enforced in this subforum though? It's really coming across that way with all of your posts, you've only complained about 1 thing and that's "personal attacks".

Why do the other parts of the forum rules not seem to matter much to you? We shouldn't be allowed to generalize entire groups of people and say racist things about them without being called an idiot for doing so. You've yet to address any of my posts which I've mentioned the whole "enforce the rules but only the ones that I specifically want enforced" ordeal. I understand that we all want to pick and choose which rules we like, but it's not really fair for some people to be able to have a ridiculous opinion without others being able to discuss that opinion. If you do want every little piece of the CoC enforced, then I've misjudged your opinion, but all that you keep referring to is the name calling. You don't seem overly concerned about the rampant racism and homophobia, which is quite odd that you take more issue with 1 person being called an "idiot" rather than thousands of people being generalized and bashed.

When it comes to politics and religion, the person talking about the subject is just as much relevant to the conversation as the subject matter is, and that's just the way it is whether you refuse to admit it or not. Your opinions are subject to debate in this type of forum, I don't know how this could possibly be not understood by anyone that has ever discussed politics or religion with others. I realize that you just want to post things like "but that's enough about me" 500 more times, but in reality, the fact that they're YOUR opinions on these topics means that YOU and YOUR opinions will be discussed. I could understand your point if you were talking about the football subforums, but you can't honestly expect the rules to be the same when discussing sports opposed to discussing politics/religion. Different rules need to be in place for a subforum like this to survive, you can't pretend that separating the post from the poster can realistically happen when debating this type of subject matter.

[Vas Deferens]

(11-02-2015, 02:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you cannot refrain from calling others names then you need to find somewhere else to discuss politics and religion.

If someone repeatedly makes racist comments, they should not play the victim card when they are called a racist by others.  Thats not 'name calling' thats correct identification.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 02:50 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Why is that the only part of the CoC that you seem to want enforced in this subforum though? It's really coming across that way with all of your posts, you've only complained about 1 thing and that's "personal attacks".

It was simply a reponse to someone bringing up name calling. All articles of the CoC should be adhered to. I just don't see a lot of spaming going on in the PnR forum, what I do see a lot of is personal attacks.

I encouraged others in the OP to give their suggestions and some have. Others have said it is too difficult to monitor so we shouldn't. I'm more solution oriented than that (others have different descriptives for it).  

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 03:06 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: If someone repeatedly makes racist comments, they should not play the victim card when they are called a racist by others.  Thats not 'name calling' thats correct identification.

I agree 100%; however, should they be called a racist in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with racisim? I would still strive to say they are displaying a racist nature instead of the imflamitory "You're a racist". 

[djs7685]

(11-02-2015, 03:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was simply a reponse to someone bringing up name calling. All articles of the CoC should be adhered to. I just don't see a lot of spaming going on in the PnR forum, what I do see a lot of is personal attacks.

I encouraged others in the OP to give their suggestions and some have. Others have said it is too difficult to monitor so we shouldn't. I'm more solution oriented than that (others have different descriptives for it).  

I don't know if it's "too difficult" to monitor as much as it leaves a lot of things open to subjectivity, which in turn creates some bad blood when people may believe there is a bias of sorts.

Using derogatory slurs to generalize entire groups of people is much more unhealthy for a message board than calling someone an idiot, IMO. This board is essentially the offspring of an official NFL team message board, and as you know, we even have at least 1 person very closely associated with the team posting here. I believe it's a bad image to have if there is racism running rampant as it has in some of the threads here. I may be overthinking this, but stuff like that seems like it could eventually turn away guys like Jim O from participating on a board with that sort of material on it.

WTS, if the racism is allowed in the future, it's sort of silly to be told that we aren't allowed to call someone a moron for saying something moronic. I've said from the beginning, I think either both or neither should be allowed in PnR. If subjective racism is appropriate for the forum, it needs to be a free for all of sorts where some amount of name calling is also tolerated, but obviously nothing extreme. We don't need death threats or 1,000 posts with no substance and only calling people names, but I don't see anything wrong with "hey, you're a dummy and here's why" if generalizations and "I'm going to intentionally push peoples buttons by being a borderline homophobe" is going to be allowed.

I'm sure plenty of people disagree with that, but it's just my thoughts on the matter.

[Vas Deferens]

(11-02-2015, 03:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree 100%; however, should they be called a racist in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with racisim? I would still strive to say they are displaying a racist nature instead of the imflamitory "You're a racist". 

When the person in question is creating 5-10 different threads a day just to obfuscate loosing arguments in previous threads, its easy for preconceived notions about someone to run into the next thread.  I can't think of any situation where someone has been called a racist who hasn't made comments to suggest as such.  Maybe instead of that person being offended by being called a racist, they should re-evaluate their worldview.  If you are requesting that I pander to the feelings of racist homophobes, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[fredtoast]

(11-02-2015, 02:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and there inlies the fundemental difference. There are those that suggest that a forum that has the propensity to turn personal and toxic requires no moderation and should be allowed to fester, while there are others that feel such a forum requires stiffer moderation to keep conversations out of the gutter.

Just because the decision can be complicated doesn't mean it is one that shouldn't be made. If you cannot refrain from calling others names then you need to find somewhere else to discuss politics and religion.

Here is the point you are missing.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate the poster from the post when the poster says that the only basis for his position is his "own personal beliefs".

When a person says "This is right just because I believe it is right" then how can you attack that belief without attacking the person?

And when it comes to religion and politics this is the way many people think.  Political beliefs are just as strong as religious beliefs for many people.  You may not believe it, but it is true.  Political discussions are always influenced by a persons own closely held beliefs.  That is exactly why "politics and religion" are such hot button issues for discussion.  And that is not just here.  That is everywhere.  

I agree with people who refuse to discuss religion at places like work and family gatherings.  they know it could lead to an ugly conflict.  But that is exactly why I like this place so much.  I can have an open conversation without having to worry about hurting anyone's feelings.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 03:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is the point you are missing.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate the poster from the post when the poster says that the only basis for his position is his "own personal beliefs".

When a person says "This is right just because I believe it is right" then how can you attack that belief without attacking the person?

Pick 1:

"I disagree with your beliefs on this matter."

"Your beliefs on this issue show a degree of ignorance IMO"

"We disagree on this subject"

"You're stupid"

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 03:23 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: If you are requesting that I pander to the feelings of racist homophobes, you're barking up the wrong tree.

No one is suggesting you pander to anyone; perhaps just take solice in being the bigger person.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

Guys this is Politics and Religion.  Two of the most polarizing topics on the planet.  People are going to disagree with you vehemently and things will get heated. Period.  If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.  If you don't want to be called racist, or bigot, or liberal, or whatever, then don't post.  It's pretty much that simple.  If you do post, better be prepared to defend it.  Sometimes people can change their minds, I have from time to time.  I think that might be peoples biggest hurdle.  Admitting you were wrong can hurt sometimes.

Time to pull on your big boy pants sometimes.  If you're easily offended don't come in here.  And if you do for cryin out loud stop whining/crying.  There are those that I feel like I can discuss things with even if we disagree without name calling.  There are others I avoid because I know it's going to go know where.

[Westwood Bengal]

(11-02-2015, 02:40 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I really could not fathom a perma-ban, unless there were progressive discipline which we were unaware of.

Regardless of personal opinion, there needs to be the whole yin-yang thing here for the forum to even exist.

I hope both of the people that were recently banned return and refrain from being subject to the action again.

I know what you are saying here but I almost peed myself when I thought about how he would have reacted to "progressive discipline." 

I didn't know he was banned. For the record, he is the only poster I ever blocked on my feed. I never reported him or anything, and imagine he is an affable fellow, I just didn't need that type of voice in my life. Also, the amount of abortion posts were mind boggling. 

I would be all for a return to life in P&R before we lost moderators. I actually stopped the majority of my posting because of the change in rhetoric. 

[Vas Deferens]

(11-02-2015, 03:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one is suggesting you pander to anyone; perhaps just take solice in being the bigger person.

Unfortunately, the bigger person course of action doesn't do anything to illuminate reality to someone who direly needs it.