I think this is a good idea

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2020, 07:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure who the whole clique is, but some posters feed off of other posters. It's mutual and it causes threads to derail and the civility to crumble. It's not just one group. 

It starts with intentional trolling, though. Snark and shitty posts here and there are one thing, but when your whole purpose is to just troll then that causes issues. As soon as someone does, just stop responding to them. Don't take the bait. That's what they want and it feeds them. If enough people took this approach then we'd have less problems. 

Definitely have to agree on this.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2020, 07:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure who the whole clique is, but some posters feed off of other posters. It's mutual and it causes threads to derail and the civility to crumble. It's not just one group. 

It starts with intentional trolling, though. Snark and shitty posts here and there are one thing, but when your whole purpose is to just troll then that causes issues. As soon as someone does, just stop responding to them. Don't take the bait. That's what they want and it feeds them. If enough people took this approach then we'd have less problems. 

All that or else we could stop the lynch mob mentality. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-26-2020, 07:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure who the whole clique is, but some posters feed off of other posters. It's mutual and it causes threads to derail and the civility to crumble. It's not just one group. 

It starts with intentional trolling, though. Snark and shitty posts here and there are one thing, but when your whole purpose is to just troll then that causes issues. As soon as someone does, just stop responding to them. Don't take the bait. That's what they want and it feeds them. If enough people took this approach then we'd have less problems. 

I've tried. But it gets old hearing repeatedly "anyone that supports Trump/Repub is a _____. " We all vote who we vote for for different reasons and rarely has anyone fully agreed about everything the person they voted for does. 

Reap what you sow.

[*jason*]

I don't post much in P&R, but I read the shit outta it. All in all its a lot like any comments section that turns political in the blink of an eye. People are literally arguing and getting catty with complete strangers. Amusing, but also ridiculous. I like the forum, and think it's a good way to discuss such topics. I think I like it so much because I'll get out of a political conversation in a hurry in real life. It serves little purpose, and this country was a better place when people didn't walk around advertising who they vote for.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-26-2020, 04:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This forum is a microcosm of what is happening with the occupations and statue destruction.

Seattle's Mayor welcomed the Summer of Love and now shakes her fist at them

The DC Mayor welcomed the protesters now asks they no longer continue to destroy statues.

When this forum first started I suggested and made a couple pleas that decorum be more stressed in this forum but it was decided we'd go with 'self-moderation". How's that working out for CHOP?

I'm no saint, but personally feel I've had to pay a stiffer fine(s) that most for my posts. Not questioning any moderation just provided how I view it.

I can’t find a link, but years ago there was a psychological experiment in which two participants were asked to slap each other, but only as hard as they thought they other person slapped them. If they slapped you softly, you slapped them back equally as softly. If they slapped you hard you slapped them back equally as hard. They could stop at any time.

Invariably, they kept slapping each other harder and harder until they were slappin’ the shit out of each other. Because they all thought they were slapped harder than the other person.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-26-2020, 11:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I can’t find a link, but years ago there was a psychological experiment in which two participants were asked to slap each other, but only as hard as they thought they other person slapped them. If they slapped you softly, you slapped them back equally as softly. If they slapped you hard you slapped them back equally as hard. They could stop at any time.

Invariably, they kept slapping each other harder and harder until they were slappin’ the shit out of each other. Because they all thought they were slapped harder than the other person.

Lol ofc they slap harder. Freaking cheek gets numb after a while so a tap feels like a slap.

However that doesn't fit for here. Its not usually 1v1. In bfines case usually more like 1v4+. 

Honestly, should we ever have to say we are speaking "in general"? Cause most of us are and thats a silly thing to attack a person for and i thought we were all smart enough to know that there is almost always an exception. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-26-2020, 11:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Lol ofc they slap harder. Freaking cheek gets numb after a while so a tap feels like a slap.

However that doesn't fit for here. Its not usually 1v1. In bfines case usually more like 1v4+. 

Honestly, should we ever have to say we are speaking "in general"? Cause most of us are and thats a silly thing to attack a person for and i thought we were all smart enough to know that there is almost always an exception. 

You should read my last sentence again to get the point of the story.

[BmorePat87]

(06-26-2020, 10:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I've tried. But it gets old hearing repeatedly "anyone that supports Trump/Repub is a _____. " We all vote who we vote for for different reasons and rarely has anyone fully agreed about everything the person they voted for does. 

Reap what you sow.

Generalizations are bad, and at the same time when he was first elected multiple board members called any criticism of his actions a mental illness. 

Again, it is going both ways with that regard.

I was more aligned with libertarians during the Obama administration and criticized his foreign policy constantly here. I only registered Democrat for the first time after the 2016 election because I thought Donald Trump being elected president was the most ridiculous thing to ever occur in modern politics. I've experienced things being on different sides (it's not binary). 

Things are definitely different in the Trump era with everyone. I looked back at some of the first threads from this board and it was actually pretty mixed. 

Now most threads are a discussion of Trump's latest blunder or outlandish action (and at some point we have to be honest about the fact that this is a pretty uniquely concerning presidency). 

There's obviously more liberal leaning people here and it's also tough when conservatives have to defend Trump and not someone like Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan. One of the loudest conservative voices was banned for constantly breaking the rules by refusing to not use slurs against minority groups nonstop. It feels like conservatives have had to take a more aggressive stance on defending Trump since most of the threads turn to Trump and his actions. Then again, if a thread appears to be too negative, ignoring it will eventually cause it to die. The back and forth is what keeps them going. 

I think so long as everyone commits to ignore the straight up trolling, things will be fine. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-26-2020, 12:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-P-R-Forum-Closing-on-Weekends

There is so much going on and people are getting so heated (the name calling has really ratcheted up over the last couple weeks) that maybe a couple days of cooling off would help once a week.

I've enjoyed this section being open because the news happens so fast.  It's already been a week since Barr lied about the SDNY aty stepping down on a Friday night!  But I don't want the entire section shut down permanently because people takes things personally and then make personal attacks.

Just my two cents.

I don’t think it is any worse than some of the shit I’ve read in JN since the start of the pandemic.

[Benton]

Pnr these days usually follows the same suit as the pnr of old days, with less discussion.

OP: hey, this guy did something stupid.
Poster 3: yeah, but the other guys party is stupider.
Poster 5: "yeah, but the other guys party is stupider." So you think the original stupid act was ok?
Poster 3: that's not what I said, you're dumb.

Nobody cares what is going on, just which party is doing it. And if you aren't on board with everything a party does, you're the enemy.

[Dill]

(06-26-2020, 03:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It might have something to do with the way you and your clique talk to anyone who has a dissenting opinion.  Being snide and condescending and then feigning ignorance and claiming to be the victim when others respond in kind is not a recipe for a cordial debate. Be the change you say you want in others, it'd be a start.

Doubtful.

I'd say Dino has been "the change he wants in others" for years already.  He's simply brushed off or ignored more personal attacks than anyone on the list. Examples upon request. 

If someone presents a "dissenting opinion" by jumping into a thread laughing at everyone else's stupidity and calling them names, that is certainly not a recipe for cordial debate.

And it might call forth "snide and condescending" comments, but that shouldn't confound effect with cause. Any reference to another's patently bad behavior is not automatically snide and condescending or a response in kind, especially if the intent is corrective.

The message board is its own record. Threads go south when people begin posting personal attacks, adding unnecessary comments about other posters motivations or character. And it isn't always the case that "both sides" are doing it.  Banning personal attacks has allowed for the forum to continue.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2020, 01:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Doubtful.

I'd say Dino has been "the change he wants in others" for years already.  He's simply brushed off or ignored more personal attacks than anyone on the list. Examples upon request. 

If someone presents a "dissenting opinion" by jumping into a thread laughing at everyone else's stupidity and calling them names, that is certainly not a recipe for cordial debate.

And it might call forth "snide and condescending" comments, but that shouldn't confound effect with cause. Any reference to another's patently bad behavior is not automatically snide and condescending or a response in kind, especially if the intent is corrective.

The message board is its own record. Threads go south when people begin posting personal attacks, adding unnecessary comments about other posters motivations or character. And it isn't always the case that "both sides" are doing it.  Banning personal attacks has allowed for the forum to continue.

Yes, personal attacks are bad, whether they are egregious or subtle.  See your latest post for a great example.  You don't see it in Dino because you engage in the same behavior, albeit to a lesser extent, and trust me when I say I am far from the only person who notices it.

[Dill]

(06-27-2020, 01:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, personal attacks are bad, whether they are egregious or subtle.  See your latest post for a great example.  You don't see it in Dino because you engage in the same behavior, albeit to a lesser extent, and trust me when I say I am far from the only person who notices it.

You can call any post you don't like a "personal attack" I suppose.  Claim it is "sublte."

If Dino calls someone a "simpleton" or a "liar" because of his political views or in simple disagreement, then I am not responding in kind, however subtly, if I call Dino's actions "a personal attack." I have not thereby just generated another personal attack if I ask him to desist.

I don't see Dino calling other MB members simpletons and liars because he doesn't do it. I don't see that in my own behavior for the same reason. I don't even call Trump names, someone NOT on the message board.

Simple disagreement can be perceived as "subtle" personal attack, but the perception doesn't make it so.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2020, 02:03 PM)Dill Wrote: You can call any post you don't like a "personal attack" I suppose.  Claim it is "sublte."

Not really 

Quote:If Dino calls someone a "simpleton" or a "ass" because of his political views or in simple disagreement, then I am not responding in kind, however subtly, if I call Dino's actions "a personal attack." I have not thereby just generated another personal attack if I ask him to desist.

I don't see Dino calling people simpletons or asses because he doesn't do it. I don't see that in my own behavior for the same reason.

Simple disagreement can be perceived as "subtle" personal attack, but the perception doesn't make it so.  

No, you don't see it because you're immersed in it.  As John Stewart said, "That's the soup you swim in".

I get you don't agree and I know why, so no need to belabor the point.

[hollodero]

(06-27-2020, 02:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you don't see it because you're immersed in it.  As John Stewart said, "That's the soup you swim in".

I get you don't agree and I know why, so no need to belabor the point.

Hey, I fully get the effect you describe, for I observe it in my own perception.

But honestly. Dill is not all that bad. And if everyone on "both sides" behaved like him, this discussion would not take place.

On the other hand, some that complain the loudest refuse to see the beam in their own eye. In no way do I restrict that verdict to "one side" only [actually it's sad how this always boils down to "sides" in the first place], but nor should anyone else do so or imply so.

[Dill]

(06-26-2020, 07:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure who the whole clique is, but some posters feed off of other posters. It's mutual and it causes threads to derail and the civility to crumble. It's not just one group. 

It starts with intentional trolling, though. Snark and shitty posts here and there are one thing, but when your whole purpose is to just troll then that causes issues. As soon as someone does, just stop responding to them. Don't take the bait. That's what they want and it feeds them. If enough people took this approach then we'd have less problems. 

I'm not always clear whether someone is "just trolling" or not. 

At times I have engaged with people who seemed to be asking honest questions, only later to wonder if they weren't just trying to produce some "hypocrisy" or other to denounce. Too late then.

It is harder to ignore a troll if he has personally attacked me. Ignoring doesn't prevent it from continuing, nor does responding in kind. But in the past I have noticed such posters sometimes disappear if posed questions they can't answer. Often I will "take the bait" if I think I can get that result.  
I generally respond to political arguments. If someone has made a bad argument or posted disinformation, then I'd like to address that.

If someone starts a thread tomorrow with a NYT article reporting that Trump wants to ban COVID testing in battleground states, I will likely jump into that thread if someone responds claiming it was just more "fake news."

If someone starts a thread the next day with an article reporting that Barr has dismissed yet another NY attorney working on a Trump case, I will likely jump into that one at some point as well. If someone posts a defense of Barr, or disputes that he has established a pattern of partisanship in his office, I will likely take issue with that.

Trump supporters can then "predict" which threads I'll show up. To one with a very loose definition, that could look like trolling.

Finally, I like to study arguments too, including bad arguments. Or whatever happens when people of various backgrounds and skill levels come together in an unrefereed venue. Learning to manage bad arguments in public space seems to me a worthy goal. It helps me understand other people's political motivations and understanding. What might look like trolling to someone else can look like an opportunity for exploration to me.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2020, 02:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: Hey, I fully get the effect you describe, for I observe it in my own perception.

But honestly. Dill is not all that bad. And if everyone on "both sides" behaved like him, this discussion would not take place.

On the other hand, some that complain the loudest refuse to see the beam in their own eye. In no way do I restrict that verdict to "one side" only [actually it's sad how this always boils down to "sides" in the first place], but nor should anyone else do so or imply so.

I agree with you, Dill is not a major offender.  Some of his buddies are and I'm largely calling out his hypocrisy for refusing to even see that in them.  There are a very large number of people who either stopped posting entirely or post very little because of the barrage of condescension and smarmy attacks directed at them by two of the major posters on this board.  I stopped myself for a while as I was simply growing tired of ti and things have been stressful enough for me of late with a death in the family, buying a house and all of the current unrest.  But I've been posting in this subforum longer than both of those posters and I honestly enjoy reading the takes of Bel, yourself, Vas, michaelsean and others.  Bfine and I used to be at each others throats but that hasn't been the case for years.

I decided I wasn't going to let three (mainly two) people keep me from interacting with people I've "known" for over a decade.  That doesn't mean I'll suffer their insults in silence though, which is the main difference between me and the people who just stop posting or severely curtail how often they post.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2020, 12:38 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Generalizations are bad, and at the same time when he was first elected multiple board members called any criticism of his actions a mental illness. 

Again, it is going both ways with that regard.

I was more aligned with libertarians during the Obama administration and criticized his foreign policy constantly here. I only registered Democrat for the first time after the 2016 election because I thought Donald Trump being elected president was the most ridiculous thing to ever occur in modern politics. I've experienced things being on different sides (it's not binary). 

Things are definitely different in the Trump era with everyone. I looked back at some of the first threads from this board and it was actually pretty mixed. 

Now most threads are a discussion of Trump's latest blunder or outlandish action (and at some point we have to be honest about the fact that this is a pretty uniquely concerning presidency). 

There's obviously more liberal leaning people here and it's also tough when conservatives have to defend Trump and not someone like Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan. One of the loudest conservative voices was banned for constantly breaking the rules by refusing to not use slurs against minority groups nonstop. It feels like conservatives have had to take a more aggressive stance on defending Trump since most of the threads turn to Trump and his actions. Then again, if a thread appears to be too negative, ignoring it will eventually cause it to die. The back and forth is what keeps them going. 

I think so long as everyone commits to ignore the straight up trolling, things will be fine. 

This is a well stated post.  As far as Lucie, it's really not fair to use him as an example of anything.  He's been GoldenArm9, TommyC and then St. Lucie and he was a nutball in every instance.  He's the type of outlier who should not be associated with any group out of simple fairness.

[GMDino]

I've made efforts in the past to "not respond".  Then I fail.  I'm human.

I keep trying though.

But I do not call "names".  Maybe years ago I'd be more more derisive if someone wanted to show their "personality" on line and I'd give them a nickname.  I called bfine "larry" for awhile because "fine" always made me think of the 3 Stooges. Still does but I stopped that a long time ago. But you'd be hard pressed to find me even saying "Bungles" or "Ratbirds" or any other such name on the rest of the board. (I did have a penchant for "Flaccoverde" but he reminded me of him too much to stop that.  And I *might* have referred to Ray Lewis as Stabby McMurderer (or a variation) in Smack Talk.  Maybe.   

And I've been here since 2005.

Back then it was common to quotes in signatures to poke fun at other posters posts or see a lot of cross posting from thread to thread. Most of that has stopped now too.

I know the ones who don't "like" me and I know why.  It has less to do with "trolling" and "name calling" than the internet perceptions they have.  I don't really care about that.  I'm here to post stories and exchange ideas and learn.  Sometimes I step on a toe.  Sometimes I am wrong.  Sometimes people get ticked off and resort to base insults and nose-in-the-air-I'm-smarter-than-you responses rather than deal with the issue.  If others can't get past one or two posters and thus go away then that is on them. If people take what happens on a free, internet message board that is s subsection of a NFL team message board ran by fans they might want to rethink how they interact with people on line and why.

I see I'm in the minority suggesting the weekend cool offs were a good idea.  That works too.  Like I said, news is happening fast these days.  

Seems a shame to miss people's views on it.

Have a good rest of the weekend everyone.

[Dill]

(06-27-2020, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree with you, Dill is not a major offender.  Some of his buddies are and I'm largely calling out his hypocrisy for refusing to even see that in them.  There are a very large number of people who either stopped posting entirely or post very little because of the barrage of condescension and smarmy attacks directed at them by two of the major posters on this board.  I stopped myself for a while as I was simply growing tired of ti and things have been stressful enough for me of late with a death in the family, buying a house and all of the current unrest.  But I've been posting in this subforum longer than both of those posters and I honestly enjoy reading the takes of Bel, yourself, Vas, michaelsean and others.  Bfine and I used to be at each others throats but that hasn't been the case for years.

I decided I wasn't going to let three (mainly two) people keep me from interacting with people I've "known" for over a decade.  That doesn't mean I'll suffer their insults in silence though, which is the main difference between me and the people who just stop posting or severely curtail how often they post.

I think there are two primary reasons why people stop posting.

1) the mods instituted the "no personal attack" rule. Over time that cleared the board of four or five, maybe more, posters. Others who relied primarily on that mode stopped posting.

2) The other is Trump was elected. His behavior boxes his supporters into absurd corners.  Defending Paul Ryan's stance on tax cuts doesn't leave one stained as does defending a guy who mocks a woman who claims she has been sexually assaulted or fires IGs who investigate him. Difficult to explain why that is bad behavior without appearing condescending. Trump supporters may FEEL attacked just by the sheer volume of threads responding to the latest Trump atrocity. And they may confuse cause with effect, blaming the threads' authors. Trump's behavior also creates "defenders"--people who don't necessarily support Trump, but who don't want Dems benefiting from Trump excesses. That drives them to look for "hypocrisy" and other personal flaws in Trump opponents. 

I don't think "smarmy posts" and "condescension" are big problems driving people away. Outright personal insults is still the main reason threads degenerate and get shut down. They drive people away from such threads. They're a lot easier to see than "condescension." And that could account for my "hypocrisy" with regards to Dino. If someone demanded I produce an example of a Dino personal attack, much less a series of them bold and frequent enough to drive someone from the list, I could not.  I wonder if anyone else could.

I can produce instances of "condescension" as referred to in 2 above. That is, people boxed in by the persons or principles they have chosen to defend. But that is a structural problem inherent to such positions. Until the list is turned into a "safe space" for posting only good things about candidates, I don't see that changing.