Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

[asaratis]

you made in a lame attempt at trying to restrict OP-EDs.

nope. wrong.

next

Exactly! As I read it, you asked if Op-Ed threads should be held to the same standards as are almost all other threads in that they possibly could end up in the Rubber Room or the Flame Zone. I voted Yes. Trash is trash is trash. If an Op-Ed thread gets trashed by morons somewhere along the line, it should be moved to The Rubber Room. If it gets trashed by flamers, it should be moved to the Flame Zone.

There is certainly nothing special about an Op-Ed thread.

 

[asaratis]

you made in a lame attempt at trying to restrict OP-EDs.

nope. wrong.

next

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material? ~YOU

Uhm... Yes, you did!

Uhmmm...No, he didn't! The OP of the Op-Ed is not restricted in any way, shape or form. It is the behavior of the posters following that determines whether a thread should be moved or left to as a blemish on the Op-Ed page.

 

[asaratis]

Moving it to another forum is not censoring or restricting free speech; in fact, it is expanding it. You have a problem with your vocabulary, apparently.

I'm sorry but according to the format and forum rules... YES ... it would be a restriction!

No it wouldn't.

Yes... restricting OP-ED threads to a particular board IS a "restriction" by definition.

It's already restricted to the OP-ED section, you doo doo head.

I see OP-EDs on every forum. They are not restricted. Shouldn't be restricted. Not gunna be restricted. doo-doo head.

Many a thread started in Politics has been moved to RR or FZ

 

[Boss]

I'm sorry but according to the format and forum rules... YES ... it would be a restriction!

No it wouldn't.

Yes... restricting OP-ED threads to a particular board IS a "restriction" by definition.

It's already restricted to the OP-ED section, you doo doo head.

I see OP-EDs on every forum. They are not restricted. Shouldn't be restricted. Not gunna be restricted. doo-doo head.

Many a thread started in Politics has been moved to RR or FZ

I've had some of my threads moved, that is not what he is asking. We already have forum rules and they are applied. And no, threads aren't moved because a bunch of morons show up and start a flame war. If the OP is deemed inflammatory or inciting flames, it will be moved. As I said, I have had my threads moved before and I understand this.

The OP poll is seeking to know if you support all OP-EDs being put in the RR or FZ on general principle. Just for us to automatically assume they are material suitable for those forums is patently unfair and restricts the ability for posters to present their opinions without having to endure flames and obnoxiousness.

Back to the point of the rules. People shouldn't be allowed to come in and ruin a thread. If I post an OP-ED piece on... say, Abortion, for example... Next thing you know, there are a couple of morons in my thread flaming and being obnoxious... should my thread be moved to the Flame Zone because of their behavior? I don't think so... I think the mods need to do their jobs and ban those people for a few days and remove the offensive posts. By the same token, if I post an OP-ED entitled "Liberals are Idiots!" then it probably needs to go to the FZ because that's the premise of the thread OP.

 

[Boss]

It is the behavior of the posters following that determines whether a thread should be moved or left to as a blemish on the Op-Ed page.

See... I disagree with this. Why should your thread be moved because people don't know how to obey the forum rules? If I post a subject in a way that is inflammatory or offensive in presentation... FINE... that's appropriate to move it. The OP is a flame. But I have no control over what people do in my thread. If I honestly make the effort to write an objective OP and a bunch of morons come in and start flaming left and right... those people need to be banned. My thread doesn't need to be punished.. it didn't do anything wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

Then what are you crying about, poopy face?

Why the fuck are liberals constantly thinking that I am crying, whining, melting down or upset because I fucking COMMENT on their posts?

Believe me... I do not cry or get upset over anything Liberals do or say. My comments are in response to other comments. Do you people honestly believe you're the only ones who get to fucking SPEAK anymore??? ...Seems like it!

You cry as much as Boehner

 

[DarkFury]

The PURPOSE of an OP-ED is to be critical even one sided. The ability to be critical IS your freedom of speech. OP-EDs are meant to inflame and produce thought and yes argument.

OP-EDs are an entirely different set of rules by our own press. I THINK what CK did here was to try and invoke more thought and more interaction on the board.

And IF you look at ALL the OP-ED folks you will find opines differ there. The OP is proving to be a fine Conservative OP-ED and site liberals are upset the more liberal OP-EDs are simply NOT up to the mark.

This is not the fault of the OP-ED section but quite simply put. It's liberal content and message okay? Its NOT selling. The FZ is for personal attacks.

But NOT when you have the power of OP-ED in your holster.
THAT is the greatest level of free speech. Speaking to the mass UN-encumberd.

 

[oldfart]

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

Actually I really don't care. This is basically a political flame board in practice, which has a couple of "lounge areas" for the cool kids to hang out in. And that's fine. You created a CDZ for civil debate with limited success. It still has a pretty high snark level, most threads are obvious troll invitations, and it doesn't get much activity. I'm not sure what the point is in repeating the experiment and expecting different results.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It is the behavior of the posters following that determines whether a thread should be moved or left to as a blemish on the Op-Ed page.

See... I disagree with this. Why should your thread be moved because people don't know how to obey the forum rules? If I post a subject in a way that is inflammatory or offensive in presentation... FINE... that's appropriate to move it. The OP is a flame. But I have no control over what people do in my thread. If I honestly make the effort to write an objective OP and a bunch of morons come in and start flaming left and right... those people need to be banned. My thread doesn't need to be punished.. it didn't do anything wrong.

And here's Boss wanting censorship of his threads, by wanting to ban those who disagree.

We already have forum rules and they are applied.

 

[Boss]

It is the behavior of the posters following that determines whether a thread should be moved or left to as a blemish on the Op-Ed page.

See... I disagree with this. Why should your thread be moved because people don't know how to obey the forum rules? If I post a subject in a way that is inflammatory or offensive in presentation... FINE... that's appropriate to move it. The OP is a flame. But I have no control over what people do in my thread. If I honestly make the effort to write an objective OP and a bunch of morons come in and start flaming left and right... those people need to be banned. My thread doesn't need to be punished.. it didn't do anything wrong.

And here's Boss wanting censorship of his threads, by wanting to ban those who disagree.

We already have forum rules and they are applied.

No, Carla, that's NOT what I said. Disagreeing is NOT flaming. I don't have a problem with disagreeing, or even a little flaming mixed in with disagreement. But when certain people know they can ruin a thread and have it kicked into the FZ by intentionally flaming it, then this place just becomes a circus.

And I am the one who made the point that we have forum rules and they are applied.

 

[Moonglow]

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

Many should be, as they tend to troll more than espouse an idea...

 

[OldLady]

I'm reading all this with interest. I'm pretty new to USMB and it's my first/only social media experience. So when I'm voicing my opinion on Affirmative Action and get invited to go suck a big black dick, is that appropriate or no?

 

[Carla_Danger]

It is the behavior of the posters following that determines whether a thread should be moved or left to as a blemish on the Op-Ed page.

See... I disagree with this. Why should your thread be moved because people don't know how to obey the forum rules? If I post a subject in a way that is inflammatory or offensive in presentation... FINE... that's appropriate to move it. The OP is a flame. But I have no control over what people do in my thread. If I honestly make the effort to write an objective OP and a bunch of morons come in and start flaming left and right... those people need to be banned. My thread doesn't need to be punished.. it didn't do anything wrong.

And here's Boss wanting censorship of his threads, by wanting to ban those who disagree.

We already have forum rules and they are applied.

No, Carla, that's NOT what I said. Disagreeing is NOT flaming. I don't have a problem with disagreeing, or even a little flaming mixed in with disagreement. But when certain people know they can ruin a thread and have it kicked into the FZ by intentionally flaming it, then this place just becomes a circus.

And I am the one who made the point that we have forum rules and they are applied.

You don't get to decide who gets banned, when they get banned, or for how long.

I'm sure your idea of who is doing the trolling/flaming, is pretty one sided.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'm reading all this with interest. I'm pretty new to USMB and it's my first/only social media experience. So when I'm voicing my opinion on Affirmative Action and get invited to go suck a big black dick, is that appropriate or no?

Welcome to USMB.

 

[rdean]

As long as it's factual and people can prove what they say, then there is no reason to go either flame or rubber.

Something like this is so radical to normal Americans, even many Republicans don't believe it's true based on the fact that USMB GOP flat out called it lies:

Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee engaging in question-and-answer sessions with extremist pastor Kevin Swanson, who then went on to say that he would smear cow dung over his body to protest a gay couple’s wedding and urged the government to execute gays in the future if they don’t repent. - See more at: Maddow Calls Out GOPers For 'Kill-The-Gays Rally' Appearance

Unfortunately it's true. I've found that bringing up stories like this for discussion can get your thread moved.

Remember BP and that horrible oil spill?

Rep. Joe Barton’s now-(in)famous apology to BP, then retraction, then un-retraction, has certainly brought increased scrutiny on the party’s sympathy for BP. The crowd that still supports BP and decries the escrow account set up to pay claims to spill victims as some sort of government “shakedown” have taken criticism from friendly parties.
“They see the aggrieved party here as BP, not the fishermen. Remember, this is not just one person. Rand Paul running for Senate in Kentucky. What did he say? He said, the way BP was being treated was un-American. Other members of the Republican leadership have come to the defense of BP and attacked the administration for forcing them to set up an escrow account and fund it to the level of $20 billion. These aren’t political gaffes,” Emanuel continued.

“I think what Joe Barton did is remind the American people, in case they forgot, this is how Republicans would govern,” he said.

Despite rock-bottom public opinion, Republicans still championing BP

The USMB GOP howled when I posted these stories of Republicans apologizing and protecting BP after that disaster. They never even mentioned the eleven that died. USMB GOP called these stories lies for weeks. And attacked me incessantly (which was fine. I think they are funi).

Republicans can't take the truth about their party, which is probably the greatest reason Trump is the front runner.

 

[Boss]

You don't get to decide who gets banned, when they get banned, or for how long.

I'm sure your idea of who is doing the trolling/flaming, is pretty one sided.

Seems to me pretty easy to understand the forum rules:

USMB Rules and Guidelines | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

• "Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

• "Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum / Environment Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

• "Zone 3": Main Forums: Normal Site Wide Rules apply. This includes Reputation Comments, and Publicly Viewed Social Groups (Though Lightly Moderated).

• "Zone 4": Flame Zone/Badlands/Rubber Room: The least moderated forum on the site. Not viewed by non members. Site wide rules still apply, but are more loosely enforced. Extreme flaming threads and posts belong here. If the OP (Opening Post) of Your Thread is focused on Mocking or Ridicule, It belongs here.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You don't get to decide who gets banned, when they get banned, or for how long.

I'm sure your idea of who is doing the trolling/flaming, is pretty one sided.

Seems to me pretty easy to understand the forum rules:

USMB Rules and Guidelines | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

• "Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

• "Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum / Environment Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

• "Zone 3": Main Forums: Normal Site Wide Rules apply. This includes Reputation Comments, and Publicly Viewed Social Groups (Though Lightly Moderated).

• "Zone 4": Flame Zone/Badlands/Rubber Room: The least moderated forum on the site. Not viewed by non members. Site wide rules still apply, but are more loosely enforced. Extreme flaming threads and posts belong here. If the OP (Opening Post) of Your Thread is focused on Mocking or Ridicule, It belongs here.

You've done nothing but contradict yourself since you got here.

I don't need you to post the rules for me. I'm already aware. This thread isn't about censorship, you're just a drama queen.

Why are Liberals always proposing we censor, ban or restrict free speech?

No one is doing any such thing.

Yes... restricting OP-ED threads to a particular board IS a "restriction" by definition.

Again, no one is suggesting that.

 

[Boss]

You've done nothing but contradict yourself since you got here.

No... You are twisting around my comments to make them into contradictions because you're stupid but like to troll. My understanding of the OP is whether Zone 4 rules should automatically be applied to OP-EDs or the new OP-ED forum... (that's not clarified.)

And yes, whenever you state that ALL OP-EDs should be considered FZ material, that is restricting ALL OP-EDs on the basis of them simply being an OP-ED. I don't agree with that. I've expressed why I don't agree. Nothing more.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You've done nothing but contradict yourself since you got here.

No... You are twisting around my comments to make them into contradictions because you're stupid but like to troll. My understanding of the OP is whether Zone 4 rules should automatically be applied to OP-EDs or the new OP-ED forum... (that's not clarified.)

And yes, whenever you state that ALL OP-EDs should be considered FZ material, that is restricting ALL OP-EDs on the basis of them simply being an OP-ED. I don't agree with that. I've expressed why I don't agree. Nothing more.

Troll, no one has stated that all OP-ED's should be considered FZ material. No one!

You're arguing with yourself. It's pretty easy to win an argument when you make one up. lol

 

[Boss]

You've done nothing but contradict yourself since you got here.

No... You are twisting around my comments to make them into contradictions because you're stupid but like to troll. My understanding of the OP is whether Zone 4 rules should automatically be applied to OP-EDs or the new OP-ED forum... (that's not clarified.)

And yes, whenever you state that ALL OP-EDs should be considered FZ material, that is restricting ALL OP-EDs on the basis of them simply being an OP-ED. I don't agree with that. I've expressed why I don't agree. Nothing more.

Troll, no one has stated that all OP-ED's should be considered FZ material. No one!

You're arguing with yourself. It's pretty easy to win an argument when you make one up. lol

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?