Zone1 Aren't ALL posts/threads "bait"?

[Dogmaphobe]

Flac is a big believer in censorship, thread moves, authority, safe zones, and thread closures. When you call out to him, you are calling out for a certain kind of support. BTW, it was flac who confirmed that thread moving is censorship.

There is a HUGE disconnect between flac's politics when discussed as an abstract and his personal behavior.

His politics claim libertarianism, but his actual behavior screams "might makes right" authoritarianism. If he IS libertarian at all, it lies in that more extreme nietzchean interpretation that stresses the will to power above all else.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

There is a HUGE disconnect between flac's politics when discussed as an abstract and his personal behavior.

His politics claim libertarianism, but his actual behavior screams "might makes right" authoritarianism. If he IS libertarian at all, it lies in that more extreme nietzchean interpretation that stresses the will to power above all else.

Libertarian on this site is comical

 

[flacaltenn]

So, why would a post get closed down as "bait" if it had no responses yet? Or that it did have civil discussion?

Is it the poster that is doing the "naughty language" getting shut down, not the article?

What if the article itself has the language in it?

Hey Toffeenut - Why you asking questions I already answered here in the note I posted when I closed your thread?

Zone1 - Calling out Black Supremecy

Uh huh. You know better by the time youre 3 years old. If you don't, then theres something mentally wrong with you or you've got extremely worthless parents!!! Props to those two women going about their own business like nothing is going on.....one of them trying to order a sandwich...

www.usmessageboard.com

Anecdotal current events are NOT Race discussions. Especially under Zone1 rules.

And NO -- this is not censorship -- it's librarian work. You are welcome to RE-post in Current Events, because this is news SOMEWHERE. Wherever there are grocery stores called WaWa.

*************************************************

THAT - was even the policy BEFORE the Race Forum went to Zone 1 . We NEVER allowed "stupid, lazy, violent -- White or Black -- videos showing a specific criminal or crazy action to BE race discussions -- BECAUSE they are the epitome of "generalizing/stereotyping" entire races for the ACTIONS of a few. And as such -- an EXCUSE to race bait. LITERALLY.

As I explained, tho these hot vids cant promote ANY meaningful race discussion -- they've ALWAYS -- with minor exceptions for "graphic content" -- BEEN allowed in Current Events since they generally ARE "news somewhere" in the country.

And YES -- we've done same to "stupid white, yellow, brown people' videos. There is a similar policy about not allowing "hot -- in the news or partisan" topics in Zone1 Clean DebateZone.

We HAVE Zone1 forums for folks who put in the extra effort to CREATE discussions and abide by the rules. We cannot MODERATE the topics that we exclude from them because we KNOW the dishonesty and sparring and combat will creep in -- GUARANTEED. Because what we exclude is
is dishonest and baiting politics or "race baiting". We only have 5 Zone1 forums. Its about all we can handle with a volunteer staff with no set schedule or shifts.

And let's face it -- the MAJORITY of members are here to rent other other members as punching bags. Many have ADMITTED that. So -- if you cant abide by civil discussion -- use the OTHER 33 or so forums.

 

[flacaltenn]

I know it's useless but here it goes:

I started this thread in the CDZ:

Zone1 - Declassification List?

Because if there is no list, anyone can walk out of any government building with our State secrets and simply tell whomever investigates later..."Oh, it was declassified." If there is no list of such declassification....there wouldn't be a way to prosecute anyone who does such a thing.

www.usmessageboard.com

I started it there to avoid the food fights that always follow political discussion. The name of the forum is the Clean Debate Zone. It infers that debates are expected and that they will be kept clean.

The opening two pins in the forum---one written by YOU--do not mention politics at all.

So I was surprised that this is an issue.

But...

It was locked by this post:

View attachment 702245

Okay...so no "hot political threads" in the CDZ. Great.

Here is an active thread in the CDZ:

Zone1 - Texas Republicans Release Of Deaths Caused By Abortion Ban Until After The Elections

Texas’s ban on abortions after six weeks has been in effect for about a year now, since the U.S. Supreme Court decided, from the shadow docket, to let it happen. Since then, the Court has overturned federal abortion protections, and Texas’s near-total ban has been enacted. Now it appears that...

www.usmessageboard.com

Its about Abortion...pretty much the hottest political topic of all time.

Explain.

These formerly discouraged "hot political" topics started to creep into the Clean Debate forum about 10 days ago. We let a couple go to see what would happen and predictably -- they required EXTENSIVE moderation with warnings/thread bans and other actions to keep the political DISHONESTY, venom and low effort out of civil discussion. Your thread noted above was one of about 4 that got closed and ONE had to be totally trashed and sent to the recycle bin.

It was a kind of experiment to SEE the result. And it produced the bad result we've always expected.

And again -- it's BEEN policy in the CDebate Zone for years. And it probably will continue to be so -- unless the mod staff modifies it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Coaching here is euphemism for misplaced and corrupt authority

So you LOVE every thread that gets posted in Politics -- do ya? Like the dozen a day -- "Repubs or Dems Suck or Trump/Biden/Obama/Bush Reagan SUCKS threads? Claim you NEVER SEEN a baiting thread be put in Politics? Is that what you're implying?

It's BAD ENOUGH that this happens TOO OFTEN in Politics, Media, Current events. We NEED to make the measly 3 or 4 Zone 1 civil discussion forums IMMUNE to this low effort baiting. Because if we ALLOWED current hot political topics to post in Clean Debate -- every TROLL on the board would want to be there "for protection".

And you KNOW THAT !!!!!!!!!! And you'd LOVE to remove the OPTION for SOME members to HAVE civil discussion. And I KNOW THAT!!!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****SMILE*****

 

[EvMetro]

So you LOVE every thread that gets posted in Politics -- do ya? Like the dozen a day -- "Repubs or Dems Suck or Trump/Biden/Obama/Bush Reagan SUCKS threads? Claim you NEVER SEEN a baiting thread be put in Politics? Is that what you're implying?

It's BAD ENOUGH that this happens TOO OFTEN in Politics, Media, Current events. We NEED to make the measly 3 or 4 Zone 1 civil discussion forums IMMUNE to this low effort baiting. Because if we ALLOWED current hot political topics to post in Clean Debate -- every TROLL on the board would want to be there "for protection".

And you KNOW THAT !!!!!!!!!! And you'd LOVE to remove the OPTION for SOME members to HAVE civil discussion. And I KNOW THAT!!!

I don't even know what subforum threads are in when I'm browsing for some good bait, since my list of bait comes from using the "new posts" button.

My favorite threads are the ones that have not been censored. I don't enjoy the ones that have been politically censored by moving them to incorrect subforums. I don't enjoy threads where mods announce their presence with red letters. I like uncensored threads from my political opponents. Real political discourse.

Your post above is meant to justify censorship, and I suspect that censorship is already being considered. Censorship is the inevitable answer to a weaker hand. There is no good argument for politically motivated censorship, since it is just cheating and corruption. All that there is to support it is corruption and authority.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This thread ended about as what I thought it would. LoL,

Feedback is useless when you don't listen... but feel the need to respond in that goofy mod burnt orange crap. Fckn forum can't even get magenta right

Pure daffy

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I'm here to make sure some poster doesn't do a verbal attack on YOUR wife, and children in any forum on this board.
You want to call that censorship, yeah, it is.
I'm here to make sure nobody is threatening the life of any of our posters.
You want to call that censorship, yeah, it is.
I'm here to make sure someone from Pakistan isn't here to SPAM this board with drugs and porn
You want to call that censorship, yeah, it is.

But getting people to put their threads in the proper forum?
You want to call that censorship, NO it isn't.

You definitely have the right attitude for moderation. Good on ya. I'll try to be less of an asshole, but I'm not a miracle worker.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Moving powerful threads that you don't agree with into oblivion is vile censorship. It is cheating, it is corruption, and it is censorship.

Maybe your idea of 'powerful' literally sucks out loud.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't even know what subforum threads are in when I'm browsing for some good bait, since my list of bait comes from using the "new posts" button.

The only forums you need to pay attention to are the 5 or 6 Zone1 forums. For that reason, we recently marked ALL the TITLES with bright green Zone 1 marker. Hard to miss in the listings. Even hard to miss in thread since it's at the top of every page.

My favorite threads are the ones that have not been censored. I don't enjoy the ones that have been politically censored by moving them to incorrect subforums. I don't enjoy threads where mods announce their presence with red letters. I like uncensored threads from my political opponents. Real political discourse.

Moving them is not censorship. In fact, we often save threads by moving them rather than closing them. If a topic is long gone from a thread, but we see a good discussion going on about a related manner -- we move it to Taunting where there ARE NO topics and it can continue. Some of the best threads EVER on USMB are those we PROLONGED by moving them to "a lower forum".

Your post above is meant to justify censorship, and I suspect that censorship is already being considered. Censorship is the inevitable answer to a weaker hand. There is no good argument for politically motivated censorship, since it is just cheating and corruption. All that there is to support it is corruption and authority.

Everything I offered above concerns the Zone 1 forums and what's NOT gonna "work" in civil discussion. Has nothing to do with the topic or content. That topic or content is usually FINE in the proper forum. It's organizing and facilitating -- not censoring. You might need to EXPERIENCE some real censorship to "see" the diff. So -- go find a discussion where the moderators have a LOT MORE power than we have and it will become apparent.

You never really responded to my question about liking or believing that EVERY THREAD you see on USMB is an honest attempt to discuss or whether it's just trolling stinky bait behind the boat to capture prey.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't enjoy threads where mods announce their presence with red letters. I like uncensored threads from my political opponents. Real political discourse.

If you EVER SEE ANY honest and real "political discourse" at USMB --- PLEASE let us know. That would be out of place AND "a first". There isn't even "honest and real political discourse" to be seen in the media or Washington D.C.

The colored mod messages are to define when we are MODERATING and when we are participating in threads. We are members FIRST and volunteers second. It also helps US find where other mods have dropped messages into threads to ask people to "get back to topic" or lay off each other or any other info about WHY a thread was moderated.

The alternative to all that -- is lack of transparency and confusion about whether a post is a moderation request or a comment.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If you EVER SEE ANY honest and real "political discourse" at USMB --- PLEASE let us know. That would be out of place AND "a first". There isn't even "honest and real political discourse" to be seen in the media or Washington D.C.

The colored mod messages are to define when we are MODERATING and when we are participating in threads. We are members FIRST and volunteers second. It also helps US find where other mods have dropped messages into threads to ask people to "get back to topic" or lay off each other or any other info about WHY a thread was moderated.

The alternative to all that -- is lack of transparency and confusion about whether a post is a moderation request or a comment.

You should probably go to bed. You tried the comical Zone 1 and it's rejected.

That's feedback

 

[flacaltenn]

Moving threads is censorship. It suppresses the intent of the author and replaces it with the intent of the thread mover. If a member of your censorship team punishes an author by moving the thread to a subforum called rubber room. Flame room, or conspiracy, the views may be somewhat suppressed, and the censor has marginalized the thread according to his own bias. Thread moving is very dishonest censorship and is REALLY corrupt.

Moving them is usually because "the intent of the author" wasn't to promote discussion. As in the case of promoting A BRAWL that moderation is gonna have to CLEAN UP AFTER.

 

[Natural Citizen]

All we are is dust in the wind.

 

[EvMetro]

Moving them is not censorship. In fact, we often save threads by moving them rather than closing them.

Moving threads is censorship. Using authority to redefine content by relocating it to conspiracy is censorship. Requiring election fraud threads to be started in conspiracy theory suggests that the author believes it is conspiracy. Getting revenge on your opponents by moving threads to subforums that have juvenile or derogatory names is censorship. Even if you use bold red letters to say that this vile form of censorship isn't what it is, it will still be censorship. Even if you state that it is not censorship and then close the thread so you have the last word, it is still censorship.

 

[EvMetro]

Moving them is usually because "the intent of the author" wasn't to promote discussion.

Suppressing author's intent based upon your subjective view.

You are trying to justify censorship. People who use censorship will ALWAYS have a reason to use it or justify it.

As in the case of promoting A BRAWL that moderation is gonna have to CLEAN UP AFTER.

The notion that moderation is " gonna have to clean up after" is some arrogant stuff. "Clean up" is just another way of saying censorship. Nothing needs to be censored, just let what happened be. It is what really happened. When a brawl, which is natural and expected in political discussion, occurs, it does not have to be censored or cleaned.

 

[EvMetro]

The colored mod messages are to define when we are MODERATING and when we are participating in threads.

Lol, that ship already sailed a long time ago, don't even try it. The mods who have poisoned this community with politically motivated censorship are only participating in threads until the thread becomes inconvenient or they need a crutch. They comingle participation with censorship.

 

[flan327]

I looked up the definition of "bait thread"/"bait post". This is what I found.........

A bait thread is an online forum post or thread designed to provoke a reaction.

This is a chat website, where people post things to talk about, and yes, sometimes argue about.
So, aren't they ALL "bait threads"???? Why would someone post something on here and NOT expect a retorte or comment........bad, good, or indifferent?????

Doesn't make ANY sense what so ever, to shut down a post and deem it "closed because it's bait".

That's like a bar getting shut down due to the fact they serve alcohol!

No

In answer to your BS question

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Moving threads is censorship. Using authority to redefine content by relocating it to conspiracy is censorship. Requiring election fraud threads to be started in conspiracy theory suggests that the author believes it is conspiracy. Getting revenge on your opponents by moving threads to subforums that have juvenile or derogatory names is censorship. Even if you use bold red letters to say that this vile form of censorship isn't what it is, it will still be censorship. Even if you state that it is not censorship and then close the thread so you have the last word, it is still censorship.

Yep. He knows that, but he is not an honest man.

It's actually a form of censorship more insidious than if the posts were simply removed in that it establishes editorial control over content in such a way that certain ideas are de-legitimized while others are promoted as legitimate. In this case, the ACTUAL conspiracies -- Russia collusion -- were treated as real, while the questioning of election results that defied mathematical analysis were ridiculed by calling it conspiracy.

One can only assume that the Orwellian nature of this underhandedness is quite intentional.