Should the mods/admins enforce Zone 2 Rules in the Politics Forum?

[Derideo_Te]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...f-child-pornography-next-on-lefts-agenda.html

This is what makes this a racist forum! Not the topic...but threads derived from articles from The Daily Stormer? Then teaper participants in that thread attacking a liberal and calling her a racist for pointing it out.

And its front and center in the Politics forum! I bet you McGarrett is recruiting racists to join his cause, using USMB as his vehicle. Just the white nationalist use Tea Party events to recruit.

That entire thread violates the USMB Rule about calling someone a pedophile in my opinion.

Does it get a pass because it is calling everyone on the left a pedophile instead of just an individual?

I would like to know from the mods as to whether they believe that thread passes or fails the USMB Rule against accusing anyone of being a pedophile.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, lazy, I see. So you create a derogatory term and apply it to a group of people. Just like the n-word huh?

How is a made up word derogatory? Again Tea Partier - Teaper

Would it make you happy if I spelled it like this:

TeaPer?

What nonsense. Then again, I remember a Teaper lecturing me about the N word...saying it is just a word - get over it.

It's another one of those stupid, partisan slang words used by weak debaters to insult and anger those of opposing political affiliations. Call a Tea Partier a Tea Partier, and a Liberal a Liberal, and on. I wouldn't advise the BS'ing of whining about names and personal insults, while using political insults and derogatory slang. It's hypocritical, and hurts your cause.

The purpose of insults are to inflame the emotions of the person(s) being insulted.

They add nothing of value to the debate.

If you are insulted take the high road and don't allow your emotions to be inflamed by someone who is beneath you.

If you insult someone because you cannot make a convincing argument to support your point then you don't deserve to participate and should be removed from the thread.

That is my 2 cents worth on insults.

 

[Toro]

No.

The great thing about this board is its free-wheeling nature. I think the new regime has tightened it up too much over the past few years, but I still haven't found one with as big of a membership that is as laissez-faire and hasn't descended into the Lord of the Flies as this one.

There are lots of anal boards on the Internet. I'd suggest people go find one if you can't handle USMB.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It's another one of those stupid, partisan slang words used by weak debaters to insult and anger those of opposing political affiliations. Call a Tea Partier a Tea Partier, and a Liberal a Liberal, and on. I wouldn't advise the BS'ing of whining about names and personal insults, while using political insults and derogatory slang. It's hypocritical, and hurts your cause.

I will continue to use the word Teaper. It is my word, it is not deragotory, it is not partisan. My political ideology is close to Teaperism...I would support teapers if it weren't a movement motivated by hate. I would support Teapers if they stood up to the racists that dominate their bully pulpit. So I will continue to use the term Teaper and any derivative thereof.

Ahh so as I said, the left should get a pass on THEIR attacks, their insults and their arrogance. Teaper is derogatory yet you plan to continue to use it. If the board decides to silence the Political forum and you are allowed to continue to use that term then we have a HUGE problem.

No, neither side gets a pass!

Both sides have to clean up their act if this is going to work.

If there is a problem with the use of a term then let's have a civil debate about what is and isn't acceptable.

Personally I don't believe that every member of the Tea Party is a racist because that is just downright ridiculous. But equally so they have members that have used racist signs and pictures and made racist posts. So in the interests of being respectful I use the abbreviation TP'er and avoid any references to racism. No one has ever objected to that abbreviation to date. Do any of the Tea Party members have an objection to the use of TP'er? I see it as being similar to GOP'er.

 

[Statistikhengst]

There is this discussion in the Politics forum;

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/366180-does-any-real-discussion-happen-on-usmb-or-just-insults-namecalling-and-lies.html

From what I can gather there is a bipartisan interest in cleaning it up by having the mods/admins enforce the Zone 2 Rules to eliminate the useless flaming and trolling.

So the intent of this poll is to find out who is interested in having a Political forum where flaming is not allowed?

The mods and admins can weigh in with their opinions since this impacts them too.

Please note that if you vote for cleaning it up you will be expected to clean up your own act too.

Thank you for your participation.
DT

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] - because of lots of extra stuff going on, I have not read the thread in it's entirety yet, so I may accidentally repeat what others have already said, but my 2 cents, in the Reader's Digest version.

1.) I cherish free-speech, even when it gets ugly.

2.) People should have enough common sense to argue the topic and not attack the person with whom they disagree. But some people are just plain old stupid, and forgive me, but that is something that rules cannot fix.

3.) Too many limits forces the mods to work overtime, and I don't think they deserve it.

Insults in general, aimed at an entire group, also aimed at known figures, should definitely be allowed.

Although I find it really douchebaggy and stupid and unbecoming of a person to call our President or one of our Senators, for instance, an "asshole" - I do believe that that person has the right to do it. Besides, I can always ignore the posting, put the poster on ignore, or if he is a big enough douchebag, I could always neg him.

Personal insults is another story entirely, and I think that CK has been very, very clear about this. In the politics forum, it is indeed allowed to insult another member so long as part of your posting is still relevant to the OP itself. I am talking about insults that are not including in the small USMB list of "forbiddens", i.e. accusing a member of pedophelia, bestiality or attack that member's family.

I am not sure that putting tighter restrictions on debate format in the politics forum is going to elevate debate.

Better to leave it the way it is and report things egregious.


Those were my two cents.

-Stat

 

[Statistikhengst]

No flaming in a political forum? lol. Good luck with that. Politics, religion, abortion...the 3 MAIN volatile subjects with very strong opinions.

If folks could address the post and not the poster...that would be good but it rarely EVER happens.

Right, Gracie.


It's a matter of self-disclipline, and no amount of rules can fix "the stupid".

What most people may not realize is that in the moment they stoop to insult the messenger instead of attacking the ideas within the message, they cheapen their own argument, and sometimes they even completely undo their argument.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Maybe we could have a separate CDZ Politics forum. Kind of like the Political Satire forum.
To be honest I think if we were to try and enforce the Zone 2 rules it would be a sea of pink. But a CDZ forum could work. We could ban the troublemakers from that forum entirely.

Which brings me to an idea that I once brought to [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION] and I want to broach it again:

There are forums where Thread Bans are used - which means that a troublemaker gets pinked from a thread -or a sub-forum -but not from the forum as a whole. Usually, there is a kind of "three strikes, you are out, policy" - get banned from three threads within a certain time frame, then you get automatically permabanned from the entire forum.

At the top of the thread is a list like: "Members banned from this thread: "

I mean, even the slowest of members here should be able to count to 3 and make some course corrections before they reach 3, right??

 

[Statistikhengst]

Go with the pink...adding a forum will fix nothing. If pinkies don't learn...then they will forever be pink and the forum is improved.

Forums rely on traffic.

I've seen a forum try to do that on a gaming/TCG forum back in 2005, but it failed. The perpetual troublemakers and louts came back under various accounts, and a lot of those classless people reacted angrily to their trolling getting them banned.

The trolling is a problem. I can't have a quality discussion without two or more partisans/trolls wrecking the thread. A secondary forum like the one WestWall mentioned would be a step in the right direction, and I would frequent that part quite a bit.

I agree; hyper-partisan trolls do ruin good threads. I can't stand it when they waltz right into a pyrfyctly good, reasonable discussion and begin spewing their hatred everywhere. It's an abomination to the high level of intellectual discourse some of us are capable of.

That said, what would be posted in the Politics CDZ that can't be posted in the CDZ we have already?

Very valid point. There is no reason to open a new sub-forum, just take important political topics to the CDZ.

I tried the CDZ a couple of times, but was insulted within 3 minutes of starting my first thread. That member got pinked, btw....

If people were to put really hot, juicy, steaming subjects in the CDZ, I would be game to go there more often....

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think flaming should only be in the FZ. If you want to attack a person's position in politics or their post, so be it. If you want to have a heated political debate fine. There is no need for name calling, flaming, and trolling. Mainly because it drives people away and diminishes quality conversations. Like I said in that link, I used to post in politics frequently until I got sick of the same trolls derailing every conversation with insults and hyper-partisan rhetoric. It's fine if people's minds are made up, but then you have to realize that and debate to discuss the issue rather than to prove who is right. The best debaters are those willing to listen to logical, rational, fact-based arguments with an open mind. So much of what is posted, is not fact-based, but bias politically so it is tough to weed through it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No-picture zones would cut a great deal of the trolling. 90% of the graphics posted are flamebaiting and trash that contributes nothing to discussions. Picture-spamming is the favored tactic used by the mouthbreathers to derail threads.

Yes and no.

Sometimes, an informational graphic, say, for instance, a statistics graphic, is the best way to get a point across the most quickly. It would be a shame to ban this option.

Nope - free speech is still the better way. Even when from some, it is unbelievably offensive.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I have seen the ban racist a lot on here is that going to apply to all racist or just the liberal idea of racism which seems to be white conservatives saying anything about any non white? Would the ban include religious racism meaning those who unfairly trash and insult people of faith? What about people who launch racist attacks against black and Hispanic conservatives? This might fall under sexism instead of racism but what about people who launch hateful attacks on conservative women? Before you walk down the road of banning people for perceived racism remember your idea of free speech may very well be someone else's idea of racism.

Or, if not racism, some form of gross intolerance.

Point well made, [MENTION=36422]blackhawk[/MENTION]. Impressive.

 

[Statistikhengst]

That's why I avoid that specific forum in every message board I go to.

I love it! That stuff is my Disneyland!

If someone wants to have a sincere, respectful conversation, I'll reciprocate.

But if they want to play the asshole game, I can take solace in the fact that I'm probably a bigger dick than they are. Even with that being said, it still takes quite a few abusive posts from someone, before I retaliate. Because I'm thinking, at that point, they earned it.

But still, I'd rather debate an issue, than get into this vitriolic serve and volley.

I find your honesty about yourself to be quite refreshing. Bravo.



That being said, perhaps you would like to define for the class as a whole what exactly constitutes a "dick" and then, a "bigger dick".

Thank you, and thank you for shopping at Walmart.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Mom! Mom! He's touching me.

Mom, he called me a poopyhead.

Mom he took my cookie!

Grow up, just grow up.

When my kids were younger and would start bickering in the back seat, I'd tell them to zip it and each look out their own window. I wasn't about to start threatening to pull the car over every time, because that would just be a pain in my ass.

But something tells me you got the "deathray coming out of my eyes" routine down pretty pat...




[MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION]

 

[Statistikhengst]

I don't care what color they are...when they talk shit like that I laugh and roll my eyes.

Bet your eyes have been hurting alot lately!

 

[Statistikhengst]

No.

The great thing about this board is its free-wheeling nature. I think the new regime has tightened it up too much over the past few years, but I still haven't found one with as big of a membership that is as laissez-faire and hasn't descended into the Lord of the Flies as this one.

There are lots of anal boards on the Internet. I'd suggest people go find one if you can't handle USMB.

"regime"???


Whutt?!?!?

 

[Picaro]

Thanks for inviting me.

It's hard to find a discussion in those sections that aren't filled with trolling, calling people names, "****s," "faggots," etc. I go to the CDZ for good discussion, but that doesn't get much traffic.

Yes. It probably doesn't get much traffic because there aren't many people left who can have adult discussions, so naturally it would be slow.

It's not only the politics forums; the History forum isn't much better regarding flames and dumbass conspiracy theories, etc.

 

[Picaro]

I'll note that many people don't seem to be able to distinguish between having discussions and having 'debates'; they are two different things.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have already seen in this thread where liberals have tried to claim they are opposed to flaming while demanding they get to keep flaming their own way. And several of the worst Liberal flamers have said they support the idea of no flames as if they are innocent of the practice.

The biggest problem I see with this idea is who gets to decide what is a flame. If I am not mistaken the lefties will be demanding every post by the right is a flame while claiming every post by them is simply a reasonable response post. We have already had one poster after being informed his terms are offensive INSIST they are not and state he will NOT stop using them. Can you guess what his political affiliation is?

 

[Statistikhengst]

We have already seen in this thread where liberals have tried to claim they are opposed to flaming while demanding they get to keep flaming their own way. And several of the worst Liberal flamers have said they support the idea of no flames as if they are innocent of the practice.

The biggest problem I see with this idea is who gets to decide what is a flame. If I am not mistaken the lefties will be demanding every post by the right is a flame while claiming every post by them is simply a reasonable response post. We have already had one poster after being informed his terms are offensive INSIST they are not and state he will NOT stop using them. Can you guess what his political affiliation is?

That was some sweet bullshit, there, pardner....


I don't think you want me to go through a count and do a statistical analysis of blank, brazen, hateful insults from the Right vs. those from the Left, cuz were I do do that, then you would be eating a helluva lot of humble pie. Just a cursory look at any one hot thread will bring AT LEAST 4 times more insults from a certain cadre of Righties than all the Lefties in USMB combined. I see it ALL THE TIME, and ALL OVER THE PLACE in every zone except the protected zones.

So, stop writing about this as if it's all the Left's fault that flaming happens, cuz that is just utter bullshit. Yes, there are indeed some Lefties who flame, but they pale in comparision to a certain cadre of Righties who appear to literally live to do only that: to flame.

 

[Wolfsister77]

We have already seen in this thread where liberals have tried to claim they are opposed to flaming while demanding they get to keep flaming their own way. And several of the worst Liberal flamers have said they support the idea of no flames as if they are innocent of the practice.

The biggest problem I see with this idea is who gets to decide what is a flame. If I am not mistaken the lefties will be demanding every post by the right is a flame while claiming every post by them is simply a reasonable response post. We have already had one poster after being informed his terms are offensive INSIST they are not and state he will NOT stop using them. Can you guess what his political affiliation is?

You just demonstrated one of the biggest problems here. We are trying to discuss a solution to a problem that both sides are doing and you only want to see it as a Liberal problem. Partisan, biased thinking. I've seen plenty of it on the Right also. But you don't because that's just the way it is here. Many just want to be partisan hacks.