Zone1 Top down control or individual liberty?

[flacaltenn]

But why not just use the ignore feature on an individual basis? That way, those who do not want to see the conflicts will be sheltered via a personally defined censorship of other members.

Because that gives EVERYBODY license to brawl instead of discuss. Whether some people SEE IT or not -- WE have to treat it the same. We either allow the flaming personal conflicts or we dont. Because ITS THERE. And nobody is required to DISCUSS topics and other members if we DONT MAKE THE RULE "civil discussion" for Zone 1.

We're a discussion focused on "TOPIC CONTROL" not "CONTENT CONTROL". So in Zone 2 -- you got TOPICAL CONTENT in your posts? No Prob. But in Zone1 there can be MASSIVE conflict on relevant topical issues -- just not member on member violence.

 

[Orangecat]

Whether some people SEE IT or not -- WE have to treat it the same.

Why? If some people want to brawl, they can be ignored by those who prefer more civil discourse. Isn't that the purpose of the ignore function: to filter out speech you find personally offensive? Why make the choice for everyone else when you can just let them decide for themselves?
The poll reflects an unfilibusterable super majority as it stands now. Don't the members get a say? We provide most of the content here.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you stifle free voices, free voices will go away.
Maybe that's the endgame.

Please explain to me and torch/pitchfolk mob you assembled here --

How is requiring CIVIL discussion - stifling free voices -- If "stifling free voices" means you HAVE TO UP YOUR effort on the topics and refrain from ATTACKING EACH OTHER in the process?

Your version of "free voices" is like an Antifa/Proud Boys street standoff. And that gets REALLY personal when discussing Race and Religion, when FREE VOICES should be discussing ISSUES -- not flaming each other with profanity.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why? If some people want to brawl, they can be ignored by those who prefer more civil discourse. Isn't that the purpose of the ignore function: to filter out speech you find personally offensive? Why make the choice for everyone else when you can just let them decide for themselves?

Because - there would have to be rules that ALLOW EVERYONE to brawl -- whenever THEY feel like it. No Zone 2 restrictions, No Zone 1 restrictions. Just 37 different Flame Zones where you DONT have to respect topics or DO ANY HARD LIFTING in terms of effort.

It's like cancelling the "public nuisance" laws and telling people to IGNORE the consequences. Just armor up and dont look or see. Or cancelling the public noise ordnance and telling people to buy EARPLUGS.

 

[Orangecat]

Please explain to me and torch/pitchfolk mob you assembled here --

I've assembled no pitchfork mob. I just posed a serious question for the members of the forum.

How is requiring CIVIL discussion - stifling free voices -- If "stifling free voices" means you HAVE TO UP YOUR effort on the topics and refrain from ATTACKING EACH OTHER in the process?

Why require civil discussion when the majority doesn't want a governor on their conversation? Especially when everyone has the tool to individually filter out voices they find offensive?

Your version of "free voices" is like an Antifa/Proud Boys street standoff. And that gets REALLY personal when discussing Race and Religion, when FREE VOICES should be discussing ISSUES -- not flaming each other with profanity.

Again, why not let each member decide for themselves via the ignore function? It seems like an unnecessary control to me (and the 69% who've agreed in the poll).
I'm not trying to cause a problem or piss you off. If the poll results were different, I'd accept the results.
Either way, it's not my site and I'm not on the moderation team.
I'm just an orange cat who likes to speak his mind.
No offense intended, sir.

 

[Orangecat]

Because - there would have to be rules that ALLOW EVERYONE to brawl -- whenever THEY feel like it. No Zone 2 restrictions, No Zone 1 restrictions.

Actually, it would require the absence of rules.

Just 37 different Flame Zones where you DONT have to respect topics or DO ANY HARD LIFTING in terms of effort.

If that's what the membership wants, why not?

It's like cancelling the "public nuisance" laws and telling people to IGNORE the consequences. Just armor up and dont look or see. Or cancelling the public noise ordnance and telling people to buy EARPLUGS.

Except no one has to buy armor or earplugs, they just have to move their mouse over and click a button or two. Problem solved.
If you are on a personal mission to make this site more to your liking, that's okay, too. You hold the keys here.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why? If some people want to brawl, they can be ignored by those who prefer more civil discourse. Isn't that the purpose of the ignore function: to filter out speech you find personally offensive? Why make the choice for everyone else when you can just let them decide for themselves?

So I got to put JacktheAss on ignore ALL the time? It's not like a switch you turn on/off. Is Jack ALWAYS ignorable? ALWAYS in the Race forum JUST TO senselessly brawl and name-call with other members? Then JACK is the problem. The SAME PROBLEM that mod staff resolved HAD TO BE FIXED IN THE 1st place. We were NOT gonna continue moderating bar fights in those forums under THOSE conditions.

No dude. The problem is the folks who HATE this idea because they cant profanely flame others and ignore/disrespect topics. THEY are the ones that should refrain from posting. NOT the remaining folks (should any want to be there under your conditions) who want to up their game and try to debate topics/issues.

We'll see what shakes out. Could be a WHOLE LOT members and POTENTIAL members who were AVOIDING those forums because the content was senseless personal poking.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually, it would require the absence of rules.

If that's what the membership wants, why not?

Except no one has to buy armor or earplugs, they just have to move their mouse over and click a button or two. Problem solved.
If you are on a personal mission to make this site more to your liking, that's okay, too. You hold the keys here.

You seriously have NO issue with 37 Flamezones? And seriously have NO ISSUE with complete absence of rules? What's the purpose of BEING here as much as members are if there is NO VALUE in ALL the forums? Go form a "web fight club" and put into various form of member on member abuse and see what results. Like the MMA forum, the NINJA style conflict forum, the dueling forum where just 2 people get ONE shot to save their honor. etc.

I wouldn't be here under those conditions. I can HEAR THE CHEERS !!! Because THIS is where I get a "feed" on what folks WANT TO TALK ABOUT. That's value. That ATTRACTS members. But ONLY IF "free speech" is actually USED to TALK ABOUT the topics. NO ONE wants to wade thru pages of multiple long PERSONAL CONFLICT to get to any CRUMB of value.

 

[Orangecat]

You're a good dude, Flacal. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[EvMetro]

I recently posted a thread about what natural political discourse is. Based on the results of that thread, it was determined that natural political discourse is ugly. What people really want to do is to do and say bad things to each other. The current political landscape is polarized, and people are not interested in having to beat around the bush in little safe zones. If you need a team to enforce your safe zones, it's only because nobody wants them. Look at the poll results.

The zone stuff is just euphemism for censorship, since all the safe zone bs about civilized discourse and rules is really just redefining censorship.

Safe zones themselves have been a political joke since before usmb succumbed to that woke concept.

Here is the thread about how people REALLY want to discuss politics:

Natural political discourse

The point of this thread is to establish what the most natural and honest political discourse is. Millions have died as a means of political discourse over the course of history, and continue to even to this day. We see ugly political rhetoric being used by the media and on this site, and many...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[EvMetro]

You seriously have NO issue with 37 Flamezones? And seriously have NO ISSUE with complete absence of rules? What's the purpose of BEING here as much as members are if there is NO VALUE in ALL the forums? Go form a "web fight club" and put into various form of member on member abuse and see what results. Like the MMA forum, the NINJA style conflict forum, the dueling forum where just 2 people get ONE shot to save their honor. etc.

I wouldn't be here under those conditions. I can HEAR THE CHEERS !!! Because THIS is where I get a "feed" on what folks WANT TO TALK ABOUT. That's value. That ATTRACTS members. But ONLY IF "free speech" is actually USED to TALK ABOUT the topics. NO ONE wants to wade thru pages of multiple long PERSONAL CONFLICT to get to any CRUMB of value.

37 flame zones is how lefty snowflakes perceive righty agenda from the safety of their safe zones. Righties sound like trolls to lefties, so what righties have to say becomes against the rules through the eyes of lefties. That's what your safe zones are really about. Redefine righty agenda as hate speech, uncivilized, Illegal, against forum rules, or against safe zone 1 rules, then censor it on those grounds. Make lefty space into safe zones for snowflakes.

People who sign up on political boards all know that political discussion is ugly. We don't need snowflake safe zones. We sure need mods though, since scammers and hostile outsiders can really mess up a site.

 

[MisterBeale]

IMO, the culture here, has changed since the zone rules have been put in place, and, maybe in some ways, not necessarily for the better, but, in someways, I do think, it has changed, in some beneficial ways.

A civil discussion like the one the entire forum is having now, on this very thread, about policy changes . . . could that have been possibly in those "pre-zone," days? Years ago? Or would it have broken down to insults by page two?

What about the coffee shop thread? Or other non-political threads? IMO? I never thought the policy has been enforced or monitored tightly enough on the CDZ.

It seems to me, this whole controversy started coming to a head, when the religion thread, and the race thread were given PC/safe zone protection.

IMO? That was a mistake. Neither topic deserve a safe space. There should be no sacred cows at USMB.

Was this done, to make moderation more simple, and to just lighten the work load?

 

[MisterBeale]

Why? If some people want to brawl, they can be ignored by those who prefer more civil discourse. Isn't that the purpose of the ignore function: to filter out speech you find personally offensive? Why make the choice for everyone else when you can just let them decide for themselves?
The poll reflects an unfilibusterable super majority as it stands now. Don't the members get a say? We provide most of the content here.

You um, do know, that more than just members come to view this site, yes?

If you start a thread in a topical zone, on a topic of your interest, once a member on this forum KNOWS that you are ignoring them? (And we do tend to attract some very intelligent folks, it isn't that hard to figure out when partisans have you on ignore after a while.) They can then proceed to muck up your thread, pollute it, derail it, and make you look like and absolute turd to the entire viewing public that happens to do a search or come by and view your thread. If anything you write in your thread has any meaning whatsoever to you? It has now been shit all over, by the troll you just decided to let stomp all over your thread.

nice.

All non forum members of the public that look at it, will probably think you are some sort of special ed case for all your efforts too.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why? If some people want to brawl, they can be ignored by those who prefer more civil discourse. Isn't that the purpose of the ignore function: to filter out speech you find personally offensive? Why make the choice for everyone else when you can just let them decide for themselves?
The poll reflects an unfilibusterable super majority as it stands now. Don't the members get a say? We provide most of the content here.

IMO? I think the solution is, if it is THAT important to members in that group, that voted that way, the compromise, is to get someone in that group, to be a dedicated individual for each of the religion, and the race sub-forums.

It sounds to me, that those particular forums get a lot of calls and reports for moderation. The Religion one probably gets a lot of whining from the right, and the race relation one, probably gets a lot of reports of micro-aggression's from the left. I imagine it was just easier to make them both civil discourse ZONE ONE, than to try to deal with all you barbarians.

Now, do you want to spend all your days dealing with the reports?

Because you clearly don't understand WHY we can't just have everyone ignoring everyone else they don't like, because someone still has to moderate the OPENING POST.

All this content is still publicly viewable, and the threads still need to be managed.

 

[MisterBeale]

I recently posted a thread about what natural political discourse is. Based on the results of that thread, it was determined that natural political discourse is ugly. What people really want to do is to do and say bad things to each other. The current political landscape is polarized, and people are not interested in having to beat around the bush in little safe zones. If you need a team to enforce your safe zones, it's only because nobody wants them. Look at the poll results.

The zone stuff is just euphemism for censorship, since all the safe zone bs about civilized discourse and rules is really just redefining censorship.

Safe zones themselves have been a political joke since before usmb succumbed to that woke concept.

Here is the thread about how people REALLY want to discuss politics:

Natural political discourse

The point of this thread is to establish what the most natural and honest political discourse is. Millions have died as a means of political discourse over the course of history, and continue to even to this day. We see ugly political rhetoric being used by the media and on this site, and many...

www.usmessageboard.com

Yes, but originally, if you leave out the religion and race sub-forums, the other zone ones, were not political, except the clean debate zone. And that was zone one, to keep out ad hom fallacies. That is not necessary for a serious, structured policy debate.

So no, the Zones were not meant as "censorship," they were only meant as forum behavior conduct guides. It was to create a political and civic culture on this forum. One that has lasted now for a good long time, and folks don't even very much notice anymore, it has knit the left and the right together, to be civil in certain areas of the forum.

For instance, do you act that same in a bar, as you do in court, or in church?



Church and Court? They are zone 1

The park, the store, and your family re-union, they are all zone 2.

The bar and the bowling alley? That is zone 3

It really isn't that hard.

 

[EvMetro]

Yes, but originally, if you leave out the religion and race sub-forums, the other zone ones, were not political, except the clean debate zone. And that was zone one, to keep out ad hom fallacies. That is not necessary for a serious, structured policy debate.

So no, the Zones were not meant as "censorship," they were only meant as forum behavior conduct guides. It was to create a political and civic culture on this forum. One that has lasted now for a good long time, and folks don't even very much notice anymore, it has knit the left and the right together, to be civil in certain areas of the forum.

For instance, do you act that same in a bar, as you do in court, or in church?



Church and Court? They are zone 1

The park, the store, and your family re-union, they are all zone 2.

The bar and the bowling alley? That is zone 3

It really isn't that hard.

It is blatantly obvious that the safe zone thing is a massive censorship campaign. Do you have any idea how many threads are being deleted and closed? How many posts are getting deleted? You can call the new snowflake safe zones whatever you like, but it is a massive increase in censorship. Massive censorship IS happening.

Political discourse is ugly, and this will never change. If you give a team of people badges to censor it, you get ugly political discourse AND censorship. Political discourse is still ugly.

Lefties ALWAYS endorse censorship, so every lefty on this site is excited about this heavy new censorship campaign. Usmb is being censored like never before.

 

[EvMetro]

Massive censorship is the price being paid for the new safe space zones. Is it really worth this price to protect snowflakes from getting their feelings hurt? Freedom ain't cheap, but I'll pay the price for freedom.

 

[Orangecat]

You um, do know, that more than just members come to view this site, yes?

True, but we members provide the content. If the lurkers want a say, let them join and voice their opinions. I could postulate that they like the rough-and-tumble as much as you could postulate they dislike it.

 

[Orangecat]

they were only meant as forum behavior conduct guides.

"Behavior conduct guides" that are mandated instead of suggested are censorship.

 

[MisterBeale]

It is blatantly obvious that the safe zone thing is a massive censorship campaign. Do you have any idea how many threads are being deleted and closed? How many posts are getting deleted? You can call the new snowflake safe zones whatever you like, but it is a massive increase in censorship. Massive censorship IS happening.

Political discourse is ugly, and this will never change. If you give a team of people badges to censor it, you get ugly political discourse AND censorship. Political discourse is still ugly.

Lefties ALWAYS endorse censorship, so every lefty on this site is excited about this heavy new censorship campaign. Usmb is being censored like never before.

So tell me, what is the domain extension on this site, is it. . .. . .

.net?

.gov?

how about .org?



.edu? .mil? .org?

NO? No, it isn't? Did you notice that it is .com? What does that signify to you?

You mean, USMB is, a, wait for, it. . . business? Hmmmmm. ... Well then, what do you suppose is their product?




Gee, yeah, that's right, it is the threads, it is the content that YOU help generate, not to be crass, but when it really comes right down to it, WE are the product. And views by us, or folks coming through, page views on ads, that is where the money is. So garbage posts, mucking up threads, letting discussions get derailed, that decreases readership. It won't matter if you and I ignore posts or posters we don't like, of folks can still screw up the product.

Anything that goes off topic, causes casual readers to get bored with reading threads, whether they are members, or non-members, threatens the profitability of the site.

IT IS A BUSINESS. Why do you believe you have the right to tell someone how to make a profit?

How much to you donate for the free service we enjoy? I am too poor to keep the business going. You? How much have you given to this profit making endeavor?

This. . "safe zone," thing, as you say, has nothing to do with. . "censorship," I am pretty sure, it has to do with decreasing (the volunteer,) labor to moderate those zones, and to keep discussions there on track, so both membership, and folks coming in, will stay interested in reading threads. When they go off into intercine war, among the membership, it takes work for the mod staff to clean up, and it is bad for business.

In an ideal world? YOU ARE RIGHT, no moderation, and no rules should even be necessary to conduct this enterprise. Folks would stay civil, and keep discussion on track.

BUT? Derailing threads from their topic with war and conflict, unrelated to the topics posted, has probably been determined by the experts, as bad being bad for business, as war usually is.