Zone1 Top down control or individual liberty?

[EvMetro]

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.

Justifying censorship. At least you are not denying that the censorship is happening. It's happening on a large scale.

You are not the first lefty to defend censorship. Lefties ALWAYS support and defend censorship.

Here is a thread about why you support and defend censorship:

Why Censorship?

Ever wonder why the left loves political censorship so much? I believe the answer is right there in the Wikipedia definition of censorship: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[MisterBeale]

Justifying censorship. At least you are not denying that the censorship is happening. It's happening on a large scale.

You are not the first lefty to defend censorship. Lefties ALWAYS support and defend censorship.

Here is a thread about why you support and defend censorship:

Why Censorship?

Ever wonder why the left loves political censorship so much? I believe the answer is right there in the Wikipedia definition of censorship: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered...

www.usmessageboard.com

So now you are calling iceberg and me, lefties, and you deny the right of a business to make a profit. . . .

He’s a high quality troll who enjoys stirring the pot. He is very good too.

Clearly.

Good point. Censorship typically happens from the cover of darkness and anonymity. Censors do not like to be identified.

View attachment 666996View attachment 666997

*No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards. Issues with moderation should be taken up privately with moderators in PM.

*No Posting contents of PMs without permission from the sender. A Rep Comment is Not considered a PM. Responses to a Rep comment are considered PM's.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro Coyote katsteve2012 White 6 Registration Guidelines: Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned. Site Wide Rules And...

www.usmessageboard.com

. . . so, how many times, do you expect to break the rules, before you get perma-banned?

You have been here five years, you know better than this, obviously what Coyote wrote? Was the truth about you. You don't care about the community, or the issues, you are just here to see the world burn and cause chaos.

 

[EvMetro]

So now you are calling iceberg and me, lefties, and you deny the right of a business to make a profit. . . .

It is very lefty of you to introduce the notion that I am denying a business their rights. This is a red herring

Clearly.



*No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards. Issues with moderation should be taken up privately with moderators in PM.

*No Posting contents of PMs without permission from the sender. A Rep Comment is Not considered a PM. Responses to a Rep comment are considered PM's.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro Coyote katsteve2012 White 6 Registration Guidelines: Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned. Site Wide Rules And...

www.usmessageboard.com

. . . so, how many times, do you expect to break the rules, before you get perma-banned?

You are reaching out here for an admin to rescue you, since you cannot win the debate with stronger debate or arguments. You need admin muscle to win this for you. You will inevitably be rescued with censorship, since that is the only way lefties can win this one. Watch.

You have been here five years, you now better than this, obviously what Coyote wrote? Was the truth about you, you don't care about the community, or the issues, you are just here to see the world burn and cause chaos.

View attachment 667007

Whatever coyote wrote about me is ALWAYS trolling or derailing my thread. ALWAYS.

 

[Circe]

Well, I've already gotten several of my posts deleted for "Glitch Violations".

Yeah, really. I believe it. I suppose the best thing is just to stay out of Zone 1 AMAP; I suppose that is why they set this up, to stop all talk about race and religion.

 

[MisterBeale]

It is very lefty of you to introduce the notion that I am denying a business their rights. This is a red herring


You are reaching out here for an admin to rescue you, since you cannot win the debate with stronger debate or arguments. You need admin muscle to win this for you. You will inevitably be rescued with censorship, since that is the only way lefties can win this one. Watch.

Whatever coyote wrote about me is ALWAYS trolling or derailing my thread. ALWAYS.

. . and you acting like the cyber equivalent of ANTIFA? Tells me all I need to know.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Yeah, really. I believe it. I suppose the best thing is just to stay out of Zone 1 AMAP; I suppose that is why they set this up, to stop all talk about race and religion.

Nothing is ever going to stop those who hate Christians.

 

[Circe]

What people really want to do is to do and say bad things to each other.

I thought I was the only one who recognized that! I'll read your natural-political-discourse thread. It sounds VERY interesting.

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.

Yes, of course. That seems obvious to me.

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

Well, a pretty sad joke. I remember I was glad about the Clean Debate forum, more fool me, when they put it in, but it turned out like something similar the Stratford forum did many years ago trying to clean up that whole discussion area; and the forum schizophrenic (in those days there was a single schizophrenic on every forum, remember?) said the one and only sane thing he ever said there --- "Why would I want to post on the Graveyard Forum? It's no fun and nobody reads it." The problem with the Clean Debate forum here is that it's FAR, FAR more fraught and full of threats from mods and punitive actions and really bad stuff, far worse than the rough-and-tumble of the regular forums, where I can just ignore people, after all, if I don't want to get down in the mud with them. People were forever reporting me, deleting my threads, doing really punitive, vengeful stuff against me on Clean Debate, and I don't think that was because I'm so horrifically obscene/profane, etc.: I think it's because they had the power to injure, so of course they did so. People love to hurt other people; that's a corollary to your point above, that people like to say bad things to each other. If they can use mods as a weapon, of course they will. Seeking weapons to destroy people is a lot of what goes on in the world, and not just on discussion forums.

Zone 1 means more weapons are available to really get at someone in real life ---- so it's safest just to stay away from that kind of place, in my opinion.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Zone 1 forums are NOT "safe places". You are supposed to WIN THERE on smashing other peoples' assertions/"alternate facts"/propaganda/memes/lies. Its quite violent if done right.

The one thing I CANNOT understand is why people WHO CAN WIN on personal values/political positions/honesty/common sense -- are SO AFRAID of civil discussion. It's CLEAR that the more TROLLISH among us would have a VERY hard time adjusting to ACTUAL discussion. But I refuse to believe that becoming MORE TROLLISH to confront your opposition is any kind of a smart strategy to win the wars.

Is it because they CANT win on real debate, are too lazy to win on clean discussion, or are here to JUST BECAUSE USMB allows low effort posting in MOST of the forums and simply REFUSE to give that up? Other REASONS? I;m really curious.

 

[flacaltenn]

What people really want to do is to do and say bad things to each other.

and that leads where? Does it resolve debate about abortion/open borders/GWarming/race issues? Does it improve local/state/federal governance?

Nope. No points scored. This country NEEDS people to elevate those discussions above the screwed-up media coverage and fact checkers and pundits. If you REMOVE the flaming/profanity/other pointy weapons and REQUIRE folks to WORK a bit to answer questions, refute faulty assertions, add common sense/etc -- You get some value for the effort. And USMB becomes more interesting and USEFUL.If you REMOVE the flaming/profanity/other pointy weapons and REQUIRE folks to WORK a bit to answer questions, refute faulty assertions, add common sense/etc -- You get some value for the effort. And USMB becomes more interesting and USEFUL.

If USMB CAVED to "what people really want" -- We would be part of the problem. AND ACCELERATING the path to civil conflict.

I think (almost know) that USMB membership is dominated by folks that have pent-up political frustrations and JUST WANT PUNCHING BAGS. That's not the national demographic yet. IT MIGHT GET THERE. But we're not there yet.

 

[EvMetro]

. . and you acting like the cyber equivalent of ANTIFA? Tells me all I need to know.

The bottom line is that you stand behind the new heavy censorship campaign and safe zones. Half the members here are lefties, so you have plenty of people who will stand with you against freedom.

 

[MisterBeale]

The bottom line is that you stand behind the new heavy censorship campaign and safe zones. Half the members here are lefties, so you have plenty of people who will stand with you against freedom.

Hmm. . . apparently you did not read the whole thread, nor did you take a view at who voted for what. Do you depend on creating straw-men to win your arguments?

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.

 

[EvMetro]

Zone 1 forums are NOT "safe places". You are supposed to WIN THERE on smashing other peoples' assertions/"alternate facts"/propaganda/memes/lies. Its quite violent if done right.

Your safe zones are nothing new. Universities have been creating safe zones to protect snowflakes from righty rhetoric for years now.

The one thing I CANNOT understand is why people WHO CAN WIN on personal values/political positions/honesty/common sense -- are SO AFRAID of civil discussion.

There is no fear here. When lefties hear righties, it is perceived as uncivilized. Lefties make rules and safe zones to protect themselves from righty speak.

It's CLEAR that the more TROLLISH among us would have a VERY hard time adjusting to ACTUAL discussion. But I refuse to believe that becoming MORE TROLLISH to confront your opposition is any kind of a smart strategy to win the wars.
Is it because they CANT win on real debate, are too lazy to win on clean discussion, or are here to JUST BECAUSE USMB allows low effort posting in MOST of the forums and simply REFUSE to give that up? Other REASONS? I;m really curious.

It's how you define civilized. In the recent Trump and biden threads that were recently censored and shut down, did you see me posting in an uncivilized way?

 

[flacaltenn]

Your safe zones are nothing new. Universities have been creating safe zones to protect snowflakes from righty rhetoric for years now.

There is no fear here. When lefties hear righties, it is perceived as uncivilized. Lefties make rules and safe zones to protect themselves from righty speak.

It's how you define civilized. In the recent Trump and biden threads that were recently censored and shut down, did you see me posting in an uncivilized way?

We're NOT a university. Dont have an interest in grooming minds. There are no "safe zones" on USMB. It's embarrassing to be "bested" in actual discussion. If folks dont honestly discuss, they will lose and the winners walk away. It doesn't result in ENDLESS REPETITIVE MEANINGLESS flaming , profanity, evasion and memeing.

If you KNOW a person is not in Zone 1 for discussion, never answers questions, always tries to EVADE what you have written -- WRITE THEM OFF and DONT FEED them. They are anonymous USMB members. Not punching bags for massively pent-up frustrations.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's how you define civilized. In the recent Trump and biden threads that were recently censored and shut down, did you see me posting in an uncivilized way?

We went over this yesterday. Those threads were POLITICAL discussion. The Oposts were written as political discussion asking for the SAME DIRT to ATTEMPT to validate charges of racism against Biden and Trump.

The PROOF is IN those closed threads. By the FIRST PAGE -- the discussion was off on "hearsay", dirty political lies, and memes that have APPEARED ON USMB in DOZENS of threads. Wasn't even new.

If they had been posted in POLITICS -- they most likely would still be open and there. Policy is NOT to move Zone 1 threads to "lower moderated" forums AND vice versa -- but to just close them in place.

 

[iceberg]

I've been thinking about this Zone1 stuff and why it gets on my nerves.
I'm definitely not for top-down control in any form of governance when personal liberty can accomplish the same outcome.
Bear with me here, and I'll get to my poll question.
The ownership or moderation team here (as is their right) has come up with their solution to the incessant bickering and verbal food-fighting here by using a top-down approach of applying Zone1 designations to select categories.
I would assume this is because some do not care for the aforementioned conflicts.
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. That, to me, is the individual liberty solution, much like "change the channel if you don't like the content".
The Zone1 solution is a top-down, "we decide for everyone what is acceptable" approach.
There is no right or wrong answer, just personal opinion.
Hopefully no moderators take this as an attack. I'm just curious to see where we all stand regarding such things.
7 day poll, so vote if you care to have your opinion on record.
So here is my poll question:
As a member of USMB, would you rather have the top-down control so everyone is constrained by the blanket rules, or the more individualistic route of customizing your experience via eliminating content you don't want to see via the ignore function?

it would be cool if i could simply post a thread and exclude people from it. most of the trolls i've seen have goals in 2 parts.

annoy someone else. ignore them and it does help, yes.
then
derail threads.

since everyone won't ignore the same people, it really doesn't matter if you see these dooshbuckets or not. others will, respond, and kill a thread.

i don't envy the mods. not at all. you and i CAN ignore people. they can't. for this reason alone i'd never be a mod. the other reason is i doubt they'd want me to be one.

but many are here to scream at the other side, so the forum reflects 2 things really. the rules and how they are carried out; then how we carry ourselves with each other.

 

[iceberg]

The people who can't quit running afoul of the mods are the same people who go to the grocery store and get in fights with people in line.

doubt it. most people tough online won't say shit in person.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

No -- it was done to AVOID CENSORSHIP. We had long, somewhat heated discussions about long lists of words to ban from race/religion. Religion forum issue was that EVERY THREAD ended on Page 2 in a God/no god standoff and NO topics got honored.

They were USELESS -- might as well be in the Taunting forums where there ARE NO TOPICS and our motto "there's nothing there worth protecting" -- so moderation is very light there. THEY are still available.

But trying to FIX the USELESSNESS of the discussion in Race/Religion by CENSORING was shelved in favor of HONEST discussion. And if there's a shake-out of folks who DO NOT WANT to make that effort -- that's OK. Perhaps we'll get MORE people that come to USMB for discussion and not for personal conflict.

Why would anyone volunteer to moderate a discussion board that doesn't believe moderation is necessary? THe "old days" of USMB back 20 years ago -- the contention and viciousness extended to and ESPECIALLY in the mod room. Nobody wants to work with rogue mods with unlimited power to express THEIR OWN biases. And that's UNAVOIDABLE if the rules dont STRIP moderators of those arbitrary, subjective decisions.

I came here after being tossed from a board (temp banned) for civilly arguing with "the established members". JUST for my different POV and principles that rubbed them the wrong way. All the power in the hands of RINOs and DINOs making SUBJECTIVE AND ARBITRARY decisions IS CENSORSHIP and a SAFE PLACE. This place is not.

 

[EvMetro]

We went over this yesterday. Those threads were POLITICAL discussion. The Oposts were written as political discussion asking for the SAME DIRT to ATTEMPT to validate charges of racism against Biden and Trump.

The PROOF is IN those closed threads. By the FIRST PAGE -- the discussion was off on "hearsay", dirty political lies, and memes that have APPEARED ON USMB in DOZENS of threads. Wasn't even new.

If they had been posted in POLITICS -- they most likely would still be open and there. Policy is NOT to move Zone 1 threads to "lower moderated" forums AND vice versa -- but to just close them in place.

So it sounds like you are acknowdging that I was not posting in an uncivilized way.

Am I understanding that those racism threads were censored and closed because they were posted in racism? Racism threads belong in the racism area. C'mon flac. What are you trying to do here?

I tried posting mask threads in politics and the mods kept moving them to Healthcare. conspiracy theory, or wherever the wheel of fortune landed on.

Bottom line on this is that I was not posting in an uncivilized way. Can you post an example of me posting in an uncivilized way? I'm open to learning, just show me where my uncivilized posting lead to censorship. Maybe others can learn from this too.

 

[flacaltenn]

it would be cool if i could simply post a thread and exclude people from it. most of the trolls i've seen have goals in 2 parts.

We TRIED that. Actually still exists but probably should be taken down. We have no tools for MEMBERS to select their thread audience, be we created the "INVITE ONLY" forum with rules for creating an "invite list" that moderation would enforce. Nobody was supposed to reply to those threads without an invite.

We GOT ROASTED for making USMB "exclusive". I tried to start some example threads and invite in posters who I KNEW would honestly discuss a topic. MANY OF THEM refused the invite out of peer pressure not to participate.

So -- it didn't work. I STILL THINK this was a small concession to the MANY members who WANT civil or "invite only" discussion, but the "democratic USMB process" nixed it.

AND TODAY -- the polarization is SO EXTREME -- it would hard to find those folks amongst the membership.

 

[iceberg]

We TRIED that. Actually still exists but probably should be taken down. We have no tools for MEMBERS to select their thread audience, be we created the "INVITE ONLY" forum with rules for creating an "invite list" that moderation would enforce. Nobody was supposed to reply to those threads without an invite.

We GOT ROASTED for making USMB "exclusive". I tried to start some example threads and invite in posters who I KNEW would honestly discuss a topic. MANY OF THEM refused the invite out of peer pressure not to participate.

So -- it didn't work. I STILL THINK this was a small concession to the MANY members who WANT civil or "invite only" discussion, but the "democratic USMB process" nixed it.

AND TODAY -- the polarization is SO EXTREME -- it would hard to find those folks amongst the membership.

bet you a bucket of moonglow posts it was the trolls mad.

and yea, it would most certainly divide things up and conversations would get pretty one sided into echo chambers.

as a poster, it's easy to deal with trolls "if we were mods" - ban them. problem solved.

but a troll to me isn't a troll to all. as painful as it can be mods must come to something to TRY and control us out here running amok terrorizing each other. some may work, some no and some will have unintended consequences you now have to deal with.

but there are posters who you can count 6-10 posts IN A ROW with nothing to the topic and just snarking off. i've got a bucket of his posts here i need to get rid of.

there isn't any good answer and usually the people demanding SOMETHING BE DONE have the fewest ideas what that could be that isn't 1 sided.