Disruption in the political forum.

[Phil Elmore]

It's fine to say, "Don't read that guy's posts," but when there's no way to put him on ignore and other members are responding, that's not a workable solution.

 

[allenC]

It's fine to say, "Don't read that guy's posts," but when there's no way to put him on ignore and other members are responding, that's not a workable solution.

Well heck, it wouldn't be much of a political forum if you just ignored everyone whom you disagree with.
Phil, you and I have had disagreements on the PA forum, but I would never put you on an "ignore list".
After all, the debate is why I hang out there.
Who would want to participate in a political forum that merely parrots one's own ideas?
That would suck.
If you disagree with Chuck on the PA forum then challenge him....debate him...prove him wrong.
Besides, even if you could place him on "ignore" you would still see the posts from folks who were responding to him.

 

[Guyon]

If you disagree with Chuck on the PA forum then challenge him....debate him...prove him wrong.

I think a key idea here has been that, if you consistently challenge Gollnick over his constant, lengthy reminders of rules, then you're going to be derailing a lot of threads away from their original subject matter. Such was the case when Gollnick chose to lambast Ken Cox--so much so that Esav saw fit to split the thread into two separate threads.

The simplest solution here would be for Gollnick to say, "Okay, I'll back off on the reprimands so the forum can continue." Whether that happens or not... well, we'll see.

I expected a sudden upsurge of political threads in Current Events since Political is locked, but it doesn't seem to have happened. Yet.

 

[Phil Elmore]

This is not about disagreeing with Chuck's political opinions, Allen. This is about disagreeing with Chuck's irrational behavior. You cannot "challenge" or "debate" someone who refuses to be rational, or who simply repeats the mantra, "I don't get it, I don't get it, where's the opinion" regardless of what you post.

That was the problem that spurred all this.

 

[allenC]

This is not about disagreeing with Chuck's political opinions, Allen. This is about disagreeing with Chuck's irrational behavior. You cannot "challenge" or "debate" someone who refuses to be rational, or who simply repeats the mantra, "I don't get it, I don't get it, where's the opinion" regardless of what you post.

That was the problem that spurred all this.

So what's the solution....have Chuck banned from the PA forum?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Or at least firmly instructed to cease and desist in his quasi-moderator activities there.

 

[Guyon]

So what's the solution....have Chuck banned from the PA forum?

The simplest solution here would be for Gollnick to say, "Okay, I'll back off on the reprimands so the forum can continue."

Is there an echo in here?

At this point, of course, that forum may be beyond saving in Spark's mind. We'll know when he sorts it out, I guess.

 

[Spark]

There seems to be some confusion as to who runs this site.

Since gentle reminders haven't been enough for people to follow the forum rules of the Political Arena, I'm left with bringing the bigger hammer: a zero tolerance policy towards rules there.

I'm going to enact another rule for PA: backseat moderating. If someone breaks the rules, you report them. As a surprise twist, if their posting isn't breaking the rules, you will receive the infraction.

In addition to this, I'm going to make the Political Arena accessible to paying members only - if you don't support the site, you don't get to be a pain in my ass.

Past that, a lot of you need to start acting like adults. You don't dictate what happens on this site. You don't dictate the terms. Removing the political forum and banning any political discussion on this site is no skin off my nose, so if you cannot learn age appropriate coping skills then you'd best develop a thicker skin. PA is here as a courtesy, not an obligation. If you have any experience with political forums elsewhere, you should be thankful for how liberal minded we are & the moderation style currently employed. Chuck may not be the moderator in PA, but I'd rather have him helping remind you folks about the rules; especially given the anarchy and morass I've seen on political forums elsewhere.

Derailing threads over moderation (or perceived moderation) is dumb. Stick to the subject and if something is bothering you, hit the report button

I will listen to further constructive criticism from this point on, but it needs to be constructive, and it needs to be succinct.

 

[Gollnick]

If you think politics do not affect the hobby of knives and knife collecting, you're wrong.

This is exactly correct. Politics has grave potential to affect knives. Look at what has happened in England in recent years.

Therefore, we MUST have politcally-astute knife enthusiasts as repected and influential members of every politcal party and interest group and campaign. These people may not agree on who should be who should be the next American president or what his strategy should be in Iraq. These people may not agree on how to address poverty or climate change or nuclear weapons or islamic extremists. These people may not agree on whether abortion should be legal or whether the NSA should tap international telephone calls. BUT, that diversity is the value of this corp because it enables this corp to permeate every part of the politcal spectrum and, therein, advocate and represent and defend and advance the one issue they all do agree on: knife rights.

To train up such a corp, we need a politcal discussion forum where the moderators take an aggressive and active roll in insisting on a high-level of intelligent, thoughtful politcal debate in which partipants are expected to express their own thoughts and opinions and ideas in their own words because that's what they'll have to do elsewhere to become the repected and influential members of every politcal party, interest group and campaign that we want them to be. They'll have to eschew and recognize and reject the false arguments and fallacies and smoke screens which are all to common in politcal discussion. They will have to learn to separate facts from the lies and rummors and fiction which are all to common. They will have to learn to vet sources and authenticate information and reject false information which is also common. And they will have to learn to engage in politcal discussion above the level of snipping and name-calling and back biting and sound biting and sloganeering and talking points so that they can be respected above all of that noise.

Building a forum that can achieve those goals will require the moderators to take an active roll and consistently admonish and issue infractions for those who violate the rules.

Whenever anyone says "rules" people get nervous. The rules, like our current rules, must be non-politcally-bias; we want knife enthusiasts from the entire politcal spectrum. Our current rules do not restrict the positions or issues or candidates that can be addressed or advocated. The rules, like our current rules, do need to regulate the style of the discussion. Those rules need to focus on creating that high-level of intelligent, thoughtful politcal debate in which partipants are expected to express their own thoughts and opinions and ideas in their own words, free from lies and rummors and fictions, free from snipping and name-calling and back biting and sloganeering and sound biting and and raised-eyebrow innuendo "questions", and where opinion is distinguished from fact.

Some people won't like such a political forum because their idea of politcal discussion is posting photochopped pictures of politcal figures and spreading rummors about candidates' middle names. Those people will doubtlessly stumble into our politcal forum either accidentally or out of an effort to drag it back down to their level. Such persons must be clearly presented with a simple choice: elevate yourself to the expected level of participation, or leave.

The result of creating such a politcal discussion forum is so potentially valuable not just to the knife "hobby" but to the entire knife community and industry and to society in general that I think we just have to do it.

 

[Gollnick]

It's fine to say, "Don't read that guy's posts," but when there's no way to put him on ignore and other members are responding, that's not a workable solution.

If it makes you feel any better, Phil, the forum software doesn't allow me to ignore someone only in specific forums. As result, I can't ignore anyone anywhere.

 

[InfidelShootist]

This is exactly correct. Politics has grave potential to affect knives. Look at what has happened in England in recent years.

Therefore, we MUST have politcally-astute knife enthusiasts as repected and influential members of every politcal party and interest group and campaign. These people may not agree on who should be who should be the next American president or what his strategy should be in Iraq. These people may not agree on how to address poverty or climate change or nuclear weapons or islamic extremists. These people may not agree on whether abortion should be legal or whether the NSA should tap international telephone calls. BUT, that diversity is the value of this corp because it enables this corp to permeate every part of the politcal spectrum and, therein, advocate and represent and defend and advance the one issue they all do agree on: knife rights.

To train up such a corp, we need a politcal discussion forum where the moderators take an aggressive and active roll in insisting on a high-level of intelligent, thoughtful politcal debate in which partipants are expected to express their own thoughts and opinions and ideas in their own words because that's what they'll have to do elsewhere to become the repected and influential members of every politcal party, interest group and campaign that we want them to be. They'll have to eschew and recognize and reject the false arguments and fallacies and smoke screens which are all to common in politcal discussion. They will have to learn to separate facts from the lies and rummors and fiction which are all to common. They will have to learn to vet sources and authenticate information and reject false information which is also common. And they will have to learn to engage in politcal discussion above the level of snipping and name-calling and back biting and sound biting and sloganeering and talking points so that they can be respected above all of that noise.

Building a forum that can achieve those goals will require the moderators to take an active roll and consistently admonish and issue infractions for those who violate the rules.

Whenever anyone says "rules" people get nervous. The rules, like our current rules, must be non-politcally-bias; we want knife enthusiasts from the entire politcal spectrum. Our current rules do not restrict the positions or issues or candidates that can be addressed or advocated. The rules, like our current rules, do need to regulate the style of the discussion. Those rules need to focus on creating that high-level of intelligent, thoughtful politcal debate in which partipants are expected to express their own thoughts and opinions and ideas in their own words, free from lies and rummors and fictions, free from snipping and name-calling and back biting and sloganeering and sound biting and and raised-eyebrow innuendo "questions", and where opinion is distinguished from fact.

Some people won't like such a political forum because their idea of politcal discussion is posting photochopped pictures of politcal figures and spreading rummors about candidates' middle names. Those people will doubtlessly stumble into our politcal forum either accidentally or out of an effort to drag it back down to their level. Such persons must be clearly presented with a simple choice: elevate yourself to the expected level of participation, or leave.

The result of creating such a politcal discussion forum is so potentially valuable not just to the knife "hobby" but to the entire knife community and industry and to society in general that I think we just have to do it.

You can enforce rules without humiliating people or talking to grown men like they're children.
I do think you're a good poster and a smart guy but if you were a bouncer in my club I'd have to let you go.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.''

 

[Guyon]

You can enforce rules without humiliating people or talking to grown men like they're children.

Well put, and the crux of this issue that spawned the clamor that led to these rule changes.

Few folks enjoy being on the receiving end of a condescending lecture.

Spark, thanks for the clarification. I, for one, harbor no delusions as to who runs this site.

 

[stabman]

Geeze, a few people have a friggin hissy fit, and all of a sudden the PA has to be paid for.
Oh well, the joy of arguing about stuff which will make no difference in the real world ain't worth paying for.

 

[darthsoaker]

Lolz, a large percentage of the liberal BF-ers that frequent PA are non-paying members.....

 

[SPXTrader]

Geeze, a few people have a friggin hissy fit, and all of a sudden the PA has to be paid for.
Oh well, the joy of arguing about stuff which will make no difference in the real world ain't worth paying for.

You've hung around here for a year...howz aboot coming up with 10 bucks to support the entire site?

 

[InfidelShootist]

Geeze, a few people have a friggin hissy fit, and all of a sudden the PA has to be paid for.
Oh well, the joy of arguing about stuff which will make no difference in the real world ain't worth paying for.

Freedom isn't free.
Someone is always paying for it.

 

[Guyon]

Geeze, a few people have a friggin hissy fit, and all of a sudden the PA has to be paid for.
Oh well, the joy of arguing about stuff which will make no difference in the real world ain't worth paying for.

You realize that you're talking about less than three cents per day for a basic membership. Less than four packs of cigarettes (a guess, I don't smoke). Less than two six-packs of beer. If posting in Political truly is the "joy" you profess, it's certainly not an expensive joy.

 

[stabman]

You realize that you're talking about less than three cents per day for a basic membership. Less than four packs of cigarettes (a guess, I don't smoke). Less than two six-packs of beer. If posting in Political truly is the "joy" you profess, it's certainly not an expensive joy.

I SAID it wasn't joyous enough to pay for.
It was a sorta fun way to pass the time for FREE, but I have other things more worth money.
Like food, tuition, overpriced university books, knives I really can't afford(and the damn credit card bill). And rent. And ammo.

 

[Guyon]

I SAID it wasn't joyous enough to pay for.
It was a sorta fun way to pass the time for FREE, but I have other things more worth money.
Like food, tuition, overpriced university books, knives I really can't afford(and the damn credit card bill). And rent. And ammo.

Fair enough.

 

[mycroftt]

You realize that you're talking about less than three cents per day for a basic membership. Less than four packs of cigarettes (a guess, I don't smoke). Less than two six-packs of beer. If posting in Political truly is the "joy" you profess, it's certainly not an expensive joy.

I guess you DON'T smoke! In some states/cities coffin nails run $5 - $7 a pack! ...and stop drinking that cheap beer - the good stuff is about $7 or $8 a six-pack.