Political Forum Rules

jhakken-

Maybe you were treated unfairly. Maybe Ken did have a beef with you. Maybe Ken just had a bad day. Actually, it's apparent that Ken has had a lot of bad days lately. None of it matters now. Ken is gone and you're starting anew. Chill. I'm glad you're in PA. I think others are, too. Just step back, take a big breath and forget this episode. It's an internet forum. The warning or infraction or whatever it was isn't hurting you nearly as much as you're hurting yourself by stressing over it.

Who would have thought the Help forum would be this interesting? :)
 
The Help forum is always interesting. It's a regular stop for me. Unlike discussion forums, people rarely post here just to hear themselves talk. :)
 
Thanks again to everyone who has counseled me. I realize I take myself way too seriously. I posted in our ongoing Ken/Moderator discussion that an update to rules might help those of us who get emotional but don't wish to break the rules and hurt the forum.

My grandmother had a saying posted at her front door: Never take life too seriously, you won't get out of it alive.
 
Last edited:
Preacher Man said:
Regarding the Political Arena rules, infractions and banning, did anyone noticed that BLANNELBERRY was banned? He email me and asked that I present his goodbyes on his behalf.
Click to expand...

Please return a good-bye for me. It would seem that the "evils of christianity" did him in. I know that many are probably happy to see him go, and his tone was not often restrained or respectful, but in the context he used the term he was making his bias known. I think there have been far greater incendiary comments, specifically about Islam. I think there was some payback for other sins. I hope that in the future punishments will be more measured and escalating, along with proper education, so people don't trip upon rules that they don't understand.
 
jhakken said:
I think there was some payback for other sins.
Click to expand...

Consider his treatment analogous to what in the military would be described as "pattern of misconduct" violation. No single incident might be deemed catastrophic, but over the course of days, weeks and months, the accumulation of lesser intentional affronts begin to take their toll. Blannelberry's greatest sin was in having no awareness of his surroundings. If I wished to make a legitimate attempt to preach the virtues of present day islam on a Jewish message board, I would adopt a different tone than if I were preaching the evils of gun control to an NRA message board. You can argue that this is an unfair standard to hold some to, but I would counter by pointing out that it only requires a tiny bit more effort for mature individuals to respect the environment in which they find themselves and still make persuasive and effective arguments.
 
jhakken said:
Please return a good-bye for me. It would seem that the "evils of christianity" did him in. I know that many are probably happy to see him go, and his tone was not often restrained or respectful, but in the context he used the term he was making his bias known. I think there have been far greater incendiary comments, specifically about Islam. I think there was some payback for other sins. I hope that in the future punishments will be more measured and escalating, along with proper education, so people don't trip upon rules that they don't understand.
Click to expand...
You are quickly wearing out my patience, especially with this attitude. For someone who couldn't be bothered to read the FAQ to learn what the various rules are, your presumption about how we should best go about running the forums is annoying (to put it mildly).

You've been posting in a lot of threads complaining about things, so here is your fair notice: you are now on the radar. You can learn to work within the system and be productive, or you can try to rage against the machine and see where that takes you. You'll start seeing some measured & escalating punishments shortly, should this continue. I'm a big fan of constructive criticism. I'm not a fan of people with entitlement complexes and complainers.
 
My apologies, Spark. I was trying to work within the system here. I recognize that our moderators work very hard. I appreciate what they do. I also recognize that I have posted many times in the last week over what I perceived as unfairness. I have been heard and that's all I can ask, so thanks for that.
 
Last edited:
jhakken said:
Please return a good-bye for me. It would seem that the "evils of christianity" did him in. I know that many are probably happy to see him go, and his tone was not often restrained or respectful, but in the context he used the term he was making his bias known. I think there have been far greater incendiary comments, specifically about Islam. I think there was some payback for other sins. I hope that in the future punishments will be more measured and escalating, along with proper education, so people don't trip upon rules that they don't understand.
Click to expand...

LOL. BB was a troll if there ever was one in the PA. He should have been banned a long, long time ago, and I'm surprised he wasn't immediately banned when he started questioning the sexuality of other members.
 
jhakken said:
I think there have been far greater incendiary comments, specifically about Islam.
Click to expand...
I agree
We can discuss the "evils of Islam", but not the "evils of Christianity"?===>
Islam is a religion of violence and death. It is a socio-political movement as much as a spiritual one, and its aim is to force other peoples to submit. The rise in violence among Islamists is not some new trend; rather, what is being called "radical" Islam is really fundamentalist Islam. For Islam to coexist peacefully with other religions requires its adherents to relax their stance on all other faiths; when they get "back to their roots," they start killing people.
Click to expand...
(quote from a member in The PA)
If he was banned solely for saying "evils of Christianity"
That is BS..IMHO

Why was Smersh banned?

I thought both Smersh and BB presented their arguments well
I don't think they were trolls
One man's troll is another man's person with opposing viewpoints
Having a moderator determine who is a troll in The PA is a unwinnable battle....IMHO

Isn't there a option of banning them for a month? week?
 
I can't believe smersh was banned. I looked at his last post in "The Leak" for which he was banned. I'm treading on thin ice, so I won't say anything else. I love BF. All of it. I don't wish to be banned.
 
Neither BLANNELBERRY nor smersh were banned for any one post, but for ignoring warnings to stop their patterns of disruptive behavior.
 
A simple solution would be Moderators should not moderate threads they are embroiled in as a participant. Let another moderator do the "dirty work".




Paul
 
jhakken said:
Please return a good-bye for me.
Click to expand...

Will do.

I think near the time he was banned he was starting to restrain and edit himself, but it seems that came too short and too late and not enough. As for the "evils of Christianity", wouldn't the phrase "I have a negative opinion of religion and Christianity in particular" serve the same purpose. When we choose words, phrases and expressions that have the main purpose of attacking and disrespecting the beliefs of others instead of explaining our position, that causes problems. I think BB was starting to get it, but by that time he had stepped on too many toes.
 
Last edited:
pcnorton said:
A simple solution would be Moderators should not moderate threads they are embroiled in as a participant. Let another moderator do the "dirty work".

Paul
Click to expand...

Perhaps the political forum shouldn't be moderated at all (with the exception of things like explicit language, nudity, personal threats, Spam, improper for sale listing.. etc.). Dealing with hecklers, and enthusiatic descent is all part of any real world political debate. It may raise the blood pressure sometimes, but it is a reflection of some of the political divisions that we all confront every day, and it would be a shame to tone it down for the sake of either comformity or political correctness.

n2s
 
not2sharp said:
Perhaps the political forum shouldn't be moderated at all
Click to expand...

I think Ken mentioned more than once that the PA either used to be unmoderated or that it was moderated very loosely. I suppose there are mods because it was decided that they were needed.
 
Nothing causes more dissension than Politics and Religion and alot of times they are intertwined.

I do think it's asking for trouble when the Moderators are just as involved as the rest of the participants in that forum but I realize they want Mods that are regulars there.

It's just tough to "appear" as an impartial Mod giving out Infractions when you are getting down deep into the threads yourself.

It may work better if the Mods were more invisible if they are gonna be judicial.

Face it, no one likes to debate, spare, even argue, with a person who is acting like a peer only to be slammed with a No-No by them as soon as it goes south.

Those threads are rarely are one-sided when it comes to questionable tone and behavior.

At the very least...the infraction should come from someone other than a directly participating Mod. Appearances matter.
 
If you don't like the appearance, don't participate. It is not easy for a mod who is not involved in the PA to jump in for one problem. This is especially true since the situation rarely consists of one problem, one post, one exchange of views. Trolling itself is a function of ongoing disruptive behavior. To expect another moderator to come in and assess, what? A whole thread? Two or three threads?

To find a moderator willing to stay with the PA, you need someone interested enough to participate. Live with it.

As for an unmoderated forum being allowed to mirror the real world of social and political back-biting, join a political party and hit the campaign trail. This forum is for stepping aside from that and analyzing it all more dispassionately. Not easy but you can do it if you try. You won't learn by parroting your own conclusions ad nauseam.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
If you don't like the appearance, don't participate. It is not easy for a mod who is not involved in the PA to jump in for one problem. This is especially true since the situation rarely consists of one problem, one post, one exchange of views. Trolling itself is a function of ongoing disruptive behavior. To expect another moderator to come in and assess, what? A whole thread? Two or three threads?

To find a moderator willing to stay with the PA, you need someone interested enough to participate. Live with it.

As for an unmoderated forum being allowed to mirror the real world of social and political back-biting, join a political party and hit the campaign trail. This forum is for stepping aside from that and analyzing it all more dispassionately. Not easy but you can do it if you try. You won't learn by parroting your own conclusions ad nauseam.
Click to expand...




I get that.

But the ideas of treat others respectfully, analyze dispassionately, open your mind, just get along, don't parrot your own conclusions...are great in theory but not always practiced in that forum. Few areas of discussion bring out folks rigidity of opinion than those discussed there.

I'm not picking sides. I fully realize how tough board moderation is. It was just a suggestion about having Mods being VERY careful to issue Infractions in threads where they are actively debating.

Bad idea??? OK. It was simply a suggestion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top