The Fate of the Buster - Looking for Input

[iamshack]

The problem there is that we keep those rules because occasionally everyone gets tired of the snark in PHt and we wind up enforcing stronger for a while.

And that is even worse, because you are violating your customary standards and reverting to inconsistent enforcement.

 

What is the goal? To have the largest readership possible? Or to have the best discussion possible? Or the best of both worlds? We're all adults here. I'd much rather bear the brunt of a few vile comments for the sake of stimulating and passionate discussion rather than have a s*** and span forum that is bland and emotionless.

Edited April 19, 2012 by iamshack

[kapkomet]

So having a bunch that aren't followed, nor enforced, is somehow a better idea?

 

Those rules are violated all over the forum every day. They have been rendered useless because they are too restrictive.

 

The rules should be based on common sense, not some inclusive set of instructions which ultimately result in a chilling of expression so great as to ruin the entire purpose of a message board.

 

 

I know, and I agree there. But I will say this, the reason that the express limitations were set on a political forum and not the rest of it is because you know it's a lightning rod. You try to take the sting out of the bee before you get stuck. It's also why there's more leeway in the other forums, because day to day baseball conversation can occasionally cause disagreements, on the other hand, you know political ones will more often then not.

[StrangeSox]

I cannot disagree with that. In fact, I think we can change that, if I remember correctly. Good point.

 

Balta explained to me the intent--so that two posters don't keep going at each other via PM. It may be possible for the board software to restrict PM-ability to certain usergroups (mods and admins) only. Alternatively, discussion could be allowed in "hidden" threads only viewable by mods, admins and the person involved.

 

As ss2k5 is saying, though, not everyone may be able to handle a discussion over their posts without melting down and making the situation worse for everyone.

[StrangeSox]

And that is even worse, because you are violating your customary standards and reverting to inconsistent enforcement.

 

What is the goal? To have the largest readership possible? Or to have the best discussion possible? Or the best of both worlds? We're all adults here. I'd much rather bear the brunt of a few vile comments for the sake of stimulating and passionate discussion rather than have a s*** and span forum that is bland and emotionless.

 

Some kind of balance should be struck between "letting people be as big of assholes as they want to be" and "prim and proper conversation with a lot of condescension and disrespect right under the surface." I've seen a board implode in the first case and another essentially splinter into two communities in the second.

[NorthSideSox72]

Some good discussion here. I want to add a few responses to what I have seen...

 

1. To the point about bringing Mod/Admin discussions to public light... first, there simply has to be a closed forum like that for discussions to be had without causing even more harm than was already done. Second, after discussions are had, if any action is warranted, we absolutely should contact the poster about it. If the post was clearly insulting and way over the line, we may suspend-then-email, but for smaller stuff, we PM or email first to discuss. I am sure we have not been perfect in this regard, and we can certainly work to be better. But under no circumstances do I think its a good idea to expose every discussion among Mod and Admin staff to the public.

 

2. I agree that if someone is suspended (as opposed to outright banned), we should suspend their posting rights only, and allow PM's to continue... unless we think there is a reason that would be problematic.

 

3. Compared to fully open and unencumbered political forums, this place is very calm and well-run. But its all relative.

 

4. A big part of the reason things seem to have gotten "better" in some ways is that we have lost a ton of regular posters in here, so the discussion has become stale and less involved. And a lot of people left because of the way things had gotten. Add to this that there is little new blood - we all know each others, and can almost always predict responses.

 

5. I absolutely disagree with the notion that tighter restrictions means you can't have good discussion. On the contrary, if people are forced to be a little more civil, I think the discussion will be much better. But that is just my personal view.

 

[Y2HH]

To be perfectly honest, I have a MORE of a problem with people arguing or getting into fights over sports than I do over political or real world issues. At least in this arena, there are things worth fighting over...sports not being one of them.

 

I personally think the Filibuster is very thought provoking, educational, and yes, even emotional, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone that says otherwise never had any intention of having a real discussion here. This is a place where you can't just show up, post something you heard once as fact, and walk away as if you "learned" everyone. If you post something here, whether it be an opinion, interpretation, or just a set of facts...they better be real...because I assure you they'll be checked. I love that about this board. Anyone that has come here for a discussion and never learned anything didn't come here for a discussion, they came here for an argument. There are many posters that I often disagree with on this board, and even they, at times, have shown me things I never would have thought of myself, or corrected me on something I've said that wasn't quite right.

 

Yea, the discussions can get heated and emotional, but that's because what we discuss here are actual, real world, life affecting events that matter. If you aren't willing to be emotional about those things, and accept other people can get emotional about those things...don't come here.

[southsider2k5]

Some kind of balance should be struck between "letting people be as big of assholes as they want to be" and "prim and proper conversation with a lot of condescension and disrespect right under the surface." I've seen a board implode in the first case and another essentially splinter into two communities in the second.

 

We had exactly that happen years ago, which is why the group technique really came about.

[iamshack]

To be perfectly honest, I have a MORE of a problem with people arguing or getting into fights over sports than I do over political or real world issues. At least in this arena, there are things worth fighting over...sports not being one of them.

 

I personally think the Filibuster is very thought provoking, educational, and yes, even emotional, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone that says otherwise never had any intention of having a real discussion here. This is a place where you can't just show up, post something you heard once as fact, and walk away as if you "learned" everyone. If you post something here, whether it be an opinion, interpretation, or just a set of facts...they better be real...because I assure you they'll be checked. I love that about this board. Anyone that has come here for a discussion and never learned anything didn't come here for a discussion, they came here for an argument. There are many posters that I often disagree with on this board, and even they, at times, have shown me things I never would have thought of myself, or corrected me on something I've said that wasn't quite right.

 

Yea, the discussions can get heated and emotional, but that's because what we discuss here are actual, real world, life affecting events that matter. If you aren't willing to be emotional about those things, and accept other people can get emotional about those things...don't come here.

Yeah, I agree with this pretty much word for word.

 

And it is impossible to embrace these topics and genuinely debate them while trying to following the posted rules. If I feel like I have to be constantly checking those rules to make sure I am not violating any of them all the time, then they are neither appropriate for this forum or they are chilling expression.

 

IMO, there should be two written rules:

 

1) No personal attacks on other posters will be tolerated, and;

2) No threatening statements towards anyone will be tolerated.

 

Everything else should be based on common sense, IMO.

 

The stuff about sarcasm and hyperbole...those are important weapons in the arsenal of any political commentator/debater!

Edited April 19, 2012 by iamshack

[Jenksismyhero]

IMO the only "rule" should be that if you're being an asshole and personally attacking someone (not with snide remarks, but actually something like "you're a f***ing idiot"), you're gone - suspended, banned after a while, whatever system the admns want to come up with. Everything else should be fair game. We're all adults here. We're not being forced to read/contribute. Since i've been a member (something like 2006), I've never really seen a "group" attack that would keep people from posting at all so I don't really see that as being a concern.

 

But really the problem is the nature of the board. There are two major "political leanings," with one being completely dominated. So basically the discussion always gets drowned out by the numbers. That has killed most discussion, especially the last 4-5 months. Occasionally we'll have a fresh news story that can be debated (Martin), but otherwise as NSS says, we all pretty much know what people are going to say, so I find myself not posting something new just because I know exactly how the discussion will go.

 

Bringing new blood in would be the best way to spice this area up, and I think making people agree to rules/restrictions really hinders that. I think it's common sense on message boards like this that if you're being a dick you're going to get banned/suspended. And if that comes as a shock to someone they'll learn pretty quickly I think.

[Y2HH]

As something of a historical expert on being "banned" or "suspended" from SoxTalk, I can honestly say that each and every time I got banned/suspended, I expected it. It's not like it came as a surprise. While it's been quite a long time since that's occurred, I think the rules are quite clear, and people know when they're doing something wrong.

 

I have no issues with heated/passionate discussion on this board...I not only expect it, but want it. There is nothing more disheartening about the state of the modern world when people have no passion for their opinions, thoughts or feelings on the state of the world around them. Yes, it can get heated...but you have to leave it at that. Just because you disagree with someone about, say, whether the President is doing a good job or not, does not mean you have to hate them/dislike them about EVERYTHING else they have to say.

[Middle Buffalo]

IMO the only "rule" should be that if you're being an asshole and personally attacking someone (not with snide remarks, but actually something like "you're a f***ing idiot"), you're gone - suspended, banned after a while, whatever system the admns want to come up with. Everything else should be fair game. We're all adults here. We're not being forced to read/contribute. Since i've been a member (something like 2006), I've never really seen a "group" attack that would keep people from posting at all so I don't really see that as being a concern.

 

But really the problem is the nature of the board. There are two major "political leanings," with one being completely dominated. So basically the discussion always gets drowned out by the numbers. That has killed most discussion, especially the last 4-5 months. Occasionally we'll have a fresh news story that can be debated (Martin), but otherwise as NSS says, we all pretty much know what people are going to say, so I find myself not posting something new just because I know exactly how the discussion will go.

 

Bringing new blood in would be the best way to spice this area up, and I think making people agree to rules/restrictions really hinders that. I think it's common sense on message boards like this that if you're being a dick you're going to get banned/suspended. And if that comes as a shock to someone they'll learn pretty quickly I think.

The snide remarks are no less antagonistic than just coming out and saying "you're a f***ing idiot."

 

The forum is dominate by 5-8 people who are hardcore in their leanings and rarely, if ever, concede a point. There is very little discussion, just a pissing contest.

 

Unfortunately, the loudest voices in these "discussions" are often moderators.

[Texsox]

Unfortunately, the loudest voices in these "discussions" are often moderators.

 

 

The loudest voices in almost every forum or subforum are moderators. Two factors to becomming a mod is longevity and how active you are. So we are active and have posted a lot for a long time.

 

As far as standards we do not publically announce when a poster is suspended, however, I can assure you that mods and admins have been suspended. We never consider a mod to be "above the rules". Actually in a few cases mods have suspended themselves.

[Soxbadger]

I actually dont really care if mods are active etc, if you treat every poster as if they are a mod, you are more likely to stay on the right side of the fence anyways.

[Middle Buffalo]

The loudest voices in almost every forum or subforum are moderators. Two factors to becomming a mod is longevity and how active you are. So we are active and have posted a lot for a long time.

I should add that I actually like this subforum, but being active and posting a lot isn't a license to break the rules.

 

1. I will not insult other posters, directly or indirectly

3. I will not bait people or push them over the line (a.k.a. pushing their buttons)

4. I will not post statements for the purpose of angering others

5. I will not prod posters repeatedly on a subject or chase them across topics to make a point

 

I could find numerous examples of these rules being broken again and again by the same people - people with 10K or more posts who differ politically and go around and around in almost every thread in the filibuster. It may be ok between the people involved, buts it's tiring when it's the same two people making the same handful of points repeatedly. You name the topic, and I pretty much know how the most active people in this subforum will feel before I even enter the thread.

 

Just my two cents.

 

[Texsox]

I should add that I actually like this subforum, but being active and posting a lot isn't a license to break the rules.

 

1. I will not insult other posters, directly or indirectly

3. I will not bait people or push them over the line (a.k.a. pushing their buttons)

4. I will not post statements for the purpose of angering others

5. I will not prod posters repeatedly on a subject or chase them across topics to make a point

 

I could find numerous examples of these rules being broken again and again by the same people - people with 10K or more posts who differ politically and go around and around in almost every thread in the filibuster. It may be ok between the people involved, buts it's tiring when it's the same two people making the same handful of points repeatedly. You name the topic, and I pretty much know how the most active people in this subforum will feel before I even enter the thread.

 

Just my two cents.

 

We agree.

[Y2HH]

I should add that I actually like this subforum, but being active and posting a lot isn't a license to break the rules.

 

1. I will not insult other posters, directly or indirectly

3. I will not bait people or push them over the line (a.k.a. pushing their buttons)

4. I will not post statements for the purpose of angering others

5. I will not prod posters repeatedly on a subject or chase them across topics to make a point

 

I could find numerous examples of these rules being broken again and again by the same people - people with 10K or more posts who differ politically and go around and around in almost every thread in the filibuster. It may be ok between the people involved, buts it's tiring when it's the same two people making the same handful of points repeatedly. You name the topic, and I pretty much know how the most active people in this subforum will feel before I even enter the thread.

 

Just my two cents.

 

You just described every discussion to ever take place on the planet. And that's not the point of a discussion. Sure, when it comes to my friends, family, and certain individuals on this forum, I can probably guess their stance on a specific issue before I ask, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a discussion. The only way to have a discussion and NOT know what stance people might take is to find new people for every discussion every day of your life.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Some people feel as if a discussion, even a heated discussion is automatically an argument...and at times they can devolve into that, but mostly, it's still a discussion with point/counterpoint/counter-counterpoint, debates on a specific issue, etc. Yes, people defending their opinions can get passionate...and I expect it...if you aren't passionate about how you feel about something, why bother feeling that way at all? What I've found is that while people tend to not concede points during a discussion, after they've had time to think about the counter points to their view, they CAN and often do accept them, even if silently. I've learned a lot from this forum, and although I rarely "concede" DURING a specific discussion, I often find my view has been changed, or altered, even if just a little, after having had the discussion and having had time to digest it.

 

It's okay to be stubborn while defending your view in the middle of a discussion. What's NOT okay is to refuse to learn and grow from said discussion. Some people are capable of accepting things instantly, others, such as myself, need more time. When I say something that's wrong, say about the environment, and Balta points it out...why would I immediately agree with him, just because he has experience and education? While that lends weight to his opinions, it's doesn't make all of them insta-facts. I often have to go back and read through the links he's posted, and then search for counter views to those links and see where the facts lead. If he's right, then he's right. That's part of the fun.

[lostfan]

Speaking for myself... my name is under "forum led by" here, so I'm "the mod" of this forum although I'm not the only one obviously. I haven't been as active lately (mainly due to not being able to get on at work, and just generally having to share my home computer(s) more since my kids are getting older). When I first came to this board I was kind of on a political news binge and I used to be in this forum every single day, all day. Lately though I've just been bored with politics in general and I think a lot of other people feel the same way I do. It has less to do with this board and its posters, although I know everyone who posts in here and I know everything they're going to say, and what their replies to me will look like.

 

Moderation of this forum is really tricky. There's a fine line between allowing people to freely express themselves given the subject matter, and just letting people be obnoxious assholes. And "obnoxious asshole" is very subjective. Plus you have to be as objective and consistent as you can, tolerating or not tolerating the same behavior from people who agree and don't agree with your personal point of view. This is trickier than you might think and some people are just more open to that kind of thing than others.

 

I really, really don't like suspending people. I've suspended Y2HH like 3 times (it's a running joke now, he pokes fun at himself too) b/c he is like Dennis the f***ing Menace, but I actually really like the dude and just about everyone in here and hate to have to go there. Yes when mods go over the line, and they do, they're subject to the same rules. A lot of times what I end up doing is just letting things ride unless it's really blatant. I don't want to be seen as heavy-handed, and neither do any of the other mods. Plus I know that if I suspend certain people (like, say, Y2HH), it will be a lengthy suspension because of the board's policy on multiple suspensions, and I'd really rather not have to drop the hammer for 30-60 days because he used the word "tool" or "dumbass" in his post even if he was expecting it. It just seems like a petty thing to do, thinking about the larger picture.

 

To the extent that I have a problem with the Filibuster, it's more like a general apathy towards political discussions that I've developed. I'm kind of indifferent to the Filibuster nowadays, but I don't think getting rid of the board and banning certain topics is the way to go, either.

[Rex Kickass]

I also am not as active as I used to be here, although I have moderated this forum for a few years. Sometimes, I think the discussions here are pretty toxic, but I don't think that's any different than any other place in this country. Our dialogue in general, as a society has gotten less friendly and less respectful.

 

I post less here not because I think the arguments here are fruitless, but because I'm just less interested in arguing lately. It does get frustrating to put some thought behind a post and not get a proper reaction. But again, that's life, that's not unique to this board.

 

I will say that moderating here has been a challenge. When your ideology is assumed, enforcing policies equally often seems like bias when the poster is party X and I am party Y. I've tended to be more heavy handed in all honesty with people on my own side of the fence. Suspending people in here is a challenge, because its very easy to feel like you are being attacked for your political views, and that's a tough pill to swallow.

[The Sir]

Why wouldn't this forum be a mean place? Its full of people who hate each other. I'm not going to look at any of the resident statists and think kind thoughts. This sort of snark and nastiness comes with the territory.

[The Sir]

Why wouldn't this forum be a mean place? Its full of people who hate each other. I'm not going to look at any of the resident statists and think kind thoughts. This sort of snark and nastiness comes with the territory.

[Y2HH]

Why wouldn't this forum be a mean place? Its full of people who hate each other. I'm not going to look at any of the resident statists and think kind thoughts. This sort of snark and nastiness comes with the territory.

 

Speak for yourself on this.

 

I don't hate anyone on this forum. Just because I disagree with people on some aspects of their social, political or religious beliefs does not mean I hate them for it. Snark and nastiness aside, while discussions may get heated or impassioned, that doesn't mean you have to hate the person for having a different opinion.

 

So long as they back their opinion with rational thought, logic or facts, even at times backed by anecdotal evidence from their own life experience (which could help explain why a person might feel a certain way), I have no issues with them maintaining a different opinion on the subject at hand.

 

The problem is some people do not listen to anything their "opponent" in a discussion says, so they learn and take nothing from the discussion.

 

There have been times on this forum (and in other areas of life) where I've incorrectly backed a thought or opinion because of evidence/facts I was mislead on, and after it was pointed out and I read for myself -- conclusively -- why I was incorrect, I've changed my opinion on that thing. As far as I'm concerned, anyone that cannot do this is content being "dumb". It's okay to be wrong sometimes...it's a learning experience.

[Middle Buffalo]

The problem is some people do not listen to anything their "opponent" in a discussion says, so they learn and take nothing from the discussion.

A little more of this would go a long way in making this a better forum.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

A little more of this would go a long way in making this a better forum.

Agreed. The people in this forum who I have spent the most time with as friends have political viewpoints nearly diametrically opposed to mine. Disagreement doesn't mean you have to like the person who disagrees.