PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING In The Political Forum

[DVD Polizei]

I agree with Groucho. I don't want to be banned for saying Saddam Insane or Osama Yo Mama.

Or KrAmerican History X.

[Tracer Bullet]

You know, Red Dog and CRM114 are right. I would hate to lose future senators Douchebag and Macaca. Carry on with the puerile nicknames!

[bwvanh114]

Does anyone have a problem with saying something like this:

Then you do admit that your party (Republican) will not target tax cuts for folks who really need them?

It rubs me the wrong way and I was wondering if other people felt the same way. It just seems like an childish thing to say. I just don't know what's the point of that.

Why is it an childish thing to say? Because:
1. It is polarizing in a bad way: It assumes that the democrats will and that they are without any fault or criticism whatsoever regarding this issue.
2. Instead of discussing the pros and cons of an issue, it frames the debate as you have to defend all republicans now because democrats are without reproach. It asks that people defend a party instead of discussing an issue.
3. The biggest problem is that, it begs more poor discussion. I can easily continue this level of discussion with, "Fine, then you do admit that your party (democrats) by offering tax cuts will not pay for government and thus continue the cycle of screwing the future generations.

It doesn't seem hard to understand that any issues has a lot of grey areas and simply saying regarding gay marriages (for example), "So you agree than, that your party (democrats) have no values," makes for a pretty childish argument. Just curious what other people think.

[CRM114]

Posting a laughing smiley is now against the rules?

[nemein]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Posting a laughing smiley is now against the rules?

No not necessarily. Again what we are trying to do is promote discussion which is exactly what I said in my first comment about your posts in that thread 110th Congress Thread

Mod note: You know better than that. If you don't have something to further the discussion please don't comment. Posts like only encourage people to respond in kind instead of actually trying to foster a discussion.

[CRM114]

I didn't even see that post. But thats beisde the point. Laughing smileys as replies happens all the time. Why single me out? You are singling me out.

[CRM114]

I didn't even see that post. But thats beisde the point. Laughing smileys as replies happens all the time. Why single me out? You are singling me out. Or can you point me to another reprimand for the same "offense?" You don't have to bother...I'm just stating my case.

[CRM114]

OK, whatever.

[nemein]

Originally Posted by CRM114

I didn't even see that post. But thats beisde the point. Laughing smileys as replies happens all the time. Why single me out? You are singling me out. Or can you point me to another reprimand for the same "offense?" You don't have to bother...I'm just stating my case.

I haven't looked at all the threads obviously but I disagree w/ your supposition. In most cases people have either just posted general smilies (aka laughing about the thread in general) or have posted a smilie and then some sort of comment explaining it. I can't find any examples off hand (again w/ just a limited search) of someone quoting another person and then just posting a smilie. How hard is it to explain why you are posting the smilie?

Edit: I general it's in a similar vein to the smilie problem we had awhile back... I thought you were here then but maybe not.

[nemein]

Taken from: 110th Congress Thread

Originally Posted by CRM114

I don't want to argue this in the thread. I have deleted every post I made in this thread. I think your reasoning above has serious issues however.

Like what?

[nemein]

Also from: 110th Congress Thread (original posts deleted though)

Originally Posted by CRM114

So EVERY lone smiley will be reprimanded now, correct? You singled me out. You didn't even bother to understand what Ib was laughing at ...

Mod note:
You've hit the nail on the head... you didn't explain what the smiley was about. Why should it be encumbant upon the reader to try and discern what you mean by your smilie? All we are asking is that people treat each other w/ some respect and try to foster discussion instead of retaliation.

WRT you being "singled out", I guess it's time to remind people again that the mods don't read every post in every thread, kind of like how you didn't see my original post. Some of them we do catch but most of the problem posts are brought to our attention by the RTP feature. If you have a problem w/ someone doing this to you please let us know.

Originally Posted by CRM114

ah, forget it. I know the story around here.

I completely agree which is why I haven't been around much recently. People from both sides bitching and moaning about the level of discourse here and then when we try and do something about it we get accusations of favoritism from both sides. The whole thing just seems to be a waste of time recently, which is shame this used to be a fun place to discuss things. I guess it's just a reflection of the polarization of the country at large though.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by nemein

Like what?

You are luring me into getting Exiled. I understand.

[nemein]

No, I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind the Mod note: posts and figure out what the "serious issues" w/ them are?

[CRM114]

When I was EXILED, it was for arguing with a mod. You didn't explain your smilie.

[nemein]

Originally Posted by CRM114

When I was EXILED, it was for arguing with a mod. You didn't explain your smilie.

Yes I did... that's what the comment afterwords is about, it provides context for the smilie.

Since I'm curious I'll give you one free post (or send me email if you prefer). I'd like to know what is the problem w/ the above reasoning. Why should we allow posts like the ones you were criticized for and how will they help foster discussion as opposed to ill will/misunderstandings?

[CRM114]

You can't be bothered with "modding" - it's a "waste of time." How the hell can you seriously moderate this forum with that attitude? You aren't even bothering to state the policy you are enforcing - it seems rather random. But like I said, whatever. I'll just report every single smiley I see and watch the result.

printerati's "ad hoc mod" thread crap was not commented on. Nice.

[nemein]

Originally Posted by CRM114

You can't be bothered with "modding" - it's a "waste of time." How the hell can you seriously moderate this forum with that attitude? You aren't even bothering to state the policy you are enforcing - it seems rather random. But like I said, whatever. I'll just report every single smiley I see and watch the result.

I've asked myself that recently and maybe it is time to step down. The fun has left the forum and I don't see it coming back anytime soon

I'm not sure what you're missing but I have stated the policy; everything in the first post in this thread focuses on fostering discussion, my comments to you in the original thread was based on the fact your posts didn't do that. Not to mention the whole issue, and maybe you weren't here for it and maybe we do need to make it more explicit, about the banning of posts.

WRT to it being random I've used this reasoning atleast once before for a Mod note: post

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=65

My challenge still stands though, please explain how allowing such posts would be beneficial to the forum?

WRT reporting every single smilie post I'm still checking out threads and have yet to find any done in the fashion you were criticized for yours on.

printerati's "ad hoc mod" thread crap was not commented on. Nice.

It was deleted along w/ the rest of the comments in that thread.

[printerati]

Originally Posted by CRM114

printerati's "ad hoc mod" thread crap was not commented on. Nice.

It got your attention, something a real moderator was unable to do, and it was hardly a threadcrap, considering that the thread had devolved into similar barbs and jabs. All of us know better that that, however, and I won't do it again. I was going to delete it myself, but nemein beat me to it.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by nemein

My challenge still stands though, please explain how allowing such posts would be beneficial to the forum?

Its a ridiculous challenge. After 11,425 posts, I'd think people would know my positions enough that I can get by without being slapped on the wrist over something so trivial.

But like I said, whatever.

[nemein]

I'd think people would know my positions enough that I can get by without being slapped on the wrist over something so trivial.

If it is so trivial why are you making such a fuss over it?

[bwvanh114]

I would like the comments and opinions from moderators and fellow members on this:

My questions have to do with poor arguments, pointing out poor arguments and whether or not this constitutes “addressing the poster and not the issue.”

Take a position on a topic. It doesn’t matter what position and it doesn’t matter what topic. For this example though, let’s imagine a township discussing whether to impose stricter speed limits on a certain road.

If someone asks for clarification what exactly is speeding (35, 45, 55mph? 10mph of the flow of traffic, 20mph over the flow?) and someone replies, “You do agree, drunk drivers kill people?” I’m sure people, whether for or against stricter speed limits, can see this is a poor argument. It simply does not address the question.

Likewise, if they say, “Well the township gets to decide that, and last time I checked they are in charge.… or do you believe in anarchy?” that also is a poor argument. Again, it does not address the question. A good test of whether an argument is valid or not is whether it can apply to the contrary position with equal efficacy. I can say, “the legislator is in charge” for illegal aliens and against it, I can say it for the war in Iraq and against it. Therefore, that is a poor argument. Note that this does not say anything about the position, whether for or against it. It only says that the rationale for that position is poor.

I bring this up because of something that happened in the What’s with all the horrible ideas to lower gas prices thread. Classicman had multiple opportunities to explain what he considers price gouging at the oil pumps. Here are his replies:

Originally Posted by Classicman2

Post #1: I wonder how you define gouging - or don't you believe it exists?
Post #2: Do you believe that the government has the right to regulate industries that are essential for the economy and for the people?
Post #3: How do you know how much a refiner makes on a gallon of gasoline?
Post #4: The federal government makes the decision as to what gouging is. You'll do agree that the government is the representative of the people. On second thought, maybe you conservatives don't believe government is the representative of the people. You seem to believe that large corporations represent the people more.

The government has the Constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce. I don't believe anyone can argue with the fact that the refinery and selling of gasoline is interstate commerce.

None of these posts address the question with the last one just a bizarre argument. That can be said for and against every topic.

People say all the time that they are for a position or against a position. Lots of times they even give their rationale. Can’t someone point out that the rationale (not necessarily the position) is bad? Is pointing this out and wanting a better rationale “addressing the poster and not the issue?”

I thought I was addressing the rationale and the arguments when I tried to point out the poor argument. But Venusian said I was addressing the poster and not the issue.

I thought addressing the poster meant something like the following:

Jesus, what's wrong with you?
Maybe you ought to read a little more before commenting.
Maybe you ought to take a break from the forum.

I'm curious what people think.

[CRM114]

Just because you aren't satisfied with a response doesn't mean you need to endlessly call out a member by name. Just move on. No one has any obligation to respond to your questions.

[bwvanh114]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Just because you aren't satisfied with a response doesn't mean you need to endlessly call out a member by name. Just move on.

This comment doesn't address what I asked. I asked if pointing out if the rationale is poor is addressing the poster and not the issue. For example, I just pointed out that what you said did not address what I asked. Is that addressing the poster or the issue?

Originally Posted by CRM114

No one has any obligation to respond to your questions.

I realize that.

But if If I keep saying there is some vast conspiracy in the porn industry to limit male-male interactions without answering questions, keep posting in the thread, keep ignoring any questions or attempts to further discussion, or otherwise have a fair, reasonable, and decent discussion, wouldn't I just be a troll?

I wanted to facilitate discussion. I didn't know what else to do except point out the poor rationale and ask for a better one.

If no one wants to participate and attempt to answer questions, this forum would have to be closed due to lack of participation.

I think the whole point of this forum is to have a discussion, not come in, state my opinion and run. Imagine what the forum would be like then. It would be boring. I was trying, by addressing the rationale, to get something more out of the topic. If no one can expect a simple answer to a the topic at hand, pretty much all these threads will to be closed as it defeats the purpose of discussion.

[Venusian]

People don't have to respond. I agree it makes for poor discussion, but ask them for their position, if they ignore you, forget about it. Nagging them and hounding them won't help. If they seem irrational, ignore them. It's just the internet. When you start calling peopel out by name, you cna get into the mistake of making the wrong call

[NCMojo]

Look, here's the deal: some people just have a habit of posting in a certain way. You can rail against it, and rant and rave, but that's just how they are -- it's not against the rules, they're not fundamentally bad people, so you just shrug it off and don't let it get to you.

I'll give you an example (and I hope he forgives me for singling him out): grundle used to drive me absolutely bonkers. He'd post these articles and make these generalizations based on some snippet in the third paragraph that seemed to support his point, and then he'd make a poll that had three options that were exactly the same but were worded somewhat differently, and it would drive... me... insane...



But then I figured out that grundle's really not a bad guy, and he's never rude or offensive, and you know what? He's consistent. It doesn't hurt me to let him make these kind of threads, and now it even kind of tickles me to see another "grundle thread" out there. He's part of the family... like that crazy uncle with the nose hair who sings loudly off-key and likes to eat rhubarb pie...

So classicman is the same way. He likes to post these general questions that may seem beside-the-point or off-putting, and he frequently declines to respond to direct questions. But you know what? He's consistent. He doesn't engage in a bunch of personal attacks, he keeps abreast of current events, and he doesn't just blindly follow the current party line. I've waged a war or two against him, but at the end of the day -- just like you, bwvanh114, and neimen and CRM and Rockmjd23 and a bunch of other people here -- if I could meet him in person, I'd buy him a beer and toast to his good fortune.