goop,

I think I have had enough of this, it is crap. I personally am tired of your assumptions. You are now challenging the credibility of all the mods. Are you stubborn? Of course. Close minded? Yes. I can't imagine anyone arguing that point. Do you throw out bits of data to support your point and ignore anything that is contrary? Of course. Do you neglect to cite references and sources when call out? Of course. Do you make statements that can't be backed up? Of course.

Do most of your threads become circular debates? I think so.

This thread is not getting anywhere. You will not hear the answer you seek.

I will leave it at this. If you don't agree with an admin/mods actions, please email Geoff. Your point has been made and noted.

So you are capable of understanding something correctly after all! Then I sure don't understand why you keep having so much trouble with all the other things we've been trying to tell you.

Where would you ever get that idea!? :) I have long said that one of the really bad things about being a mod, is a percentage of people will be pissed you closed a thread, and a percentage will be pissed you didn't close it sooner.

You might be surprised at how often people get offended, demand moderator action, etc.

In the Other forum, almost all mod actions are gray areas. It's not simple like someone spamming. Often it's something that requires a lot of judgement, and I know not everyone will agree with the choice.

But I do know, we try to do the best we can in a mostly thankless, unpaid, time consuming job with a lot of crap thrown at us. Eventually, some of us will burn out from it. Or call Geoff at 1:30am. :)

Ha.

Have you considered spinning off the political threads into a sub-forum?

I don't think it'll make them any easier to moderate. Plus, that will fragment Other even more than it's already been fragmented.

We could create a Left Forum and a Right Forum, no thread craps allowed. No dissenting opinion. Preaching to the pulpit only.

:)

On a tangential topic, I would like to request a custom title for Groucho. Perhaps something along the lines of "He speaks lies."

Id be shocked if anybody backed you up.

This whole thread makes me agree with this idea. Other seems to get itself into a rut with postings. Would this destroy Other? Maybe. Then again, we said that when we were arguing to spin off a Sports forum. Sounded like Anarchy and Armageddon were going to happen if a Sports Forum was created...Other seems to have thrived without Sports topics.

I think it is due time to spin off Political debates into a sub-forum so people like me (and I may be the only one) don't have to drudge through all the political debates going on in Other. I read a few of them, but I would rather have them in their own sub-forum or eliminate political debates totally.

Are most political debates not circular? You can add religion in there too. You get people who sit on the left and right of politics and their ideas become very circular. Can there be intellectual debate in some political threads? Sure, but chances are things will seem circular at some time.

The mods are in a hard position because they want to be regular posters, but most people don't think of them that way outside of the "clique" (the people that know and talk to each other regularily both in the forum and outside the forum). It is human condition that people feel mods are above them and get the feeling of paranoia that the mods have their own agenda.

I think for the good of DVDTalk that political (and religious) threads should get their own sub-forum or be eliminated wholly. This is just my opinion though.

Hello :D

I have a few thoughts. No one ever can see the situation clearly when being "mod'ed". I have seen this from both sides and know it to be true after see the mod role from the inside.

Are mods perfect? No. Are they going to have opinions? Yes. Some times its just easier to lock a thread then to stay online and watch it. Remember X gets nothing for his time here. He works his ass off in all of the forums not just the other. Still if you have a problem email Geoff, it is his site.

Goop all of you points in this thread are very valid when taken at face value. I thought the same things when the lock happened. But what you are not seeing is the pattern of all of your posts effects how mods do their job.

Years before you joined I was in the “role” you find yourself now. Others have also been down this path (Chess and rickforest) but then reached a point that it was all just too hard and left the Other. When in this “role” I felt the exact same things you have posted here.

The reality is none of the Others will change anything about what they feel or think from what they read here. You make your point, validate it and then prove it in ten ways and still Clinton did worse :lol: (sorry had to do it). I suggest you first understand this rule when posting political threads.

Take some time away from this "role"and become a member of the community. It’s the one dimensional posting style that gets you labeled and then gets the attention of the mods. And also gets you discounted by other posters (been there :lol: )

We have had many conservatives get banned or warned for the same posting style. Clubcar is one that comes to mind. So it is not just one sided like you may think.

Its the style the gets the attention of the mods.

I will also tell you that some of the hardest head conservatives at the time I was in this "role" have now become some of my favs on the forum. People like kvrdave and struz come to mind. Now it is almost more fun to joke with each other (while still making our points)

Where do you think this came from

-ohbfrank-

I'm with Fox, political subforum is just what this place needs.

Not to the extent that I have seen in these threads I am referring to. And I agree about religious threads. In the past, we have quickly closed many religious (or abortion) threads because they are circular and only turn into flamefests.

I have seen good political discussion. But hardly any in most of the goop threads.

Damn that was an excellent post! :up: Were you channelling Blade of the days of ClubCar when you wrote that? :lol:

Well I appreciate the comments and suggestions bfrank, but I don’t think I will bother anymore. Perhaps some people do see the double standard. However, the double standard presents an unsolvable problem for the moderators of this forum. Most of the people that participate in the political threads are conservatives. As such special unwritten seat of the pants rules have to be in place to see that the conservatives aren’t offended I understand that.

I have quit posting in this thread several times. It is only when someone comes back and throws some new barbs at me I feel compelled to respond. I am not challenging the credibility of the mods. I am merely pointing out the rules aren’t enforced in the same manner. A conservative can get away with much more in this forum than a liberal can. For the record I think I have thrown out much more data to support my posts/threads than you find in most of the conservative threads. There again is yet another double standard. Rarely, have I seen a conservative asked to cite his/her sources. (This hasn’t been the case recently, but this was the case when I first started posting.) I am especially disappointed that you stated that my thread was non-newsworthy. Despite your allegation that I don’t cite sources when called out, I carefully researched that story. Rather than posting something out of an editorial page, I posted the primary source the court document itself. I note you said you did some research on the person that made the accusation, and some of the stuff you found showed this wasn’t a credible story. Well I would really like it if you posted your sources that discredit this story. I guess I am asking you to do the same thing you say I don’t do. I am calling you out asking you for your sources.

X, it is truly sad. Why do you have to resort to name calling and personal attacks? I would assume if I called you “pathetic” I would almost immediately be banned. You know what I won’t stoop to that level.

That seems to me what you have here now ( a right only forum) especially if you take myself and a couple of others out of the equation. I wonder what bfrank meant by the “role”? I know what he meant, but perhaps you might try and figure out why people on the left with strong opinions are relegated to the “role”, but if you are on the right and have a strong opinion in here that is the norm. See it is not just that wacky goop that has made these observations.


My threads are no different than you find from some of the more passionate conservatives in the forum. The only difference is they are from the opposite side of the fence. But you know what I understand. DVD Talk is a microcosm of what is acceptable conduct in partisan talk. Conservatives are use to hearing talk of “Hollywood Liberals”, “that anyone that opposes the war in Iraq is a communist”, that it is ok to refer to the former first lady as “Hitler” or Hitlery as they like to say, that even calling the Clinton’s then thirteen-year-old daughter the White House dog is acceptable, that democrats are traitors, and even the current administration floats a phrase that goes something like If you are not with us you are with the terrorists. This kind of talk is no longer confined to conservative media outlets; it is now part the mainstream media. It is only natural when this type of stuff is heard over and over that people think it is acceptable to talk this way in a public form. You know the "As long as Chelsea, Hillary, and Billy are not members of this forum, people can call them skanks and pigs and trailer park trash until they're blue in the face." What is outside the norm is a liberal flipping it around using some of the same language to refer to conservatives or making the conservatives the butt of a political joke in a public forum. It was naive of me to some how think that DVD Talk was not reflective of what has become a societal norm. So there is a double standard, but I understand how it would be impossible to run a public form without one.

goop, it is pointless to respond to your post. You see what you expect and want to see. I will note AGAIN that people have bashed conservatives party members and have not been taken to task. Ultraconservative forum members have been BANNED. The larger issue is that you don't even see how filtered your perception is. Do you really think you and bfrank are the lone liberals in the other forum?

During the elections, I kept hearing that thought, that there was a very right wing bias. I counted the numbers of people that seemed liberal and the numbers that seemed conservative, and they were pretty equal. I counted the posts in the threads and the liberals outnumbered the conservatives. But still a few people saw that the forum was right of Rush. I can't change your perception, because these same people tend to ignore data and facts and go on feelings.


As far as my sources for the story you posted, simply put the person's name in google. That is what I did. It brought up a number of new's reports.

Thanks. I think this thread has run it's course then.