Because eventually you end with with a politics forum that consists of only of people saying "Bush is a terrorist and Republicans are dumb bigots", "liberals are commie whackos" and C-man calling all of it "hogwash"?


While the rest of us bail from the forum altogether, disgusted with the blind partisanship and its morass of pointless, useless waste-of-time-to-read-it crap like "liberals are terrorists" and "it's all Bush's fault"...

Or, of course, you could just not frequent that forum.

Define intelligent? Who gets to say which poster(s) is posting intelligent stuff and who's not? This sounds like more and more an elitist club. If people on the left or right don't think your post is intelligent to their standards, you should not allow to post or refreain from posting? I kept on seeing people who posted over and over "Bush fault" "Bush lied" "impeach Bush" "Bush is a fascist" follow by a lengthy and wordly post. Yet, the entire lengthy post reflects back to "Bush lied". Does that conclude intelligent?
In reality, the left will view pro-Bushies as retards and vice versa. Neither side will accept the other side is intelligent.

1. You simply don't like the answer.

2. It seems to me that your own poll doesn't support your conclusions.

How many reports and how many complaints?

Are those reports and complaints from regulars or semi-regulars or just drop in once in a while folks?

That's exactly my point.

In addition I think many people seem to believe that a short, terse response can't be an intelligent response - and post length is necessary for it to be an intelligent response.

I have an answer for those - 'hogwash.' :)

1) No you simply don't answer. Take this example... I asked why do you continue to come back if you have such a negative opinion of the place, and you responded about "the rush to change" (even though the forum has been going on for years and we've only started making changes these last couple of months). That's not an answer to the question I asked and this is not the first time you've dodged questions you didn't want to answer, for whatever reason.

2) The way I read the poll is on avg most people think the forum is about the same as it was before and the main thing that is desired is better enforcement of the rules. In light of that we developed the 3 strikes/political exile rule so everyone knew the standard we were going to be moderating by.

Personally I don't track complaints, after they are dealt w/ they are deleted from the inbox. Maybe one of the other mods is collecting stats but I kind of doubt it.

There is such a thing as a short intelligent response. A flip phrase or a curt blow off doesn't qualify though. We aren't expecting people to write dissertations in their responses, since as mentioned previously you can have lengthy responses that say nothing, what we are trying to do is get people to post THOUGHTFUL responses. Canned phrases, talking points and partisan rhetoric are what we are trying to eliminate. Again though if that is the level of discussion you want to participate in there are plenty of other I'net forums out there to accomodate you. If you don't like the rules/what we are trying to do here don't post, it's as simple as that.

And you & others who wish to change this forum into a 'vanilla type' forum might heed the old advice - if you can't stand the heat............................

Apparently you're experiencing some trouble with the heat.

Respectful is probably a better word. All posts should be respectful of the member they are responding to, and should be addressing issues relevant to the topic, not just thread crapping to bash the party or whatever.

And that seems to be how the rules are getting enforced.

Actually, it seems like you and few others can't stand the heat of the new rules, which honestly aren't changing much.

You're just bitter because you're "hogwash" reply is no longer valid and you might actually have to think before posting now.

You're right- intelligent is not the best word. But I think my meaning was pretty clear from the (not kneejerk) part of my post. If you don't have anything to add which isn't either your version of "hogwash!" or lifted directly from DU or Rush, don't post it.


If they're presenting some sort of evidence for their view that Bush lied, then I'd say yes. If it's just a partisan screed driven by personal dislike of Bush, then no. I think in most cases it's pretty easy to differentiate the two.

:hscratch: Speak for yourself. This comment says more about your own view of politics than any objective reality.

Personally I had no problems w/ the "heat", but as a moderator it's not just my interests/tolerance level I have to deal w/.

I see you're still avoiding answering the question... ;)

I think you're wrong. I would imagine no one on the left would dispute <b>Pharoh</b>'s intelligence, nor would anyone on the right dispute that of <b>sfsdfd</b>.

Other than being fustians at times, I like, respect, and enjoy the posts of both Pharoh & sfsdfd. :)

I can't think of any two posters who are more universally respected.

[cough] ahem [/cough] ;)

We don't really need a definition. This thread itself (for the most part) proves that you can have a discussion without resulting to name calling and simple "hogwash" type responses. It is an intellegent discussion of ideas.

And no one has called for anyone else to be banned. Ya see, the system can work.

You ought to see a doctor about that. ;)

Well, I wouldn't go that far. ;)

Ah, but this isn't the politics forum.

Your definition of an intelligent response may be in total variance of what I believe it is.

For those who have problems w/ the new rules please explain for us what benefit there is to allowing such rhetoric/trite responses. What is the problem w/ trying to elevate the level of discussion on the forum to something above what can be found on other sites?

So? Please explain why that would matter. This discussion, where people disagree, has been civil. Doesn't that prove that other discussions where people don't see eye-to-eye can also be civil? If not, why.

I'd also be interesed in reading your response to Nemein's question.

Why does it matter - are you serious?

Politics, religion, sexual preference, gun control, etc. are contnentious issues that you don't find on the other forums on DVD Talk. There are gut issues. They bring out the rank partisanship in people. The Bargains Forum doesn't have gut issues, therefore it naturally is more civil than is the Politics Forum. The same applies to the rest of the forums.

Can we stop the comparison of the Politics Forum with other forums on DVD Talk? It's an apples & oranges comparison. Therefore, it's not a valid comparison.

It is different, but there's no reason to not try to rein in the conversation some. It will always more heated than in other areas, but that doesn't mean it can't be respectful.

One can have a passionate debate without insulting other members, making extreme gross generalizations (or out right thread crapping party bashing), or rudely dismissing opposing viewpoints with single word replies used over and over that add nothing to the discussion.

In fact this is evidenced by the majortity of posts made by the majority of people that participate in the forum. There was just a problem with a minority of posts from some members, and the new rules are attempting to rein that in.

I don't see why you have such an issue with this. Stop with the "hogwash!" responses and you'll be within the new rules.

I disagree that it's an apples and oranges comparison. The standards of the forum shouldn't depend on what is being discussed.

Are you saying that if you, Classicman, feel strongly about a "gut" issue you can't discuss it in a civil manner? If you can, then there's no problem with the new rules, right?

I feel very strongly about many things, but I am able to see that a rational person can have a different opinion than I do. Because of that, I can argue in a civil manner. Are you saying that you're unable to do that, or have I misunderstood you?