Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Elphaba · 09-30-2006, 08:04 PM

It justs keeps coming back to "lying about a blowjob" or some other Clinton "sin", when all of the discussion topics here can't be legitimately argued any longer with the conservative talking points du jour. The Politics forum is being deliberately undermined by those that can't or won't provide a source to justify the OP, or a legitimate argument in response to a challenge.

I believe that we have new members and returning members that are participating in this forum once again. My question to our Politics mods is how you are making determinations of an infraction and any points assessed given the current rules and posts? It is not obvious to me, and perhaps new members are equally confused? Politics never should have been or needs to be the horror that it is painted in other Fora by the mods there. A mod admonition for poor behavior in a topic elsewhere, should NOT compare that poor behavior to Politics (a forum never participated by that mod).

I wanted to begin a neutral editorial topic (at least in my opinion) that I believed would introduce an interesting topic for discussion. But it's hosted by TruthOut, so the U2 gang will do their best to kill the topic, as soon as possible, with the usual dismissive ridicule. The insult lies in refusing to read the posted material, and imposing ridicule on both the poster and the article, with no effort to engage in an honest dialogue. I got a yellow warning for making this same comment more than a year ago, but I admit that sarcasm was my mode of communication at that time. I actually don't know of any rule concerning sarcasm, so I suspect moderation has become more fluid rather than ridged.

I ask the mods and admins why they believe anyone would wish to enter a political discussion in this forum that begins with a troll, or an obvious flame is soon inserted to any new topic? Nearly every topic in Politics has to fight it's way past obvious trolling and verbal abuse toward members, who truly do wish to discuss politics in a respectful manner.

I believe this would be a more vibrant forum, with increased membership participation and more varied ideas, if there wasn't the constant, distractive trolling and/or flaming for some unknown need for ego gratification. There is no member here that represents the "Looney Liberal Left" that some in this forum insists exists here. There is also no unified representation of conservatism in our membership. It is no news at all that the members that participate in the Politics forum cannot be distilled into a simple "right" or "left".

The Politics Forum is not the scourge of tfp that it has been painted to be, and that fact has become obvious with a fresh moderation staff. I have seen mod participation in a topic that clearly states a "member" opinion. That one small step clears up so many potentials issues of "intent". In similar fashion, yellow type doesn't require a clarification of intent; the majority of the membership would know that a mod insists that the topic needs a correction change.

I saw the worst possible mixed mod/member horror in another forum. I would suggest that there would be less misunderstandings, if a mod did not post in a topic that that mod is moderating. (Lordy...that is the least understandable sentence that I have written in the last two minutes.)

Some other member suggested that we define a "blame it on Clinton" name that is the equivalent of a "Godwin". I assume Godwin overused the Hitler comparison. We now have a mod/member or two overusing the "Godwin" tag. Someone clever with a poll setup might choose to do this if we throw about a representative number of ideas. So if "Godwin" represents irrelevant comparisons to Hitler, what would be the appropriate comparison for Clinton? "Scaifed?"

New members and returning members have chosen to participate in this forum for a brief time, and every topic dead ends in the same way, by the same inappropriate posts, as has been true since my first day on tfp.

Many of the members that participate in Politics have made the effort to rise to the level of expectation the Hal and his new mods have set for us. Some members continue to believe that they are either exempt from the rules, or that they can tip-toe to the line and piss over the edge, without consequences.

I respectfully suggest that those that continue to attempt to keep the Politics Forum in turmoil, are not only destructive of one forum, but have not shown respect for TFP as a whole.

09-30-2006, 08:04 PM	#48 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	It justs keeps coming back to "lying about a blowjob" or some other Clinton "sin", when all of the discussion topics here can't be legitimately argued any longer with the conservative talking points du jour. The Politics forum is being deliberately undermined by those that can't or won't provide a source to justify the OP, or a legitimate argument in response to a challenge. I believe that we have new members and returning members that are participating in this forum once again. My question to our Politics mods is how you are making determinations of an infraction and any points assessed given the current rules and posts? It is not obvious to me, and perhaps new members are equally confused? Politics never should have been or needs to be the horror that it is painted in other Fora by the mods there. A mod admonition for poor behavior in a topic elsewhere, should NOT compare that poor behavior to Politics (a forum never participated by that mod). I wanted to begin a neutral editorial topic (at least in my opinion) that I believed would introduce an interesting topic for discussion. But it's hosted by TruthOut, so the U2 gang will do their best to kill the topic, as soon as possible, with the usual dismissive ridicule. The insult lies in refusing to read the posted material, and imposing ridicule on both the poster and the article, with no effort to engage in an honest dialogue. I got a yellow warning for making this same comment more than a year ago, but I admit that sarcasm was my mode of communication at that time. I actually don't know of any rule concerning sarcasm, so I suspect moderation has become more fluid rather than ridged. I ask the mods and admins why they believe anyone would wish to enter a political discussion in this forum that begins with a troll, or an obvious flame is soon inserted to any new topic? Nearly every topic in Politics has to fight it's way past obvious trolling and verbal abuse toward members, who truly do wish to discuss politics in a respectful manner. I believe this would be a more vibrant forum, with increased membership participation and more varied ideas, if there wasn't the constant, distractive trolling and/or flaming for some unknown need for ego gratification. There is no member here that represents the "Looney Liberal Left" that some in this forum insists exists here. There is also no unified representation of conservatism in our membership. It is no news at all that the members that participate in the Politics forum cannot be distilled into a simple "right" or "left". The Politics Forum is not the scourge of tfp that it has been painted to be, and that fact has become obvious with a fresh moderation staff. I have seen mod participation in a topic that clearly states a "member" opinion. That one small step clears up so many potentials issues of "intent". In similar fashion, yellow type doesn't require a clarification of intent; the majority of the membership would know that a mod insists that the topic needs a correction change. I saw the worst possible mixed mod/member horror in another forum. I would suggest that there would be less misunderstandings, if a mod did not post in a topic that that mod is moderating. (Lordy...that is the least understandable sentence that I have written in the last two minutes.) Some other member suggested that we define a "blame it on Clinton" name that is the equivalent of a "Godwin". I assume Godwin overused the Hitler comparison. We now have a mod/member or two overusing the "Godwin" tag. Someone clever with a poll setup might choose to do this if we throw about a representative number of ideas. So if "Godwin" represents irrelevant comparisons to Hitler, what would be the appropriate comparison for Clinton? "Scaifed?" New members and returning members have chosen to participate in this forum for a brief time, and every topic dead ends in the same way, by the same inappropriate posts, as has been true since my first day on tfp. Many of the members that participate in Politics have made the effort to rise to the level of expectation the Hal and his new mods have set for us. Some members continue to believe that they are either exempt from the rules, or that they can tip-toe to the line and piss over the edge, without consequences. I respectfully suggest that those that continue to attempt to keep the Politics Forum in turmoil, are not only destructive of one forum, but have not shown respect for TFP as a whole. Last edited by Elphaba; 09-30-2006 at 10:01 PM..