***Personal attacks and Forum Bans: Required reading to post in this forum***

The policy is for ZERO TOLERANCE.

This is simple. If you call another poster an name, ie: an insult, you will automaticly banned from the forum.

Now, we have tried to enforce the rules here and for the most part, we have been ignored. The rules have not changed, but with the support of the bigsoccer administration we have the teeth behind the policy. No more idle talk.

We don't enjoy doing this as we are bigsoccer posters, too. We would like to read the threads and take part of the conversation.

We understand that this election represents the future direction of our communities, the nation and possibly the world in general. We desire heated discussion and passion but all within the rules and things will be fine.

There is a general idea that bans will last one week, but that is just a standard starting point. From there, the actions of the poster will be addressed and longer bans could apply.

We currently have two members banned for extended periods.

Want to know what is classified as an attack?
Zero Tolerance means that the bar is set to the lowest possible.

 

Considering the preponderance of liberals who post, you may want to consider renaming it the "Woe Is Me" board on Nov. 3

Another improvement might be to grant temporary yellow card priveliges to some of the posters with neg rep. It would be fun to see who gets it from verybdog.

and numbering cliches to save bandwidth - (1) for dubya is stupid, (2) for the supreme court stole the 2000 election, and so on

 

If I were mod....

1. I'd set up an "election 2004" subforum, like we had for the war.
2. I'd encourage posters who whine about other posters to avail themselves of the ignore list.
3. I'd be more vigilant in discouraging OT posts and thread drift.
4. I'd actively intervene with the posters who start too many threads. I ain't naming names, but you know whom I'm talking about.
5. One thing that drives me up a tree, and drives me to the edge of the "personal attack" cliff, is when posters write something that starts with a known lie, and build their argument from there. I don't know exactly how to combat that, but I think you have to address that issue. It creates an overly partisan atmosphere. It is a main contributor to thread drift. (We get OT arguing about that lie.) And it discourages substantive contributions.

 

Clarification on "personal attack" please. Occasionally, I see comments such as "you are an asshole," which clearly qualify. But with greater frequency, I see comments such as "That argument/Your argument is assinine," or "You're lying/you are a liar", or things of that nature. Do the latter qualify as personal attacks as well?

 

Greatest invention ever. My experience in this forum improved dramatically once I put the worst posters in here on my ignore list.

 

I plead the Zenger defense. (no smiley.)

That's sorta my point. When someone lies, I'm gonna call them a liar. But where can the discussion go from there? Not many good places, and alot of bad places.

 

I want to be very careful here...

Some posters try to set themselves up as some type of truth patrol, as though the only truth is what THEY THEMSELVES want to spread. Put another way, the only truth THEY believe is their own truth, and anything not squaring with that view, is heretofore labeled a lie!

More to the point, it is plainly disrespectful of the other person's view by labeling that view a lie. If you think that person is off base, one can respectfully point out where they believe the view is wrong. I have yet to see a post here that was an intentional, knowing, misrepresentation of the truth. There is a difference between opinion, and outright lying.

1) Labeling someone a liar is the ultimate personal attack, and is ALWAYS deserving of spending a great deal of time in the penalty box unless the person being so labeled can be shown to have clearly, knowingly, and plainly written an intentional falsehood.

2) I agree with Dave that many threads dissolve into inane discussions unrelated to the topic. The moderators would be well served to be proactive in closing down threads that veer wildly off topic and into name calling...

3) Finally, I would get rid of the reputation system in the politics board ALTOGETHER! I have always seen it as a form of thought control! Proper thought is rewarded...improper and unpopular thought is punished (in most cases-conservative thought...) Getting rid of the reputation system in the politics board would encourage more posters and more views. As it is now, we have the same 30 liberal posters, and the same 6 or 7 conservative posters, all shouting the same things in the same direction, convincing NO-ONE of nothing!

However, overall, it is my opinion that things around here are a lot better than they were 4 or 5 months back. Although there is hardy disagreement, it is not as ugly as it once was.

 

Excellent Post! Easily the best I have ever read on BIG Soccer!

My only suggestion, which I suppose will be dismissed in hand, would be to split the Politics Board into two (2) categories; "Campaign" and "Other" as there are lots of topics which are clearly political, but not directly related to current campaign... other than that... I agree with limitation on Personal Attacks... since I'm the one most of the Liberals are attacking! Oh shoot... I did attack someone yesterday in retaliation... oh never mind.

IntheNet

 

If you're going to tolerate socks who post things like "I heard a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11, what do YOU think?", then tolerate the responses. "Go tuck yourself in, you hairy aunt" (Family Guy Wheel of Fortune reference) happens to be the correct response to such posts.

You're fighting against the tide, Canutes. Under the rules, Dick Cheney would get carded for saying that John Kerry would allow terrorist attacks. It's that kind of campaign. I get to hear about how protestors are terrorists and liberals are traitors, then I get to respond. It's a freaking soccer yapfest.

Up is the direction in which it should be sucked. Over is the direction in which it should be gotten.

 

If it were up to me, I'd take away thread startin capability from anyone in the red reputation wise. For all that USAsoccer bleats about thought control, he's green. (And he's neg repped me more than I have him.) Do we really need more threads started by verybdog and InTheNet?
On the same note, use ignore lists people! I've got three people on my ignore list, and its made the board a lot easier to wade through.
Finally, I'd just like to say that the mods have done a fine job, as they have left both sides unhappy. That's usually a complement to even handedness.
I do think the politics board has deteriorated since I've got here, but I think that has more to do with the increasing polarization of the people here. I no longer discuss certain topics as a rule. Once the election is over, hopefully that will change. I mean, for ********'s sake, how many swift boat veterans and Bush AWOL threads do we need?

 

There is no Politics Forum crisis. This all started because some sockpuppet/newbie troll started a thread saying the children in the Chechnyan hostage crisis only had themselves to blame for being gunned down in the back. Because he was unmercifully attacked, the mods decided there was a problem with personal attacks in this forum and established a "zero-tolerance" policy. The first response was not to ban the troll from the forum, but to ban Mike Lastort for attacking the troll.

 

There are clearly some people interested in discussion, and some people not interested in discussion. The vast majority are, and only a few are not. Sometimes the same person may start out discussing a topic and then become unproductive for whatever reason. Probably every regular poster is guilty of that from time to time. I don't see anything wrong with mods taking a heavy hand to deleting posts and/or censoring posts and posters who do not contribute to thoughtful discussion. Get your posts deleted often enough and you will clean up your act.

On the other hand, good pointed sarcasm is a hallmark of the entertainment value of the forum and needs to not be stifled.

 

I think we've found our culprit.

 

Further to my point, that was a clear example where heavy handed deleting would have been appropriate. This is not the Free Speech Zone and someone who has riled up everybody else should have their posts deleted.

 

nicephoras: what about shipping us away to a concentration camp? Burning the books and posts with our name in it? Shooting anyone who dares mention our name? As a matter of fact, why don't you start an exclusive gated forum where only your own posts are featured... you could have a discussion with yourself free from all objectionable material?

Discussion => Responding to opinions which vary from your own!

IntheNet

 

What about calling someone a stupidhead? Is that a bannable offense?

 

So "You're a Bush supporter" is considered a personal attack?

 

Personally, I think the punishment for smarm should be a flogging.

 

Now you're suggesting that I'm part of the "crisis" in the Politics Forum. Interesting, because I've never received a single warning or admonition from you or Gracia. I've never even had a post edited or deleted. Is this "no-tolerance" policy intended to replace those traditional moderator duties?