• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Political threads/forum

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
So they're not even discussing anything with you?

Is it really that hard to ignore a little red "x" that just...sits there?
I mean, if people are serious about getting rid of the trolling in the political threads that's a big source of it. I guess it depends on what people are wanting.
 
I mean, if people are serious about getting rid of the trolling in the political threads that's a big source of it. I guess it depends on what people are wanting.

Okay, fair enough.
 
The format doesn't matter to me. I've never in my life reported a post. I don't even know where you would go to do it.
 
It hasn't even been decided whether the moderation will be light or heavy at this point, so that's probably premature. I suppose there will be a vote or something in a day or so to see which model people prefer.

IMO, simply removing rep could give us some of the major benefits of a "heavy" moderation system at a fraction of the cost.
 
Have a Blessed Day! Dickhead.

Q-Tip,

You should have said from the beginning that gouri was involved in this. But you didn't because you knew some people wouldn't have anything to with it if they knew. The fucking guy quotes me, then changes a word or two to misrepresent what I said as bigoted and racist. And I'm going to "buy in" to giving this guy the power to invite/exclude posters? No way!
You were approached and asked to start this thread in an effort to assuage the right leaning members.
But from the very beginning the whole truth was not being told.

Ask yourself why Ben wants a buy-in from regular posters. He doesn't need it. He can give gouri his own private political forum and let him control the narrative right now, which is obviously what gouri wants to do. Ben doesn't need you, me or anyone else to say "I'm in".
But Ben wants it to have legitimacy. He doesn't want it to be somebody's private propaganda forum.
Which is why, for all your good work, when I ask for an explanation of who will have the power to invite & exclude, you owe me a fucking answer if you want my trust. You started this thread. Own it. You asked for questions. Answer them. If its up to Ben, say its up to Ben. If its Stannis, say its Stannis. If its a committee vote with you gouri and Stannis, say that. If you don't know, say you don't know.

Are there children on both sides? Yes. Do both sides break rules and cause trouble? Yes.
But only one side wants to control the narrative, control the topics and control who is even allowed to post.
The political threads are shut down because those people would rather have them shut down than have them be a free exchange of ideas.

David has concerns.
Crat is super-skeptical.
I am asking questions and forcing the issues, which even you, in an earlier post, said will probably exclude me from the proposed forum.
I paraphrase...'Being a dick in here will probably not work out well for you'.
I quote: "Have a Blessed Day! Dickhead."

For the record,
I have never ran to Ben or reported another poster.
I always try to follow the rules, though I have slipped a time or two.
I don't follow rep, don't give a damn about it.
I have 6 people on ignore...would be more but the software won't let me ignore staff members.
I call em like i see em.

So, in this thread where we were asked to voice our questions, comments and concerns, where we were told to hash things out....
Someone, tell me, who the fuck is going to decide who is invited/excluded from this proposed thread that is being built on good faith?
That is the key question isn't it? The power to exclude is the power to control the narrative. Who is seeking that power?
You want adults in this new forum? Treat us like adults
 
This is never going to work. Some people just won't be able to help themselves. The only way this would ever work is to nominate the few level headed posters like @King Stannis @gourimoko and @The Human Q-Tip to have a civil debate that others could read-only. I won't even include myself as I am a foot solider who can't help but throw barbs. It's in my nature.

No offense intended, but if you can't control yourself on that, it's probably not for you?
 
Well, uh, other than in paranoid fantasy, i see very little likelihood that conservatives and progressives are going to align to ban other people. They may disagree with someone, but I don't see a ban as being remotely likely, simply because so many people are unlikely to care about most outlier views anyway.

Especially when most of us were fighting to keep open presentation of ALL data, whether we liked it or not. I'm personally one of those, "information wants to be free" type minds. All data is good data, etc. I don't want to see any concept squelched.
 
I

I am one thousand percent fine with letting people know they're just being closed off intellectually or myopic or irrational. I just think the words racism and bigotry carry a lot of weight and have a huge stigma. like a lot of people throw the words around way too freely so even if the offender IS guilty, they're shut down by the accusation because "they've seen this tactic before"
Not that anyone cares about my thoughts on this, but @David is 100% right on the mark here. One of my biggest issues is that folks on the left seem to always resort to this eventually. They don't make headway convincing the opposition, so they trot out the "racism" and "bigotry" cards. "Well, your political opinion is bigoted/racist by its very nature". Which is total bullshit.

They don't even do it directly a lot of the time. Sometimes they imply it or thinly veil it within their retorts.

If they can't or won't acknowledge that there are legitimate, well-thought-out reasons for somebody to hold a political opinion different from their own, then why are they even participating in a discussion if not to demean and insult?

For instance, even though some of our fundamental political and economic assumptions differ, I can at least respect the fact that @gourimoko tries to use reason and data to support his opinions. I disagree with him, but at least I understand why he believes what he does. I don't assume he is misguided or evil at his core because his beliefs don't match my own.

What I don't tolerate however, is when somebody claims or implies that their position is the ONLY political position that is reasonable and fact-based. Yeah, you might not like their alternative viewpoint. And yeah, on the surface you may think it's bigoted or irrational or myopic. But if you'd put aside platitudes and stereotypes and biases for just a few minutes and look at their position at a more fundamental level, you just might see that the other guy isn't some racist ignoramus simply because he disagrees with you.
 
Last edited:
Q-Tip,

You should have said from the beginning that gouri was involved in this. But you didn't because you knew some people wouldn't have anything to with it if they knew. The fucking guy quotes me, then changes a word or two to misrepresent what I said as bigoted and racist. And I'm going to "buy in" to giving this guy the power to invite/exclude posters? No way!
You were approached and asked to start this thread in an effort to assuage the right leaning members.
But from the very beginning the whole truth was not being told.

Ask yourself why Ben wants a buy-in from regular posters. He doesn't need it. He can give gouri his own private political forum and let him control the narrative right now, which is obviously what gouri wants to do. Ben doesn't need you, me or anyone else to say "I'm in".
But Ben wants it to have legitimacy. He doesn't want it to be somebody's private propaganda forum.
Which is why, for all your good work, when I ask for an explanation of who will have the power to invite & exclude, you owe me a fucking answer if you want my trust. You started this thread. Own it. You asked for questions. Answer them. If its up to Ben, say its up to Ben. If its Stannis, say its Stannis. If its a committee vote with you gouri and Stannis, say that. If you don't know, say you don't know.

Are there children on both sides? Yes. Do both sides break rules and cause trouble? Yes.
But only one side wants to control the narrative, control the topics and control who is even allowed to post.
The political threads are shut down because those people would rather have them shut down than have them be a free exchange of ideas.

David has concerns.
Crat is super-skeptical.
I am asking questions and forcing the issues, which even you, in an earlier post, said will probably exclude me from the proposed forum.
I paraphrase...'Being a dick in here will probably not work out well for you'.
I quote: "Have a Blessed Day! Dickhead."

For the record,
I have never ran to Ben or reported another poster.
I always try to follow the rules, though I have slipped a time or two.
I don't follow rep, don't give a damn about it.
I have 6 people on ignore...would be more but the software won't let me ignore staff members.
I call em like i see em.

So, in this thread where we were asked to voice our questions, comments and concerns, where we were told to hash things out....
Someone, tell me, who the fuck is going to decide who is invited/excluded from this proposed thread that is being built on good faith?
That is the key question isn't it? The power to exclude is the power to control the narrative. Who is seeking that power?
You want adults in this new forum? Treat us like adults


This is a perfect example of where a post can have valid questions or ideas but the tone is so unnecessarily hostile that it becomes inappropriate and the hope of constructive dialogue from it becomes lost. If the other party were to respond in kind, that would be a "get-a-room" timeout. If just the one side continues, they get to...I dunno, spend the night in the "Masturbation Motel"? :p

Thanks for the example! :p
 
Q-Tip,

You should have said from the beginning that gouri was involved in this. But you didn't because you knew some people wouldn't have anything to with it if they knew. The fucking guy quotes me, then changes a word or two to misrepresent what I said as bigoted and racist. And I'm going to "buy in" to giving this guy the power to invite/exclude posters? No way!
You were approached and asked to start this thread in an effort to assuage the right leaning members.
But from the very beginning the whole truth was not being told.

@gourimoko was never proposed, by himself or by anyone else, as a moderator. In terms of inviting/excluding posters, I have said repeatedly that I favor letting everyone in initially, and for the moderator -- again, not @gourimoko -- to exclude people only based on conduct that would happen in the new forum.


Ask yourself why Ben wants a buy-in from regular posters.

As far as I know, he doesn't -- I've never communicated with him at all about any of this this. My only point -- which I've been very upfront about from the beginning -- is that people running off to Ben gets threads closed. Therefore, I came up with the guideline, on my own, that everyone has to agree not to run off and bug Ben just because they don't like something in the forum. I thought that made sense, and was essential if a new forum was to survive.

You seem to dislike it when posters report other posters, so I really can't fathom why you are against this. I figured you'd be one of the guys who'd agree.

Which is why, for all your good work, when I ask for an explanation of who will have the power to invite & exclude, you owe me a fucking answer if you want my trust.

I owe you the same thing I owe everyone else here. Nothing. Zip, zero. I have not asked for your "trust", and don't even want it. I'm not getting jack shit for doing this, and it's been a huge pain in the ass. I've wanted everything out in the open precisely so "trust" isn't an issue.

I was trying to start a discussion. When I was contacted about this by @King Stannis -- I initiated nothing -- I said that I wasn't comfortable talking about this just among ourselves, and said we should toss it out to see whatever the consensus was about how to proceed. I haven't tried for a second to dictate or control anything in this thread, and frankly, neither has @gourimoko or @King Stannis . If anything, I've been pushing people to state their own opinions honestly, and even liked your post because you brought up issues with which I largely agree.

You started this thread. Own it.

Make me. :celb (9):

You asked for questions. Answer them. If its up to Ben, say its up to Ben. If its Stannis, say its Stannis. If its a committee vote with you gouri and Stannis, say that. If you don't know, say you don't know.

There isn't a damn answer! Haven't you figured it out yet? This is/was an effort to construct a proposal to bring to Ben. The parameters aren't decided. It isn't even decided how those parameters are going to be decided, or even who is going to do the deciding. This is a fucking discussion where hopefully some consensus would be developed as to how to proceed.

That being said, any group of posters is free to go to Ben whenever they wish, and make whatever proposal they wish. And he's obviously free to okay it, or tell them to go fuck themselves.

I am asking questions and forcing the issues, which even you, in an earlier post, said will probably exclude me from the proposed forum.
I paraphrase...'Being a dick in here will probably not work out well for you'.
I quote: "Have a Blessed Day! Dickhead."

For some reason I really can't fathom, you've been hostile as hell towards me in this thread. Nevertheless.....

Quit the persecution complex. I have said, repeatedly within this thread, that I think invites should be open. I don't want to exclude anyone at the outset, which frankly was the key point of disagreement between the other two guys and myself. I said I wouldn't be a part of excluding people at the outset, and we were at an impasse on that issue. So I then suggested tossing it all out for everyone to discuss, and they agreed. That's where we are right now.

What is so bizarre about this is that your concerns are the exact same freaking ones I raised, which is why this is being discussed openly rather than some secret forum already existing. You're busting my chops when I've been on your side the entire time.

Try some anger management or something. You're picking a fight with the wrong guy.
 
Last edited:
I'm late to the party here but definitely have interest in the basic premise of this. It only doesn't work if it turns personal - which can be solved by invite-only/thread bans (IMO).

I think rep is a natural part of our discussions here. However, I think the disagree button all too often leads to pissing contests of who can "disagree" the most posts and also gives posters an easy out to try to delegitimize a point without actually providing a counterpoint.

Although I get that rep might be an "all or nothing" feature.

Regardless, a well-moderated thread with strict participation guidelines seems (at least) worthy of a test run.
 
Q-Tip,

You should have said from the beginning that gouri was involved in this. But you didn't because you knew some people wouldn't have anything to with it if they knew. The fucking guy quotes me, then changes a word or two to misrepresent what I said as bigoted and racist. And I'm going to "buy in" to giving this guy the power to invite/exclude posters? No way!
You were approached and asked to start this thread in an effort to assuage the right leaning members.
But from the very beginning the whole truth was not being told.

Ask yourself why Ben wants a buy-in from regular posters. He doesn't need it. He can give gouri his own private political forum and let him control the narrative right now, which is obviously what gouri wants to do. Ben doesn't need you, me or anyone else to say "I'm in".
But Ben wants it to have legitimacy. He doesn't want it to be somebody's private propaganda forum.
Which is why, for all your good work, when I ask for an explanation of who will have the power to invite & exclude, you owe me a fucking answer if you want my trust. You started this thread. Own it. You asked for questions. Answer them. If its up to Ben, say its up to Ben. If its Stannis, say its Stannis. If its a committee vote with you gouri and Stannis, say that. If you don't know, say you don't know.

Are there children on both sides? Yes. Do both sides break rules and cause trouble? Yes.
But only one side wants to control the narrative, control the topics and control who is even allowed to post.
The political threads are shut down because those people would rather have them shut down than have them be a free exchange of ideas.

David has concerns.
Crat is super-skeptical.
I am asking questions and forcing the issues, which even you, in an earlier post, said will probably exclude me from the proposed forum.
I paraphrase...'Being a dick in here will probably not work out well for you'.
I quote: "Have a Blessed Day! Dickhead."

For the record,
I have never ran to Ben or reported another poster.
I always try to follow the rules, though I have slipped a time or two.
I don't follow rep, don't give a damn about it.
I have 6 people on ignore...would be more but the software won't let me ignore staff members.
I call em like i see em.

So, in this thread where we were asked to voice our questions, comments and concerns, where we were told to hash things out....
Someone, tell me, who the fuck is going to decide who is invited/excluded from this proposed thread that is being built on good faith?
That is the key question isn't it? The power to exclude is the power to control the narrative. Who is seeking that power?
You want adults in this new forum? Treat us like adults

Sigh... it's posts like this that are proving why the conversation gets derailed so often.. In 13 pages I have roughly 4 posts -- yet you've taken this thread as an opportunity to go out of your way to attack numerous people, including myself and Q-Tip... You don't want me to be a mod? Great, I agree...

Let me set the record straight for a moment.

FWIW, I've never asked to be a mod, and we all agreed that for a political forum the one poster who is centrist enough as to be seen as relatively unbiased, @jking948 , would be the only one with power to ban anyone -- not me, not Q-Tip, since we're both obviously on opposite ends of the spectrum and would invariably be seen as biased.

I wouldn't even put myself forward as a secondary; but instead @King Stannis ... My goal here is to return this forum to what it used to be, before the shit-posting, not gain some kind of b.s. power over anyone (that's why you don't see either myself and I'm sure Q-Tip as well, angling for any position of authority here).

Additionally, FWIW, this thread isn't about old scores so I won't go into anything else that you've said in your post.. it's frankly pointless and irrelevant.

But to be clear, this is the exact kind of behavior that we should be trying to curtail.
 
Here are my thoughts:

1. Minimum length post and maximum length posts: This limits responses from people that would normally just come back with a snark retort to something. This also includes just posting tweets or news articles without any thought from the person posting them. If you can't write a few good sentences about the tweet or article you are posting then it's not worth posting.

Posts that are too long can stymie discussions because it's hard to break them all down and things can get lost.

I'm not what the proper lengths for a min or max post would be, but it's a thought.

2. Jking as a mod is great, I like the idea of having Q Tip and Gour or others from both sides serving maybe not as mods but as maybe a quick "council" that can help Jking determine very controversial decisions such as permabanning someone from the politics forum. Jking would run the show moderating in general but I think for special circumstances calling in a few extra people to help with certain decisions will help maintain a feeling of fairness.

3. No limits on where you can post articles from. Something from CNN isn't necessarily more true than something from Breitbart. If it's a crappy article or a good article it can stand on its own merits.

4. Nearly no limit on topics discussed: if we are serious about this we have to be open to any topics. But obviously a topic can be shutdown if it is made with an agenda in mind (example topic "Why do Republicans hate minorities?")

5. No personal insults. Things get heated but we have to keep discussions sane. I can't call you dumb or vice versa. It get harder to determine with implications so we'll let the mod figure out if someone is being hostile without directly stating an insult.

6. No Running to Ben. Don't be a whiny snowflake.

7. This isn't really a rule, but I'd like for people to acknowledge this isn't a game. This is not debate club, no one is keeping score at home. You are not trying to win an argument, you are just trying to present the ideas you have. We are all flawed so our ideas therefore cannot be perfect, so if we approach this as a way to exchange ideas as opposed to a competition I think we'll be better off.
 
How is a moderator supposed to enforce that rule without it blowing up into a shitstorm and chasing people away?

We are not compelled to respond, or even give any weight at all, to points made by other posters. If another poster's conduct aggravates you...why not just let it go and continue the discussion with someone else?

It's pretty much know that for quite awhile, @gourimoko and I weren't engaging with each other. It still happens sometimes. But neither of us went complaining to mods because the other person wasn't debating/discussing the way we wanted them to. We just...moved on and discussed things with other people.

I really can't fathom why that can't work for everyone else.

I think you just described perfectly the role of moderation and the "rules" with this statement. Open or closed invite this is what posters would have to get used to: mods who close threads or short forum only bans for bits of time to prevent hijacking, etc.
 
Not that anyone cares about my thoughts on this, but @David is 100% right on the mark here. One of my biggest issues is that folks on the left seem to always resort to this eventually. They don't make headway convincing the opposition, so they trot out the "racism" and "bigotry" cards. "Well, your political opinion is bigoted/racist by its very nature". Which is total bullshit. They don't even do it directly a lot of the time. Sometimes they imply it or thinly veil it within their retorts. If they can't or won't acknowledge that there are legitimate, well-thought-out reasons for somebody to hold a political opinion different from their own, then why are they even participating in a discussion if not to demean and insult?

You know I respect your opinion, right?

So, your point of view here I will accept, on it's face. And I would say that it's because of this opinion, and it's inverse which I'm sure you're aware of, is exactly why we should probably avoid the topic altogether...

The point of the threads shouldn't be to attack one another or be at each others throats.

I'm a liberal, you're a libertarian; you and I have always have gotten along great and have a shit-ton in common, political threads or not...

We just need an area where we can have political disagreements, and behave as .. gentlemen .. for lack of a better term, sorry Justin Trudeau.. Such an area should be free from trolls, and those looking to incite people or the mods through shit-posting and personal attacks... We can achieve that by self-moderation, which I think is the goal here.

I'm asking you to consider what I'm saying, because I definitely want you, specifically, to be in these threads as an intelligent poster whom I have a great amount of respect for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top