Political threads/forum

[gourimoko]

Seems unnecessary and arbitrary. Do you expect the users to accept that?

K, then put in jk, TyGuy, Whittaker, Gouromiko and AZ and let them test it out for a month. That sounds like a great stress test!

Seriously though, you know that's gonna alienate a LOT. Many have been very vocal against an invite only list, elite club, etc.

I don't think anyone wants any sort of "elite club."

But we need invite-only, even if that invite extends to almost the entire membership base of RCF. Without it, we're back to square one. The invite-only system is what allows jking to rescind an invite, kicking someone out who chooses to be a dick and cannot abide by the rules... It's what allows us to set apart the section without needing Ben, the admins, and the mods to constantly come and solve problems.

Effectively we're talking about a sub-section of the forum, similar to S34, but not moderated by the mods per se (since they want nothing to do with the politics section in the first place); and instead, by jking under a far stricter set of rules and standards than the rest of the board (i.e., heavy-moderation).

Please believe me when I say it is anything but arbitrary and unnecessary; regardless as to the scope of the invite.

 

[gourimoko]

Part of the problem with that they're discussing is that lurkers like you that appreciate the discussion will get left out from being able to lurk since it will be invite only and hidden from the rest of the board.

I agree, it's not ideal. But lurkers could just PM for an invite.

The positive side of this is that we're not tainting the rest of the board or getting the mods bogged down in our b.s.

 

[Sebastian]

K, then put in jk, TyGuy, Whittaker, Gouromiko and AZ and let them test it out for a month. That sounds like a great stress test!

Seriously though, you know that's gonna alienate a LOT. Many have been very vocal against an invite only list, elite club, etc.

Let me clarify. We have spoken to Board Management and they have certain conditions they want met:

1) The reason the sub-forum will be invite-only is so that it can moderated properly and so that outsiders and people, non-members of that forum can't see what is in there. Part of the issue with the other threads was that the arguments made the site look bad. This is a point of major concern for Ben.

2) The sub-forum is invite only in name once a trial period ends. We were specifically told that there is a probationary period that we must get through first. After that, anyone that wants in will be invited in. There will be a link left in this forum for people to request an invitation.

3) For the probationary period, we must submit an original list per direction from above. We are looking at 30 or so members depending on demand. Requests for those original invitations is open to everyone until full.

4) Provided everything goes well, unlimited invitations will be issued, following the trial-period.

I emphasize that no one will be excluded.

 

[MediumBaller]

@King Stannis thanks for the explanation. I think that's where a lot of the concern with "invite only" came from. It seemed like that meant that only select people would arbitrarily be invited and then everyone else would be left out in the cold. How does one request to be invited to be part the original 30 or so?

 

[Sebastian]

@King Stannis thanks for the explanation. I think that's where a lot of the concern with "invite only" came from. It seemed like that meant that only select people would arbitrarily be invited and then everyone else would be left out in the cold. How does one request to be invited to be part the original 30 or so?

If we get approval, we'll start a thread with an announcement and keep it open until the x number is met. That way we can be sure of who requested and when because it will be first-come, first serve. Only fair way to do it.

Not sure as to the numbers yet. We will let everyone know.

We hope to have something sent in by tomorrow. Until then, please keep coming in with suggestions.

 

[billmac91]

Personally, I think we've gotten WAY TOO DEEP into the details on this. We're all grown men/women who are members of a CAVS message board who like to discuss politics.

Keep in mind, we're all here for a common passion of Cleveland sports (well most of us).

The fact the political discussion got shut down because certain posters couldn't play nice was actually embarrassing to me. My use on this website has probably dropped 40-50% based off the political discussion being shut down. I came to RealCavsFans for sports talk, but found the open dialogue in regards to politics to be even more fun, enlightening, and a challenge to critical thought than talking about a ball going through a hoop.

This shit isn't complicated to me. If you're going to post, post with purpose. Trolling is easy AF. Don't troll.....post and back up your thoughts/opinions with personal anecdotes, supporting evidence, why you believe what you do.

It's easy as hell to lob a partisan Tweet grenade into the discussion......have you researched their data? What sources are they citing? Is it fact or opinion? If it's opinion why do you agree or disagree?

I just struggle with how easy this should be in my mind, versus why we as a collective group can't have what is basically an anonymous discussion (I've never met a single person on this board face to face). I hope this gets settled quickly and we can begin talking issues again. I honestly miss it. I'm less concerned about the rules put in place because I've never approached a boundary, AFAIK, that would offend another poster. Reading all of this, I now wonder if all this red-tape being put into place, causes the bad apples to just hammer the moderator(s) with stupid ass grievances.

It actually frustrates me that everything has gotten to this point. I said it before, but my first recommendation would be personal opinion and reasoning needs to be added to any article link or tweet. If you tweet a MSNBC article for example, please explain why you did and the relevance to the current discussion. If you link a Breitbart article, explain why it's factual or relevant. If you can't explain the article or can't take the time to summarize its relevance, take a pass......

"Shit-posting" or "Trolling" to me is when you take an isolated tweet, or unquestionably biased piece, and lob it into the fray as if it carries legitimate weight. That shit is annoying....the reason posters like @King Stannis , @gourimoko , @Human Q Tip, make such great posters is their ability to take news in the cycle, link or post to it, and then break down the relevance to it.

So, I hope to see a forum re-opened in whatever fashion is decided upon. I'll be honest.....all of the suggestions, requests, input....it's all a bit silly to me. The fact adults can't carry on a discussion without getting a forum shut down is just embarrassing. If this thing gets re-opened, how about people just act like adults. Like, why is it so hard?

 

[gourimoko]

Personally, I think we've gotten WAY TOO DEEP into the details on this. We're all grown men/women who are members of a CAVS message board who like to discuss politics.

Keep in mind, we're all here for a common passion of Cleveland sports (well most of us).

The fact the political discussion got shut down because certain posters couldn't play nice was actually embarrassing to me. My use on this website has probably dropped 40-50% based off the political discussion being shut down. I came to RealCavsFans for sports talk, but found the open dialogue in regards to politics to be even more fun, enlightening, and a challenge to critical thought than talking about a ball going through a hoop.

This shit isn't complicated to me. If you're going to post, post with purpose. Trolling is easy AF. Don't troll, post and back up your thoughts/opinions with personal anecdotes, supporting evidence, why you believe what you do.

It's easy as hell to lob a partisan Tweet grenade into the discussion......have you researched their data? What sources are they citing? Is it fact or opinion? If it's opinion why do you agree or disagree?

I just struggle with how easy this should be in my mind, versus why we as a collective group can't have what is basically an anonymous discussion (I've never met a single person on this board face to face). I hope this gets settled quickly and we can begin talking issues again. I honestly miss it. I'm less concerned about the rules put in place because I've never approached a boundary, AFAIK, that would offend another poster. Reading all of this, I now wonder if all this red-tape being put into place, causes the bad apples to just hammer the moderator(s) with stupid ass grievances.

It actually frustrates me that everything has gotten to this point. I said it before, but my first recommendation would be personal opinion and reasoning needs to be added to an article link or tweet. If you tweet a MSNBC article for example, please explain why you did and the relevance to the current discussion. If you link a Breitbart article, explain why it's factual or relevant. If you can't explain the article or can't take the time to summarize its relevance, take a pass......

"Shit-posting" or "Trolling" to me is when you take an isolated tweet, or unquestionably biased piece, and lob it into the fray as if it carries legitimate weight. That shit is annoying....the reason posters like @King Stannis , @gourimoko , @Human Q Tip, make such great posters is their ability to take news in the cycle, link or post to it, and then break down the relevance to it.

So, I hope to see a forum re-opened in whatever fashion is decided upon. I'll be honest.....all of the suggestions, requests, input....it's all a bit silly to me. The fact adults can't carry on a discussion without getting a forum shut down is just embarrassing. If this thing gets re-opened, how about people just act like adults. Like, why is it so hard?

+1 .. big-time, and on a lot of these points...

 

[Wrathe]

.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Part of the problem with that they're discussing is that lurkers like you that appreciate the discussion will get left out from being able to lurk since it will be invite only and hidden from the rest of the board.

You sure about that?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I agree, it's not ideal. But lurkers could just PM for an invite.

Bingo.

Invite-only is the only way to ensure that only those who have accepted the rules about no running to Ben, etc., can read and post.

It's not meant to be exclusive only to a certain group that nobody else can join. It's just the only mechanism to govern ourselves without involving Ben.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I would submit, that if people were willing to go down this road, that you should honestly consider making the rules "Don't go to Ben" and "Jking's decisions are all that matter and are binding." It's impossible to codify behavior in this scenario. There are plenty of high-minded people that would make for great debate. They'll need limited moderation, and most of them will self-moderate and are usually aware when they are going overboard. It's the next step down, people that aren't open-minded, or potential trolls, that are the biggest hurdle. And I'd say with this whole mix of people, the benevolent dictator is the best way to handle it. Decide that a single person (or small group) are in charge. It's better than not having a forum, and as long as it's clear up front, can keep things in check. And I would definitely be much more restrictive in posting access up front, then open it up as the forum grows. Again, something sustainable is better than something equitable that'll just fail immediately! Just make sure you choose a benevolent leader!

I like the attitude. Although, surprisingly enough, I don't see a benevolent dictatorship, but a free market in law. We should all use the advice of "don't go to Ben" in our everyday lives. Only instead of Ben, don't go to Washington.

 

[billmac91]

I like the attitude. Although, surprisingly enough, I don't see a benevolent dictatorship, but a free market in law. We should all use the advice of "don't go to Ben" in our everyday lives. Only instead of Ben, don't go to Washington.

Let's send all grievances to Ron Paul. He's got time these days, right?

 

[Sebastian]

Let's send all grievances to Ron Paul. He's got time these days, right?

 

[Sebastian]

Update:

Proposal submitted. We should have an answer in the next couple days.

Upon approval, we will start a thread that covers terms and conditions, rules, structure and an announcement for when the forum will begin accepting requests for the initial first-come, first-serve invitations for (number TBD) posters.

Structure was built from an amalgam of suggestions from this thread, pre-conditions from Ben and the ideas of the brain trust. It will be a 90% solution and that is about the best we can ask for.

 

[Wrathe]

Update:

Proposal submitted. We should have an answer in the next couple days.

Upon approval, we will start a thread that covers terms and conditions, rules, structure and an announcement for when the forum will begin accepting requests for the initial first-come, first-serve invitations for (number TBD) posters.

Structure was built from an amalgam of suggestions from this thread, pre-conditions from Ben and the ideas of the brain trust. It will be a 90% solution and that is about the best we can ask for.

So what's the direction? Open dialogue, or "controlled"?