PDA

View Full Version : Non-Baseball Forum Political and Religious Thread Changes



Pages : [1] 2

Boss-Hog
09-02-2005, 10:15 AM
All,

I bring you good news and bad news. First the bad news:

Religious and political discussions – with very rare exceptions – will no longer be allowed on RedsZone as of 9/15/2005. This date will allow approximately two weeks for the current threads to run their course.

The good news is that you can still have these discussions over on ochre’s board where we have the longer threads that take up a lot of bandwidth. Here is the link to this board http://lastperson.suncircle.org/index.php . Registration is required, but it is free to use.

The main reason for doing this is that we, as moderators and administrators, are frankly tired of dealing with the discussions. This is something we’ve been pondering for almost a month and recent events did not have anything to do with that decision. We tried making stricter rules, and even though those rules were well intentioned and had the full support of the moderators and administrators, the rules are subjective. We as moderators and administrators have to decide whether someone has “stepped over the line”. Sometimes it’s a borderline call. I would think it’s safe to say that except for the occasional troll, everyone who participates in these threads is a valued member of the RedsZone community. Regardless of their political beliefs, these people make valuable contributions to RedsZone. We don’t want to get into the business of banning people because they have strong political/religious viewpoints or they get carried away in one of these discussions. We also don’t want to feel like we are required to read these threads just for the sole purpose of seeing if the rules are being followed. We want the freedom to not read these threads. Posting these threads on ochre’s board will give us that freedom. There will be little to no moderation on ochre’s board, so for those of you who complain about freedom of speech, your wish will come true.

Now there will be some threads that start out as non-political/religious but morph into political/religious threads. If this happens, the thread will be closed. If a poster(s) so desires for the discussion to continue, he or she should start a new thread on ochre’s board for continuation of the discussion. If someone starts a political/religious thread on RedsZone, the person who started that thread will be warned. If the same person does it again, then he or she will be suspended from posting. News and major events should continue to be discussable, but the line is often crossed. So when a newsworthy event takes place, if and when the RedsZone thread crosses the line into politics/religion, it will be closed. Again, if continuation of the discussion is desired, it is up to a poster(s) to start a parallel thread on ochre's board. This is not the job of the moderators and administrators.

We’d be lying if we said that this wasn’t solely for our benefit. But it’s also for your benefit, as well. You shouldn’t feel restricted any more to express your views. In the past I’m sure some have felt that they would get warned/banned if they posted something that may be interpreted as being against the rules. Now you can feel free to post whatever you want as long as it isn’t on RedsZone. There will probably still be hard feelings towards fellow posters because of what has been said. Since these threads will be lightly moderated, we can’t tell you to play nice. But we highly suggest it. Respect others’ points of view and talk to them how you want to be talked to. More often than not, if you treat someone with respect, they will reciprocate. If you have questions or comments or suggestions, feel free to reply in this thread or privately. We hope you understand that we are doing this for the benefit of RedsZone. We know not everyone will agree on issues – both baseball and non-baseball – but we want to keep RedsZone a fun place to visit. We feel that the termination of these threads will accomplish that goal.

The RedsZone.com administrators and moderators

(Thanks to Chip for drafting the above information)

RedsBaron
09-02-2005, 10:23 AM
I don't blame you at all Boss for this decision. The administrators and moderators do a great job.

Unassisted
09-02-2005, 10:23 AM
That's a great explanation. While it's disappointing, I completely understand the reasons for the decision.

Ochre and his mods are going to have their hands full.

Roy Tucker
09-02-2005, 10:25 AM
I don't blame you at all Boss for this decision. The administrators and moderators do a great job.
Ditto from me as well. I'm surprised you've put up with it as long as you have.

As always, thanks for provinding this board for all of us Reds fans.

Red Leader
09-02-2005, 10:26 AM
:clap:

Thanks, Boss.

westofyou
09-02-2005, 10:27 AM
Ochre and his mods are going to have their hands full.

I'm a "mod" over there (it has the same weight as my presidential seal from Canada)

I won't be moderating crap over there I have better things to do then herd cats.

Boss-Hog
09-02-2005, 10:29 AM
I'm a "mod" over there (it has the same weight as my presidential seal from Canada)

I won't be moderating crap over there I have better things to do then herd cats. That's the idea. I'm a moderator there, as well, and ochre's board will very loosely moderated, if at all, for these discussions.

RBA
09-02-2005, 10:31 AM
I would like to thank you and the mods for doing a great job as a "whole".

shredda2000
09-02-2005, 10:38 AM
Good job Boss. There are plenty of other boards to express your political/religious views. RedsZone should be about baseball.

Keep up the good work!

REDREAD
09-02-2005, 10:39 AM
good idea.

savafan
09-02-2005, 10:40 AM
This doesn't give me much time to let people in on my Jesus '08 campaign. ;)

So, does this mean that topics like Zoroastrianism, Jedi Knights and Tom Cruise are no longer allowed on Redszone?

:help:

smith288
09-02-2005, 10:43 AM
You are letting the terrorists win... ;)

I applaud this...I have avoided the non baseball side for the very agonizing reason of seeing some of my fellow RedsZoners go at it with each other (including myself). I saw it recently and posted but made sure to keep my cool.

This is a good idea to keep RedsZone light and friendly (except when talking about Dunn's crappy BA and SO totals... ;) )

Blimpie
09-02-2005, 11:00 AM
Well, I still have thirteen days to say this: Amen....

Excellent improvement to the board--well done!

Joseph
09-02-2005, 11:01 AM
I too have bitten my tongue and avoided some of these discussion simply because I feel no one can get the other to listen to their POV, but maybe I'll interject so long as there's no fear of losing my RZ privs :)

GAC
09-02-2005, 11:04 AM
I just told someone this morning, on another thread, that I wish the mods would do this.

No problem from me on this.

It just means we're gonna see more threads on Jessica Simpson and how Brittany Spears pregnancy is progressing. :lol:

RedsBaron
09-02-2005, 11:10 AM
I just told someone this morning, on another thread, that I wish the mods would do this.

No problem from me on this.

It just means we're gonna see more threads on Jessica Simpson and how Brittany Spears pregnancy is progressing. :lol:
At least we can still discuss those vital topics!

Red Leader
09-02-2005, 11:14 AM
:clap:

Thanks, Boss.

For the record, this was stated before ochre made me a mod on that political forum over yonder. :laugh:

Anybody has any problems in a political thread over there---leave.

You are entering that forum at your own risk.

In all honesty, I'll try to do what I can, when I can, but I'm not promising comprehensive coverage for anyone.

Johnny Footstool
09-02-2005, 11:37 AM
You are entering that forum at your own risk.

I kinda thought the non-baseball side of RedsZone was the same way.

This decision really disappoints me. It was great to have one place to go to discuss Reds baseball as well as non-baseball issues. Now we've got two simultaneous (and often parallel) baseball discussions on RedsZone, and we have to go elsewhere to talk politics.

I understand why the decision was made, though. The mods got fed up with babysitting.

I think I'm more disappointed that we all couldn't act like mature adults and disagree without insults and personal attacks.

registerthis
09-02-2005, 11:53 AM
I don't know what I'm going to do now, though.

I think about 300 of my 400 rep points came from the "Non B-Ball" board. I might actually have to talk some baseball on RZ! :eek:

Crosley68
09-02-2005, 11:57 AM
Good decision Boss, as usual the mods have the best interest of redszone at heart. Thanks.

Jaycint
09-02-2005, 12:03 PM
I don't know what I'm going to do now, though.

I might actually have to talk some baseball on RZ! :eek:


I was thinking the same thing this morning Reg. :laugh:

Falls City Beer
09-02-2005, 12:04 PM
I think I'm more disappointed that we all couldn't act like mature adults and disagree without insults and personal attacks.

Or merely distinguish between a personal attack and an attack on a position.

It's not that bloody hard.

919191
09-02-2005, 12:42 PM
Ochre know this? :D

macro
09-02-2005, 12:43 PM
Ochre know this? :D

Well, he'll know when he reads this thread! :lol:

No, actually, he's well-aware.

Boss-Hog
09-02-2005, 12:58 PM
I kinda thought the non-baseball side of RedsZone was the same way.

This decision really disappoints me. It was great to have one place to go to discuss Reds baseball as well as non-baseball issues. Now we've got two simultaneous (and often parallel) baseball discussions on RedsZone, and we have to go elsewhere to talk politics.

I understand why the decision was made, though. The mods got fed up with babysitting.

I think I'm more disappointed that we all couldn't act like mature adults and disagree without insults and personal attacks.

Therein lies the problem.

KronoRed
09-02-2005, 02:13 PM
Good plan Boss.

Hope everyone plays nice, RL and Puffy don't take crap :cool:

capndees
09-02-2005, 04:31 PM
I don't know what I'm going to do now, though.

I think about 300 of my 400 rep points came from the "Non B-Ball" board. I might actually have to talk some baseball on RZ! :eek:

Yes, that would be nice.

I could also use my signature to show how much I look down on people who disagree with my beliefs, but I choose to be better than that. This is, after all, a BASEBALL forum.

DannyB
09-02-2005, 04:34 PM
Dang
Now i have to read them all to see what the fuss is about.

Falls City Beer
09-02-2005, 05:23 PM
Yes, that would be nice.

I could also use my signature to show how much I look down on people who disagree with my beliefs, but I choose to be better than that. This is, after all, a BASEBALL forum.

And with this (not-so) veiled jab, can we close this thread?

I thought we'd called a ceasefire?

capndees
09-02-2005, 05:51 PM
And with this (not-so) veiled jab, can we close this thread?

I thought we'd called a ceasefire?

We did, and I have no problem with you, FCB. I just had to get my 2 cents in about reg's signature. I consider it a (not-so) veiled jab every time he posts. I'm not even asking that he change it (I'm not into censorship), I just wanted to get my feelings out there.

paintmered
09-02-2005, 06:10 PM
Yes, that would be nice.

I could also use my signature to show how much I look down on people who disagree with my beliefs, but I choose to be better than that. This is, after all, a BASEBALL forum.


Next time take it private. Then I won't have to yell at you like I am right now.

Unassisted
09-02-2005, 06:48 PM
A question to steer the thread back to the original topic... I got the impression from the original post that new political topics would be closed immediately, yet we've had several new threads since this post that seemed political. Am I guessing wrong about what constitutes a political thread, or did I misunderstand the terms of the moratorium?

RFS62
09-02-2005, 06:58 PM
All,
We also donít want to feel like we are required to read these threads just for the sole purpose of seeing if the rules are being followed. We want the freedom to not read these threads. Posting these threads on ochreís board will give us that freedom. There will be little to no moderation on ochreís board, so for those of you who complain about freedom of speech, your wish will come true.




Holy crap, Boss. I really never thought about the fact that you were bascially forced to read all those threads to moderate them.

That's cruel and unusual punishment!!!!! I'll have you know I've personally read here that it's a blatant abuse of your constitutional rights!!!! Man, you guys must really feel disenfranchised!!!!

Honestly, looking at it like that, I'm surprised you let them go as long as you have.

This is a perfectly reasonable decision, in my opinion. You poor guys have suffered enough.

:beerme:

Reds4Life
09-02-2005, 07:08 PM
A question to steer the thread back to the original topic... I got the impression from the original post that new political topics would be closed immediately, yet we've had several new threads since this post that seemed political. Am I guessing wrong about what constitutes a political thread, or did I misunderstand the terms of the moratorium?

Policy doesn't start until 9-15-05.

Michael Allred
09-02-2005, 07:13 PM
I disagree with this completely.

One of the main reasons I come here is for the lively discussions as many "mainstream" forums either ban religious/political debate outright or if it is allowed, most of those members are complete morons with nothing of value or substance to say.

Now with RedsZone essentially throwing their hands up and walking away, it just seems as if the forum will just be another mainstream, "kid friendly" and somewhat boring forum where the "discussions" will be about nothing of importance.

So now we simply have to go "elsewhere." That's what some could have done from the beginning but they CHOSE to come here. What's left? Discuss Katrina and the Bush administration's failures (a key part of the topic) and you get warned for talking about it? What's the point?

With references to "babysitting" and such, come on, this is an internet forum not real life. Moderating a discussion forum isn't the most difficult task one can imagine. Let's not make it out to be one of life's greatest challenges. If you don't like the position of moderator, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

It's just a strange mindset to have, "Everybody, let's just get along, don't express yourself TOO much. Be positive, be PC" bah blah blah. That's not real life, that's not discussion. What you call arguing I might consider "heated debate" but what's wrong with some fire being injected into this?

Ugh, I am just really disappointed in this decision and it's likely I will rarely join in from now on. Afterall, there's only SO much you can talk about high gas prices without it spilling over into the specifics as to the why's and how's and then remembering to hold your comments in. "Yeah, high gas prices, they suck." The end.

Like I said, the main reason I came here was for the non-baseball forum (even though I'm a Reds fan) because I always knew the discussions would be fun to read and participate in. If that's taken away then there's not much for me to do here then.

TeamCasey
09-02-2005, 07:20 PM
So now we simply have to go "elsewhere." That's what some could have done from the beginning but they CHOSE to come here. What's left? Discuss Katrina and the Bush administration's failures (a key part of the topic) and you get warned for talking about it? What's the point?

I think Boss would be willing to put a link to the new joint. I just don't think he wants to administrate or moderate it. I think that's pretty fair.

Falls City Beer
09-02-2005, 07:27 PM
I disagree with this completely.

One of the main reasons I come here is for the lively discussions as many "mainstream" forums either ban religious/political debate outright or if it is allowed, most of those members are complete morons with nothing of value or substance to say.

Now with RedsZone essentially throwing their hands up and walking away, it just seems as if the forum will just be another mainstream, "kid friendly" and somewhat boring forum where the "discussions" will be about nothing of importance.

So now we simply have to go "elsewhere." That's what some could have done from the beginning but they CHOSE to come here. What's left? Discuss Katrina and the Bush administration's failures (a key part of the topic) and you get warned for talking about it? What's the point?

With references to "babysitting" and such, come on, this is an internet forum not real life. Moderating a discussion forum isn't the most difficult task one can imagine. Let's not make it out to be one of life's greatest challenges. If you don't like the position of moderator, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

It's just a strange mindset to have, "Everybody, let's just get along, don't express yourself TOO much. Be positive, be PC" bah blah blah. That's not real life, that's not discussion. What you call arguing I might consider "heated debate" but what's wrong with some fire being injected into this?

Ugh, I am just really disappointed in this decision and it's likely I will rarely join in from now on. Afterall, there's only SO much you can talk about high gas prices without it spilling over into the specifics as to the why's and how's and then remembering to hold your comments in. "Yeah, high gas prices, they suck." The end.

Like I said, the main reason I came here was for the non-baseball forum (even though I'm a Reds fan) because I always knew the discussions would be fun to read and participate in. If that's taken away then there's not much for me to do here then.

I agree. I love arguing. And I do it (and I don't care what anyone says) without ever calling someone names without provocation--yeah, when I'm provoked I hit back, but I never just call someone a name or insult someone out of the blue. I attack positions; I attack them viciously and ferociously. I hate poor thinking. I don't hate people.

But in the end, this ain't my pop stand. So I'm sure I'll head over to the other board. It's a hell of a lot more interesting talking politics than it is the Reds anymore (lord, talking about Oprah's more interesting than the Reds). So ochre, I hope you're ready.

RFS62
09-02-2005, 07:45 PM
I agree. I love arguing. And I do it (and I don't care what anyone says) without ever calling someone names without provocation--yeah, when I'm provoked I hit back, but I never just call someone a name or insult someone out of the blue. I attack positions; I attack them viciously and ferociously. I hate poor thinking. I don't hate people.

But in the end, this ain't my pop stand. So I'm sure I'll head over to the other board. It's a hell of a lot more interesting talking politics than it is the Reds anymore (lord, talking about Oprah's more interesting than the Reds). So ochre, I hope you're ready.


What's the big deal? Push one button and you're arguing again, this time with nearly no moderation.

If one button of separation is enough to stop an argument, how dedicated to arguing are you?

:p:

Falls City Beer
09-02-2005, 07:50 PM
What's the big deal? Push one button and you're arguing again, this time with nearly no moderation.

If one button of separation is enough to stop an argument, how dedicated to arguing are you?

:p:

It's not a big deal. And it won't stop me. But it could stop others, and others are just as important as lil ole me.

RFS62
09-02-2005, 07:54 PM
It's not a big deal. And it won't stop me. But it could stop others, and others are just as important as lil ole me.


Consider it natural selection. Any arguer who won't make that effort gets left in the primordial arguing ooze.

Larkin Fan
09-02-2005, 08:26 PM
I think Boss would be willing to put a link to the new joint. I just don't think he wants to administrate or moderate it. I think that's pretty fair.

Yeah, considering that he and GIK OWN this site and have given the participants chance after chance to improve the quality of these discussions.

Michaal, they're providing you with a viable alternative for your discussions. They're not just doing away with them and leaving you with no recourse. If the extra couple of extra clicks that it takes to get to the other site from here are too much for you to do, Michael, and will cause you to quit participating, well, I don't know what to say. But Boss, GIK, and the moderating staff have been more than fair in this whole situation and tolerant of what's transpired on this side of the board far longer than most of us here, including myself would have been. They should be applauded for that.

Great move, guys.

RFS62
09-02-2005, 08:33 PM
Well, what good would an entire forum created and dedicated to arguing be if we didn't argue about it?

KronoRed
09-02-2005, 08:40 PM
What do ya mean by that?


;)

TeamCasey
09-02-2005, 08:44 PM
Well, what good would an entire forum created and dedicated to arguing be if we didn't argue about it?

That's crap if I ever heard it.

Michael Allred
09-02-2005, 08:46 PM
Michaal, they're providing you with a viable alternative for your discussions. They're not just doing away with them and leaving you with no recourse. If the extra couple of extra clicks that it takes to get to the other site from here are too much for you to do, Michael, and will cause you to quit participating, well, I don't know what to say.


I suppose you could look at it as "providing a viable alternative", another way could be "Go away, we don't want that kind of free thinking here." I dunno.

Forums I've long been a member of, like www.hometheaterforum.com, have NEVER allowed political or religious discussions so when you signed up, it was accepted. RedsZone was something different, as long as you maintained civility, you could discuss what you wanted. Now that no longer is.

You see, it's not a question of "a couple of extra clicks", it's just not RedsZone any more. I LIKED the debates here, even if I never joined in , they were fun to read.

Maybe it's too simplistic or something....being told to take it some place else kinda sucks. Where ever new place you go, it ain't RedsZone.

Eh, I'm beatin' a dead horse I guess. Just disappointed.

RFS62
09-02-2005, 08:46 PM
That's crap if I ever heard it.


Yo mama

RFS62
09-02-2005, 08:50 PM
I suppose you could look at it as "providing a viable alternative", another way could be "Go away, we don't want that kind of free thinking here." I dunno.

Forums I've long been a member of, like www.hometheaterforum.com, have NEVER allowed political or religious discussions so when you signed up, it was accepted. RedsZone was something different, as long as you maintained civility, you could discuss what you wanted. Now that no longer is.

You see, it's not a question of "a couple of extra clicks", it's just not RedsZone any more. I LIKED the debates here, even if I never joined in , they were fun to read.

Maybe it's too simplistic or something....being told to take it some place else kinda sucks. Where ever new place you go, it ain't RedsZone.

Eh, I'm beatin' a dead horse I guess. Just disappointed.


Michael, nobody would ever find the other forum if they weren't well versed in RedsZone.

Everyone who participates in political or religious threads here will know where it is.

All that is going to change is the location, and what I would think would be a welcome change, less moderation.

I don't blame the mods if they don't want to have to read all this stuff. I just never thought of it that way before. They're still providing an opportunity for every single person here to post their opinions, the same people who've been in on every single political or religious thread since day one.

I think it's far better than eliminating them alltogether.

TeamCasey
09-02-2005, 09:08 PM
Maybe it's too simplistic or something....being told to take it some place else kinda sucks. Where ever new place you go, it ain't RedsZone.

Honestly, I sort of felt that way when some of the subscribers and "last thread" folks were annexed. I mean, I met everyone through Redszone and that's how the relationships evolved. But I understood the decision with the bandwidth issues .... as I understand the moderation issues here.

Create a shortcut to the new clubhouse, make it what you want it to be. Give Ochre some suggestions to formatting the place. Ask Boss to provide a link when a popular annexed thread is established. It'll all work out.

KronoRed
09-02-2005, 09:21 PM
Yo mama
:duel:

Falls City Beer
09-02-2005, 09:21 PM
Michael, nobody would ever find the other forum if they weren't well versed in RedsZone.

Everyone who participates in political or religious threads here will know where it is.

All that is going to change is the location, and what I would think would be a welcome change, less moderation.

I don't blame the mods if they don't want to have to read all this stuff. I just never thought of it that way before. They're still providing an opportunity for every single person here to post their opinions, the same people who've been in on every single political or religious thread since day one.

I think it's far better than eliminating them alltogether.

Yeah, but giving someone a dialectical beatdown in BlueZone or Taupezone lacks the same cachet. :)

Rojo
09-02-2005, 10:49 PM
Great post Michael. I don't really understand it either. One thing I've taken away from my experience here is that midwesterners don't like confrontation. I don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't even want to discourage RFA66, who's garnered some big negs from the board liberals, from posting. The major problem I have with some posters is not saying what they really believe. Speak your mind, I say, and we can come to some conclusions, even if its the hackneyed "agree to disagree".

Oh well. I never understood why Drew Nelson was banned. I miss him sometimes.

RFS62
09-02-2005, 11:03 PM
Oh well. I never understood why Drew Nelson was banned. I miss him sometimes.


Well, my take on that is that the moderators and admins, the guys who have to read every stinkin' post and listen to every single complaint, got tired of the sheer volume of work he caused for them. Unpaid work. Largly unappreciated work.

I've always thought that the board benefited from guys like Drew and Richard Hand and even Don Cameron and Don Heffner, because of the controversy they created brought forth passionate rebuttals to their often incredible positions. But I'm not the guy who has to listen to all the crap their opinions generated.

Boss' post earlier, which I quoted because I found it so enlightening, has changed my mind on these threads. Why should those guys have to be forced to read stuff, completely removed from baseball discussion, in order to maintain the standard of civility that is in their mission statement? Simply put, they shouldn't. I trust their judgment, their willingness to be reasonable on these topics. They've bent over backwards for years to provide a non-baseball forum, and listened to a mountain of crap from all sides in the process. I don't doubt their motives.

If they say they've had enough, that's good enough for me. I can push a button or two to direct the exact same people to a forum a mouse click away, with much less moderation and restriction on free speech, if I want to read or discuss the very same issues.

Falls City Beer
09-02-2005, 11:11 PM
Well, my take on that is that the moderators and admins, the guys who have to read every stinkin' post and listen to every single complaint, got tired of the sheer volume of work he caused for them. Unpaid work. Largly unappreciated work.

I've always thought that the board benefited from guys like Drew and Richard Hand and even Don Cameron and Don Heffner, because of the controversy they created brought forth passionate rebuttals to their often incredible positions. But I'm not the guy who has to listen to all the crap their opinions generated.

Boss' post earlier, which I quoted because I found it so enlightening, has changed my mind on these threads. Why should those guys have to be forced to read stuff, completely removed from baseball discussion, in order to maintain the standard of civility that is in their mission statement? Simply put, they shouldn't. I trust their judgment, their willingness to be reasonable on these topics. They've bent over backwards for years to provide a non-baseball forum, and listened to a mountain of crap from all sides in the process. I don't doubt their motives.

If they say they've had enough, that's good enough for me. I can push a button or two to direct the exact same people to a forum a mouse click away, with much less moderation and restriction on free speech, if I want to read or discuss the very same issues.

No I don't blame the mods either.

I just wish people had thicker skin.

pedro
09-02-2005, 11:13 PM
or current events with a political bias.

you can do it here.

http://lastperson.suncircle.org/index.php?board=6.0

Boss & GIK have indicated they don't have the time or the inclination to deal with it anymore on Redzone and Ochre has been gracious enough to make room for it on his site.

Let's just move the discussions over there and not start anymore P threads on RZ.

As Mickey Rooney often said. Come on kids! Let's put on a show!

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/rooneymickey_cp_6946091.jpg

KronoRed
09-02-2005, 11:16 PM
We Want You!
http://www.fairfield.lib.oh.us/images/uncle-sam-pic.jpg

RFS62
09-02-2005, 11:19 PM
No I don't blame the mods either.

I just wish people had thicker skin.


Yo mama.

:p:

Unassisted
09-02-2005, 11:19 PM
I think political thread-starters are like Tareyton smokers... ;)

http://www.tvacres.com/images/tareyton.jpg

RBA
09-03-2005, 12:03 AM
Who has a political bias? :dunno:

RBA
09-03-2005, 12:30 AM
Okay, I'm going to venture into the unkown and post a no holds bar op-ed piece from the New York Times over there.

http://lastperson.suncircle.org/index.php?topic=57.0

MWM
09-03-2005, 12:41 AM
Thicker skin? Who needs thick skin? It's an internet message board that exists to talk Reds baseball. That's all it is. I stopped reading the political threads a few months ago because there was nothing to be learned from them anymore. Seriously, I can hardly think of any enlightening conversation on politics in a long time that wasn't like watching 2nd graders bicker over who's baseball card collection was better. Sure, there were lots of people with great articulation skills who can make it look like it's well-reasoned debate, but underneath it all it was nothing more than "I'm smart, you're dumb", basically reciting verbatim what can be found at worldnetdaily or The New Republic (of which I am a loyal reader). And it came from BOTH sides, so I'm not trying to single anyone out. It was almost everyone involved, from my perception.

You mentioned earlier that people need to understand the difference between personal attacks and attacks on a position. I think people probably just have different definitions, so what might not be personal to you, might be very personal to others and I don't think anyone can marginalize that or try to tell others what they should take personally. Watching how some folks behave in those "debates" was disappointing to watch for me personally, which was the main reason I stopped reading them altogether (except for two threads I unknowingly wandered into), and I don't blame the mods for not wanting to put up with it anymore. At leat that's my take....probably not worth much.

Personally, I don't see what anyone gains from these discussions. They can't possibly be enjoyable, can they? I've seen well-reasoned, intelligent, yet heated political debate before, and what we've had on the non-BB side of RedsZone ain't it.

redsrule2500
09-03-2005, 02:22 AM
That stinks, man I wish this place had unlimited funding :)

Caveat Emperor
09-03-2005, 03:51 AM
I don't feel like reading through this entire thread, so don't kill me if this has already been brought up...

Boss/GIK: How have the bandwidth issues been doing? I know this was a major problem a while back, and I've noticed a couple of times in the last few weeks that logging in has been tough on here, some database errors or something.

On a similar thought, how is the financial aspect of the board doing? Is there a need for funds at all to keep things going?

Thanks for all you guys do!

GAC
09-03-2005, 04:53 AM
The issue is not about people having "thick skin". Most of us have been on this forum since it's inception. And the people on here, on both sides, have been differing and arguing for just about as long. So IMO, it's not an issue of having thick skin. We all got it, or else we wouldn't have been arguing all this time and keep coming back :lol:

It's an issue of the mods not being able to "babysit" and moderate at a consistent/efficient level -and not wanting to! And I respect that. They gave us ALL fair warning a few months ago, and we never learned from it.

Blame ourselves - not the mods.

Falls City Beer
09-03-2005, 08:56 AM
Thicker skin? Who needs thick skin? It's an internet message board that exists to talk Reds baseball. That's all it is. I stopped reading the political threads a few months ago because there was nothing to be learned from them anymore. Seriously, I can hardly think of any enlightening conversation on politics in a long time that wasn't like watching 2nd graders bicker over who's baseball card collection was better. Sure, there were lots of people with great articulation skills who can make it look like it's well-reasoned debate, but underneath it all it was nothing more than "I'm smart, you're dumb", basically reciting verbatim what can be found at worldnetdaily or The New Republic (of which I am a loyal reader). And it came from BOTH sides, so I'm not trying to single anyone out. It was almost everyone involved, from my perception.

You mentioned earlier that people need to understand the difference between personal attacks and attacks on a position. I think people probably just have different definitions, so what might not be personal to you, might be very personal to others and I don't think anyone can marginalize that or try to tell others what they should take personally. Watching how some folks behave in those "debates" was disappointing to watch for me personally, which was the main reason I stopped reading them altogether (except for two threads I unknowingly wandered into), and I don't blame the mods for not wanting to put up with it anymore. At leat that's my take....probably not worth much.

Personally, I don't see what anyone gains from these discussions. They can't possibly be enjoyable, can they? I've seen well-reasoned, intelligent, yet heated political debate before, and what we've had on the non-BB side of RedsZone ain't it.

I happen to think a number of the debates on here have been brilliantly argued, thoughtfully handled, and incredibly educational. Sure you've got to sift through some empty regurgitation of talking points and unthoughtful voluminousness, but I, for one, am consistently educated and excited by posts from guys and gals like registerthis, SteelSD, Rojo, M2, SunDeck, RosieRed and I know I'm leaving some out.

But as I said earlier, it's not my house.

Jaycint
09-03-2005, 10:12 AM
Thicker skin? Who needs thick skin? It's an internet message board that exists to talk Reds baseball. That's all it is. I stopped reading the political threads a few months ago because there was nothing to be learned from them anymore. Seriously, I can hardly think of any enlightening conversation on politics in a long time that wasn't like watching 2nd graders bicker over who's baseball card collection was better. Sure, there were lots of people with great articulation skills who can make it look like it's well-reasoned debate, but underneath it all it was nothing more than "I'm smart, you're dumb", basically reciting verbatim what can be found at worldnetdaily or The New Republic (of which I am a loyal reader). And it came from BOTH sides, so I'm not trying to single anyone out. It was almost everyone involved, from my perception.

You mentioned earlier that people need to understand the difference between personal attacks and attacks on a position. I think people probably just have different definitions, so what might not be personal to you, might be very personal to others and I don't think anyone can marginalize that or try to tell others what they should take personally. Watching how some folks behave in those "debates" was disappointing to watch for me personally, which was the main reason I stopped reading them altogether (except for two threads I unknowingly wandered into), and I don't blame the mods for not wanting to put up with it anymore. At leat that's my take....probably not worth much.

Personally, I don't see what anyone gains from these discussions. They can't possibly be enjoyable, can they? I've seen well-reasoned, intelligent, yet heated political debate before, and what we've had on the non-BB side of RedsZone ain't it.


Post of the month. Very well put.

Falls City Beer
09-03-2005, 10:25 AM
Did you ever think maybe instead of taking potshots at basically every poster on the non-BB side that you might instead *add* something to the debate? After all, a debate is as good as its participants. I find the haughtiness and imperiousness a little dull and offensive myself.

A guy like RFS62 almost always, by himself, helps raise the bar for discussion through his evenhandedness and fairmindedness; he alone can often change the tenor of a discussion, guiding it towards civility. And that's just one example.

By the way, I happen to think getting rid of the non-bb side is cutting Redszone's nose off to spite its face. Just take a gander at the activity level of Old Red Guard--freakin' tumbleweeds are blowing through the place. The Reds are the height of uninteresting, so much so that the most active thread on that side is about the most underrated player in history, not even germane to the Reds themselves. I like to think of the non-bb side as the id we Reds fans can dip into as each season goes belly-up by June 1st. I think killing this non-bb side will do one thing, and one thing only: reduce interest in the whole site.

paintmered
09-03-2005, 11:16 AM
Did you ever think maybe instead of taking potshots at basically every poster on the non-BB side that you might instead *add* something to the debate?

Not to single you out FCB, you are just the lastest example of this.

Comments like these are why there will be no more politcal discussions on redszone. While not overly flammatory by itself or against the rules, these comments are often followed by a snide comment in return causing discussions to snowball downhill.

I've seen it time and time again. People simply refuse to lose a single battle/argument, no matter how arcane or petty it might be. And there's no way to moderate this kind of stuff consistently.

Jaycint
09-03-2005, 11:25 AM
By the way, I happen to think getting rid of the non-bb side is cutting Redszone's nose off to spite its face. Just take a gander at the activity level of Old Red Guard--freakin' tumbleweeds are blowing through the place. The Reds are the height of uninteresting, so much so that the most active thread on that side is about the most underrated player in history, not even germane to the Reds themselves. I like to think of the non-bb side as the id we Reds fans can dip into as each season goes belly-up by June 1st. I think killing this non-bb side will do one thing, and one thing only: reduce interest in the whole site.

I completely agree with this assessment. However the fact that I gotta click through one more link to talk politics with these guys really isn't that big of a deal to me.

westofyou
09-03-2005, 11:32 AM
My belief has always been that your posts should favor the baseball side at least 3-1.

If ones time reflects that they spend more time on the non baseball side arguing politics than the baseball side then I'd have to ponder why you choose to argue these issues on a Reds centric baseball board and expect someone who is there because of the Reds and baseball to take care of policing it.

As for the board being dead on a labor day weekend during a losing season, que sera, sera you reap what you sow I guess, the fact is the people who run the place think that the Reds should be the farmers of discontent for the board not coastal world views vs. midwestern world views (and that's pretty much what ends up being the locales of the participants of the nastiest exchanges)

ochre
09-03-2005, 12:03 PM
I would like to point out here, not that it has happened yet, but I would like people to try to use the same(ish) screen name on the other board as they use here. I'll need to discuss it with Boss, et al, but I plan on banning people that try to steal someone else's identity for the purposes of mischief. Again it hasn't happened yet, but lets keep it that way. I am just trying to anticipate problems here.

MWM
09-03-2005, 12:45 PM
Hey, I thought I'd just add my perception of the political discussions overall without trying to single anyone out and showing support to the mods for their decision. Obviously a bad idea. Sorry if it offended you, but I was just giving an honest viewpoint of how I saw it. I wish I would have followed my first instinct and just kept my mouth shut. And your response is a perfect example of why some people prefer not to "add to the debate", the second they do they become the target of ridicule in a haughty and imperous manner from either the right or left. It's just not worth it. You mentioned RFS62, and I agree with your sentiments on him. But why do you think he rarely, if ever, posts on a political thread? I have very strong opinions on politics and take them very seriously. I stay well read on current issues and feel like I'm well-informed on my opinions. Heck, I fall on your side of most issues. But if "adding to the debate" means I have to deal with some of the foolishness and belittling I saw over there, then I'm happy to stay away. And I was happy donig so and would have been happy to continue to do so. I wouldn't have cared if the mods would have let them continue as they didn't affect me. But as a long-time member of the board, I thought I'd support the mods and let them know I understood where they came from and supported the decision. My bad for not adding anything.

Reds4Life
09-03-2005, 12:55 PM
Hey, I thought I'd just add my perception of the political discussions overall without trying to single anyone out and showing support to the mods for their decision. Obviously a bad idea. Sorry if it offended you, but I was just giving an honest viewpoint of how I saw it. I wish I would have followed my first instinct and just kept my mouth shut. And your response is a perfect example of why some people prefer not to "add to the debate", the second they do they become the target of ridicule in a haughty and imperous manner from either the right or left. It's just not worth it. I have very strong opinions on politics and take them very seriously. I stay well read on current issues and feel like I'm well-informed on my opinions. Heck, I fall on your side of most issues. But if "adding to the debate" means I have to deal with some of the foolishness and belittling I saw over there, then I'm happy to stay away. And I was happy donig so and would have been happy to continue to do so. I wouldn't have cared if the mods would have let them continue as they didn't affect me. But as a long-time member of the board, I thought I'd support the mods and let them know I understood where they came from and supported the decision. My bad for not adding anything.

FWIW I thought your post was excellent. I can assure you that you aren't alone. I've been getting a lot of PM's over the last few days and members feel the exact same way you do but are afraid they will be attacked if they post.

pedro
09-03-2005, 01:01 PM
Could you guys add a link to new forum on Ochre's site? Like you did with the Last Thread? (http://lastperson.suncircle.org/index.php?board=6.0)

Thanks!

I'd just like to add that I'm in favor of this change if for no other reason that I don't think the Mods here should have to wade through these discussions in order to be assured that the content of the posts is up to the standards set out in the RZ mission statement. It's just too much work.

RBA
09-03-2005, 01:26 PM
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Rojo
09-03-2005, 01:30 PM
I fear a liberal echo chamber. To be blunt, the ones applauding the decision to shut down political threads are on the right side of the aisle. I don't blame them. I won't forever excuse the inexcusable.

pedro
09-03-2005, 01:30 PM
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Yet here we all are with rocks in our hands.

capndees
09-03-2005, 01:45 PM
My belief has always been that your posts should favor the baseball side at least 3-1.

If ones time reflects that they spend more time on the non baseball side arguing politics than the baseball side then I'd have to ponder why you choose to argue these issues on a Reds centric baseball board and expect someone who is there because of the Reds and baseball to take care of policing it.

THANK YOU.

Falls City Beer
09-03-2005, 01:47 PM
I'd have to ponder why you choose to argue these issues on a Reds centric baseball board .



Speaking for myself: I chose to argue on a Reds-centric site because the Reds used to be interesting. Now they not only suck, but find new ways to reach new lows by hiring turd-burglars like O'Brien to follow up the vaudeville act that was Bowden.

So, my attention shifted to this side of the board, a place where I already knew the participants by a kind of inertia but came to know them better and differently from their political perspectives.

So now, we're handed some swimmies and told to find another island. Sure, it's not the end of the world, but it's also not going to be the same. As you say, que sera.

Falls City Beer
09-03-2005, 01:55 PM
I fear a liberal echo chamber. To be blunt, the ones applauding the decision to shut down political threads are on the right side of the aisle. I don't blame them. I won't forever excuse the inexcusable.

:clap:

westofyou
09-03-2005, 02:09 PM
Speaking for myself: I chose to argue on a Reds-centric site because the Reds used to be interesting. Now they not only suck, but find new ways to reach new lows by hiring turd-burglars like O'Brien to follow up the vaudeville act that was Bowden.

Suck or not it's still a baseball board which is why we should come here first (IMO) and the mods signed on for that gig not fire fighter in pissing match of ideologies.

Reds4Life
09-03-2005, 02:09 PM
Could you guys add a link to new forum on Ochre's site? Like you did with the Last Thread? (http://lastperson.suncircle.org/index.php?board=6.0)

Thanks!

I'd just like to add that I'm in favor of this change if for no other reason that I don't think the Mods here should have to wade through these discussions in order to be assured that the content of the posts is up to the standards set out in the RZ mission statement. It's just too much work.

The policy isn't official until 9/15, so a link probably won't be posted until then. I'm not sure if we are going to add a new one, or modify the existing link to the "Last Person" threads. I'll see what I can find out.

Falls City Beer
09-03-2005, 02:11 PM
Suck or not it's still a baseball board which is why we should come here first (IMO) and the mods signed on for that gig not fire fighter in pissing match of ideologies.

Yeah, I know that, woy. That's been made abundantly clear.

alex trevino
09-03-2005, 02:34 PM
I fear a liberal echo chamber. To be blunt, the ones applauding the decision to shut down political threads are on the right side of the aisle. I don't blame them. I won't forever excuse the inexcusable.

:D

pedro
09-03-2005, 02:42 PM
I fear a liberal echo chamber. To be blunt, the ones applauding the decision to shut down political threads are on the right side of the aisle. I don't blame them. I won't forever excuse the inexcusable.

Look at it this way. The new forum will be mostly unmoderated, giving you the opprtunity to say EXACTLY what you think. Do you really think those on the right will resist the urge to tell you EXACTLY what they think?

Rojo
09-03-2005, 03:16 PM
Do you really think those on the right will resist the urge to tell you EXACTLY what they think?

I hope they don't. So don't get me wrong, I'll give it a go.

Rojo
09-03-2005, 03:56 PM
I'm going to (surprise!) echo FCB's sentiments. Right now the Reds are as dull as dirt but we're cursed with living in exciting times. So my posts run about 10-1 political-to-baseball. There are a lot of political discussion groups out there, but they're usually echo chambers, of either right or left, where your either a singer in the chorus or a troll. Its because this is a baseball sight that we get an interesting cross-section of political views.

I truly hope I didn't offend anyone with the midwesterner remark (although if you are offended, it might prove my point). I truly meant it as a observation and not a judgement. My family's from the South and they, similarly, have an aversion to outright confrontation. I find Northeast style directness useful but it has its faults. Different strokes is all.

Lastly, I think I've grown from posting over here. The purpose of the back-and-forth isn't to "win" or change anyone's mind. The process is the important thing. I'm made to think before I write, made to answer, made to anticipate.

When I first started posting over here I was far nastier than I am now. While I never called anyone stupid, I could sometimes call their point "stupid" or "preposterous". I still have my lapses when confronted with an event, like Hurrican Katrina, that is God-awful wrenching. But there are some conservative posters here, Redsbaron comes to mind, that are so respectful and even-handed that I'm forced to re-evaluate my tone and check my venom. I think this portends to something larger that liberals should probably deal with.

This country is seriously off-track, IMO, and big changes are needed. And I'm not just talking about Democrats taking over. Slightly less than half the country thinks that Bush isn't just a bad President, they think he's a disaster. They (we) can get pretty red-faced trying to convince people of this, but, really, nobody changes their mind with a finger in their face. If change is going to happen then progressives/liberals/libertarians or anyone else who's dissatisfied with America's trajectory may have to ease up and let people discover it on their own.

capndees
09-03-2005, 04:14 PM
Speaking for myself: I chose to argue on a Reds-centric site because the Reds used to be interesting.

I don't think you should feel singled out, FCB. I see you all the time in the baseball threads. I think he was referring to those posters who ONLY hang out in the non-baseball section, which kind of defeats the purpose of this being a baseball forum.

Falls City Beer
09-03-2005, 04:42 PM
I don't think you should feel singled out, FCB.

I don't.

Reds Nd2
09-04-2005, 12:50 AM
Hi all. Even though I've had my moments, like we've all had, I try to treat everyone like a friend. We are Reds fans afterall.


There are a lot of political discussion groups out there, but they're usually echo chambers, of either right or left, where your either a singer in the chorus or a troll. Its because this is a baseball sight that we get an interesting cross-section of political views.

I have to admit that I don't read any other sites/message boards. Whenever something happens in the world, the non-baseball side of RedsZone is the first place I check. That maybe shortsighted of me, but I know that I'll get both sides of the story. The bad thing about that is, the threads always turn into a pissing match between the left and right. One of the latest locked threads had a very interesting discussion about the problems between the Isreali's and Palestinians. I actually enjoyed reading that part of the thread, unfortunantly, it started out as another "Busch sucks" thread. Sorry WilyMoROCKS.


I truly hope I didn't offend anyone with the midwesterner remark (although if you are offended, it might prove my point). I truly meant it as a observation and not a judgement. My family's from the South and they, similarly, have an aversion to outright confrontation. I find Northeast style directness useful but it has its faults. Different strokes is all.

Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it, and I don't mean that for you personally at all. We are all from different regions of the country and the world in some instances and all have our different ways of discussion. While some may find directness to be the most effective route, others may find that style of discussion abrasive. The thing is, everyone should have figured this out by now, and everyone should have changed their style to be more accomadating to the very people they were trying to have a discussion with. It's just about being polite and understanding the diffrences of the very people they were trying to have a discussion with.


Lastly, I think I've grown from posting over here. The purpose of the back-and-forth isn't to "win" or change anyone's mind. The process is the important thing. I'm made to think before I write, made to answer, made to anticipate.

I think most of us have grown from posting on RedsZone, at least I hope we have, be it about baseball or otherwise. I'd like to think the back-and-forth is to learn, at least that is the way I look at it. Be it strikeouts or abortion (and no I'm not comparing the two), but the that back-and-forth on the political threads always seem to lead to bickering and degredation of someones opinion. Not all of us are as educated as others and we can't always make our point as clearly as others. There is nothing wrong with having to think before one posts, or being made to answer for ones opinions. That's what makes RedsZone the best site in the world IMO. But sometimes, I'd like to post my opinion without being made to feel stupid just because someone doesn't agree.



But there are some conservative posters here, Redsbaron comes to mind, that are so respectful and even-handed that I'm forced to re-evaluate my tone and check my venom. I think this portends to something larger that liberals should probably deal with.....

....They (we) can get pretty red-faced trying to convince people of this, but, really, nobody changes their mind with a finger in their face. If change is going to happen then progressives/liberals/libertarians or anyone else who's dissatisfied with America's trajectory may have to ease up and let people discover it on their own.

I think it portends to something that all political parties and whatever political bent a person subscribes to needs to deal with. Rojo, your absolutley correct when you say, no ones going to change their mind with a finger in their face and that goes for all sides. Like you've said, some people have to discover it on their own.

RANDY IN INDY
09-04-2005, 08:35 AM
So, will the "Non-Baseball Chatter" part of the board be dissapearing alltogether?

I understand the decision, but I really hate to see this part of the board go. I've come to respect a lot of the posters on this side of the board and have learned a lot from the diversity of the opinions expressed. It really helped me to get to know what a lot of the folks here at RedsZone were all about outside of the baseball world. I really enjoyed reading Rojo's last post. He and I have had our differences from time to time, but I really have seen him grow in the way he expresses his opinions and respect that, even though they differ from mine, most of the time. That was a good post, Rojo.

paintmered
09-04-2005, 09:07 AM
No, the Non-BB forum will still exist, only political and religious discussion will now be prohibited.

Breaking news stories which frequently pop up here will continue to be allowed, however a parallel thread will be started over at ochre's place and as soon as the discussion turns political here, the thread will be closed and a link to the other thread will be posted.

919191
09-04-2005, 09:21 AM
I actually enjoyed reading that part of the thread, unfortunantly, it started out as another "Busch sucks" thread. Sorry WilyMoROCKS.











Busch doesn't "suck", but it has to be really really cold to drink. :beerme:

Boss-Hog
09-04-2005, 05:00 PM
I don't feel like reading through this entire thread, so don't kill me if this has already been brought up...

Boss/GIK: How have the bandwidth issues been doing? I know this was a major problem a while back, and I've noticed a couple of times in the last few weeks that logging in has been tough on here, some database errors or something.

On a similar thought, how is the financial aspect of the board doing? Is there a need for funds at all to keep things going?

Thanks for all you guys do!

The bandwidth issues we experienced don't seem to be a problem anymore with some of the moves we've made (knock on wood). I'll defer on the funding question until I talk to GIK about that.

GAC
09-04-2005, 06:02 PM
Who are you guys gonna argue with over there? :lol:

Falls City Beer
09-04-2005, 06:09 PM
Who are you guys gonna argue with over there? :lol:

Trolls always find their way somehow. ;)

And apparently, constant emails from the righties got the political threads shut down over here. Apparently you guys couldn't take the heat, or the fact that you were wrong so darn often.

ochre
09-04-2005, 06:15 PM
I'm going to check an Ann Coulter book out at the library and play devil's advocate over there. Apparently the first chapters of all her books deal with how to react when backed into an unwinnable debate. Looks like the first phase is to bring up Chappaquiddick.
http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=73

***edit fixed typo

westofyou
09-04-2005, 06:16 PM
Looks like the first phase is to bring up Chappaquiddick.

Hmmm the Statue of Liberty play of the right.... the end around is saying that the discussion is over. ;)

GAC
09-04-2005, 06:19 PM
And apparently, constant emails from the righties got the political threads shut down over here. Apparently you guys couldn't take the heat, or the fact that you were wrong so darn often.

That's pure BS and you know it. :lol:

Funny how the mods never confirm that accusation. That's right! - they were all in on this conspiracy. Isn't Ochre a mod here?

Have fun over there. :lol:

Boss-Hog
09-04-2005, 06:21 PM
And apparently, constant emails from the righties got the political threads shut down over here. That's flat out untrue.

GAC
09-04-2005, 06:21 PM
I'm going to check an Ann Coulter book out at the library and play devil's advocate over there. Apparently the first chapters of all her books deal with how to react when backed into an unwinnable debate. Looks like the first phase is to bring up Chappaquiddick.
http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=73

***edit fixed typo

More liberals have read that book then conservatives. We no more get our marching orders from people like her, then liberals do Michael Moore. :lol:

GAC
09-04-2005, 06:22 PM
And apparently, constant emails from the righties got the political threads shut down over here. That's flat out untrue.

Thank you Boss.

ochre
09-04-2005, 06:22 PM
More liberals have read that book then conservatives. We no more get our marching orders from people like her, then liberals do Michael Moore. :lol:
Glad you got a laugh out of it. It was meant to be funny :)

Falls City Beer
09-04-2005, 06:24 PM
And apparently, constant emails from the righties got the political threads shut down over here. That's flat out untrue.

I can tell you I sent ONE (1) email to you guys in all the years I've been here leveling a complaint.

My only other guess is that it was from those who aren't involved at all in these discussions, who just get their kicks by telling others what to do, even when they can choose not to read.

Sounds like a conservative to me. :devil:

GAC
09-04-2005, 06:26 PM
Glad you got a laugh out of it. It was meant to be funny :)

Just as long as you don't get the impression, by reading that book, that she is even close to representing conservative viewpoints. ;)

Boss-Hog
09-04-2005, 06:28 PM
I can tell you I sent ONE (1) email to you guys in all the years I've been here leveling a complaint.

My only other guess is that it was from those who aren't involved at all in these discussions, who just get their kicks by telling others what to do, even when they can choose not to read.

Sounds like a conservative to me. :devil: Have you considered that the real reason we reached that conclusion was for exactly the same reasons mentioned in the thread I started?

GAC
09-04-2005, 06:28 PM
I can tell you I sent ONE (1) email to you guys in all the years I've been here leveling a complaint.

My only other guess is that it was from those who aren't involved at all in these discussions, who just get their kicks by telling others what to do, even when they can choose not to read.

Sounds like a conservative to me. :devil:

Wow! Now you're labelling those who never were involved in the discussions, but were tired of seeing the threads and the non-baseball side being dragged thru the political mud, so they sent emails, as conservatives???

paranoid much?

Man I wish some of those people would respond to that accusation. You'd finally be wrong for once. :lol:

Have you ever met any of these people who did so? I have. Plenty of times.

Believe me - they are far from conservative. They were just tired of all the arguing. Their motivation had nothing to do with being on anyone's side politically or ideologically.

And you're one up on me then.

I've sent none (as far as complaining emails). :lol:

Falls City Beer
09-04-2005, 06:33 PM
Have you considered that the real reason we reached that conclusion was for exactly the same reasons mentioned in the thread I started?

You don't want to read anymore threads. You don't want to read anymore emails.

And I don't feel like getting banned for the 90th time. Works like a charm for all involved.

Falls City Beer
09-04-2005, 06:36 PM
Wow! Now you're labelling those who never were involved in the discussions, but were tired of seeing the threads and the non-baseball side being dragged thru the political mud, so they sent emails, as conservatives???

paranoid much?

Man I wish some of those people would respond to that accusation. You'd fianlly be wrong for once. :lol:

Have you ever met any of these people who did so? I have. Plenty of times.

Believe me - they are far from conservative. They were just tired of all the arguing. Their motivation had nothing to do with being on anyone's side politically or ideologically.

And you're one up on me then.

I've sent none (as far as complaining emails). :lol:

Notice the smiley. I was kidding.

ochre
09-04-2005, 06:37 PM
90 times? That's almost how many weeks Bush was AWOL from his NG Unit :) :)

Boss-Hog
09-04-2005, 06:38 PM
I'm merging this thread with the other one.

GAC
09-04-2005, 06:38 PM
Yeah - right. It has not the first time you and others have leveled that baseless accusation on here.

Falls City Beer
09-04-2005, 06:39 PM
90 times? That's almost how many weeks Bush was AWOL from his NG Unit :) :)

90? Eh, slight exaggeration. But I've lost count. I manage to piss every mod off at one point or another.

RBA
09-04-2005, 06:56 PM
I think those on the right were tired of being called out with the facts. And all their arguments in support of the war kept collapsing over the last couple years.

I can understand their frustrations.

GAC
09-04-2005, 07:12 PM
Only 5 more days till Christmas! :lol:

paintmered
09-04-2005, 07:50 PM
And apparently, constant emails from the righties got the political threads shut down over here.


Nope. Nobody other than the mods had anything to do with this decision. Also, nobody on the right (or left, for that matter) approached us to eliminate these threads.

RedsBaron
09-04-2005, 08:30 PM
Well, some poster calling himself RedsZone Zombie just set the RedsZone record for most offensive post.

pedro
09-04-2005, 08:33 PM
Well, some poster calling himself RedsZone Zombie just set the RedsZone record for most offensive post.

seriously, that was the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

That, in a nutshell, is why a moderated site is a good thing. Thank you mods for deleting that so quickly.

paintmered
09-04-2005, 08:34 PM
We won't be dealing with that troll any longer.

RedsBaron
09-04-2005, 08:36 PM
We won't be dealing with that troll any longer.
Thanks. Those posts were so incredibly bad I had trouble believing that the poster was serious, either that or David Duke just found RedsZone.

RedsBaron
09-05-2005, 09:39 AM
I'm going to (surprise!) echo FCB's sentiments. Right now the Reds are as dull as dirt but we're cursed with living in exciting times. So my posts run about 10-1 political-to-baseball. There are a lot of political discussion groups out there, but they're usually echo chambers, of either right or left, where your either a singer in the chorus or a troll. Its because this is a baseball sight that we get an interesting cross-section of political views.

I truly hope I didn't offend anyone with the midwesterner remark (although if you are offended, it might prove my point). I truly meant it as a observation and not a judgement. My family's from the South and they, similarly, have an aversion to outright confrontation. I find Northeast style directness useful but it has its faults. Different strokes is all.

Lastly, I think I've grown from posting over here. The purpose of the back-and-forth isn't to "win" or change anyone's mind. The process is the important thing. I'm made to think before I write, made to answer, made to anticipate.

When I first started posting over here I was far nastier than I am now. While I never called anyone stupid, I could sometimes call their point "stupid" or "preposterous". I still have my lapses when confronted with an event, like Hurrican Katrina, that is God-awful wrenching. But there are some conservative posters here, Redsbaron comes to mind, that are so respectful and even-handed that I'm forced to re-evaluate my tone and check my venom. I think this portends to something larger that liberals should probably deal with.

This country is seriously off-track, IMO, and big changes are needed. And I'm not just talking about Democrats taking over. Slightly less than half the country thinks that Bush isn't just a bad President, they think he's a disaster. They (we) can get pretty red-faced trying to convince people of this, but, really, nobody changes their mind with a finger in their face. If change is going to happen then progressives/liberals/libertarians or anyone else who's dissatisfied with America's trajectory may have to ease up and let people discover it on their own.
Rojo, I've twice tried to submit a post on this thread, complimenting you on the post, and going on for some length about certain matters you raised. Each time, when I hit the "submit reply" key, my computer locked up (I'm not making this up). For now, I'll thank you for the kind words.

RBA
09-05-2005, 09:46 AM
Rojo, I've twice tried to submit a post on this thread, complimenting you on the post, and going on for some length about certain matters you raised. Each time, when I hit the "submit reply" key, my computer locked up (I'm not making this up). For now, I'll thank you for the kind words.

I have made severall lenghty replies to post the last couple days and it has locked up on me too. It appears it must of been a bug in the server/board and not our computers. I figured it was a higher power telling me that my replies were not necessary.

Rojo
09-06-2005, 12:45 AM
Rojo, I've twice tried to submit a post on this thread, complimenting you on the post, and going on for some length about certain matters you raised. Each time, when I hit the "submit reply" key, my computer locked up (I'm not making this up). For now, I'll thank you for the kind words.

No thanks necessary. What's funny is that I wrote this and within a couple of days I was all venomous again about Rehnquist.

Don't mind me.

OnBaseMachine
09-06-2005, 02:18 AM
I have made severall lenghty replies to post the last couple days and it has locked up on me too. It appears it must of been a bug in the server/board and not our computers. I figured it was a higher power telling me that my replies were not necessary.

That used to happen to me when I first joined the board, now I have a habit of copying my post before submitting it, if my computer locks up, I simply right click and re-paste my post. Saves the time and frustration of having to retype everything.

Unassisted
09-06-2005, 09:42 PM
Boss, I have a suggestion. If the Original Poster (OP) of a thread designates it with the words "Non-Political" in the subject of the original post, would it be possible to have the mods edit out the political posts and let the thread continue? I'm asking because I think moving and restarting a long thread will be a momentum-breaker. If the OP doesn't want it to be moved, I think it would be fair to let them pre-empt the thread moving in a political direction.

savafan
09-07-2005, 11:00 AM
I guess I fail to really see the need for all of this, if the political/religous threads aren't causing a bandwidth problem. It seems somewhat silly. This is Redszone. Some posters probably won't visit the other board for that reason alone. If that other board is to be "Redszone" as well, I guess I don't see what the difference is in the mods not reading the political/religous discussion threads here versus not reading them over there. If it's an issue of the mods not having the time to moderate everything, then I don't see why there aren't seperate mods for the baseball forums and the non-baseball chatter forum. If it is an issue of trying to keep Classic Redszone family friendly, then what good does it have to have a link here that kids can click on to access the other board? Maybe I am approaching this all too logically.

I for one love the political/religous debates. I learn a lot, from both sides. When I started here on Redszone I was strictly a conservative Republican, but over the years I've been swayed more to the Libertarian side of things, thanks in large part to what I've learned from excellent posters like Redsfaithful, FallsCityBeer, and GAC and traderumor. I've learned from all of them, and I appreciate what everyone has contributed to those threads.

Maybe I just look at this with a much cooler head than most, but I've seen times when people thought they were being attacked personally, and I just didn't get it. Like someone (I forget who) on this thread said, maybe we all just need to stop and think for a second whether or not someone is attacking you personally, or they are attacking your position.

Democrats are not always right. Democrats are not always wrong. Republicans are not always right. Republicans are not always wrong. Hell, even Libertarians are not always right or wrong. The church is not always right, I know, I worked in ministry for quite a while. The church is also not always wrong. There's a lot to be said for the need to have faith in something, and even if you just look at the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, etc. as a lot of philosophy...well, there's some great philosophy there from religous leaders of all faiths.

In our lives there are very few absolutes. There isn't much black and white, but there is a helluva lot of gray.

The big problem here is that so many fail to think that maybe the other guy just might be right once in a while.

A mind is like a parachute, it works best when it's open.

KronoRed
09-07-2005, 02:17 PM
Sava, the Mods simply don't want to read the threads and play referee, I don't blame em..on the other board both sides can snipe all they want as long as they don't get personal.

Boss-Hog
09-07-2005, 02:24 PM
If that other board is to be "Redszone" as well, I guess I don't see what the difference is in the mods not reading the political/religous discussion threads here versus not reading them over there.

The moderators HAVE been reading them all over here - but, collectively, we decided that we don't want to feel as if it's a requirement to read political/religious threads because it's likely to have posts in violation of the board's policies. I think the moderators and administrators' time spent on this site can be put to better use than that - and speaking only for myself, that's not even to mention that it's not an enjoyable task to moderate these threads.


If it's an issue of the mods not having the time to moderate everything, then I don't see why there aren't seperate mods for the baseball forums and the non-baseball chatter forum.

Whoever GIK and I appointed would be under the gun from day one - we'd have liberals complaining we appointed conservative moderators and conservatives complaining that we appointed liberal moderators.

REDREAD
09-07-2005, 02:42 PM
Rojo, I've twice tried to submit a post on this thread, complimenting you on the post, and going on for some length about certain matters you raised. Each time, when I hit the "submit reply" key, my computer locked up (I'm not making this up).

The conservatives stopped you from posting :) (Joke)

Boss-Hog
09-07-2005, 02:55 PM
That used to happen to me when I first joined the board, now I have a habit of copying my post before submitting it, if my computer locks up, I simply right click and re-paste my post. Saves the time and frustration of having to retype everything. This is the first I've heard of this, but it's obviously an issue if at least three people are experiencing it. Can any of you guys expand on what is happening when this problem occurs so I can look into it? Thanks.

Blimpie
09-07-2005, 04:21 PM
This is the first I've heard of this, but it's obviously an issue if at least people are experiencing it. Can any of you guys expand on what is happening when this problem occurs so I can look into it? Thanks.Boss:

I, too, have noticed this happening--but only recently so. It has happened to me only after composing (or replying to with a quote) what I would deem to be "lengthy" posts. After doing so, if I pressed either the "Submit" or the "Preview" post buttons, the button would simply appear to remain depressed and the screen would freeze up. My mouse cursor would stay at the hourglass icon permanently and I would be forced to abort said post. It happened to me 3-4 separate times last weekend; mostly while posting on the massive Katrina thread. I dunno if that helps in anyway, but that's what I experienced.

Thanks-

Blimpie

creek14
09-07-2005, 04:23 PM
A couple people have said that these threads don't sway people. That's not true. I have been a registered Democrat for 29 years. In that 29 years I have only missed one opportunity to vote - when I was pregnant and had pnemonia. I vote in every primary, every big election, every little election, every vote for a mental health issue election, or police levy or school levy, etc. All of them. In that 29 years I have voted for maybe 3 or 4 Republican candidates. Maybe not that many.

But that's changed after reading these threads. And especially after reading the Katrina thread. The Teflon coating being placed on the Dem gov and mayor make me sick. No one, Repubs or Dems, has the balls to stand up and say, man, I screwed up. They all suck. But the excuses made here for the total incompetence of local (Dem) government officials are beyond belief. At least the right wingers can say, yeah everyone screwed up, but to hear the left, the only mistakes were made by the Feds. (Who as we all know, from reading RedsZone, are all upper class white males. Iím sure the people I work with will be glad to know how rich and white they are.)

So you have convinced me I want nothing to do with a party like that. I'm done. I'm changing my registration and I'm changing my voting habits.

Thanks for opening my eyes.

Blimpie
09-07-2005, 04:33 PM
A couple people have said that these threads don't sway people. That's not true. I have been a registered Democrat for 29 years. In that 29 years I have only missed one opportunity to vote - when I was pregnant and had pnemonia. I vote in every primary, every big election, every little election, every vote for a mental health issue election, or police levy or school levy, etc. All of them. In that 29 years I have voted for maybe 3 or 4 Republican candidates. Maybe not that many.

But that's changed after reading these threads. And especially after reading the Katrina thread. The Teflon coating being placed on the Dem gov and mayor make me sick. No one, Repubs or Dems, has the balls to stand up and say, man, I screwed up. They all suck. But the excuses made here for the total incompetence of local (Dem) government officials are beyond belief. At least the right wingers can say, yeah everyone screwed up, but to hear the left, the only mistakes were made by the Feds. (Who as we all know, from reading RedsZone, are all upper class white males. Iím sure the people I work with will be glad to know how rich and white they are.)

So you have convinced me I want nothing to do with a party like that. I'm done. I'm changing my registration and I'm changing my voting habits.

Thanks for opening my eyes.Creek, your post is dead on accurate. However, in the past, anytime someone pointed things like that out--it instantly became woodshed time for that person. Hell, it'll probably become woodshed time for me for simply saying that I agreed with your post. I suspect that these realities are why we won't be having anymore political threads anymore. To be quite honest, I give major props to the mods for enduring this for as long as they have.

Redsfaithful
09-07-2005, 05:23 PM
A couple people have said that these threads don't sway people. That's not true. I have been a registered Democrat for 29 years. In that 29 years I have only missed one opportunity to vote - when I was pregnant and had pnemonia. I vote in every primary, every big election, every little election, every vote for a mental health issue election, or police levy or school levy, etc. All of them. In that 29 years I have voted for maybe 3 or 4 Republican candidates. Maybe not that many.

But that's changed after reading these threads. And especially after reading the Katrina thread. The Teflon coating being placed on the Dem gov and mayor make me sick. No one, Repubs or Dems, has the balls to stand up and say, man, I screwed up. They all suck. But the excuses made here for the total incompetence of local (Dem) government officials are beyond belief. At least the right wingers can say, yeah everyone screwed up, but to hear the left, the only mistakes were made by the Feds. (Who as we all know, from reading RedsZone, are all upper class white males. Iím sure the people I work with will be glad to know how rich and white they are.)

So you have convinced me I want nothing to do with a party like that. I'm done. I'm changing my registration and I'm changing my voting habits.

Thanks for opening my eyes.

You've been a Democrat in name only for as long as you've been posting on RedsZone.

And I'll add that that might possibly be the stupidest reason I've ever read for choosing one party over the other. Yeah Creek, let's not look at policies or accomplishments, or monumental failures or anything like that. Let's vote a certain way because you like one group of posters on an internet message board better than another. Good for you.

paintmered
09-07-2005, 06:12 PM
And I'll add that that might possibly be the stupidest reason I've ever read for choosing one party over the other. Yeah Creek, let's not look at policies or accomplishments, or monumental failures or anything like that. Let's vote a certain way because you like one group of posters on an internet message board better than another. Good for you.

Take it private RF.

Rojo
09-07-2005, 06:22 PM
So you have convinced me I want nothing to do with a party like that. I'm done. I'm changing my registration and I'm changing my voting habits.

Do you have "insider" knowledge about the flood like you did about the WMDs?

RedsBaron
09-07-2005, 06:38 PM
It appears our political threads are on the way to a "big finish" here as we near 9/15.

paintmered
09-07-2005, 06:42 PM
Do you have "insider" knowledge about the flood like you did about the WMDs?

Seriously, if you knew what her job is and what she's been doing the last week, you would have your foot in your mouth right now.

Rojo
09-07-2005, 06:52 PM
Seriously, if you knew what her job is and what she's been doing the last week, you would have your foot in your mouth right now.

I know she works at Wright-Patt and because of this, she all kinds of insider knowledge about the WMD's. I'm still waiting........

Redsfaithful
09-07-2005, 06:58 PM
Seriously, if you knew what her job is and what she's been doing the last week, you would have your foot in your mouth right now.

Does she work for FEMA now too?

Creek works for the government and acts like she has a ton of inside knowledge all the time that influences her political opinions. And that most anti-war people are idiots because they don't know of the constant danger that the "terrists" represent to our nation. And yet she was still certain that Iraq had WMD's the last time she admitted to having an opinion, which wasn't that long ago. Forgive me for not putting her on a pedestal.

I also don't really see why I need to take anything that I said private. Feel free to PM me with what I did wrong. I'm guessing a personal attack, but I was attacking her observation of other posters on the board, which really doesn't fit my definition of personal.

paintmered
09-07-2005, 07:03 PM
Does she work for FEMA now too?

Creek works for the government and acts like she has a ton of inside knowledge all the time that influences her political opinions. And that most anti-war people are idiots because they don't know of the constant danger that the "terrists" represent to our nation. And yet she was still certain that Iraq had WMD's the last time she admitted to having an opinion, which wasn't that long ago. Forgive me for not putting her on a pedestal.

No, I say this as someone with credentials and as someone who has seen her work.

Falls City Beer
09-07-2005, 07:39 PM
A couple people have said that these threads don't sway people. That's not true. I have been a registered Democrat for 29 years. In that 29 years I have only missed one opportunity to vote - when I was pregnant and had pnemonia. I vote in every primary, every big election, every little election, every vote for a mental health issue election, or police levy or school levy, etc. All of them. In that 29 years I have voted for maybe 3 or 4 Republican candidates. Maybe not that many.

But that's changed after reading these threads. And especially after reading the Katrina thread. The Teflon coating being placed on the Dem gov and mayor make me sick. No one, Repubs or Dems, has the balls to stand up and say, man, I screwed up. They all suck. But the excuses made here for the total incompetence of local (Dem) government officials are beyond belief. At least the right wingers can say, yeah everyone screwed up, but to hear the left, the only mistakes were made by the Feds. (Who as we all know, from reading RedsZone, are all upper class white males. Iím sure the people I work with will be glad to know how rich and white they are.)

So you have convinced me I want nothing to do with a party like that. I'm done. I'm changing my registration and I'm changing my voting habits.

Thanks for opening my eyes.

Creek, with all due respect, I think you've really got it backwards. Most Dems (on this board anyway) acknowledge that there is culpability from at least the gubernatorial level on up to the Feds. Yes, I think there is particular focus on the Federal level based upon the terrible response by Brown and Chertoff (it really was inarguably bad and slow), but I don't think most of the Dems here are contending that it's exclusively a Federal issue.

Where the positions largely diverge is at the Federal level, strangely. The Republican argument is roughly: the local bears the greatest responsibility, the state the next most, but the Federal, none or very little. That position is baffling, when you consider that this event is a catastrophe of national proportion, and therefore a FEMA-covered event.

I'm not trying to change your position, Creek, I'm just trying to clarify the positions as I see them. I could be wrong.

RBA
09-07-2005, 07:44 PM
Good riddance. The Democrats don't need anymore DINOs. And that's exactly what the LA Governor and the NO Mayor were too: Democrats in Name Only. I'm sure you all know that the N.O. Mayor contributed to the Bush Campaign.

Yeah, they screwed up. But the office that has primary responsiblity to over see and coordinate "all" response, relief, and recovery operations is the federal government led by the President of the United States. I'm sure as a member of the federal government you know that. And you know of the National Response Plan that was effect December 2004. And you know what the diffinition of "all" means.


I'm sure if I visited your organization and observed, I will see Televisions in the breakrooms tune to Fox News, televisions in your watch area tune to Fox News. People in their work stations blasting Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. I know this, because I have worked in these type areas and they aren't much different than anywhere else. Go ahead try to change the channel to CNN. It won't stay on that channel for long.

edit: And at least two people will tell you what they seen on the Drudge Report at least once a day.

There something known as bad data in, bad analysis out.

RedsBaron
09-07-2005, 08:32 PM
Good riddance. The Democrats don't need anymore DINOs.
Hey Creek, the Republicans have a big tent. :) Welcome in. ;)

Rojo
09-07-2005, 08:38 PM
Good riddance. The Democrats don't need anymore DINOs.

Or Rovebots.

Redsfaithful
09-07-2005, 08:50 PM
Hey Creek, the Republicans have a big tent. :)

One race, and you can still call it a big tent with a straight face?

RBA
09-07-2005, 09:03 PM
One race, and you can still call it a big tent with a straight face?

No, he had a smilie face. like this: ;)

Reds Nd2
09-07-2005, 09:06 PM
[QUOTE=Blimpie]I, too, have noticed this happening--but only recently so. It has happened to me only after composing (or replying to with a quote) what I would deem to be "lengthy" posts. After doing so, if I pressed either the "Submit" or the "Preview" post buttons, the button would simply appear to remain depressed and the screen would freeze up. My mouse cursor would stay at the hourglass icon permanently and I would be forced to abort said post.

Exact same thing happened to me Tuesday on the "Irritating thread" on RedsLive. I was using both quote tags and code tags. When I went to preview it, everything locked up on me. Happened twice. On the third attempt, I hit submit reply, instead of preview. No problems the third time.

I'm not sure it has to do with the length of the post though. I posted the entire NY Times article with quote tags and had no problem. The post I had problems with was much shorter. I also previewed the longer, first post with no problems.

savafan
09-08-2005, 12:39 AM
The moderators HAVE been reading them all over here - but, collectively, we decided that we don't want to feel as if it's a requirement to read political/religious threads because it's likely to have posts in violation of the board's policies. I think the moderators and administrators' time spent on this site can be put to better use than that - and speaking only for myself, that's not even to mention that it's not an enjoyable task to moderate these threads.





I wasn't saying that the moderators weren't reading them, that has been pretty obvious, and they have done a good job of moderating on them too I might add. My only question is why feel obliged to have to read the threads over here and not have to read them over there? Why not simply not read them or moderate them on this website? Why not have a seperate political forum like www.nyyfans.com has, right here on this sight, and have that forum be unmoderated? I guess what I don't get is why split the threads off to a different site if it is still affiliated and linked to Redszone? I can understand the creation of the other board for the bandwidth problem, but this simply makes no sense when you break it down to it's lowest common denominator. It would make more sense to simply do away with political and religous discussion altogether rather than segregate it to a different board.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, or saying that the mods aren't doing their jobs, because I know that they are, and that it is a thankless job. I rarely ruffle feathers here on Redszone, but the logic behind all of this has me scratching my head.

KronoRed
09-08-2005, 02:19 AM
It may be Boss worries that a political forum here will end up spilling over to the other forums, now that may happen anyway, but with it being a completely different forum, it might keep that to a minimum.

zombie-a-go-go
09-08-2005, 08:46 AM
I'm gonna laugh out loud, literally, if a thread started by the admins regarding changes to the site has to be locked because some people can't keep their vitriol in check.

Treading the line of what constitutes "personal" while making blanket statement attacks on someone else - sure, it might not violate the letter of the rules, but it certainly goes against the spirit of them.

Everyone loses control of their temper occasionally; I certainly do. But can we please try to reign in our emotions a little bit when we know our statements are going to anger and upset others?

Boss-Hog
09-08-2005, 03:38 PM
This is the first I've heard of this, but it's obviously an issue if at least three people are experiencing it. Can any of you guys expand on what is happening when this problem occurs so I can look into it? Thanks. http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/bugs.php?do=view&bugid=4115

This is a known issue with the latest version of vBulletin, which we just upgraded to. I'll apply the fix ASAP. Please let me know if you still continue to experience problems.

Boss

Boss-Hog
09-08-2005, 07:25 PM
http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/bugs.php?do=view&bugid=4115

This is a known issue with the latest version of vBulletin, which we just upgraded to. I'll apply the fix ASAP. Please let me know if you still continue to experience problems.

Boss Everything should be good to go now. Let me know if you guys still have problems.

Rojo
09-08-2005, 07:32 PM
It se ms To be wo ki g Fine nOw.

paintmered
09-08-2005, 07:33 PM
It se ms To be wo ki g Fine nOw.


However, it seems that you are not.

;) :p:

Blimpie
09-09-2005, 10:05 AM
It se ms To be wo ki g Fine nOw. :ughmamoru

RBA
09-09-2005, 10:23 AM
COUNTDOWN TO POLITICAL FREE BOARD





(because one side is mostly on the losing end)



6

Days Left

Blimpie
09-09-2005, 10:39 AM
COUNTDOWN TO POLITICAL FREE BOARD


(because one side is mostly on the losing end)


6
Days LeftSounds a lot like a figure skating score from the French judge, if you ask me...

Falls City Beer
09-09-2005, 12:31 PM
Well, if we "Democrats" who are disgusted with the President's response are foolish bastards who cause people to switch their political parties and voting habits, then apparently we are a pretty big confederacy of dunces.

Pew Poll finds that 67% of Americans find fault with Bush for the Feds' failure to react to the Katrina crisis.

westofyou
09-09-2005, 12:57 PM
Well, if we "Democrats" who are disgusted with the President's response are foolish bastards who cause people to switch their political parties and voting habits, then apparently we are a pretty big confederacy of dunces.

Pew Poll finds that 67% of Americans find fault with Bush for the Feds' failure to react to the Katrina crisis.

Ignatius Reilly could have formed a better response to this mess than the Bush crew.

savafan
09-09-2005, 01:00 PM
I'm gonna laugh out loud, literally, if a thread started by the admins regarding changes to the site has to be locked because some people can't keep their vitriol in check.

Treading the line of what constitutes "personal" while making blanket statement attacks on someone else - sure, it might not violate the letter of the rules, but it certainly goes against the spirit of them.

Everyone loses control of their temper occasionally; I certainly do. But can we please try to reign in our emotions a little bit when we know our statements are going to anger and upset others?

I feel I kept my anger in check and didn't attack anyone.

Blimpie
09-09-2005, 01:12 PM
Well, if we "Democrats" who are disgusted with the President's response are foolish bastards who cause people to switch their political parties and voting habits, then apparently we are a pretty big confederacy of dunces.

Pew Poll finds that 67% of Americans find fault with Bush for the Feds' failure to react to the Katrina crisis.FCB: Wow, what a coincidence. I am also a big fan of Pew Research. Anyway, if you truly believe that all aspects of Pew's research methodologies are entirely sound (which I personally do), then I invite you to read their recently published report which did an excellent job of mapping out the current political landscape in our country post-2004 elections.

The report itself is a rather large Adobe file, so I'll just leave you a link for some future reading. Pay close attention, if you will, to the distinguishing characteristics of each of the different divsions within each political party.

After reading the report, I found it both amusing and helpful to even sub-classify some of the members on this board. Personally, I find the whole "us" versus "them" caste system that is frequently espoused here to be way too simplistic and painfully boring. Happy reading!

http://pewresearch.org/files/politicallandscape2005.pdf

REDREAD
09-09-2005, 01:39 PM
Nice article Blimpie.. I've only gone through the first 20-30 pages so far, but it's interesting. Well worth reading.

Blimpie
09-09-2005, 01:49 PM
Nice article Blimpie.. I've only gone through the first 20-30 pages so far, but it's interesting. Well worth reading.I don't care on which side your loyalties may fall, if you read enough of that report, you WILL be clearly identified at some point in time... ;)

RBA
09-10-2005, 03:54 PM
COUNTDOWN TO POLITICAL FREE BOARD

(because one side is mostly on the losing end)





5





Days Left

redsrule2500
09-10-2005, 04:20 PM
COUNTDOWN TO POLITICAL FREE BOARD
(because one side is mostly on the losing end)


5


Days Left

Liberals Suck

Reds4Life
09-10-2005, 04:24 PM
Liberals Suck

Enjoy your 24 hour vacation!

:thumbup:

pedro
09-10-2005, 04:27 PM
Liberals Suck

You are quite the charmer redsrule2500! Tell us, what's the secret of your success?

We're dying to know!

Falls City Beer
09-10-2005, 04:32 PM
The guy's a total troll. Why he hasn't been kicked off the board entirely I have no idea. He adds nothing.

westofyou
09-10-2005, 04:33 PM
Enjoy your 24 hour vacation!

:thumbup:

That's it?

After he pulled the same crap last week?

I lobby for 48 hours, heck 72 hours.... ;)

RBA
09-10-2005, 04:36 PM
I think he took exception to "one side is mostly on the losing end" statement. Funny, I didn't say which side was mostly on the losing end. ;)

BUTLER REDSFAN
09-10-2005, 07:52 PM
my apologies in advance if the answer is in this thread somewhere earlier but not sure why there had to be moderating to begin with--why werent people allowed to just express an opinion without having points lowered,suspended etc.....people should have been allowed to read a post then think it over,respond if they want etc...why was there always someone looking over your shoulder?!?!?

RedsBaron
09-10-2005, 09:13 PM
my apologies in advance if the answer is in this thread somewhere earlier but not sure why there had to be moderating to begin with--why werent people allowed to just express an opinion without having points lowered,suspended etc.....people should have been allowed to read a post then think it over,respond if they want etc...why was there always someone looking over your shoulder?!?!?
A lot of the original posters here came over from the old Cincinnati Enquirer board which was overrun by trolls as a result of a lack of any moderation, so I think that is one reason.

KronoRed
09-10-2005, 09:15 PM
Any board without mods turns into a crap fest, take a look around the net.

GAC
09-12-2005, 07:03 AM
A lot of the original posters here came over from the old Cincinnati Enquirer board which was overrun by trolls as a result of a lack of any moderation, so I think that is one reason.

Yep. Ya gotta have some sort of moderation or else it's total anarchy! :lol:

WVRed
09-12-2005, 08:45 AM
I think he took exception to "one side is mostly on the losing end" statement. Funny, I didn't say which side was mostly on the losing end. ;)

I think we all know.;)

REDREAD
09-12-2005, 10:01 AM
my apologies in advance if the answer is in this thread somewhere earlier but not sure why there had to be moderating to begin with--why werent people allowed to just express an opinion without having points lowered,suspended etc.....people should have been allowed to read a post then think it over,respond if they want etc...why was there always someone looking over your shoulder?!?!?

One of the main reasons this board was founded was to have a moderated place to discuss Reds' baseball. At the time, the Enquirer board and the Fastball board had way too much trolling.

GAC
09-13-2005, 08:21 AM
I miss kapaloosa, gallagher, har-ecor (sp?), and so many of those other M fans. Life is just not the same! :lol:

RFS62
09-15-2005, 12:39 AM
So, are you mods popping champagne corks?

Larkin Fan
09-15-2005, 01:07 AM
So, are you mods popping champagne corks?

I bet they are. I would be.

KronoRed
09-15-2005, 03:05 AM
They will be till they downsize the mods due to lack of need over here

*evil laugh* :devil:

GAC
09-15-2005, 04:34 AM
I'm bored. :p:

RANDY IN INDY
09-15-2005, 07:09 AM
It'll be interesting to see how much action this side of the forum gets now.

GAC
09-15-2005, 08:10 AM
It's probably gonna be like going thru withdrawal.

I guess if anyone wants to discuss/argue over these issues they can go to the other website.

Me? I'd rather let my wife kick me in the groin on a daily basis. :lol:

Now we are gonna have to talk about such topics as the Reds - and that is even more depressing. We all agree on their situation. ;)

Chip R
09-15-2005, 08:54 AM
OK, what's the over/under on how many days it will take for GAC to start posting over there? I give it a week. ;)

Jaycint
09-15-2005, 09:03 AM
OK, what's the over/under on how many days it will take for GAC to start posting over there? I give it a week. ;)

I broke down this morning and made my first post over there, lol. I can't just go cold turkey like this. :)

paintmered
09-15-2005, 11:03 AM
So, are you mods popping champagne corks?

I slept through the much anticipated deadline.

GAC
09-15-2005, 11:05 AM
OK, what's the over/under on how many days it will take for GAC to start posting over there? I give it a week. ;)

Wanna bet? C'mon bet me! ;)

Chip R
09-15-2005, 11:10 AM
Wanna bet? C'mon bet me! ;)

I don't want to take your money, Mr. "I'm through posting in the political threads". :laugh:

GAC
09-15-2005, 11:30 AM
It's not my money that will be lost. ;)

I was already over there because rfs wanted me to check out his forum/pics.

I peeked in and saw who was doing the majority of the posting and what the thread topics were on.

I liken it to be like a Bengal fan, dressed in full attire, parking his butt in the middle of the Dawg Pound in Cleveland. :lol:

Like dropping a guppy into a bowl of piranhas.

Reds Nd2
09-15-2005, 05:35 PM
OK, what's the over/under on how many days it will take for GAC to start posting over there? I give it a week. ;)

Your being way too optimistic. I give it 3 days, tops. :D


EDIT: That's meant to be a joke by the way. :)

CrackerJack
09-15-2005, 09:25 PM
Why is talking about Hurricane Katrina "political" now?

Slippery slopes...

Unassisted
09-16-2005, 12:01 AM
Why is talking about Hurricane Katrina "political" now?

Slippery slopes...Not slippery at all. Mentioning and/or quoting politicians is political.

Mutaman
09-16-2005, 12:40 AM
Question: One of the many reasons I hate the Banana Man so much is because of his politics. So if I want to complain about Mr. Lindner, do I do it in Red Zoan or someplace else?

Also, is it true that this change was forced by the conservative Reds fans who were getting tired of losing every argument?

paintmered
09-16-2005, 12:44 AM
Also, is it true that this change was forced by the conservative Reds fans who were getting tired of losing every argument?

No. This decision was put on the table and decided upon by the mods and admins alone. There was no outside influence at any point.

Reds4Life
09-16-2005, 12:45 AM
Question: One of the many reasons I hate the Banana Man so much is because of his politics. So if I want to complain about Mr. Lindner, do I do it in Red Zoan or someplace else?

If you'd like to discuss Mr. Lindner's ownership of the Reds, and his involvement in the Reds organization and baseball in general, Redszone is the place. If you'd like to discuss political groups/interests he supports, that is a topic that should be placed on the other board.


Also, is it true that this change was forced by the conservative Reds fans who were getting tired of losing every argument?

No.

GAC
09-16-2005, 07:21 AM
Question: One of the many reasons I hate the Banana Man so much is because of his politics. So if I want to complain about Mr. Lindner, do I do it in Red Zoan or someplace else?

Also, is it true that this change was forced by the conservative Reds fans who were getting tired of losing every argument?

forced?

I think that if you really knew any of the mods and had met any of them in person (which I and many have), you'd realize how ridiculous this accusation is. ;)

Mutaman
09-16-2005, 12:44 PM
Not having met anybody in person, I guess that puts me at a big disadvantage. Where do all these meetings with the moderators take place? Isn't this a conflict of interest? Why wern't the rest of us invited? Do these personal friendships have any bearing on GAC's large number of reputation points? Shouldn't people like GAC be forced to divulge their personal relationships with the moderators before they post? Who else has personally met the moderators? I want answers.

TeamCasey
09-16-2005, 12:48 PM
Who else has personally met the moderators? I want answers.

I have. Everyone's always been invited and encouraged.

Historically, we've tried to get-together for a Spring training game at a sports bar in the spring. We try to pull people together for a game once or twice a season as well.

The fun part is when we have a good turn-out and get to meet new folks each year.

TeamCasey
09-16-2005, 12:49 PM
When someone does try to pull a gathering together, it's always been stickied on the baseball forum so everyone sees it.

paintmered
09-16-2005, 12:50 PM
Not having met anybody in person, I guess that puts me at a big disadvantage. Where do all these meetings with the moderators take place? Isn't this a conflict of interest? Why wern't the rest of us invited? Do these personal friendships have any bearing on GAC's large number of reputation points? Shouldn't people like GAC be forced to divulge their personal relationships with the moderators before they post? Who else has personally met the moderators? I want answers.

Nobody other than the mods and the admins provided input for this decision. It was made by us and us alone.

We did not seek advice from GAC, nor did he offer it. I don't know where you got the idea that some of the posters around here lobbied for this move. Because it never happened.

ochre
09-16-2005, 12:53 PM
information on exclusive club membership can be found in this thread.
(http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38416)

Chip R
09-16-2005, 12:57 PM
Nobody other than the mods and the admins provided input for this decision. It was made by us and us alone.

We did not seek advice from GAC, nor did he offer it. I don't know where you got the idea that some of the posters around here lobbied for this move. Because it never happened.

Don't bother, paint. He thinks it's some right-wing conspiracy that the threads aren't on here anymore and no matter what anyone tells him he's going to believe that. :rolleyes:

Reds4Life
09-16-2005, 01:24 PM
Where do all these meetings with the moderators take place?

In the Mod Cave at 2:30am with a full moon.


Isn't this a conflict of interest?

No.


Why wern't the rest of us invited?

Because you aren't moderators or administrators.


Do these personal friendships have any bearing on GAC's large number of reputation points?

I dunno. It's no different than some of you giving mods negative rep points for moderating (which has happened more than once, BTW).


Shouldn't people like GAC be forced to divulge their personal relationships with the moderators before they post?

No, and I love how your slapping a bullseye on one member here, could it be because he doesn't agree with you politically? Hmmm.


Who else has personally met the moderators?

Many Redzoner's have met the mods and admins, we attended RZ get togethers and games just like everyone else.


I want answers.

Well, now you have them.

RFS62
09-16-2005, 01:27 PM
There are a million stories in the Naked City.

GAC's is just one of them.

Chip R
09-16-2005, 01:36 PM
There are a million stories in the Naked City.

GAC's is just one of them.

I don't want to see the words "GAC" and "naked" in the same post ever again. :eek:

Mutaman
09-16-2005, 02:21 PM
In the Mod Cave at 2:30am with a full moon.



No.



Because you aren't moderators or administrators.



I dunno. It's no different than some of you giving mods negative rep points for moderating (which has happened more than once, BTW).



No, and I love how your slapping a bullseye on one member here, could it be because he doesn't agree with you politically? Hmmm.



Many Redzoner's have met the mods and admins, we attended RZ get togethers and games just like everyone else.



Well, now you have them.


To parapharse Sidney Falco, maybe you left your sense of humor in your other suit.

Mutaman
09-16-2005, 02:24 PM
Don't bother, paint. He thinks it's some right-wing conspiracy that the threads aren't on here anymore and no matter what anyone tells him he's going to believe that. :rolleyes:

Actually I've always thought that members of the right wing are too incompetent to pull off a conspiracy, and watching them in action over the last five years has confirmed that belief.

GAC
09-16-2005, 03:08 PM
Not having met anybody in person, I guess that puts me at a big disadvantage. Where do all these meetings with the moderators take place? Isn't this a conflict of interest? Why wern't the rest of us invited? Do these personal friendships have any bearing on GAC's large number of reputation points? Shouldn't people like GAC be forced to divulge their personal relationships with the moderators before they post? Who else has personally met the moderators? I want answers.

:lol:

Are you for real?

I'm gonna save this one!

I was tempted to make it my signature (but we'll drop it) :lol:

zombie-a-go-go
09-16-2005, 03:09 PM
Trust me, you don't really want to meet the mods of this board. Apart from myself, they're some pretty scary individuals. I, of course, am friendly and personable and would stop to give a man dying of thirst a drink of water, no question.

GAC
09-16-2005, 03:12 PM
Trust me, you don't really want to meet the mods of this board. Apart from myself, they're some pretty scary individuals. I, of course, am friendly and personable and would stop to give a man dying of thirst a drink of water, no question.

Only after you took his wallet. :lol:

zombie-a-go-go
09-16-2005, 03:15 PM
Only after you took his wallet. :lol:

Hey, even mods have to smoke cra- ah... eat.

GAC
09-16-2005, 03:15 PM
Can mods give rep points?

Reds4Life
09-16-2005, 03:44 PM
Can mods give rep points?

Yup.

RFS62
09-16-2005, 04:04 PM
Can mods give rep points?


It's easy to guess how you wouldn't know that.

:evil:

RedsBaron
09-16-2005, 04:29 PM
It's easy to guess how you wouldn't know that.

:evil:
Don't let GAC fool you. He knew that. After all, he's the guy that's so tight with all the mods that he got political threads banned and....opps....I wasn't supposed to tell that....now where's that delete button.......

GAC
09-16-2005, 08:30 PM
And whatever you do - don't let it out of the bag that I crashed at a mod's house after a Red's game this summer - OOPS :bang:

Spring~Fields
09-17-2005, 11:18 AM
Not having met anybody in person, I guess that puts me at a big disadvantage. Where do all these meetings with the moderators take place? Isn't this a conflict of interest? Why wern't the rest of us invited? Do these personal friendships have any bearing on GAC's large number of reputation points? Shouldn't people like GAC be forced to divulge their personal relationships with the moderators before they post? Who else has personally met the moderators? I want answers.

Hey even I have been invited several times, so you know they are not picky. :eek: You're right about GAC though, if you go to "Websters" you will find his picture right next to "huge suckup". ;)

Spring~Fields
09-17-2005, 11:21 AM
And whatever you do - don't let it out of the bag that I crashed at a mod's house after a Red's game this summer - OOPS :bang:

Did his username start with a "C", uh oh :mooner:

savafan
09-18-2005, 12:01 PM
I dunno. It's no different than some of you giving mods negative rep points for moderating (which has happened more than once, BTW).





This just makes me angry. :angry:

KronoRed
09-18-2005, 01:28 PM
This just makes me angry. :angry:
Rep him up ;)

Caveat Emperor
09-18-2005, 05:21 PM
Actually I've always thought that members of the right wing are too incompetent to pull off a conspiracy, and watching them in action over the last five years has confirmed that belief.

...or could it be that's exactly what they want you to think?

(sings) Paranoia, Paranoia...everybody's coming to get me! :all_cohol

Mutaman
09-18-2005, 06:50 PM
...or could it be that's exactly what they want you to think?

(sings) Paranoia, Paranoia...everybody's coming to get me! :all_cohol

Which would mean that naming Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense and Brownie head of Fema were actually clever moves by the right wing. And the Iraq debacle is just part of a brilliant strategy. Of course I've never doubted that the right is very talented at both winning elections and passing legislation that helps rich people. I still think thats as far as it goes.

paintmered
09-18-2005, 08:49 PM
Which would mean that naming Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense and Brownie head of Fema were actually clever moves by the right wing. And the Iraq debacle is just part of a brilliant strategy. Of course I've never doubted that the right is very talented at both winning elections and passing legislation that helps rich people. I still think thats as far as it goes.


For the record, the political discussion ban includes this thread.

Just sayin'

RFS62
09-18-2005, 11:03 PM
For the record, the political discussion ban includes this thread.

Just sayin'


What perfect irony if you have to close this thread because of political debates.

GAC
09-19-2005, 08:01 AM
NIPPIT! NIPPIT! NIPPIT IN THE BUD!

http://guajirodreams.com/blogs/images/barney-dontstealthis.gif

goingpostal111
02-21-2006, 09:33 AM
Edited: Posted deleted for inappropriate comments.

-Reds4Life

TeamCasey
02-21-2006, 09:46 AM
A guys house just burned down ....... a longtime poster and friend.

Show some compassion and class, or just shut up!

Johnny Footstool
02-21-2006, 09:54 AM
A prayer request thread is completely different from a thread discussing religion.

RFS62
02-21-2006, 10:07 AM
A guys house just burned down ....... a longtime poster and friend.

Show some compassion and class, or just shut up!



I vote for the second option

Red Leader
02-21-2006, 10:09 AM
I vote for the second option

:beerme:

Same here.

RBA
02-21-2006, 10:12 AM
Calling for prayers is not the same as a religious discussion.

registerthis
02-21-2006, 10:13 AM
Calling for prayers is not the same as a religious discussion.

Seriously.

Totally classless post, GP.

creek14
02-21-2006, 04:27 PM
So how many - points does it take to get someone booted?

Reds Nd2
02-21-2006, 05:59 PM
I just wanted to appologize to anyone I may have offended with the Cheney thread earlier. I thought it might cross the line of the political thread ban but that wasn't my intention. I heard the song this morning and thought others would enjoy it. Just wanted to share a smile with RedsZone today.

TeamCasey
02-21-2006, 06:00 PM
Nah! Didn't bother me.

RedsBaron
02-21-2006, 08:08 PM
I just wanted to appologize to anyone I may have offended with the Cheney thread earlier. I thought it might cross the line of the political thread ban but that wasn't my intention. I heard the song this morning and thought others would enjoy it. Just wanted to share a smile with RedsZone today.
It didn't bother me either, and I voted for the ticket he was on. I just took it as harmless humor.

letsgojunior
02-21-2006, 08:44 PM
So how many - points does it take to get someone booted?

I dunno but he just got my -5.

OnBaseMachine
02-22-2006, 08:37 PM
He got my -2.

LawFive
02-23-2006, 06:08 AM
and my -1, I like to help how I can.

Mutaman
06-27-2007, 05:37 PM
There are rumours going around over at the peanut gallery that the political discussions were moved out of the main threads because the rightwing members were complaining about the drubbings that they were taking by the liberals. Any truth to this? Whats worse is, the right wingers seem to have all disappeared, leaving us left of center to have to sit around and agree with each other about everything. Boring.

Boss-Hog
06-27-2007, 08:56 PM
There are rumours going around over at the peanut gallery that the political discussions were moved out of the main threads because the rightwing members were complaining about the drubbings that they were taking by the liberals. Any truth to this? Whats worse is, the right wingers seem to have all disappeared, leaving us left of center to have to sit around and agree with each other about everything. Boring.
None. I thought we made it pretty clear why these threads were outlawed on here.

OldRightHander
06-27-2007, 10:38 PM
Whats worse is, the right wingers seem to have all disappeared, leaving us left of center to have to sit around and agree with each other about everything. Boring.

We haven't disappeared. We're just silently plotting our revenge. We can be a conniving lot.

WVRed
06-28-2007, 03:51 PM
There are rumours going around over at the peanut gallery that the political discussions were moved out of the main threads because the rightwing members were complaining about the drubbings that they were taking by the liberals. Any truth to this? Whats worse is, the right wingers seem to have all disappeared, leaving us left of center to have to sit around and agree with each other about everything. Boring.

I think it had something to do with a thread like this one.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29333&highlight=Election+Day

Redsfaithful
06-28-2007, 06:23 PM
I think it had something to do with a thread like this one.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29333&highlight=Election+Day

The last few pages of that thread is hysterical to read now.

Mutaman
06-28-2007, 11:05 PM
We haven't disappeared. We're just silently plotting our revenge. We can be a conniving lot.

Talk about your hanging curve balls.

OldRightHander
06-29-2007, 12:54 AM
Talk about your hanging curve balls.

Yep, I threw that one right down broadway. I figured someone would take a big hack at it, but this isn't the board for that anymore. Actually, the whole political scene has me someone burned out at the moment, so it's not something I really feel like discussing. Both parties have me a bit hacked off, so I'll just leave it at that.

RedsBaron
06-29-2007, 07:09 AM
Actually, the whole political scene has me someone burned out at the moment, so it's not something I really feel like discussing. Both parties have me a bit hacked off, so I'll just leave it at that.

That's pretty well where I am at, too.
The baseball side of RedsZone, as well as certain other threads, is a pleasant and enjoyable diversion for me. The political discussions here, or at the Peanut Gallery, have become something I didn't usually enjoy, so I don't join in as much.

Falls City Beer
06-29-2007, 05:54 PM
The last few pages of that thread is hysterical to read now.

I agree, I love it.

:evil:

creek14
06-29-2007, 07:50 PM
And the last few pages of this thread remind me why the change was made.

registerthis
07-02-2007, 04:43 PM
I agree, I love it.

:evil:

Schadenfreude? :)