Political Discussions

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by top6

I have clearly stated why I think your posts were political and why. I guess we disagree. Just because your point wasn't as simplistic as "more nuclear power" doesn't mean it wasn't political. As I said, I think you are correct, the media does a terrible job covering certain stories, and did a very bad job on this story in particular. There are very serious political ramifications of that opinion, though.

You still have not answered the question implied in my last post. Do you think Dom Hefner's posts in that thread were political? I think they are as well. KP clearly stated that DH's posts were political and yours were not. (Or KP just forgot about your posts.) That was the point I disagreed with and responded to.

Finally, I like your posts, even though I disagree with many of them. If I posted here more, I would probably be pushing the limit of what is political as much as I perceive you to be doing.

I will say this. I don't think Dom's comments were constructive. I would have much preferred he give countering arguments and sources instead of just basically saying "you're wrong" and leaving it at that. Posts like that either show that you have no argument or that you're lazy. Which was it?

I will also say that I would not have shut the thread down if it were up to me. You'll have to ask the MOD where he/she saw politics

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

This is a reminder to the more politically inclined of us that we have sparsely moderated forums offsite that are perfect for any discussion on political, semi-political, or pseudo-political topics.

This thread should show to all who read or participated in it how easily something can be interpreted as political. The moderating staff is going to also be viewing this in a subjective manner, meaning that things that are posted that are not meant to be political could be interpreted as being political, leading to moderation taking place.

Another thing that I would like to say on my own end (and this may apply for other moderators as well): upon taking a position as a moderator here at Redszone, I did not anticipate having to spend such a huge amount of time reading through threads that have nothing to do with baseball and are of no interest to me at all. Currently, an enormous percentage of complaints and moderation occur in non-baseball threads. In my opinion, the easiest solution to all of this is to take any topic that could possibly be viewed as political in nature to the offsite board- this will lead to better depth of discussion between all of you and an easier time as moderators for myself and the others.

A few issues with that:

1) If moderation takes that tact it empowers folks who don't like what's being said to take the issue political with the intention of getting it shut down. That's a lot easier than researching facts to counter said opinion

2) If you lock every provocative thread, then all you're left with are threads like "Wonder or Plastic Woman" or dating advice.

3) The Peanut Gallery is less open to varying political opinions than RZ. My experience is that if they don't like your political opinions they will ban you rather than counter it. Having said that, I don't think that site should affect how RZ is moderated. I do not think moderators should take Peanut Gallery into consideration one way or another, I'm just sayin'...

[Plus Plus]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

A few issues with that:

1) If moderation takes that tact it empowers folks who don't like what's being said to take the issue political with the intention of getting it shut down. That's a lot easier than researching facts to counter said opinion

2) If you lock every provocative thread, then all you're left with are threads like "Wonder or Plastic Woman" or dating advice.

3) The Peanut Gallery is less open to varying political opinions than RZ. My experience is that if they don't like your political opinions they will ban you rather than counter it. Having said that, I don't think that site should affect how RZ is moderated. I do not think moderators should take Peanut Gallery into consideration one way or another, I'm just sayin'...

1) If a user continually drives threads that he/she doesn't like into the political realm, the user will tally up a large number of infractions and bans in short order. This is not any course of action that I would anticipate happening.

2) To be honest, I'm fine with that. I have zero interest in reading threads about the current state of the economy or the nuclear repercussions of the Tohoku earthquake/tsunamis. While I may also have little interest in reading threads about "Wonder vs Plastic Woman," these threads don't require large amounts of moderation like the economy, tsunami, sex scandal, and circumcision threads did/do.

3) I was under the impression that the offsite boards were sparsely moderated and welcomed all kinds of discussion. I feel that if the users who have political interests moved the political discussions there, then the exact same discussion can occur without requiring a lot of the moderators' time and energy. As these boards are a part of Redszone, I feel that they are and should be a part of this discussion.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

A few issues with that:1) If moderation takes that tact it empowers folks who don't like what's being said to take the issue political with the intention of getting it shut down. That's a lot easier than researching facts to counter said opinion

2) If you lock every provocative thread, then all you're left with are threads like "Wonder or Plastic Woman" or dating advice.

Well, on these two points we're in agreement.

3) The Peanut Gallery is less open to varying political opinions than RZ. My experience is that if they don't like your political opinions they will ban you rather than counter it.[/QUOTE]

This isn't true at all.

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Kingspoint, you're more than welcome to start that topic again, provided the think-tank discussions and political meta-commentary about the media stay out of it. That's not just directed at you, but anyone that contributes.

The thread was closed because it was getting political and the discussion started venturing toward posters instead of the topic itself. Feel free to restart the topic and it won't be locked if it stays on track.

It seems rather difficult to do so.

I never posted one opinion of my own about nuclear energy (for Top-6, whether the press under-reports or over-reports a subject isn't a "political" topic, so I have no idea why you're trying to make it out to be one.), nuclear fallout, nuclear uses or any other political idea during that entire thread, yet it did get sabotaged by some who tried to turn it into one be trying to call out people who provided information as being too political to be trusted (whatever that means...I thought we were adults here and could think for ourselves and have the ability to read information and decipher it's usefullness to us or not).

Then you have a moderator, like Plus Plus, who misinterpret what he/she reads, who tries to turn posts that were attempting to steer posters away from political flaming to get back to the topic on hand and provide some information of what they know, so we can all get better informed on this serious subject.

It was as simple as this:

I posted a link to a serious subject that had other links to Federal Government links, Nuclear Energy links, information about a wide range of nuclear topics, none of which I had ever seen or heard of before. I thought this would be a vast source of information for anyone interested in what was going on to get background information, current information, and find sources where scientists collaborated on piecing together facts for public understanding.

Then out of Left Field, Dom chimes in with something to the effect of "that guy sucks! I'll sell you swamp land if you want to believe that malarky! Do you believe in the Easter Bunny, too?!" That was a political post, flaming, whatever you want to call it. Not acceptable!

He obviously had some information that he felt wouldn't be covered among the 100's of links that I provided, so I asked him to please give us some information. (I was highly concerned that there would be nuclear fallout coming to Oregon, and I wanted any and all information that anyone could provide on the topic, and nobody seemed more sure of himself than Hefner, so I asked him again after he responded with a more lengthy flaming post. I finally asked him a final time, as I really wanted to find out what was going on. This is a serious subject.)

As posted by, what seems to be, our only REDSZONE Science Editor who worked for the media, and won a National Award for his expertise, and who had experience dealing with nuclear incidents in the past, he stated that we WILL NOT GET accurate information from normal news sources. Our best bet is to find accurate information from other sources. This was my intention, and my posts and actions repeatedly showed this. Others decided insted to debate the merits of the sources of information rather than do the right thing and provide information on the subject. (It's always easier in life to attack someone's opinons than come up with your own.) Dom thought it was better for him to tell me how I feel and think about nuclear subjects rather than ask me (of which I wouldn't have told him and posted it as that would have been leaning the subject matter towards a political direction, so that's why I ignored his tauntings and instead asked him to share with us what he knew).

[Chip R]

I'm not sure why this is such a hot point right now. It's not like political discussion was just banned last week. The policy has been in place for 5 years and people are all of a sudden having problems with it?

It also seems to me like people are trying to turn this thread into a discussion that would either be more in place on non-baseball (as long as it isn't political) or in the Peanut Gallery.

I think the topics for discussion have been fine. However - and I speak from experience here - a lot of the time, whenever there is a thread that skirts verboten topics, some mischevious posters attempt to turn the threads political. They know better but they still do it anyway. As the old saying goes, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.

[Todd Gack]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Well, on these two points we're in agreement.

3) The Peanut Gallery is less open to varying political opinions than RZ. My experience is that if they don't like your political opinions they will ban you rather than counter it.

This isn't true at all.[/QUOTE]

That is true. If your opinion isn't on the same side as the majority of the folks over there, you just get knocked down by the ever-popular 'points system.'

[RichRed]

Originally Posted by Todd Gack

This isn't true at all.

That is true. If your opinion isn't on the same side as the majority of the folks over there, you just get knocked down by the ever-popular 'points system.'

Yeah, but it's like "Whose Line Is It Anyway?": the points don't matter. I'm pretty sure negative rep points don't get you banned.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Todd Gack

That is true. If your opinion isn't on the same side as the majority of the folks over there, you just get knocked down by the ever-popular 'points system.'

Originally Posted by Rojo

Well, on these two points we're in agreement.

3) The Peanut Gallery is less open to varying political opinions than RZ. My experience is that if they don't like your political opinions they will ban you rather than counter it.

Originally Posted by Rojo

This isn't true at all.

Since a moderator has given us the OK to discuss the Peanut Gallery here, I'll do exactly that.

I don't know about any points system but I tried posting over there a few years ago and noticed right away I was on an island but I didn't mind. I've never been the cheerleader type anyway. I had the facts and the sources to back me up. Well one day I found the site locked and the message "banned for obvious trolling". I wasn't banned for bashing anyone's religion, namecalling or personal attacks. No, just the coverall "trolling". I won't go into what's trolling and what isn't but such an act drips of close-mindedness. Someone obviously couldn't handle a provocative debate.

I laughed at the time and have been ever since. I've never gotten a more clear sign that I won a debate in my life but it didn't say much about the site itself.

[pedro]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Since a moderator has given us the OK to discuss the Peanut Gallery here, I'll do exactly that.

I don't know about any points system but I tried posting over there a few years ago and noticed right away I was on an island but I didn't mind. I've never been the cheerleader type anyway. I had the facts and the sources to back me up. Well one day I found the site locked and the message "banned for obvious trolling". I wasn't banned for bashing anyone's religion, namecalling or personal attacks. No, just the coverall "trolling". I won't go into what's trolling and what isn't but such an act drips of close-mindedness. Someone obviously couldn't handle a provocative debate.

I laughed at the time and have been ever since. I've never gotten a more clear sign that I won a debate in my life but it didn't say much about the site itself.

It's been a while but the way I remember it is you got banned for being excessively rude. Now, if it was up to me I wouldn't have banned you, I thought reading your true opinions was quite humorous as the only "fact" you revealed IMO was your own character and extremely high opinion of yourself.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by pedro

It's been a while but the way I remember it is you got banned for being excessively rude. Now, if it was up to me I wouldn't have banned you, I thought reading your true opinions was quite humorous as the only "fact" you revealed IMO was your own character and extremely high opinion of yourself.

I can assure you I didn't talk about myself. But you make my point. If that site doesn't like you, they'll ban you. As for being rude, I wasn't exactly treated with happiness and joy

[pedro]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I can assure you I didn't talk about myself. But you make my point. If that site doesn't like you, they'll ban you. As for being rude, I wasn't exactly treated with happiness and joy

Like I said I don't think you should have been banned but please don't act like you took the high road over there because you most certainly did not from what I remember. I can also assure you, as can GAC as he is often the one expressing them, that there are divergent political opinions expressed over there. And yet far as I know you are the only poster ever banned.

[pedro]

Actually now that my memory has been refreshed as to why you were banned Sea Ray I do think it was justified. I can also confirm that you are the only poster ever banned and that it was not for your political views.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by pedro

Actually now that my memory has been refreshed as to why you were banned Sea Ray I do think it was justified. I can also confirm that you are the only poster ever banned and that it was not for your political views.

I would beg to differ. Unless you were the MOD, there's no way you'd know would you?

[pedro]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I would beg to differ. Unless you were the MOD, there's no way you'd know would you?

I am not a mod there but I know who banned you and after he reminded me what led to your banning I can confirm that not only was it not for your political views it was not for being generally rude or nasty either. I'll elaborate specifically if you want me too, as I know exactly why you were banned, but otherwise I'll just leave it at that.