The moderators and their judgements

Sorry Fletch I don't agree. I just posted a thread that somebody with my lean gets infracted for and their post removed. That post has been there for over 24 hours. Insanity is trying to reason with unreasonable people.

 

In a political thread that post is antagonizing. I have learned as Im not posting in the political forum anymore. I can still shine the light on what is happening there and the disgraceful way its being handled.

seriously you have no right to play the victim in any of this... that's my job.

Stop playing the victim, I've been infracted and banned more than you have for what happens in that thread.

 

seriously you have no right to play the victim in any of this... that's my job.

Im not playing the victim. Im posting a clear example of the bias of the moderator. Do you have an opinion on the post I'm referencing? Do you find it appropriate according to the rules? Do you have anything ever to contribute other than to name call? I'm trying to voice my problem in the proper forum as per the rules. Not sure why you feel the right to attack me here for doing so. Not sure why the moderators allow it. But that's the point of why I started this thread. Thank you for proving the point

Im not playing the victim. Im posting a clear example of the bias of the moderator. Do you have an opinion on the post I'm referencing? Do you find it appropriate according to the rules? Do you have anything ever to contribute other than to name call? I'm trying to voice my problem in the proper forum as per the rules. Not sure why you feel the right to attack me here for doing so. Not sure why the moderators allow it. But that's the point of why I started this thread. Thank you for proving the point

You've attacked and name called many, many people here.

I'll just bow out and use this as an example of why political sections should not exist on hockey boards.

You've attacked and name called many, many people here.

 

I'll just bow out and use this as an example of why political sections should not exist on hockey boards.

What we have are a number of users that have expressed that Republican opinions are more heavily infracted than Democratic opinions because of perceived moderator bias.

In the religion 'end of days' thread I posted as an atheist. I assume that the majority of the moderators believe in god in some form given the demographics of the country (and world). I never felt that my atheism meant that I was more likely to face infractions.

If I trolled, made a personal attack on another user, etc, that's when I would face discipline.

I'm not sure why you would want to be an active member of a website if you felt like you were not properly treated because of your politics, religion, gender, race, occupation, or whatever group you self-identify with. I've found that posters are refreshingly honest - they call each other out when they smell BS. It forces me to reexamine my position, and either express my opinion more clearly, or possibly modify my opinion.

Criticism of moderators is nothing new - there's been a bunch of threads over the years. If they so chose, they could shut down critical threads almost immediately. The common user does have a voice and an opportunity to be heard. I have found that individual moderators have responded to my PMs, and that's my go-to move when I have a problem - because you get a different reaction when you air something in public instead of discussing in private.

I think political, religion threads are fine.

I think it's a bit of wishful thinking to say that they hate him but won't poll that way. It might be fair to say that they hate him but fear the backlash of potentially becoming the target of his latest Twitter tantrum.

 

Trump as a phenomenon is a deal with the devil for the GOP. They bargained that they'd be able to get judges, Supreme Court seats, tax cuts for their donors, and deregulation in exchange for having the face of the GOP be...well...Trump. A narcissistic, racist, criminal simpleton in exchange for control of the judiciary and a massive influx of donor wealth. I doubt they had "committed acts of treason to get elected" high on the list of things they'd have expected.

 

That it's an acceptable trade in the minds of a subset of Americans is questionable at best: the tax cuts were a money funnel from the average guy to the rich guy (and ain't nobody on this board rich by these standards), the control of the judiciary is subversive of the checks and balances system, deregulation has serious consequences for literally everyone, and don't even get me started on the Supreme Court. That nominations are even subject to partisan stalling is an incredible abuse of the system.

 

 

That was posted in the political thread. Im bringing it here because I want to know maybe Im just crazy but would seriously like people to see my point.

 

Read the second paragraph. I have been banned and infracted for posting hyper partisan shit. How in the world is that paragraph not the very definition of hyper partisan? If I posted something along those lines about Obama or anyone other than Trump I would get warned at the very least and the post would be removed. Please just give me an explanation of why this post is ok? What kind of response does this post expect to get from somebody who isn't in lockstep politically with person? You allow this, then infract or publicly warn me for being hyper partisan. Please explain

This entire post was fine sans "simpleton." All the other terms are objectively accurate descriptors documented by decades of evidence.

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I think you're operating under the assumption that other people are as mature as You are. Very clearly others, myself included, are not lol.

What we have are a number of users that have expressed that Republican opinions are more heavily infracted than Democratic opinions because of perceived moderator bias.

 

In the religion 'end of days' thread I posted as an atheist. I assume that the majority of the moderators believe in god in some form given the demographics of the country (and world). I never felt that my atheism meant that I was more likely to face infractions.

 

If I trolled, made a personal attack on another user, etc, that's when I would face discipline.

 

I'm not sure why you would want to be an active member of a website if you felt like you were not properly treated because of your politics, religion, gender, race, occupation, or whatever group you self-identify with. I've found that posters are refreshingly honest - they call each other out when they smell BS. It forces me to reexamine my position, and either express my opinion more clearly, or possibly modify my opinion.

 

Criticism of moderators is nothing new - there's been a bunch of threads over the years. If they so chose, they could shut down critical threads almost immediately. The common user does have a voice and an opportunity to be heard. I have found that individual moderators have responded to my PMs, and that's my go-to move when I have a problem - because you get a different reaction when you air something in public instead of discussing in private.

 

I think political, religion threads are fine.

I think you're operating under the assumption that other people are as mature as You are. Very clearly others, myself included, are not lol.

Tell me again how I'm not punishing the many for the actions of the few?

Tell me again how I'm not punishing the many for the actions of the few?

It's pretty clear that at best, it's a 50/50 split on closing the political thread.

Also, I don't understand why you would refer to closing that section as "punishment".

Will you lose forum members and activity for closing it?

Or will you lose members and activity for keeping it open?

Stop with the bullshit.

It punishes those of us who act right because of those who don't.

I think if you added the people who don't post in that section to the people who actively have said to kill it, the overwhelming majority don't want to mix something that brings them joy (hockey) with something that's a lightning rod (politics).

Maybe the answer is a user group for politics and only those users can see that section?

It's your forum, run it how you want to, but I don't think you can NOT address an issue by not acknowledging it's an issue... Just not an issue for you and a minority of others.

That said, I'd be fully on board with a section for news, not politics. For example... Thread on impeachment consists of facts. You either think he broke the law, or he didn't. If your stance is "Witch hunt" or "But the emails! But Biden!", then don't bother posting that. Just state why you don't think he broke a law.

That's makes more sense, to me.

I'd hardly call it punishment. That's a little disingenuous. You're telling me you get joy out of explaining impeachment 73 times?

 

I think if you added the people who don't post in that section to the people who actively have said to kill it, the overwhelming majority don't want to mix something that brings them joy (hockey) with something that's a lightning rod (politics).

 

Maybe the answer is a user group for politics and only those users can see that section?

 

It's your forum, run it how you want to, but I don't think you can NOT address an issue by not acknowledging it's an issue... Just not an issue for you and a minority of others.

 

That said, I'd be fully on board with a section for news, not politics. For example... Thread on impeachment consists of facts. You either think he broke the law, or he didn't. If your stance is "Witch hunt" or "But the emails! But Biden!", then don't bother posting that. Just state why you don't think he broke a law.

 

That's makes more sense, to me.

but then you get that Trump is a homophobe, obstructionist, racist, woman-hating, white supremacist, rapist, pussy grabbing asshole, no good, fascist, dictator, end of our democracy, idiot, whatever else the left calls him and the problems starts again. its still politics. Impeachment is politics.

but then you get that Trump is a homophobe, obstructionist, racist, woman-hating, white supremacist, rapist, pussy grabbing asshole, no good, fascist, dictator, end of our democracy, idiot, whatever else the left calls him and the problems starts again. its still politics. Impeachment is politics.

No. You won't. That's the point.

Impeachment is news about politics.

No. You won't. That's the point.

 

Impeachment is news about politics.

I guarantee it. some posters have nothing to add unless its Trump bashing. That's how it all starts. Remember the "nuke the hurricane" topic? No one was interested in discussing the idea, it was all "trump is an idiot, stupid, moron for suggesting it, etc" like everyone's is an expert. the topic turned into partisan rhetoric

I guarantee it. some posters have nothing to add unless its Trump bashing. That's how it all starts. Remember the "nuke the hurricane" topic? No one was interested in discussing the idea, it was all "trump is an idiot, stupid, moron for suggesting it, etc" like everyone's is an expert. the topic turned into partisan rhetoric

Will you lose forum members and activity for closing it?

Or will you lose members and activity for keeping it open?

 

Stop with the bullshit.

Neither one of these happens to the point that it should have any influence l lol.

This discussion is wild to me. If you don't like the Politics section...don't go there. Simple.

I guarantee it. some posters have nothing to add unless its Trump bashing. That's how it all starts. Remember the "nuke the hurricane" topic? No one was interested in discussing the idea, it was all "trump is an idiot, stupid, moron for suggesting it, etc" like everyone's is an expert. the topic turned into partisan rhetoric

The flip side of that is true as well...

Neither one of these happens to the point that it should have any influence l lol.

 

This discussion is wild to me. If you don't like the Politics section...don't go there. Simple.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but some people are NOT that objective. As been outlined in this thread, that section, its topics, and posts can be like a car accident that you can't stop looking at.

I digress, I don't really have a horse in the race, but if there's this much divisiveness about the topic, removing the topic altogether is one way to avoid the problems it creates.

I also disagree with your first sentiment as well.

If the forum loses members because of the politics section, then it's definitely not a good look and has to have some, no matter how small, influence.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but some people are NOT that objective. As been outlined in this thread, that section, its topics, and posts can be like a car accident that you can't stop looking at.

I digress, I don't really have a horse in the race, but if there's this much divisiveness about the topic, removing the topic altogether is one way to avoid the problems it creates.

Sure is. It's also wholly unfair to those of us who keep our cools and just want to talk about current events.

Life isn't fair, Phil. Aren't you in your 30s or something? I'm pretty sure you know that by now.

I'd argue that it's only "silly" because you disagree with it.

It's quite clear this is a point of contention. Covering your ears and saying, "NO" isn't the solution.

I do see though that you said you'd discuss with staff some options for the section...

I'd argue that it's only "silly" because you disagree with it.

It's quite clear this is a point of contention. Covering your ears and saying, "NO" isn't the solution.

I do see though that you said you'd discuss with staff some options for the section...

I agree with everything that people have said, more or less, about divisiveness and think this conversation is far, far worse than "silly."

It's complaining about a self-inflicted problem...it's like chewing rocks and complaining that your teeth hurt.

I agree. If only they didn't act like toddlers, we wouldn't even need to have this silly conversation.

But way to go with the name calling!