Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

New for Political Forum -- The Card Punch Rule (MUST READ)


Dave

Recommended Posts

Upon another suggestion regarding hockey-politics balance, we're announcing a new measure, starting now, that will apply exclusively to the Politics, Religion, Philosophy & News sub-forum — the Card Punch Rule.

 

All of our prior rules still stand.

 

  1. We still ask that you take debates/discussions seriously, argue earnestly, avoid hyper-partisanship, and do your best to always engage in good faith.
  2. We still ask that you properly source/link information, especially in an OP, or when asked to for verification by another user.
  3. We still ask that you avoid hyper-partisan media outlets and try only linking to mainstream/trustworthy organizations with minimal biases.
  4. Trolling, snide remarks, and divisive partisanship will still result in immediate infractions and/or thread bans.

In the event that a user is determined to have repeatedly violate these terms, we're reserving the right punch your card — to remove your ability to view or reply in this sub-forum at all as both a punitive measure and one to spare the rest of the forum's compliant users from having to deal with disrespectful users.

 

This feature would, ideally, rarely need to be enacted, but in specific cases in which the Staff comes to a majority consensus, users can and will have their permissions to view and participate in this sub-forum permanently revoked. There is no mathematical formula we will be using to determine when the line is crossed. We'll know it when we see it, but suffice it to say, if you're racking up infractions and disciplinary warnings for your conduct in that sub-forum, you're on thin ice and at risk of having your wings clipped.

 

Further to this, the list of users who've had their cards punched will not be made public or announced. Again, take heed of Staff warnings. If you don't, and your card is eventually punched as a result, do not cause a massive fuss. Especially publicly. Any attempt to martyr yourself won't be silenced, but granted, and you will be infracted for doing so or banned entirely depending on the severity of your outburst. This will be at the Staff's discretion.

 

The good news is, this new feature will allow for a user who's political card gets punched to still be able to participate in any other forums, maintaining their account for what should be their primary purpose here to begin with — hockey. I am also willing to accept "opt out" requests for anyone who wishes not to see political topics at all. This would be a one-time offer, however, not a revolving door, so if you "opt out" consider the request permanent once applied.

 

If you have an earnest question about this, please ask it here. For anyone who wishes to opt out, you may also request so in this thread. Myself or Phil in Absentia will quote your request and notify you once it's been applied.

 

Thanks,

Staff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I have a question. Considering this seems to be a new rule that came ou too nowhere, which seems to have ensnared me. I have been sending multiple messages to multiple mods asking why I cannot view new posts in the political threads for days. Today I read this still without a response from any of my prior messages to the mods explaining what happened. So fine I guess I'm banned from political talk. However just for facts, I was only infracted once since joining here, again once. I have consistently respectfully messaged you guys in private and attempted to make any changes to my behavior that you deemed necessary. To believe this is anything but censorship against people who have differing opinions from you is a ludicrous.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I have a question. Considering this seems to be a new rule that came ou too nowhere, which seems to have ensnared me. I have been sending multiple messages to multiple mods asking why I cannot view new posts in the political threads for days. Today I read this still without a response from any of my prior messages to the mods explaining what happened. So fine I guess I'm banned from political talk. However just for facts, I was only infracted once since joining here, again once. I have consistently respectfully messaged you guys in private and attempted to make any changes to my behavior that you deemed necessary. To believe this is anything but censorship against people who have differing opinions from you is a ludicrous.

 

The new rule did not come out of nowhere. We've been talking about revisions to the political forum for years now and we've tried many different tweaks to get people to engage more thoughtfully, respectfully, and with a shared goal of good faith debate. We have been discussing this particular method for at least six months or longer. There were technical limitations that we have overcome, so now we've enacted this new policy.

 

As to the bolded, we don't take this complaint seriously anymore. I can not talk about specific individual discipline, but I can point out that over the years there have been many who have disagreed strongly with the majority of the mods in that section on any number of topics and have had no discipline at all. They follow the rules and the spirit of the rules in that forum.

 

There is only so much effort mods should be expected to put into getting users to follow the very clear instructions on proper behavior in that area. Those who post in there just to instigate argument or have proven to be incapable of conforming their posts to the rules will be excluded moving forward.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I have a question. Considering this seems to be a new rule that came ou too nowhere, which seems to have ensnared me. I have been sending multiple messages to multiple mods asking why I cannot view new posts in the political threads for days. Today I read this still without a response from any of my prior messages to the mods explaining what happened. So fine I guess I'm banned from political talk. However just for facts, I was only infracted once since joining here, again once. I have consistently respectfully messaged you guys in private and attempted to make any changes to my behavior that you deemed necessary. To believe this is anything but censorship against people who have differing opinions from you is a ludicrous.

 

Just as a heads up, a lot of us have asked for changes to the political sub forum loooooong before you came to the site. Really, it’s a site that’s been around for over a decade. The political sub forum has been around since at least 2016. It really has nothing to do with you nor is this coming out of nowhere. There have been a few issues that are of contention for as long as it’s been around.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon another suggestion regarding hockey-politics balance, we're announcing a new measure, starting now, that will apply exclusively to the Politics, Religion, Philosophy & News sub-forum — the Card Punch Rule.

 

All of our prior rules still stand.

 

  1. We still ask that you take debates/discussions seriously, argue earnestly, avoid hyper-partisanship, and do your best to always engage in good faith.
  2. We still ask that you properly source/link information, especially in an OP, or when asked to for verification by another user.
  3. We still ask that you avoid hyper-partisan media outlets and try only linking to mainstream/trustworthy organizations with minimal biases.
  4. Trolling, snide remarks, and divisive partisanship will still result in immediate infractions and/or thread bans.

In the event that a user is determined to have repeatedly violate these terms, we're reserving the right punch your card — to remove your ability to view or reply in this sub-forum at all as both a punitive measure and one to spare the rest of the forum's compliant users from having to deal with disrespectful users.

 

This feature would, ideally, rarely need to be enacted, but in specific cases in which the Staff comes to a majority consensus, users can and will have their permissions to view and participate in this sub-forum permanently revoked. There is no mathematical formula we will be using to determine when the line is crossed. We'll know it when we see it, but suffice it to say, if you're racking up infractions and disciplinary warnings for your conduct in that sub-forum, you're on thin ice and at risk of having your wings clipped.

 

Further to this, the list of users who've had their cards punched will not be made public or announced. Again, take heed of Staff warnings. If you don't, and your card is eventually punched as a result, do not cause a massive fuss. Especially publicly. Any attempt to martyr yourself won't be silenced, but granted, and you will be infracted for doing so or banned entirely depending on the severity of your outburst. This will be at the Staff's discretion.

 

The good news is, this new feature will allow for a user who's political card gets punched to still be able to participate in any other forums, maintaining their account for what should be their primary purpose here to begin with — hockey. I am also willing to accept "opt out" requests for anyone who wishes not to see political topics at all. This would be a one-time offer, however, not a revolving door, so if you "opt out" consider the request permanent once applied.

 

If you have an earnest question about this, please ask it here. For anyone who wishes to opt out, you may also request so in this thread. Myself or Phil in Absentia will quote your request and notify you once it's been applied.

 

Thanks,

Staff

 

I think an important question to ask is to clarify this

We still ask that you avoid hyper-partisan media outlets and try only linking to mainstream/trustworthy organizations with minimal biases.

 

I can use so,e common sense but my common sense might not be what another person believes. We also probably are going to really differ in what we consider a bias or hyper. Obviously there is a slope to it. I also assume each time there is a further reset of sorts so if a guy like capt got previously banned, he might be given another shot and notification if there is some ratification that might make it easier to understand how not to violate a sub forum that is always going to teeter on the border of disaster given certain passionate topics? Just spitballing some thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think an important question to ask is to clarify this

 

 

I can use so,e common sense but my common sense might not be what another person believes. We also probably are going to really differ in what we consider a bias or hyper. Obviously there is a slope to it.

 

Hey - thanks for asking this. I'm going to handle the first half of your post - the second involves a rule of the forum and this particular rule's evolution that I'd rather take back as feedback for the interim.

 

It's a good question, and I'd almost always reference something like the AdFontes media bias chart here. AdFontes is an NGO non-profit dedicated to making news consumers smarter and news media better, and their methodology for assessing media bias and factual accuracy is both sound and published research. I also really like them because they differentiate written news and televised news where applicable - so it acknowledges that Fox News' website is far better at factual accuracy than their telecasts. There's also a trust we're embracing on media literacy - telling the difference between an article and an op-ed, for example.

 

I'd make the recommendation that when working within news citation, stay in the green box, but of course some of the most interesting stuff we can discuss comes from editorial magazines like Slate, the Atlantic, and the National Review. For fringe cases, use your judgment - the National Review is probably the most "hyper partisan" source that we should be discussing on the right, and Slate is probably the left counterpoint. Both are storied, long-lasting publications that cater to a specific audience but ultimately care deeply about being factually accurate in spite of their partisanship, so they make for fantastic opinion discussion. I'd also add that there's never a consequence for an honest mistake - if you link from the American Thinker not knowing that it's an extreme-right wing largely non-factual outlet, you'll get called on it but there's not really a consequence if your intent was to have a thoughtful discussion about it.

  • LMFAO 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

G1000's response is on point. I'd add, we're after a spirit of debate not a letter of the law, which is why these rules are somewhat open ended, or loose enough to allow for some leeway. The goal being, we're not demanding you only ever post from some preset of media, but that you do a little reflection in your own sourcing. If you're trying to have a conversation about immigration, for example, and all your references are to extreme left-wing blogs calling for the abolition of borders and nations or extreme right-wing sites calling for an end to all immigration, ask yourself if this is actually helpful or if it's so deeply partisan it's only going to force everyone into their corners.

 

It's also helpful to source more than one media outlet.

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I may mix it up there would suggest that you get rid of the political threads altogether. Doesn't add much but rancor. There are many other places on the internet for it. Would rather we stick to whether Brendan Lemieux has a future here as a Matt Martin-type 4th line winger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I may mix it up there would suggest that you get rid of the political threads altogether. Doesn't add much but rancor. There are many other places on the internet for it. Would rather we stick to whether Brendan Lemieux has a future here as a Matt Martin-type 4th line winger.

 

You are welcome to opt out of the political forum, if you'd like:

 

The good news is, this new feature will allow for a user who's political card gets punched to still be able to participate in any other forums, maintaining their account for what should be their primary purpose here to begin with — hockey. I am also willing to accept "opt out" requests for anyone who wishes not to see political topics at all. This would be a one-time offer, however, not a revolving door, so if you "opt out" consider the request permanent once applied.

 

Thanks,

Staff

 

You won't ever see a political post again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no reason to punish respectful users when the opportunity to opt out is now available. Anyone who feels it's toxic to them, or their experience, is welcome to reject having to see it, and, as you said, debate whether or not Lemieux has a future as a Matt Martin-like fourth-line winger.

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no reason to punish respectful users when the opportunity to opt out is now available. Anyone who feels it's toxic to them, or their experience, is welcome to reject having to see it, and, as you said, debate whether or not Lemieux has a future as a Matt Martin-like fourth-line winger.

 

 

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

 

They can opt out of this board altogether and join a Kings forum for that now.

  • LOL 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I may mix it up there would suggest that you get rid of the political threads altogether. Doesn't add much but rancor. There are many other places on the internet for it. Would rather we stick to whether Brendan Lemieux has a future here as a Matt Martin-type 4th line winger.

Found Gortons burner account .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Just an observation as a clear liberal and Democratic supporter.  I have observed a lone Republican opinion be engaged by multiple long-time Democratic posters over recent years.  In those scenarios I choose not to comment to avoid appearance of piling on.  In hockey threads I have had an outlier opinion, and it can feel like you are being ganged up on when multiple folks disagree.  In some cases I have been outright wrong, but in other cases it was a judgement call or not so clear-cut.  If the political forum becomes too heavily weighted toward the Democrats or Republicans you may lose the ability to learn from the other side of the aisle and it becomes a much less interesting conversation.  I also wonder whether it carries over to users just disappearing for awhile or pretty much permanently.  I seem to remember a welcome thread so maybe a farewell thread would help figure why folks check out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, fletch said:

Just an observation as a clear liberal and Democratic supporter.  I have observed a lone Republican opinion be engaged by multiple long-time Democratic posters over recent years.  In those scenarios I choose not to comment to avoid appearance of piling on.  In hockey threads I have had an outlier opinion, and it can feel like you are being ganged up on when multiple folks disagree.  In some cases I have been outright wrong, but in other cases it was a judgement call or not so clear-cut.  If the political forum becomes too heavily weighted toward the Democrats or Republicans you may lose the ability to learn from the other side of the aisle and it becomes a much less interesting conversation.  I also wonder whether it carries over to users just disappearing for awhile or pretty much permanently.  I seem to remember a welcome thread so maybe a farewell thread would help figure why folks check out.

I think you make some great points. Important points. I’m partly to blame in that I’m a conservative voice but I don’t participate too much. Part of it is because I think Politics as a whole has lost its way compared to some of us older gents that remember when we rallied to support each othe4 regardless of beliefs. The other part of it exposes exactly what you are talking about. I do think that sub forum has gotten away from tangible responses and accepted a bit more gifs and hit and run fluff that adds very little to the conversation. 
 

 Let’s hope that we all can make that forum a bit better. It’s an important forum and I’m not afraid to admit that I’ve learned some valuable information from an opposing view in the past. I just feel lately, there’s a tad more inflammatory fluff that stops a few from participating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, fletch said:

Just an observation as a clear liberal and Democratic supporter.  I have observed a lone Republican opinion be engaged by multiple long-time Democratic posters over recent years.  In those scenarios I choose not to comment to avoid appearance of piling on.  In hockey threads I have had an outlier opinion, and it can feel like you are being ganged up on when multiple folks disagree.  In some cases I have been outright wrong, but in other cases it was a judgement call or not so clear-cut.  If the political forum becomes too heavily weighted toward the Democrats or Republicans you may lose the ability to learn from the other side of the aisle and it becomes a much less interesting conversation.  I also wonder whether it carries over to users just disappearing for awhile or pretty much permanently.  I seem to remember a welcome thread so maybe a farewell thread would help figure why folks check out.

There's definitely an element of piling on, but it's not malicious piling in my opinion. It's in the spirit of discussion/debate and not a coordinated "fuck this guy in particular". 

 

If you post a conservative opinion you gotta deal with the response by the three-headed monster of Phil, Pete, and G1000 - that's daunting, I get that. But that's just the nature of the beast - there are more left-leaning users on this board than right-leaning. Some users handle it better than others, and we try to slow things down before they become contentious. Sometimes we get there too late and we have to dial things back, slap some wrists, and, if necessary, punch some cards. 

If people want to check out, that's their prerogative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's also an obvious reflection of the current political landscape. The conservative agenda is not to deal with/debate the actual issues, it's to "own the libs".

 

The history of the political threads on this forum going back to it's inception are that the right leaning users can't seem to make a point without a personal insult being dished out. While that also exists on the other side, it's nowhere near as prevalent. They also rarely come with unbiased data, or frankly with any data at all. Look at the recent gun threads. The conservative posts are fiction, no supporting links, no research, no evidence presented trying to sway someone to the other side.

 

It's not that conservatives can't post or choose not to post because of being "ganged up on", it's that they choose not to post because they cant' do it within the rules. I have no doubt in my mind that there are groups of users PMing each other about "the libtards", but they can't make their points within the rules and were getting dinged, so they just stopped trying.

Edited by Pete
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Keirik said:

I think you make some great points. Important points. I’m partly to blame in that I’m a conservative voice but I don’t participate too much. Part of it is because I think Politics as a whole has lost its way compared to some of us older gents that remember when we rallied to support each othe4 regardless of beliefs. The other part of it exposes exactly what you are talking about. I do think that sub forum has gotten away from tangible responses and accepted a bit more gifs and hit and run fluff that adds very little to the conversation. 
 

 Let’s hope that we all can make that forum a bit better. It’s an important forum and I’m not afraid to admit that I’ve learned some valuable information from an opposing view in the past. I just feel lately, there’s a tad more inflammatory fluff that stops a few from participating. 

 

I do hope you choose to engage more there. You and @Niko (wherever he's gone) have sincerely changed a lot of my thinking on policing over the past few years as the issues surrounding law enforcement have bubbled to the surface and become hotter topics. 

 

We're not going to fix that politics has lost its way on a hockey forum. It has, but the entire point of the rules we've laid out for that forum is to get past the issues @Pete flagged and actually have some level of logical, civil discussion around issues in our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I do hope you choose to engage more there. You and @Niko (wherever he's gone) have sincerely changed a lot of my thinking on policing over the past few years as the issues surrounding law enforcement have bubbled to the surface and become hotter topics. 

 

We're not going to fix that politics has lost its way on a hockey forum. It has, but the entire point of the rules we've laid out for that forum is to get past the issues @Pete flagged and actually have some level of logical, civil discussion around issues in our society.

I definitely appreciate you saying that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dog piling isn't something I can actively legislate against, but it's something I do try to be cognizant of. When I do think it's happening, assuming I'm not the one driving the argument, I tend to not add on and jump in as a third party. If, say, @Keirik and @LindG1000 are going back and forth on a policing thread, for example, I'll be very selective about what I might add, or more specifically, what not to add, which is just posts saying "I agree," or "this." That's what reactions are for IMO.

 

But this is a tough one that I've always tried my best to be aware of but freely admit really can't be regulated very heavily without actively telling liberal users to bite their tongues more often.

 

Big picture, I can't help the political makeup of our active voices. What I can do is encourage conservatives to chime in more often, because myself and other liberal voices can only self censor so much. I don't want an echo chamber, and I always encourage debate, but I can't give anyone the courage to speak their mind. They have to come to that conclusion on their own (and obviously follow our rules).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pete said:

I think there's also an obvious reflection of the current political landscape. The conservative agenda is not to deal with/debate the actual issues, it's to "own the libs".

 

The history of the political threads on this forum going back to it's inception are that the right leaning users can't seem to make a point without a personal insult being dished out. While that also exists on the other side, it's nowhere near as prevalent. They also rarely come with unbiased data, or frankly with any data at all. Look at the recent gun threads. The conservative posts are fiction, no supporting links, no research, no evidence presented trying to sway someone to the other side.

 

It's not that conservatives can't post or choose not to post because of being "ganged up on", it's that they choose not to post because they cant' do it within the rules. I have no doubt in my mind that there are groups of users PMing each other about "the libtards", but they can't make their points within the rules and were getting dinged, so they just stopped trying.

Honestly Pete, when you post that, do you not see how inflammatory your post is? I mean, you’re full blown throwing around accusations, acting like right leaning guys on the board are private messaging each other, that “us” conservatives on the board are just looking to own libtards, etc. This isn’t Newsmax. No one here stormed the capitol. It’s a Rangers message board. The sub forum is already divisive enough without the added preconceived rhetoric.
  
   I’m not trying to pick apart your words, but after you saying that, how would you ever expect a person that leans right to even bother trying to have a discussion?  I don’t think there’s as much dogpiling but I do think that what’s acceptable has started to stretch a bit to territory of feeling like dog piling. We kind start seeing hit and run posts of one liners, memes, gifs, etc, that have no nutritional value to any debate but are kind of allowed a lot more recently than before. We’ve also started to get to the point where each issue is being discussed less solely about the exact topic and more about the topic with added right/ left. Some of that is impossible to avoid of course so there is that. 
 

 

 

Just wanted to add. Personally, I’ve known you for a long time so I’m less affected directly by your ideas because I know we have differences but have found common ground. I’d still hang out and have a drink with ya anytime and have a great time, so don’t take my words as much about me personally and more in a theoretical way. 

Edited by Keirik
Added something
  • Bullseye 1
  • Applause 1
  • Keeps it 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% on hit and run stuff. Sometimes it's just light hearted banter happening during or following a discussion/argument, but the one-offs are completely unnecessary.

 

We need to do a better job of moderating that stuff, and coaching repeat violators away from doing it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what's happening. I have no interest in left-wing or right-wing snipes. Take that shit to your Facebook feed. This section exists to talk current events and have serious debates about important issues. Passive aggressive "own the other team" stuff isn't welcome.

 

I'm not calling you out here, either, @Keirik, but this is a space where I want us taking the initiative. If you see this stuff, remove it. If we overstep, we can always reinstate, or reverse warnings, but it shouldn't be left up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...