The moderators and their judgements

[Phil]

Even just looking at the game-day threads, there is more negativity and hostility when the Rangers are on a losing streak. Politics threads and religion threads can have a carry-over effect - that user worships the wrong god or supports the wrong party. It shouldn't - but it's why some families have an unsaid rule of not talking about politics or religion at extended family gatherings.

 

I can disagree passionately with someone, and argue for 30 minutes (in person), and still be on good terms. Or I can call my wife a c*nt and be sleeping on the couch. It's all how you choose to disagree and conduct yourself.

 

If we all agreed this would be an awfully boring place.

 

Yet the same principle falls down when that same user praises the wrong player, or supports the wrong coach? I get that I have a pretty clear affinity for world events talk, but I'm pretty sure the proper solution to this was already suggested earlier in the thread by Mike.

 

Regardless of whether or not the political threads exist, you don't have to post in them. You don't have to click on them, read, them or ever respond. If they're such a problem, don't post in them every day.

 

It feels like, at least to me, we're literally scapegoating politics & religion in the same way it's always been (your dinner analogy) because a handful of people can't follow simple rules. We're punishing the many for the actions of the few.

[Fatfrancesa]

Does it? It doesn't for me. At all. Hell, I can go from a nuclear heat-level political thread to purely jovial in another and not bat an eyelash.

 

Or you can just ban the guy who doesn?t agree. I get it, it?s the rules. Problem is you tightrope the rules in that thread yourself. Yet you?re judge and jury. What?s the answer? Just have a free for all thread. Where nothing is off limits. It?s just words. Have a thread that is there to call out one another without fear of banning or any punishment. Of course threats and such would be cause for action but being able to call someone Pompous for posting a dictionary meaning of a word is just that. So let there be a thread where Pete can call me a mother fucker and so on.

[Mike]

Rage Room

[phillyb]

Another solution is to PM the person. The whole forum doesn't need to read you calling each other out.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

;984347]Another solution is to PM the person. The whole forum doesn't need to read you calling each other out.

 

Where?s the fun in that

[4EverRangerFrank]

Where’s the fun in that

 

Yup, pretty much everyone slows down when driving past the wreck to get a good long look.

[josh]

[Abe Froman]

 

"Jump to Conclusions". :)

[Guest]

The solution is for people to respect the work that Phil and his mods have done on this forum for almost a decade and to follow the rules. It's really that simple and everything else is just smoke.

 

If you don't like the political discussions, don't go in those threads. If you don't find enough hockey discussion, start some. If you think that your political leanings make you a target, you're wrong. Also, mods sometimes get posts deleted, get warnings, and on rare occasions get infracted. You just don't see that, because it's handled the same as all other forum issues.

 

We keep discipline here private, but anyone who thinks they are unfairly targeted by the mods can certainly take the records of what they were infracted for and post them in here. Every warning and infraction is accompanied by a PM. My guess is the light of day will show a clear transgression and explanation from the staff.

 

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Vodka Drunkenski]

A lot of the hate from the political thread does over pour into other threads imo

[Mike]

A lot of the hate from the political thread does over pour into other threads imo

 

It absolutely does. Anyone that thinks otherwise is either blind, or just wants the political threads to stay.

[Phil]

A lot of the hate from the political thread does over pour into other threads imo

 

It absolutely does. Anyone that thinks otherwise is either blind, or just wants the political threads to stay.

 

Again, does it actually? In the same way that somehow doesn't hold true about affinity/hatred for specific players/coaches?

 

We literally see this come to the forefront every single time Francesa mentions Panarin. It has nothing to do with his positioning on Trump.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

The hatred in the political thread is taken to a different level imo

[Pete]

But to Fletch point... I've put people on ignore because of their political posts that I would otherwise engage with in hockey discussion.

 

Can someone show the value of that forum? There are other outlets for political chatter.

[Mike]

Again, does it actually? In the same way that somehow doesn't hold true about affinity/hatred for specific players/coaches?

 

We literally see this come to the forefront every single time Francesa mentions Panarin. It has nothing to do with his positioning on Trump.

 

That’s not a good example because being against Panarin right now is like being anti puppy no matter what political views you have.

[Mike]

Out of all the posters and all of the people that everyone has on ignore, I would say they clicked ignore because of political arguments over a discussion of how valuable Dan Girardi’s contract was.

[Phil]

But to Fletch point... I've put people on ignore because of their political posts that I would otherwise engage with in hockey discussion.

 

Can someone show the value of that forum? There are other outlets for political chatter.

 

There are other outlets for hockey, too. They're both the same, in fact. Twitter.

 

I come back to my two points earlier:

 

1. If there's simply more hockey discussion occurring, there's less political dominance, mitigating the negative carry-over effect, if not eliminating it.

 

2. We're punishing the many for the actions of the few when we don't do the same on any other topic. Not to single him out, but again, Francessa springs to mind. He's as divisive as they come on Panarin, who is a critical component of the team for the next seven years. That's seven years of criticism ahead of us we're going to be dealing with, in all likelihood.

 

If the solution re: politics is to shutter the doors on it because a vocal minority are making life more difficult, then how does the same solution not apply to hockey? It's a slippery slope fallacy to a degree, I admit, but the principle is rooted in logic. Why is the onus not simply on the user to not engage in topics they don't wish to? Why are we in the business of censoring every day (current) events for everyone who doesn't violate forum rules simply because those that do are loud?

 

If the dog bites, you muzzle it. You don't exterminate the breed.

 

As to the value: information. I've learned a ton simply by participating in conversations with people I'm unlikely to elsewhere (given I don't run in conservative circles, and given the toxicity around discussing politics and religion is so much worse on Facebook and/or Twitter). To me, the forum offers a unique platform in that it's not designed explicitly for politics, but can be used to discuss current events under more rigid rules that lift up discourse and debate while pushing down rhetoric and overt partisanship.

[Phil]

That’s not a good example because being against Panarin right now is like being anti puppy no matter what political views you have.

 

Callahan. Girardi. Lundqvist. Clendening. Shattenkirk. Dan Boyle. We're not exactly lacking in polarizing figures (be it the player or the user), is my point, and we never will be.

[Mike]

There are other outlets for hockey, too. They're both the same, in fact. Twitter.

 

I come back to my two points earlier:

 

1. If there's simply more hockey discussion occurring, there's less political dominance, mitigating the negative carry-over effect, if not eliminating it.

 

2. We're punishing the many for the actions of the few when we don't do the same on any other topic. Not to single him out, but again, Francessa springs to mind. He's as divisive as they come on Panarin, who is a critical component of the team for the next seven years. That's seven years of criticism ahead of us we're going to be dealing with, in all likelihood.

 

If the solution re: politics is to shutter the doors on it because a vocal minority are making life more difficult, then how does the same solution not apply to hockey? It's a slippery slope fallacy to a degree, I admit, but the principle is rooted in logic. Why is the onus not simply on the user to not engage in topics they don't wish to? Why are we in the business of censoring every day (current) events for everyone who doesn't violate forum rules simply because those that do are loud?

 

If the dog bites, you muzzle it. You don't exterminate the breed.

 

As to the value: information. I've learned a ton simply by participating in conversations with people I'm unlikely to elsewhere (given I don't run in conservative circles, and given the toxicity around discussing politics and religion is so much worse on Facebook and/or Twitter). To me, the forum offers a unique platform in that it's not designed explicitly for politics, but can be used to discuss current events under more rigid rules that lift up discourse and debate while pushing down rhetoric and overt partisanship.

 

But this is a hockey forum.

 

March-Sept: Coming off a shitty season, with a shitty team, mixed with summer ...

 

You’re not punishing many because of a few. You’re all guilty whether you want to believe it or not. You’re reacting to this thread in the exact manner anyone reacts to politics, stubbornly. Political talk is an age old cancer discussion where no one will ever budge and keep defending their side no matter what, which is exactly what you’re doing here.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

If Panarin wins a conn smythe that produces a cup within his 7 years, I?d bet the house fat would eat crow. Can?t say the same about anyone with political views. That?s the difference

[Phil]

"No one will ever budge" is a myth. I'm proof of it. I've seen others shift, too. This is also, again, proof of this double standard I'm highlighting.

 

Somehow, hockey is immune from all these same things. No one ever changes their opinion there, either? No one ever comes around to new ideas? Why do we even have a forum? The whole purpose is to debate. Hockey first, yes. Of course. But we have entire sections elsewhere for exactly this purpose. None of which, apparently, are subject to this same "cancer" talk.

 

If it were what you describe it as, why would I be engaging in any of this logically? Why wouldn't I be retreating to a trench, lobbing grenades? I could just as soon respond to everything with some variation of "nope, you're wrong," or "I don't care." Instead, I'm actually listening to what everyone is saying and simply disagreeing, then explaining why I disagree. This is cancer, too?

[Phil]

If Panarin wins a conn smythe that produces a cup within his 7 years, I’d bet the house fat would eat crow. Can’t say the same about anyone with political views. That’s the difference

 

You guys keep saying this, but you can't will something into existence. I am living proof that this is not actually true. I've shifted on numerous topics. I've conceded points, or even conceded defeat. In exactly the same ways I have on other non-political conversations.

 

Here, you want irrefutable proof? Kevin Shattenkirk. Dead wrong on him. This is the whole purpose of this forum.

[Albatrosss]

There are other outlets for hockey, too. They're both the same, in fact. Twitter.

 

I come back to my two points earlier:

 

1. If there's simply more hockey discussion occurring, there's less political dominance, mitigating the negative carry-over effect, if not eliminating it.

 

2. We're punishing the many for the actions of the few when we don't do the same on any other topic. Not to single him out, but again, Francessa springs to mind. He's as divisive as they come on Panarin, who is a critical component of the team for the next seven years. That's seven years of criticism ahead of us we're going to be dealing with, in all likelihood.

 

If the solution re: politics is to shutter the doors on it because a vocal minority are making life more difficult, then how does the same solution not apply to hockey? It's a slippery slope fallacy to a degree, I admit, but the principle is rooted in logic. Why is the onus not simply on the user to not engage in topics they don't wish to? Why are we in the business of censoring every day (current) events for everyone who doesn't violate forum rules simply because those that do are loud?

 

If the dog bites, you muzzle it. You don't exterminate the breed.

 

As to the value: information. I've learned a ton simply by participating in conversations with people I'm unlikely to elsewhere (given I don't run in conservative circles, and given the toxicity around discussing politics and religion is so much worse on Facebook and/or Twitter). To me, the forum offers a unique platform in that it's not designed explicitly for politics, but can be used to discuss current events under more rigid rules that lift up discourse and debate while pushing down rhetoric and overt partisanship.

 

we all would love to discuss world events but none of us ever do, even if we bring up a topic or start a thread. everything turns into partisan rhetoric. As soon as a topic is out there someone will bring up Trump and it starts all over.

 

if there's a problem, you eliminate the problem. I think political thread is a problem because some of us cant stay away from it. its like crack

[Phil]

I think anyone resorting to partisan rhetoric is the problem. Not politics. Which is why we dramatically increased how heavy-handed we approached the entire subject. It's no coincidence that the loudest voices in this thread are the most infracted.

 

The solution is for people to respect the work that Phil and his mods have done on this forum for almost a decade and to follow the rules. It's really that simple and everything else is just smoke.

 

If you don't like the political discussions, don't go in those threads. If you don't find enough hockey discussion, start some. If you think that your political leanings make you a target, you're wrong. Also, mods sometimes get posts deleted, get warnings, and on rare occasions get infracted. You just don't see that, because it's handled the same as all other forum issues.

 

We keep discipline here private, but anyone who thinks they are unfairly targeted by the mods can certainly take the records of what they were infracted for and post them in here. Every warning and infraction is accompanied by a PM. My guess is the light of day will show a clear transgression and explanation from the staff.

 

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Albatrosss]

You guys keep saying this, but you can't will something into existence. I am living proof that this is not actually true. I've shifted on numerous topics. I've conceded points, or even conceded defeat. In exactly the same ways I have on other non-political conversations.

 

Here, you want irrefutable proof? Kevin Shattenkirk. Dead wrong on him. This is the whole purpose of this forum.

 

have you ever conceded any point on Trump? or Bush? I don't remember you ever had