The moderators and their judgements

[Phil]

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

 

I have no idea. Probably. I don't keep a scorecard. Assuming they weren't lost in The Purge™, I can tell you off the top of my head, I spoke positively of Trump on being the only candidate willing to call a spade a spade re: Islamic terrorism (where I also ripped Obama for his refusal to use the term).

[Albatrosss]

I have no idea. Probably. I don't keep a scorecard. Assuming they weren't lost in The Purge™, I can tell you off the top of my head, I spoke positively of Trump on being the only candidate willing to call a spade a spade re: Islamic terrorism (where I also ripped Obama for his refusal to use the term).

 

true, I remember that.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

Why was the original politics thread locked?

[Mike]

"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?

 

Dude, hockey yes. All the time. Also something that’s easier to walk away from.

Fighting over Trump

[Phil]

Dude, hockey yes. All the time. Also something that’s easier to walk away from.

Fighting over Trump

 

Girardi. Callahan. Pick something equally polarizing. Girardi alone was incredibly divisive as a player. People got banned and infracted all the time in those conversations. You don't think the same thing is going to happen when the team gets competitive again out of this? Arguments over Kakko's next deal. Brett Howden, alone, is probably a rising star in the world of polarizing figures.

 

I just don't see the difference here, at all. To me it's all the same animal, just painted with a different color. Orange, in Trump's case. :rofl:

[Mike]

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

 

You can’t look at 1 sm post without some dumb cunt making a Trump joke that’s not even funny. Someone can post a picture of trees and a lake with someone fishing, and a Trump joke pops up. It’s so fuckin dumb.

[Pete]

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.

With all due respect RE: vocal minority... There's no one in this thread but you saying we need a political thread...

[Phil]

That's all you took away from my response? I also haven't really argued we need one. Just that I think having one is justified. I don't want to speak for anyone else on that front, but I'm pretty sure Dave agreed, as did Future. But I would like them to speak for themselves.

[phillyb]

Who's Dave? Is that AJ?

So the three people that want a politics section are...*checks notes*...two admins and a moderator?

 

I mean...this thread was started with jest, but the results are serious - http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?22058-Political-Threads-Yay-or-Nay

 

I see no point in having a politics section.

[Phil]

Yeah, because the results of Mike's totally super-duper serious poll, seriously, this isn't a joke or anything, are both accurate and worth acting on immediately.

[Morphinity 2.0]

Why was the original politics thread locked?

 

Because it was a shit show. Essentially we wanted to start fresh and get away from one main thread for everything since old arguments never truly died there. I think it helps for some of the smaller topics, but you really can't get away from big topics creating giant threads and giant arguments.

[Mike]

Yeah, because the results of Mike's totally super-duper serious poll, seriously, this isn't a joke or anything, are both accurate and worth acting on immediately.

 

Hater

[Phil]

Because it was a shit show. Essentially we wanted to start fresh and get away from one main thread for everything since old arguments never truly died there. I think it helps for some of the smaller topics, but you really can't get away from big topics creating giant threads and giant arguments.

 

Anywhere. On any topic. Which is why I always encourage new threads.

[Phil]

Hater

 

I mean, yeah, that is accurate. Your poll results, less so. :rofl:

[LindG1000]

Who's Dave? Is that AJ?

So the three people that want a politics section are...*checks notes*...two admins and a moderator?

 

I mean...this thread was started with jest, but the results are serious - http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?22058-Political-Threads-Yay-or-Nay

 

I see no point in having a politics section.

 

I want a politics section. Part of what makes this forum so good, imo, is that more binds many of us than just the Rangers. Having an outlet for that is a good thing, even if the outlet requires heavier policing than most of our moderators should have to do.

[Mike]

I want a politics section. Part of what makes this forum so good, imo, is that more binds many of us than just the Rangers. Having an outlet for that is a good thing, even if the outlet requires heavier policing than most of our moderators should have to do.

 

I disagree with the politics section, but this is the best response yet. Nice job.

 

That objection was very well said and thought out. Over ruuuuled.

[LindG1000]

I disagree with the politics section, but this is the best response yet. Nice job.

 

That objection was very well said and thought out. Over ruuuuled.

 

At the end of the day, the Rangers season is somewhere between 6-9 months of the year. And, at the end of the day, its NY sports. If it's not Yankees, it's miserable.

 

Politics, Religion, Home improvements, wives, kids, cars, work, art, movies, books, beer, whiskey, memes, whatever. I enjoy talking to most of you about more than hockey. Doubly so when the Rangers are the NHL equivalent of a drunken shart.

[phillyb]

I'm of the mindset that people in a group setting shouldn't talk about politics, religion, or sex, soooooo...consider me a bit more reserved with my desire. And I agree with Mikey about a decent fucking response. Thanks G.

[Mike]

At the end of the day, the Rangers season is somewhere between 6-9 months of the year. And, at the end of the day, its NY sports. If it's not Yankees, it's miserable.

 

Politics, Religion, Home improvements, wives, kids, cars, work, art, movies, books, beer, whiskey, memes, whatever. I enjoy talking to most of you about more than hockey. Doubly so when the Rangers are the NHL equivalent of a drunken shart.

 

Leave out the first 2, and we good homie

[LindG1000]

I'm of the mindset that people in a group setting shouldn't talk about politics' date=' religion, or sex, soooooo...consider me a bit more reserved with my desire. And I agree with Mikey about a decent fucking response. Thanks G.[/quote']

 

Leave out the first 2, and we good homie

 

Fair on both counts. The beauty of forums is that you have that choice. If you don't want to talk about the latest scandal or the meaning of Christmas, your call. You're not stuck at the table while me and Phil and Chief and Francesca banter.

[Mike]

Fair on both counts. The beauty of forums is that you have that choice. If you don't want to talk about the latest scandal or the meaning of Christmas, your call. You're not stuck at the table while me and Phil and Chief and Francesca banter.

 

Understood, but the hatred towards each other that the political talk creates makes the other threads suffer.

[LindG1000]

Understood, but the hatred towards each other that the political talk creates makes the other threads suffer.

 

I'm not really sure I buy that argument. I understand where you might be coming from, but I just don't see enough evidence aside from one specific thread I have in mind to support that argument. It's something to keep an eye on, for sure - it shouldn't spill out.

[phillyb]

Since I don't post in or read the threads in that section very often, I can't speak to that argument.

[RodrigueGabriel]

I'm a vote for keeping the politics section. Other than Twitter, where everyone exists in full combat mode 24/7, there aren't that many places where people from different perspectives are willing to discuss political issues without quickly silencing one another. Because we come together for love of the Rangers and not for political discourse, people are willing to stay in the conversation a bit longer. I have enjoyed the back and forth and even learned something about how conservatives think from talking here. I also don't take it all that seriously. The question, "what do I care what a bunch of yahoo hockey fans think about politics?" is never far from my mind. At the same time, there a lot of good people on here and it's an interesting cross-section of life. I'm interested in what they think. (I guess you can disqualify me for being a moderator, but I haven't done much moderating. Being relatively new, I'm still working on where to draw the line on some of the behavioral issues.)

[fletch]

I want a politics section. Part of what makes this forum so good, imo, is that more binds many of us than just the Rangers. Having an outlet for that is a good thing, even if the outlet requires heavier policing than most of our moderators should have to do.

 

Not hockey threads are an interesting distraction until it becomes name-calling you're just a Republican or Democrat or Atheist or Christian or Buddhist or NY Yankee apologist or Liberal or cop or teacher or war-monger or pacifist. As soon as it stops being user x with a unique perspective to just another member of group y there goes the thread.