The moderators and their judgements

[Phil]

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.

 

And that's on us to curb. We're not perfect. I'm certainly not perfect. But we try to keep things at a baseline.

[Pete]

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.

No, it's not all I got at all. Just saying that no one has stated why it adds value.

[Pete]

I find it facsinating that half the people are saying "Shut it down, it's just name calling" and the other half are saying "Keep it open, it's harmonious place to discuss."

 

Two wildly different experiences happening.

[Phil]

No, it's not all I got at all. Just saying that no one has stated why it adds value.

 

Bottom of the quoted post.

 

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.

[Pete]

Bottom of the quoted post.

 

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.

OK. That's one POV but I don't agree.

 

If I wanted to discuss politics I'd go to political forums or Twitter.

 

I come here hoping to avoid that. Unfortunately those have been the most active threads.

[Mike]

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.)

 

With all due respect, you have no idea what the fighting was like, who doesn’t post anymore, etc ... Far from harmonious. Pete is involved with the political discussions and he’s flat out telling us the hatred carries over into other threads. You’ve been here less than a year, how often have you seen me post? Look how many posts I have. And I NEVER go in political threads. Could give 2 fucks about politics, but it effects everyone else. I’d rather you tell me to fuck off over a hockey discussion than watch 2-3 people constantly disagree about everything because of their political views.

[RodrigueGabriel]

With all due respect, you have no idea what the fighting was like, who doesn’t post anymore, etc ... Far from harmonious. Pete is involved with the political discussions and he’s flat out telling us the hatred carries over into other threads. You’ve been here less than a year, how often have you seen me post? Look how many posts I have. And I NEVER go in political threads. Could give 2 fucks about politics, but it effects everyone else. I’d rather you tell me to fuck off over a hockey discussion than watch 2-3 people constantly disagree about everything because of their political views.

Fair enough. I've been talking politics on the internet since the internet has existed. Attack arguments, attack sources, don't attack people. Not rocket science. But I understand that there have been casualties.

 

Edit: Also, been around for closer to 2 years, but will likely always be a newcomer and that's fine.

 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Pete]

Fair enough. I've been talking politics on the internet since the internet has existed. Attack arguments, attack sources, don't attack people. Not rocket science. But I understand that there have been casualties.

 

Edit: Also, been around for closer to 2 years, but will likely always be a newcomer and that's fine.

 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Clearly we here are incapable of that behavior.

[Phil]

OK. That's one POV but I don't agree.

 

If I wanted to discuss politics I'd go to political forums or Twitter.

 

I come here hoping to avoid that. Unfortunately those have been the most active threads.

 

Also addressed. Certainly, before I entertain pulling the plug, I'd much rather see if increased hockey talk doesn't alleviate matters.

[Fatfrancesa]

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.

 

Seriously? What does my position on panarin have to do with anything? I was against signing him. He?s been great up to this point but the team sucks. Much of my original point to not wanting him was the timing not the player. But regardless how does my opinion about Artemi Panarin become a problem because I may criticize him for the next 7 years? Is this not exactly what this board is for? To talk rangers hockey? Being that you brought it up highlights the problem though. You view my criticism of signing him as some kind of trolling or something. I don?t get it.

 

Is it the thread I started after you asked for people to start threads for conversation? What?s the problem?

 

Lastly. I just entered the political forum recently and have stayed away since my last ban. So my hatred of Pete was long solidified before anything political.

[Phil]

I was illustrating a point about you holding an unconventional (relative to the forum) opinion that ruffles feathers and how that proves that politics aren't the only thing that do so. There's no problem.

[Pete]

Also addressed. Certainly, before I entertain pulling the plug, I'd much rather see if increased hockey talk doesn't alleviate matters.

I wouldn't really say it's addressed... But yes there was a response haha.

 

I'll bow out here. I will just never understand a commitment to something with so little ROI.

[Phil]

I wouldn't really say it's addressed... But yes there was a response haha.

 

I'll bow out here. I will just never understand a commitment to something with so little ROI.

 

We still talking about the politics thread, or the forum? :rofl:

[Fatfrancesa]

I was illustrating a point about you holding an unconventional (relative to the forum) opinion that ruffles feathers and how that proves that politics aren't the only thing that do so. There's no problem.

 

Ok. But why does that ruffle people’s feathers? I don’t hate panarin the player. I hate the signing. Mostly because of the risk. Right now we are getting the prime panarin and he’s been great. We are also getting the rest of the team that isn’t ready for prime time. My issue was always when the team is ready what will panarin be? The guy right now or an anchor contract holding back the team? We’ll see.

[Phil]

Because he's a well-liked player. Again, I was illustrating a point, not litigating the value of his contract relative to age. We've got a thread for that.

[Fatfrancesa]

Because he's a well-liked player. Again, I was illustrating a point, not litigating the value of his contract relative to age. We've got a thread for that.

 

I know phil. I’m good with your explanation. It makes sense. But as I stated in the panarin thread, you guys ask for help starting threads. Someone posts one about Quinn and gets ripped for overreacting same with the panarin thread. Not sure why anyone wants to bother? Some people have things to add, others not so much other than to attack the op

[Phil]

You're not being attacked, dude. Get off the cross. I used you as an example of how a user — any user — can cause a divide by not holding status quo opinions. That's it. There's nothing else to that reference.

 

Who attacked you? Report those posts.

[Pete]

Both haha.

We still talking about the politics thread, or the forum? :rofl:

[Fatfrancesa]

You're not being attacked, dude. Get off the cross. I used you as an example of how a user — any user — can cause a divide by not holding status quo opinions. That's it. There's nothing else to that reference.

 

Who attacked you? Report those posts.

 

Forget it dude. Im not saying that. Im not on a cross, that's your words. I already told you Im fine with your explanation.

[Fatfrancesa]

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

[Albatrosss]

Fatty, u aint going to win many battles here. I suggest u let it go. I mean, a hyper partisan liberal called me a racist and nothing was done about it. But u call someone naive and u get infracted.

[fletch]

Forget it dude. Im not saying that. Im not on a cross, that's your words. I already told you Im fine with your explanation.

 

i enjoy your posts when you focus your passion and do your research. passion supported by logic and links equals food for thought.

 

mods give warnings in threads and pms to users. when users proceed on same course and antagonize, infractions.

 

you can learn from feedback or follow the same patterns.

 

‘the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’ albert einstein

[Fatfrancesa]

Fatty, u aint going to win many battles here. I suggest u let it go. I mean, a hyper partisan liberal called me a racist and nothing was done about it. But u call someone naive and u get infracted.

 

They don't see it as hyper partisan and that's the problem. That post I referenced was made yesterday at 7pm. I post something like that and I'm banned within minutes and my post is scrubbed from the Chinese database.

[Pete]

Or we can just shut the political forum and remove all of these problems.

[Fatfrancesa]

i enjoy your posts when you focus your passion and do your research. passion supported by logic and links equals food for thought.

 

mods give warnings in threads and pms to users. when users proceed on same course and antagonize, infractions.

 

you can learn from feedback or follow the same patterns.

 

‘the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’ albert einstein

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.