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

[Keirik]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

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.

Agreed. And there definitely have been some times moderation needs improvement, but there also have been some really good conversations that have helped broaden my horizon. I can’t speak for others, but @LindG1000spoke about it earlier. I’ve also learned a lot about the opposite end of my perspective and that’s been awesome. 

[fletch]

I'll say when @Dunny @Keirik @Niko and other experienced voices add more balance to the conversation it's a more interesting thread.  Experienced posters are used to citing reputable sources and are more likely to distinguish between a fair point and an inflammatory comment that is just looking to stir things up. Newer posters tend to have a harder time distinguishing between an inflammatory statement (doesn't violate policy but raises the heat in the thread) and a vigorous riposte.  And some folks like @Pete just used to aggravate me.  I like Pete and how he stirs things up but it took me awhile to get to that point.  And newer posters don't have a history with the experienced voices so are starting with square one with interactions.

 

 

[Phil]

That's a great point, fletch, and reinforces why I don't want passive aggressive hit and runs to stand. Dealing with the perception of aggression is going to be a case-by-case basis, and there's little things we can do to bring the temperature down live, but I want us to control the things we can control.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Keirik said:

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.

Maybe the post was inflammatory, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate. I know there are right leaning guys PMing each other because they've basically admitted as much. What's being said is anyone's guess but it doesn't take the Cap'n Crunch decoder ring to figure it out. I actually don't know what the bolded has to do with anything, as I never said any of that.

 

Quote

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 guess my point is that I don't expect right leaning people to have a conversation with me because my personal experience on this board is exactly what I said...Most of them don't want a conversation, they want to "own libs" and post as such. You're talking about 10+ years of experience on this board (and others before it), so I'm done expecting an actual exchange of ideas. If you want that to change, well then there needs to be change. I'm not breaking rules. People who did should rethink their style.

 

Quote

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.

You're right.

Quote

 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.

I feel the same way. And frankly, I don't think the political debate has any place on a sports forum because they are diametrically opposed in their purpose. Sports should provide relief from the heavier topics. But I don't make those rules.

[Pete]

21 minutes ago, fletch said:

I'll say when @Dunny @Keirik @Niko and other experienced voices add more balance to the conversation it's a more interesting thread.  Experienced posters are used to citing reputable sources and are more likely to distinguish between a fair point and an inflammatory comment that is just looking to stir things up. Newer posters tend to have a harder time distinguishing between an inflammatory statement (doesn't violate policy but raises the heat in the thread) and a vigorous riposte.  And some folks like @Pete just used to aggravate me.  I like Pete and how he stirs things up but it took me awhile to get to that point.  And newer posters don't have a history with the experienced voices so are starting with square one with interactions.

 

 

I don't know how to take that, but I don't stir things up just to stir it up. I'm direct, I don't dance around my point, and I call it how I see it. If I think someone is full of shit, I say so. But my posts are normally backed by data that I can link to that shows why I feel the way I feel.

 

Frankly, a large number of conservative posters just haven't been willing to put in equal effort.

[fletch]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I don't know how to take that, but I don't stir things up just to stir it up. I'm direct, I don't dance around my point, and I call it how I see it. If I think someone is full of shit, I say so. But my posts are normally backed by data that I can link to that shows why I feel the way I feel.

 

Frankly, a large number of conservative posters just haven't been willing to put in equal effort.

OK, I will take this (bolded) at face value (that you never just try to stir things up).  Your directness and saying (I) was full of shit in short posts used to be an issue to me.  What I learned is to take statements at face value from all posters.  If I consistently didn't like how a poster talked with me or others, I stopped interacting with that person.  Since I still respond to you, you know that you are not in that category.

 

Italics is the kind of hit-and-run generalization that would aggravate me if I was a conservative.  I would just ignore your comment and interact with the rest of the thread.  And it's the kind of statement that can inflame a thread, when I am a third party observer and see how others react. There's just enough of a caveat 'a large number' that isn't saying everyone but does throw a group of conservatives into the same dismissive statement.  So anyone that self-identifies as a conservative may feel that you are not respecting their individual post, and react accordingly.

 

It doesn't break forum policy.  It isn't a personal attack.  But it can raise the temperature in a thread.  And with politics, religion, abortion, and a few other bar room type issues, you are going to incite stronger push-back and ill feelings than if we disagree on K'Andre Miller's play last night.

 

[Pete]

49 minutes ago, fletch said:

OK, I will take this (bolded) at face value (that you never just try to stir things up).  Your directness and saying (I) was full of shit in short posts used to be an issue to me.  What I learned is to take statements at face value from all posters.  If I consistently didn't like how a poster talked with me or others, I stopped interacting with that person.  Since I still respond to you, you know that you are not in that category.

 

Italics is the kind of hit-and-run generalization that would aggravate me if I was a conservative.  I would just ignore your comment and interact with the rest of the thread.  And it's the kind of statement that can inflame a thread, when I am a third party observer and see how others react. There's just enough of a caveat 'a large number' that isn't saying everyone but does throw a group of conservatives into the same dismissive statement.  So anyone that self-identifies as a conservative may feel that you are not respecting their individual post, and react accordingly.

 

It doesn't break forum policy.  It isn't a personal attack.  But it can raise the temperature in a thread.  And with politics, religion, abortion, and a few other bar room type issues, you are going to incite stronger push-back and ill feelings than if we disagree on K'Andre Miller's play last night.

 

I understand what you're saying, but we can't ignore things that are actually happening because people might be offended by shining a light on what's actually happening.

 

Somebody can feel offended that I'm pointing out that many of the conservatives on the board were not bringing the same level of effort or respectful posting as their liberal counterparts, but that doesn't make it any less true. Over the past decade of all of us posting on this board, and posting on other boards for even longer, I have witnessed this happened first hand, as a user and a staff member. 

 

It's not that I want it to be this way, and it's not that it needs to be this way moving forward, but you're asking how we got to where we are and I'm telling you that it's a big part of it.

 

If that pisses people off, then that's fine, but that's what happened. 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

9 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.

How do you expect anyone to debate with you in good faith when this is what you think of them? You're disgarding peoples opinions and arguments before you've heard them because "the people I debated with before couldn't do it". If there's anyting that reflects the current political landscape (and destroying it) it's exactly the attitude you have in this thread. "I've debated with a few conservatives, they don't know what they're talking about, so they're all just full of shit".

 

Just look at all the bolded here. What a load of bullshit. Especially the last, because we all know which "side" has a group chat that gets very active the very moment someone has a different opinion than the majority in here.

[Pete]

57 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

How do you expect anyone to debate with you in good faith when this is what you think of them?

You're all over the place and I'm not even sure what your point is. Let's go step by step.

 

Quote

You're disgarding peoples opinions and arguments before you've heard them because "the people I debated with before couldn't do it". If there's anyting that reflects the current political landscape (and destroying it) it's exactly the attitude you have in this thread. "I've debated with a few conservatives, they don't know what they're talking about, so they're all just full of shit".

I'm not disregarding anyone's opinion. Fletch asked about the current state of political threads and we went back to the beginning on why there are no conservatives. The managed themselves out by getting dinged for not posting within the rules either by being lazy or hurling insults. That has absolutely zero to do with an opinion brought today, backed by reputable sources, delivered with the intent of honest conversation and not "owning the libs". If anyone can do that, happy to engage in honest debate. I won't hold my breath.

 

Quote

 

Just look at all the bolded here. What a load of bullshit. Especially the last, because we all know which "side" has a group chat that gets very active the very moment someone has a different opinion than the majority in here.

Why is it bullshit? Who cares about group chats? You think there's only one? You don't think those guys that go to the bar have a group chat? Some of us know each other close to 15 years, you think we only talk to each other on here? My point is, don't think there aren't side conversations all over the place. Let's not act like folks are being ostracized.

[fletch]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

I understand what you're saying, but we can't ignore things that are actually happening because people might be offended by shining a light on what's actually happening.

 

Somebody can feel offended that I'm pointing out that many of the conservatives on the board were not bringing the same level of effort or respectful posting as their liberal counterparts, but that doesn't make it any less true. Over the past decade of all of us posting on this board, and posting on other boards for even longer, I have witnessed this happened first hand, as a user and a staff member. 

 

It's not that I want it to be this way, and it's not that it needs to be this way moving forward, but you're asking how we got to where we are and I'm telling you that it's a big part of it.

 

If that pisses people off, then that's fine, but that's what happened. 

Appreciate the additional clarity and explanation you put in this post. The context is important and sometimes lost when someone reads one sentence posts.

 

It would be a pretty boring place if we all used meek language and didn’t disagree.  But I think how people disagree matters.  

 

There isn’t always enough time to compose more than a one line zinger.  But in the bar room people are already fired up by their pet issue and more apt to take offense.  If more likely to take offense, you should probably stick to the hockey threads, true.

 

I think there is a some truth to what you post about conservative posters in some political threads about level of effort vs liberals. But I think you need to at least have  both Rs and Ds in the same room and ask the other side to raise their game rather than make it so uncomfortable that one side just stops posting.  And it helps when conservative moderators post, which I haven’t seen much lately.

 

Thanks again for elaborating further.

[Pete]

40 minutes ago, fletch said:

Appreciate the additional clarity and explanation you put in this post. The context is important and sometimes lost when someone reads one sentence posts.

 

It would be a pretty boring place if we all used meek language and didn’t disagree.  But I think how people disagree matters.  

 

There isn’t always enough time to compose more than a one line zinger.  But in the bar room people are already fired up by their pet issue and more apt to take offense.  If more likely to take offense, you should probably stick to the hockey threads, true.

 

I think there is a some truth to what you post about conservative posters in some political threads about level of effort vs liberals. But I think you need to at least have  both Rs and Ds in the same room and ask the other side to raise their game rather than make it so uncomfortable that one side just stops posting.  And it helps when conservative moderators post, which I haven’t seen much lately.

 

Thanks again for elaborating further.

I don't disagree with a lot of this, and I wish we could have all sides views represented with equal information and vigor. 

[Cash or Czech]

I am probably one of the more guilty parties in posting with emotion, and often am one of the people jumping in to defend marginalized groups that don't really have a voice on the forum themselves. I do that because I have friends in those communities and will defend their right to do whatever they wish with their lives just as well all have that privilege.

 

Just bring facts and good sources to your arguments. I feel like I put a lot of effort into my posts, and I get whataboutism and memeing back, and eventually I do feel like I'm yelling at a cloud and just stop commenting on the topic at hand.

 

With that said, I will try to be less daggers and more constructive conversation in the future.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

On 4/22/2023 at 2:45 AM, Pete said:

I'm not disregarding anyone's opinion. Fletch asked about the current state of political threads and we went back to the beginning on why there are no conservatives. The managed themselves out by getting dinged for not posting within the rules either by being lazy or hurling insults. That has absolutely zero to do with an opinion brought today, backed by reputable sources, delivered with the intent of honest conversation and not "owning the libs". If anyone can do that, happy to engage in honest debate. I won't hold my breath.

And you just keep going with the same rhetoric about how no conservatives knows how to debate honestly and it's just wrong. That's not the reason why most conservatives don't bother to debate on this forum anymore, even if that's what YOU think.

 

On 4/22/2023 at 2:45 AM, Pete said:

Why is it bullshit? Who cares about group chats? You think there's only one? You don't think those guys that go to the bar have a group chat? Some of us know each other close to 15 years, you think we only talk to each other on here? My point is, don't think there aren't side conversations all over the place. Let's not act like folks are being ostracized.

Why statements like:

Quote

The conservative agenda is not to deal with/debate the actual issues, it's to "own the libs".

Quote

right leaning users can't seem to make a point without a personal insult being dished out.

Quote

 I have no doubt in my mind that there are groups of users PMing each other about "the libtards"

are bullshit? Come on man. This isn't twitter, no one's here to own anyone. We're here to talk about Rangers hockey and if someone decides to post in the politics forum it has nothing to do with owning anyone. I don't get why you would even think that. High on yourself maybe? Projecting?

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

And you just keep going with the same rhetoric about how no conservatives knows how to debate honestly and it's just wrong. That's not the reason why most conservatives don't bother to debate on this forum anymore, even if that's what YOU think.

 

Why statements like:

are bullshit? Come on man. This isn't twitter, no one's here to own anyone. We're here to talk about Rangers hockey and if someone decides to post in the politics forum it has nothing to do with owning anyone. I don't get why you would even think that.

 

I already answered this. 

 

One more time, Fletch asked how we got to where we are today and I answered him. What we have seen over the past few years is that conservatives have not been able to debate within the rules. I have no idea why you keep trying to translate that into a present day assessment. It's a retrospective point of view. That means it's an observance of the past. Not a comment on the present. 

 

Quote

High on yourself maybe? Projecting?

And there you go, a prime example lol. You're sitting here pleading a case that conservatives don't take personal hot shots, and then you end your post with a personal pot shot. 

 

I'm sure the conservative portion of the board has the ability to debate within the rules, seems like they just don't have the desire to. 

 

Maybe it actually does have something to do with "owning" the other side...

Edited April 24, 2023 by Pete

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

19 minutes ago, Pete said:

That means it's an observance of the past. Not a comment on the present. 

How is the statement:

Quote

The conservative agenda is not to deal with/debate the actual issues, it's to "own the libs"

an observance of the past? If it is, at least write in past tense.

 

Quote

 I have no doubt in my mind that there are groups of users PMing each other about "the libtards"

This also got nothing to do with "observance of the past". It's a "pulled from my arse" allegation.

 

23 minutes ago, Pete said:

And there you go, a prime example lol. You're sitting here pleading a case that conservatives don't take personal hot shots, and then you end your post with a personal pot shot. 

Oh come on, it was a question because you made no sense.

[Pete]

25 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

How is the statement:

an observance of the past? If it is, at least write in past tense.

That's not a comment on the users here, that's a comment on the current political climate.

 

IN THE PAST, that has been my experience with conservative users on the forum. If a conservative user wanted to have an honest debate within the rules (which you normally do), there's no reason that they can't. But for some reason they haven't been able to and they get their card punched. 

 

Quote

This also got nothing to do with "observance of the past". It's a "pulled from my arse" allegation.

Allegation of what? That people have private conversations outside what gets posted on the forum threads? Oh the horror! God forbid I accuse anyone of it! Why are we clutching our pearls over that statement?

 

Quote

Oh come on, it was a question because you made no sense.

Nah, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean the person who's saying it doesn't make sense. Instead of saying I make no sense, why don't you just ask for clarification? Everything you said here has been aggressive and directed personally at me. I haven't made any personal comments about any one user and instead pointed directly at themes which I've seen as both a staff member and a user. 

 

It's pretty simple, two sides are engaged in a heated debate and one side crosses the line far more frequently than the other, and that's why they get their card punched, and when they get their card punched they get mad and they don't come back. And when there's fewer conservative voices, you get something like what Fletch is pointing out... Dog piling on the one conservative voice in the thread. 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Pete