View Full Version : Side discussion about General Topics forum
Onkel Neal
09-12-14, 05:41 PM
Ok, let's get this out there. In this forum, there is a General Topics section where we all participate in discussion of current events. A man has his head hacked off, yeah, there are going to be strong feelings. We're looking at another war with Islamic extremists. Who's not feeling tense and frustrated, angry. Oh? You are? Great, them have a little compassion for the rest of us. :)
No one wants to let the forum fill up with racists and hate-mongers. I don't think it is in danger of becoming so. When we do get the occaisonal racist nutter here, we let him expand on his views until he has clearly crossed the line. Then we ease him out.
I am not pointing a finger at any one individual, and I do not exempt myself from the situation, but I need to use the Steven Sotloff thread as an example.
In post 297 Skybird explains at length why he thinks Islam is bound to be an extremist doctrine, by its own rules and writings. It appears to me Sky does not necessarily hate all Muslims, but he thinks that all Muslims should be tarred by the same brush. Basically, he's saying that Islam is extremist.
In post 298 BossMark says something about deporting relatives of yahoos who have gone to join the ISIS cause. It's obvious this horrific crime has upset him, and why not? It upset me, it's pretty normal to have this reaction, and appropriate.
In 299 Tarjak rather patiently explains that won't work, or cannot be done ethically. The important thing is, he explains his reasoning.
in 300 Tarjak states to Sky:
It is comments like these that can only be likened to the propaganda used by hate groups to attract impressionable people to their cause. Yet again your wall of text completely misses the point.
This simply makes it appear that you are closer to being the thing you hate and spend so much time railing against.
Well, that was rather elegant and to the point. If you think someone is a bigot, that's the way to respond.
In summary: use your logic to win your point, don't be lazy and try to shut the other person down by reaching into your toolbox and throwing out the label "bigot", "sheep", etc. You can use the ignore feature if you think your are dealing with a bigot, utopian, or garden variety knucklehead.
Remember: just because someone does not see things as you do does not make them wrong. Unless it happens that you woke up this morning and discovered you are God.
Also, know when to stop. I've had my share of heated discussions here, and when I felt I was repeating myself, I stopped and moved on without trying to WIN!! or get in the last word. Don't let your passion turn you into a zealot.
Finally, I am not infallible or an uninterested observer here, but I offer this post as a reminder that we need to work a little harder to keep the discussion of difficult topics civil.:rock:
Give up Marcus, you'll never get him to believe anything other than all Muslims are hell bent on global domination. :03:
Ah but the point is not to change the view of the bigoted, but to prevent others from being infected by thier poisonous thinking. Particularly when said bigots are comfortable in being labelled as such.
If noone speaks out to the contrary, we all become complicit in the spread of their hatred.
Remember Edmund Burke's words. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
That and the sparring can be entertaining.:arrgh!:
It depends which part of which post you are talking about, his views are entirely contradictory.
On the one hand he has the muslims under the bed nightmare where the entire population is out to get him because that's what he likes to believe.
On the other hand he has his wahibi streak where the overwhelmingly vast majority of muslims are not really muslims and should be put to the death because he likes the nutty interpretation of certain hadiths over the Koran.
Or as Oberon implies, don't expect him to make sense.
The key thing is to not support his xenophobic views and wherever possible, speak out against them.:sunny:
Ah but the point is not to change they view of the bigoted, but to prevent others from being infected by thier poisonous thinking. Particularly when said bigots are comfortable in being labelled as such.
If noone speaks out to the contrary, we all become complicit in the spread of their hatred.
Remember Edmund Burke's words. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
That and the sparring can be entertaining.:arrgh!:
Well, I'll leave it to you, I've done my time, nearly a decade of it, and it is now incredibly depressing and tiring to be exposed to bigotry and hatred at every turn. From now on, I think I'll resort to the ignore button wherever possible, if only for my mental health. :yep:
Well, I'll leave it to you, I've done my time, nearly a decade of it, and it is now incredibly depressing and tiring to be exposed to bigotry and hatred at every turn. From now on, I think I'll resort to the ignore button wherever possible, if only for my mental health. :yep:
I know what you mean. it is a bit like bashing your head against a brick wall. But I'm an annoyingly relentless bugga who does this for fun.:D If it stops being entertaining, then I stop doing it.:arrgh!: I've been winding people up since forever and the older I get the more enjoyment I get out of it. ;)
Skybird
09-14-14, 07:31 AM
It is comments like these that can only be likened to the propaganda used by hate groups to attract impressionable people to their cause.
This simply makes it appear that you are closer to being the thing you hate and spend so much time railing against.
Blablabla. More smoke screens from you.
Like almost always.
One is wondering whether behind it there even is anything.
Anyhow, I am tired of your always personal aiming, so I leave it here. My above posting is so clear and direct that everybody reading it can easily realise whether he must feel targetted by it, or not.
Well if you can't see through the smoke, you should stop smoking. Its bad for your health.
I'm sure that everyone who can read can see through what you are saying to the heart of the matter.
Good luck on your next trip and stay away from kebab shops.
Onkel Neal
09-14-14, 08:36 AM
I'm going to say this again, if only to ensure I am being more clear: stop calling names. In every argument or discussion there are 2, 3 or more sides, and yours is not by law morally superior. You need to make your point without labeling the other member. Dismissing someone as a "bigot" is a lazy way to win an argument; you are really just trying to shut down the discussion.
If someone does post something with racist hatred, it will be pretty clear; what they say will reveal them.
Likewise, calling people naive, fools, sheep for not believing in the same thing you are is a bad thing. :03: Likewise calling for the death of people and the destruction of society is probably a bad thing too. :yep:
But there you go.
Jimbuna
09-14-14, 09:34 AM
^+1 Most definitely.
Or, the next best option is to use the ignore option. There's just too much anger around these days, and if it effects you to the point of exacerbating an already existing condition then your best option is to just walk away, don't waste your breath on those who you cannot reach. There are certain people who will never change their viewpoint, and they will just keep on repeating the same things, linking to the same sites, the same videos by the same person, and sadly they will convert other people to their cause and so on and so forth. Hatred and anger are much easier tools to work with than tolerance and understanding, which is why the likes of ISIL have grown so much whilst peaceful and tolerant Muslims are ignored by the majority in favour of focusing on those who do despicable acts.
It's a cycle of hatred, and I've grown very tired of trying to break it. :/\\!!
Skybird
09-14-14, 10:32 AM
In post 297 Skybird explains at length why he thinks Islam is bound to be an extremist doctrine, by its own rules and writings. It appears to me Sky does not necessarily hate all Muslims, but he thinks that all Muslims should be tarred by the same brush. Basically, he's saying that Islam is extremist.
True and not true. I indeed say that Islam is an extremist ideology. What I insist on is the description "Muslim" not being given arbitrarily (like calling a meat-eating carnivore a vegan, that would be pointless as well), but that the description of that ideology'S script and rule is being the deciding criterion whether somebody is rightfully called or identifies himself as "Muslim". You are no humanist, when you act racist. You cannot claim to be liberal when you are making a stand for totalitarian rule. You are not a Muslim if you cherry-pick and ignore the Koran - in fact you even put your life at risk, from a Kopranic POV. "Muslim" is not a racial or ethnic trait, it is an ideological confession that by category is political and sociological. You are not unchangeably Muslim because of for example your skin-colour. You instead make a choice, and decide. Possible however, that if your choice is to reject Islam, this will bring you into conflict with it because it makes a claim for possessing you (if you were born to a Muslim father, for example: but that is again no biological trait "Muslim", there is no gene for becoming Muslim, but it is but ideological mumbo-jumbo).
That's why I reject your claim that I tarr all Muslims by the same brush. I instead use one and the same criterion on everybody claiming to be Muslim in order to decide whether he indeed is Muslim, or not. And that criterion is not arbitrarily redefined to the opportunist's liking, but has the Koran and the Hadith as its basis.
That is a very huge and very important difference, Neal. ;)
It is comments like these that can only be likened to the propaganda used by hate groups to attract impressionable people to their cause. Yet again your wall of text completely misses the point.
This simply makes it appear that you are closer to being the thing you hate and spend so much time railing against.
You know what...almost any criticism about Islam is bigotry in your parts.
It seems like you are actually afraid of yourselves and Muslims more that anyone else....I hear so much this "this will make them more radical" or that is "fearmongering" or "bigotry hate spreading".
Then somehow many imagine that opposing this puts them on the higher moral grounds by default...
Fearmongering -some people may analyze some situations not to your liking , often use logical and intellectual methods and come up with scary results not to the liking of your camp therefore islamophobic...
No body likes to be a chicken or be labeled with some mental disseize...
One thing is sure , politicians on both sides are harvesting on this issue.
In may opinion there is a problem with in Muslim culture if you agree please don't hate them or put in concentration camps...
Who knows maybe some open criticism will help in dealing with extremism because their communities will try harder...
Onkel Neal
09-14-14, 12:41 PM
True and not true. I indeed say that Islam is an extremist ideology. What I insist on is the description "Muslim" not being given arbitrarily (like calling a meat-eating carnivore a vegan, that would be pointless as well), but that the description of that ideology'S script and rule is being the deciding criterion whether somebody is rightfully called or identifies himself as "Muslim". You are no humanist, when you act racist. You cannot claim to be liberal when you are making a stand for totalitarian rule. You are not a Muslim if you cherry-pick and ignore the Koran - in fact you even put your life at risk, from a Kopranic POV. "Muslim" is not a racial or ethnic trait, it is an ideological confession that by category is political and sociological. You are not unchangeably Muslim because of for example your skin-colour. You instead make a choice, and decide. Possible however, that if your choice is to reject Islam, this will bring you into conflict with it because it makes a claim for possessing you (if you were born to a Muslim father, for example: but that is again no biological trait "Muslim", there is no gene for becoming Muslim, but it is but ideological mumbo-jumbo).
That's why I reject your claim that I tarr all Muslims by the same brush. I instead use one and the same criterion on everybody claiming to be Muslim in order to decide whether he indeed is Muslim, or not. And that criterion is not arbitrarily redefined to the opportunist's liking, but has the Koran and the Hadith as its basis.
That is a very huge and very important difference, Neal. ;)
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.:up: However, I think we disagree on that idea that if you are a Muslim, you have to practice everything in the Koran to the nth degree. I know a lot of Christians who profess belief and faith, yet they ignore many parts of the Bible. Which is a good thing, so let's not antagonize them over it. And I think millions of Muslims are the same. They would prefer to live peaceful lives, and they will "interpret" some of the more insane parts of the Koran in a more favorable light, just like the Christians I mentioned.
Back to my point, though, and that is that at some point, you can assume everyone understands what you are saying, they just disagree, so we leave it at that :)
Or, the next best option is to use the ignore option. There's just too much anger around these days, and if it effects you to the point of exacerbating an already existing condition then your best option is to just walk away, don't waste your breath on those who you cannot reach. There are certain people who will never change their viewpoint, and they will just keep on repeating the same things, linking to the same sites, the same videos by the same person, and sadly they will convert other people to their cause and so on and so forth. Hatred and anger are much easier tools to work with than tolerance and understanding, which is why the likes of ISIL have grown so much whilst peaceful and tolerant Muslims are ignored by the majority in favour of focusing on those who do despicable acts.
It's a cycle of hatred, and I've grown very tired of trying to break it. :/\\!!
I understand, but just how many times has anyone changed your opinion in a forum discussion? Was I able to open your eyes to gun rights? Or being a conservative? Or choosing Dr Pepper over ale?
Oberon, I respect you a lot. You have good intentions but if you believe the "cycle of hatred" is stronger than tolerance and understanding, then you must believe your cause is doomed. Don't worry, it isn't. It's just never going to be easy, never going to be finished. The righteous will have to be the strong and the understanding as well.
And when someone is bombarding you with their message, then you can see they are simply setting themselves up to be viewed as a narrow-minded extremist. But either ignore them ( a powerful tool) or counter their arguments with your own, but let's try to avoid labeling them. That's a technique that can be used inappropriately to isolate and dismiss. For one thing, calling someone a name does not necessarily make it true. For example, Tim may agree with BossMark that deporting the families of terrorists is a valid concept. Joe is welcome to say, "no, it isn't" and explain why. But Tim should not be called a bigot or xenophobe. Maybe Tim is a recent legal immigrant, or maybe he's a volunteer for homeless people, or special needs children. Does he need to advertise all this simply to counter Joe's accusation? (In this case, Tim is me ;))
Onkel Neal
09-14-14, 12:45 PM
So by your definition the criteria you set means that all those muslims you claim are real muslims because they follow an 18th century minority sects interpretation cannot be muslims.
After all their interpretations of certain hadiths are directly contrary to the Koran.:hmmm:
Evidence points in the other direction. You managed to enjoy the world cup this year. In the last tournament you claimed that muslims have ruined the game of soccer, it wasn't this muslim or that muslim who had ruined the tournament it was just muslims.
As neal quoted this...It is comments like these that can only be likened to the propaganda used by hate groups to attract impressionable people to their cause.
It leads nicely to the supporting evidence you used to back up your claim which was a crazy "christian" terrorist supporters website which went further than your own claim by saying muslims and ******s had ruined the world cup.:doh:
If you link to crazy racists as support for your views it implies rather strongly that your views are crazily racist.
Dang, I thought N****** was a censored word here. The Admin is falling down on the job :/\\!!
If you link to crazy racists as support for your views it implies rather strongly that your views are crazily racist
Yeah, that's a good point. Each of us should exercise a bit of oversight--if we find ourselves agreeing with extremists, what does that say about us?
BTW, I missed that thread, how did blacks ruin the world cup?
GoldenRivet
09-14-14, 01:08 PM
I'm just gonna put this out there. Seems to fit the situation...
.... This is all George W. Bush's fault.
I understand, but just how many times has anyone changed your opinion in a forum discussion? Was I able to open your eyes to gun rights? Or being a conservative? Or choosing Dr Pepper over ale?
Actually...in gun rights...I don't really understand it, but in a way I do, I understand that it's something to do with the history of America in that the fear of a tyrannical government is a pervasive part of the American mind and society, and thus the right to bear arms is a method of combating the likelihood of this, a sort of extreme version of 'governments should fear their people', plus they help serve as a sort of informal militia in the unlikely event that the US is ever invaded by a foreign power.
What I fail to see is how it still works in a modern society with weapons technology far evolved beyond the simple rifle, a tyrannical government, if in control of its military, could kill its citizens far beyond the range of the longest ranged rifle. That being said, I guess there is some comfort and protection from it...however, the biggest problem that really needs to be drilled into people is securing the weapon and better mental health care.
What I do object to is the false myths (such as DJ Kelleys Nazi rant) and the failed arguments that some pro-gun advocates put forward.
Honestly, I think America is going to have to do a bit of soul searching in the future, because there is a big split between left and right wing parties, and although there are plenty of moderates, the extremists are shouting louder than they are...just like in most things in life I suppose.
In regards to conservatism, that's a little harder, it's not an easy thing to change a persons ideology, although I have undergone a slow transformation from being quite left wing to more centerist. I hung around on a forum with quite a lot of young left-wing idealists, and to say that they were annoying would be a bit of an understatement, so that put me off the far left somewhat. :haha: There are things I agree and disagree with, a centralised planned economy for example is something I think that is unworkable, however I do believe in the nationalisation of certain vital industries, things like healthcare, transport, and utilities, namely because I don't believe that big companies are capable of operating with the consumer in mind instead of their profits (admittedly most governments are the same which makes nationalisation just as ineffective) and in a sector were things are vital for people means that the companies would have a stranglehold over it which means that they could charge what they want. Obviously introducing competition into the factor would help matters, but the unfortunately as we've seen in the UK, corruption soon swiftly kicks in.
In short, both systems are flawed, but I tend to lean more center left than right, but I can still understand the conservative viewpoint in some matters.
In regards to Dr Pepper...actually, you're preaching to the choir there, unfortunately I've had to switch to caffeine and sugar free coke because too much of the two have had some bad side effects for me.
I'm not much of an alcohol drinker, only on special occasions. :03:
What I do dislike and try to combat is extremism in any forms, I find it gives a certain viewpoint a bad name and discourages people from it.
I am pro-animal rights, but I find PETA are a PITA, and there are plenty of other examples, I am not a Muslim fanatic apologist, I find what ISIL is doing morally repugnant, but I don't blame the worlds followers of Islam for it.
I also dislike racism and bigotry, I think that we were all born equal on this planet, and there is no reason to differenticate because of race, social status, beliefs or sex. It's a shame that there are many (too many) out there who do.
Oberon, I respect you a lot. You have good intentions but if you believe the "cycle of hatred" is stronger than tolerance and understanding, then you must believe your cause is doomed. Don't worry, it isn't. It's just never going to be easy, never going to be finished. The righteous will have to be the strong and the understanding as well.
Aye, you're probably right there, but it's an exhausting process and I guess I just need a rest from the fight. :03:
And when someone is bombarding you with their message, then you can see they are simply setting themselves up to be viewed as a narrow-minded extremist. But either ignore them ( a powerful tool) or counter their arguments with your own, but let's try to avoid labeling them. That's a technique that can be used inappropriately to isolate and dismiss. For one thing, calling someone a name does not necessarily make it true. For example, Tim may agree with BossMark that deporting the families of terrorists is a valid concept. Joe is welcome to say, "no, it isn't" and explain why. But Tim should not be called a bigot or xenophobe. Maybe Tim is a recent legal immigrant, or maybe he's a volunteer for homeless people, or special needs children. Does he need to advertise all this simply to counter Joe's accusation? (In this case, Tim is me ;))
Certainly there sometimes a rush to label people, I think it's part of the human brains desire to compartmentalise information, and this can lead to a lot of misunderstandings. Sometimes though you do have to call a spade a spade, but not repeatedly and not as an action of dismissal because that is a cheap way of trying to end an argument. In Tarjaks case I don't think that he was attempting to end the argument (because I think he would be rather optimistic if he thought that it would end like that) but instead he was stating that the viewpoint put forward by Skybird is incredibly similar to that of a bigot, or as he had already stated, an extremist. Unfortunately though, in the heat of such discussions some errors can be made, and I think that Tarjak just got a little off center, as he once said to me "Aim for the ball, not the bowler" :03:
Well apart from vuvuzuelas.....by being muslims:har:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171598
I think that's the one that Tribes is referring to, but sadly since he is allergic to links I can't be sure... :03:
Platapus
09-14-14, 02:21 PM
If we can just get the members of this site to understand that they don't have to respond to a post they don't agree with.
This is a website about video games. No one wins any discussion about politics or world events on this site.
I am pretty confident that the world's leadership is not monitoring GT to get information to form their policies.
If people keep responding to these types of postings, the thread lives far too long. Let the people vent their OPINIONS. No one has to respond.
But if we encourage people to vent their opinions in a manner we don't like, we can't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Response is what feeds them.
Threads that people don't respond to, move further down the list until they are forgotten.
Just remember that opinions are like farts
Every rectum has them
To every one else they stink
In polite society it is often better to keep them to yourselves. :D
I'm going to say this again, if only to ensure I am being more clear: stop calling names. In every argument or discussion there are 2, 3 or more sides, and yours is not by law morally superior. You need to make your point without labeling the other member. Dismissing someone as a "bigot" is a lazy way to win an argument; you are really just trying to shut down the discussion.
If someone does post something with racist hatred, it will be pretty clear; what they say will reveal them.
If I've crossed a line the infract, brig or keelhaul me for it. If I see bigotry then I call it what it is. Whether you or anyone else call it lazy, I don't care.
If you're happy for Subsim to be a vehicle for hate, then that's fine I 'll be on my way.
Skybird
09-14-14, 03:11 PM
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.:up: However, I think we disagree on that idea that if you are a Muslim, you have to practice everything in the Koran to the nth degree. I know a lot of Christians who profess belief and faith, yet they ignore many parts of the Bible. Which is a good thing, so let's not antagonize them over it. And I think millions of Muslims are the same. They would prefer to live peaceful lives, and they will "interpret" some of the more insane parts of the Koran in a more favorable light, just like the Christians I mentioned.
Tell me, if you take away key parts of the glad tidings, of the four gospels to be precise, if you take away the content of Christ's preachings, the sermon on the mount, the cleaning of the temple - what then is left of the Christian message that makes those following that rest worth to be called "Christians"?
There is a reference in the name "Christians" that points to Christ himself. And when you refuse to follow his preachings, the inner attitude he hoped to cause in people, then you are not "Christian" at all.
Muhammad's teaching was very different to that of Jesus. Because he was a warlord and bandit leader. Take away key parts of his message that meant to form totalitarian unity and absolute loyalty of his warriors - what then is left of him that is worth to be called "Muhammedan"? And what other parts are there in the koran, both the mekkanese and the medinese suras, that are not originating directly in muhammad? None.
Many people expect Islam to reform itself. But how could that come about when Islam always is allowed to sneak out of its responsibility of being the motivator and basis of all the grim things it brings over mankind? why should it - when the "radicals"are allowed to not being seen as a not only legitimate but the real face of Islam? Their murdering of apostate-muslims from korann's point of view is legal, and even demanded. They - moderate muslims - were and are a threat to the totalitarian claim of Muhammad/Islam. Lets set an example to scare all others - lets kill them!
I knew half a dozen former Muslims who became apostates. Two of them said that the meeting with me and the debates resulting :-) had a major causal effect on them in forming their decisions. They both gave up their families, parents, friends. They hid, too, they had to. And this here in Germany, 21st century. Huge pain to their conscience, you can imagine. And yet they told me that I did them right in not letting them escape the unpleasant implications of their former "compromise" solution of not following the koran, but still calling themselves "Muslim". But they had stopped to be Muslim long time before.
Both have left Germany meanwhile, saying that it was no longer safe for them here.
Betonov
09-14-14, 03:24 PM
Well apart from vuvuzuelas.....by being muslims:har:
Imposible, the natives in South Africa are Christian/Tribal*
*I know it's not called tribal, there's just to many indiginous religions to type down.
Skybird
09-14-14, 04:08 PM
And another thing, since Neal mentioned name calling.
As I briefly explained in the other thread, a phobia refers to an ill state of mind, a state of a mental disorder, so to speak, considering the irrational nature of the fear that the term "phobia" means. Calling people xenophobic or Islamophobic just because they criticse islam with solid and founded argument, not only tries to attack them by labelling them to be mentally deranged of some kind, it also has an ironic implication that these clever guys do not seem to realise. By claiming the other is xenophobic they necessarily imply that themselves they are representing the "healthy" opinion there is, that their view is the result from being mentally sane, and criticising their views only is possible for an ill person, a mentally unhealthy person, when the other suffers from a kind of mental derangement or mental irrationality bordering to that.
I find that kind of "demonisation" especially underhanded. It compares to past times when people tried to defame critics or rivals to be heretics so that they got pulled away or burnt as heretics.
Maybe that is what makes it so effective and so so much used by the Islam-defence lobby.
Having been the target of Islamic hostility and death threats myself and having worked with people who became victims of Islamic bullying and intimidation and assaulting on the street when I helped in a Bürgerinitiative battling against an attempt of collusive mosque-increasement over here, I make special mental notes of people behaving in this way of trying to replace argument with simple character assassination. They do not realise how absolute they rate their own view to be - while accusing the other to be intolerant. If that is not some grim irony, then I maybe do not correctly understood what the term irony means. It compares to demanding death for all who doubt that Islam is a tolerant and peaceful religion.
Wolferz
09-14-14, 05:24 PM
We become.:nope:
Hate is negative. Let it go or it will consume you.
AndyJWest
09-14-14, 05:25 PM
collusive mosque-increasement
Burn the heretics!
Sailor Steve
09-14-14, 09:19 PM
Ah there is the problem. You think your arguement is solid and well founded.
The truth is your argument is full of holes and built on very dodgy foundations.
You keep saying that. Could you possibly show it?
Onkel Neal
09-14-14, 09:41 PM
Well, remember, this thread is not about what we are discussing, but how we are discussing it.
Armistead
09-14-14, 10:15 PM
Neal, would love to see a "anything goes" thread......Be interesting if people could really express themselves what they would say....:D
Sailor Steve
09-15-14, 11:42 AM
How many times do I have to show that the 3 sura that deal with apostacy specify a punishment which is not death?
The same claim will be made again repeatedly regardless of that little inconvenience, they will still obstinately insist that the Koran specifies death.
Oh, you've said it a great many times. You haven't shown any actual evidence even once.
Sailor Steve
09-15-14, 01:50 PM
Are you back in your habitual phase?:hmmm:
If you mean am I still waiting for you to provide a link or back up your claims whenever you assault someone, then Yes.
Tribes, Steve does have a point here, I mean, you go on at Skybird at the choice of his links but at least he does provide links. It doesn't take long to provide them and it lends your argument a LOT more credibility when challenged.
Onkel Neal
09-15-14, 03:50 PM
Neal, would love to see a "anything goes" thread......Be interesting if people could really express themselves what they would say....:D
No, there are plenty of place where people are uninhibted and allowed to show how badly they can act.
What I would love is more accountability. Such as no anonymity, everyone stands behind their comments with a legit identity.
Onkel Neal
09-15-14, 03:55 PM
If I've crossed a line the infract, brig or keelhaul me for it. If I see bigotry then I call it what it is. Whether you or anyone else call it lazy, I don't care.
If you're happy for Subsim to be a vehicle for hate, then that's fine I 'll be on my way.
A vehicle for hate? You really think that's what we have? If only "hate" was easy to pin down, and not subject to opinion and personal bias.
Skybird
09-15-14, 03:56 PM
No, there are plenty of place where people are uninhibted and allowed to show how badly they can act.
What I would love is more accountability. Such as no anonymity, everyone stands behind their comments with a legit identity.
Ah, somebody got a new sponsor - the NSA! :sunny:
:woot:
vanjast
09-15-14, 04:47 PM
I'd like to throw in a card.. to liven the show up a bit
James David Manning... a PhD.. an all :D
:har::har::har:
Platapus
09-15-14, 06:15 PM
We become.:nope:
Hate is negative. Let it go or it will consume you.
"Hating is like taking poison and expecting the other person to die." Another quote that Buddha never said.
Hate is defined as 'intense dislike', I would tend to concur that Skybird has an 'intense dislike' for Islam to the point where it has become irrational.
If it was radical Islam, or ISIL I could understand, but to him there is no difference between the lot.
It's pretty clear that there is a dislike of Islam on this forum, and that is pretty much emotionally based, and leads to unhelpful comments such as "Let's turn the Middle East to glass" or "We should just nuke 'em" and so on and so forth, the sort of gung-ho phrase that you attach to a stereotypical caricature of an American (or 'Murcan' to be precise :03:)
Of course, the question is how does this sort of attitude reflect on the rules? These state:
Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust.
Now, we've already got one person who is a Jewish conspiracist (Alex), and one who was quite anti-Sematic (Zeewolf), but where does this wave of anti-Islam fit into the rules? Is it not the same thing as anti-Semitism? A clear and continual attack on a religion and the avocation of the dissolution of both the religion and many of its members? Are we not in danger of walking down a path last trod in western Europe (and America) in the late 1920s and the 1930s which lead to the Holocaust? If one were to take one of the many popular anti-Islam rants on the internet and replace the words Muslim or Islam with Jew or Jewish, how dissimilar would it be to something from that dark time?
Let me be clear, I'm not saying that we should ban discussion on radical Islam, because the radicalisation and politicisation of Islam is a concern to all alike, even to Muslims themselves, however I think that there should be more encouragement to steer people away from associating 2.2bn people with the actions of 100,000, lest we encourage other gross generalisations.
Sailor Steve
09-16-14, 01:22 PM
Oh sorry, in keeping with recent forum directives stating the obvious is not sufficient.
Not at all, when it's obvious to everybody. When it's only obvious to you the polite thing to do is to explain it. That has been the accepted debate tactic since long before "recent forum directives".
You could however try some examples from past societies which you have held up as examples of your dreamworld in practice, but unfortunately for your position each and every one was either a complete failure in itself or something which survived by changing into the very thing that you wish to eliminate.
How do you know that? How do we know that? The polite and correct thing to do would be to cite the examples you claim are there and explain how each one applies to the situation. You still don't seem capable of doing that.
So in essence to deal thoroughly, absolutely and in detail with your claim the answer should be...
Errrrrr...no:har:
Though maybe as it is such an obvious, Errrrr...no, a few more :har::har::har::har::har: would be in order to signify how incredibly wrong the claim you made was.
And you're back to the usual condescending mocking, which, as you've been told many times, is not allowed. Please try to learn how forum debate is supposed to work.
Sailor Steve
09-16-14, 03:02 PM
Already been done, several times.
You don't seem capable of remembering that.
Okay, help my memory. Show just one.
So which would you like to revisit to refresh your memory?
Any of the numerous Italian city states eaten by corruption and nepotism with a heavy dose of regulation and protectionism coupled with the growing external threats and clearly inherent problems of "security contractors"?
How about one single instance of you linking something and explaining it? Your suggestion here doesn't give anyone a clue what you are talking about. If you claim it, it's your job to give links and detailed explanations. If you can't do that, then it's nothing more than talk.
Or perhaps the growing regulatory bureaucracy known as the Hanse? Maybe an excursion into the staples and the guilds for good measure?
Again, please give links and explanations.
Sailor Steve
09-16-14, 03:24 PM
I told you in no uncertain terms via pm what my view of you is with your repeated false statements.
While you continue to make the same false statements you will be treated accordingly.
Fair enough. Can you show where my statements are false? Can you show anything to back up any claim you've made?
Rockstar
09-16-14, 06:05 PM
The Quran says a great deal about how to fight the kuffar (unbelievers). Take Sura 8:12,13,15-18 which tells the believer to cut the necks and fingers of those who opposed God and Mohammad...
The Quran however, is not the only source of sacred or even inspired traditions in Islam.
The Sunna refers to whatever Muhammad said, did, condoned, or condemned. It is the record of his teaching and examples he left for all Muslims to follow. According to Muslims he is the perfect example for all human beings. And spelled out quite clearly in the Quran:
If you love Allah, then follow me (Mohammad) -Sura 3:31 (Shakir)
Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day. -Sura 33:21 (Yusuf Ali)
Whatever Muhammad did or said, becomes the basis from which to model all life and belief. The Sunna is equally important to the Muslim as the Quran because it is the Sunna that interprets the Quran. Without the Sunna, the Quran cannot be properly understood. In fact, many aspects and practices of the Islamic religion are not even mentioned in the Quran but are found only in the Sunna.
Muhammad said, "... I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) ..."
My two cents:
All through history we have had 'holy wars', 'crusades', 'sectarian strife', etc. and they have all one thing in common: they are all shams. No matter what name you give them, the bottom line is they are all about power and land. People would be very much less likely to fight just to enrich or empower some git or gits who will probably enslave or terrorize the people they, the leaders, need to advance their own greed or lust. So how do you motivate the masses? You wrap your real intentions in a candy-coated shell of religion, patriotism, seeming altruism, etc. "You are fighting for a higher power/principle/righteousness, etc." The arguments over the real intent of religions is useless inasmuch as the true nature of all religions have each been corroded, eroded, mangled, and distorted by false prophets of all stripes out for their own gain. I am not fully knowledgeable or expert about all religions, bur the ones I have taken the time to research are, in present day, a long way different than what was their original intent. Take Christianity for example: 10 simple rules, but an awful lot of the "leaders" of the various 'flavors' of Christianity seem to have little to no knowledge of nor desire to abide by those precepts. As Hamlet said, " it is a custom More honour'd in the breach than the observance"...
...Or, to quote Mark Twain:
Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.
- "The Lowest Animal"
My two cents; you can keep the change...
<O>
u crank
09-16-14, 06:50 PM
My two cents:
All through history we have had 'holy wars', 'crusades', 'sectarian strife', etc. and they have all one thing in common: they are all shams......
My two cents; you can keep the change...
<O>
Thank you. Well said. I wish I had said it.
I like to buy you a beer. :up:
Sailor Steve
09-16-14, 06:54 PM
Done and done again.
Where? Can you show it? That's all I ask, just one link that proves what you say.
How many times have we dealt with your ridiculous falsehoods already?
So why are you an habitual liar?
I will admit to that claim if you can show it.
Are you just being a troll?
No more than you are every time you attack someone with insults and rudeness, but no evidence for what you claim. The difference is that I don't want to attack you, I just want you to stop doing it to others. The difference is that I just want you to back up your claims, the same as everyone else. For all your statements to the contrary, you don't seem to be able to show that you've ever done that.
I don't want to hurt you, I just want you to play by the same rules of debate everyone else does.
Rockstar
09-16-14, 07:00 PM
When they make war on you:yep:
Yes, but people have claimed that the punishment of death for apostacy is contained in it, it isn't.
Which means the genuine hadiths cannot contradict the Koran
Well my fellow kuffar, we have our understanding they have thiers. Party on Garth :rock:
Aktungbby
09-16-14, 08:01 PM
Thank you. Well said. I wish I had said it.
I like to buy you a beer. :up:
Well my fellow kuffar, we have our understanding they have thiers. Party on Garth :rock:
Actually our understandings aren't so far apart::dead: "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God." Gabriel is the usual culprit on the horn.[/URL] "And the dead in Christ will rise first.??!!" According to the Quran,"" [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Islam"]God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_Armstrong_restored.jpg) sent the Quran to the Islamic prophet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_of_Islam) Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) through His angel Gabriel (Jibra'il) and sent a message to most prophets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet), if not all, revealing their obligations. Gabriel is named numerous times in the Quran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran) (2:97 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php#002.097) and 66:4 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/066-qmt.php#066.004) for example)"". I 'spect resurrection will be a thirsty affair: And I can't imagine "MAN ABOVE" sent dissimilar communications to both parties!:hmmm: A Hamm's on the Christian view and a Moosehead on the Islamic view. CYA BBY first or second really don't matter in the long run! ALL will be made clear relatively soon:woot: We''ll need kegs for this!:03:
Sailor Steve
09-16-14, 08:27 PM
So all I have to do is type in some Italian city states or the Hanse into the forum search engine, come across some hoppe/Lew Rockwell nonsense about the success of the utopian economic model. Find a reference to the fate of those entities as proof that the historic examples being offered were examples which didn't support the utopian dream as they were failed experiments which fell because of the obvious inadequacies of the ideology.
Pretty much, but with the actual link and quotes to show it means what you say it means.
Or quote items in the links you condemn to show how they're wrong. Just saying it's wrong doesn't make it so.
Would it be funny if you had participated in those very topics?
I don't have to participate to read them and see when someone is attacking someone else for no apparent reason, and object. Every claim needs to be substantiated, even the claim that someone is an idiot. Or a liar.
Edit to add. damn hows that for luck. the second hit on the search has the apostacy thing too, amazing how that ended up together with the Hanse in a topic about soccer.
Cool, I guess. Is it relevant? If so, can you share?
Armistead
09-16-14, 11:42 PM
When they make war on you:yep:
Yes, but people have claimed that the punishment of death for apostacy is contained in it, it isn't.
Which means the genuine hadiths cannot contradict the Koran
So Muhammad never made war on anyone? Did he every force conversion or force you to pay a tax or fee to believe as you wish? You really find this a peaceful religion based on that alone?
HunterICX
09-17-14, 04:42 AM
Oh, you've said it a great many times. You haven't shown any actual evidence even once.
Are you back in your habitual phase?:hmmm:
If you mean am I still waiting for you to provide a link or back up your claims whenever you assault someone, then Yes.
Get a room you two :stare:
Tribes, Steve does have a point here, I mean, you go on at Skybird at the choice of his links but at least he does provide links. It doesn't take long to provide them and it lends your argument a LOT more credibility when challenged.
Even if it's Dailymail? :O:
Skybird
09-17-14, 05:09 AM
Rockstar is right, I am saying the same like he does, since years. Muhammad is the guiding example Muslims follow (if they are really Muslims). Hence the term "Muhammedanism". In the end, what Muslims in his time as well as today "believe to know" :) about allah, depends on what Muhammad narrated about Allah. That makes Muhammad even more central, neutrally seen, than Allah itself.
And to those who think they must relativise today's barbary carried out by Shariah law and IS terror and the like, by sprinkling ashes over their heads and mourning "Haven't there been the crusades of which our forefathers were guilty?" (a reactive war of defence to recover territory lost to attacking Islam), "Haven't there been religious wars in our countries", and this and that and more of that, I have only one question: when was the last time Christians stoned to death a women for adultry in Europe, when was the last time a witch was burned and the inquisition raged, and nations declared wars over religious issues against each other, here in Europe? Was it in recent present, or was it so and so man centuries ago?
Islam still is a deeply superstitiuous tradition. It got stuck in a medieval mindset that the rest of the world for the most has left behind - since long, long time.
That's why relativising that difference simply does not work. The difference in cultural advancement is not relative at all - it is absolute. It is a fact.
Rockstar
09-17-14, 07:06 AM
You are correct, it is written in the Sura of the cow. There shall be no compulsion in the religion. According to that verse the right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. But to use this verse alone to define a muslim is , I think, folly.
Reading further one finds how those who don't willingly see the light are to be treated.
O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them.... (9:73)
O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.... (9:123)
Say unto those of the wondering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess to fight them until they surrender.... (48:16)
..."And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah alone." (8:39; 2:193)
As far as I can tell ISIS may be regarded as great defenders of Islam.
Western culture may be regarded as threat to Islam , how and where you engage the threat then may be irrelevant...
Even if it's Dailymail? :O:
https://puppetlabs.com/sites/default/files/1316713879_castle_reaction.gif
Sailor Steve
09-17-14, 11:16 AM
Ah but if you have participated in the topic you must have read it, if you have participated and read a topic you must be familiar with its contents, if you are familiar with it you cannot claim there is no apparent reason when the same things are raised again.
But your attacks have no apparent reason. You never link, you never go quote anything from the links that would back up your claims, you never prove your case. Everyone else does these things, only you do not.
Lets take a simple one, you objected because I called someone a Nazi, I said it was well established on this forum previously that the person in question believed in a global jewish conspiracy and posted stuff which led dierectly to the ideology espoused by the NSDAP.
Do you remember my replies and my response to the infraction you gave and your demands for links?
If it was proven the member in question would be banned. That he has not been means that while suspected, it has not been proven. If you can't prove it then you don't cast aspirations, and you don't call people names. That should be simple.
Did I quote what I was responding to:yep:
Did I respond to it:yep:
Did I quote additional material to support what I wrote:yep:
Calling someone a Nazi isn't calling names, its a description of a rather disgusting political ideology.
....
Already proven:yep:
.....
But you are familiar with the material aren't you?
So why do you question its existence?
Are you just trying to be awkward.
....
Are you denying the truth of it?
.....
Did you do any of those things? Can you show where you did. It's all rhetoric, and no, it's not proven.
So I will ask you again. Do you need a link if someone says the world is a sort of spherical shape or can you accept it as being already established?
If asked, yes. Also, I can prove it myself. You don't seem to be able to do that.
Now then onto the current, you want proof, well I think there is some proof that is rather compelling and irrefutable, it has been mentioned before many times but lets just make it clear again.
This is the line you always take, yet you never actually bother to do the work yourself. If you claim it, you should show it. Every time.
To everyone else: I apologize for this line of posts, but this is the thread in which Tribesman again attacked and mocked someone, which is against the rules here.
So in essence to deal thoroughly, absolutely and in detail with your claim the answer should be...
Errrrrr...no:har:
Though maybe as it is such an obvious, Errrrr...no, a few more :har::har::har::har::har: would be in order to signify how incredibly wrong the claim you made was.
This is what started it. Again I apologize, and I'll end it now.
To Tribesman: I've said in the past that I was giving you your last warning, and I've backed off from that in the vain hope that you could be brought to see that what you do is trolling at its worst. Yet again I decided to call you on it, and yet again you try to turn it around on anyone else than yourself. I can't make you back up any claim you make, but I can ask for a link. On the other hand you are on notice - mockery and insult of the type quoted above is not allowed, and since you have a history going back several years...well, you know the rest.
I'm done, and again I apologize to everyone.
If it was proven the member in question would be banned. That he has not been means that while suspected, it has not been proven. If you can't prove it then you don't cast aspirations, and you don't call people names. That should be simple.
I'm just going to come in here.
What sort of proof is required?
I refer to the Subsim rules which state:
Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust.
How does one prove such a thing without the person involved going "Oh hai, I'm a member of Stormfront, death to all the Jews."
Is it when they post links to videos with viewpoints that are based in religious or cultural hatred? Is it when they make those viewpoints repeatedly on multiple occasions and dismiss other people as fools for not believing in the same thing that they do?
Where is the line in the sand?
Onkel Neal
09-17-14, 06:00 PM
So, anyway, I moved all the offtopic posts from the ISIS and Ukraine threads here... now, if we can get back on topic.
I'm just going to come in here.
What sort of proof is required?
I refer to the Subsim rules which state: Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust.
How does one prove such a thing without the person involved going "Oh hai, I'm a member of Stormfront, death to all the Jews."
Is it when they post links to videos with viewpoints that are based in religious or cultural hatred? Is it when they make those viewpoints repeatedly on multiple occasions and dismiss other people as fools for not believing in the same thing that they do?
Where is the line in the sand?
Exactly! I for one am pretty tolerant of different opinions. And I understand a person is like to let off some steam occasionally. Like ikalugin said: I do not mind sensible replies and even reasonable amounts of burning emotion. After all we are all humans and have limited rationality, as well as access to information and ability to process it.
Where is the line, indeed? Two big factors: who defines where it is, and who interprets each statement and measures it to determine if it is line. And that falls to me, the moderators, and the community. In the past, when we got a person who repeatedly made it clear he was an anti-semite or nazi, enough of the community would voice their disapproval and he was left out of future discussions. But not everyone is going to agree. Personally, I can stand a little more than some people. We've had a couple of avowed commies post here. I need to see a pretty blatant example before I feel compelled to yank someone. For me, I prefer to skip their posts and ignore them. And if that leads to topic spamming to get my attention, then that is sufficient grounds for dismissal.
I also cast a sour look at calling people names: Idiot, racist, liar, fool, sheep, etc. If you want to say Miley Cyrus is a tart, or some rapper is an idiot, that's less bothersome. I believe we should give elected officials a modicum of respect for their office, but they can still be criticized (just less severely than thugs, and Miley Cyrus). :P
Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?
Rockstar
09-17-14, 06:16 PM
So 9.
If they ask for your protection be nice to them and then convey them to a place of safety?
As long as they are true to you be true to them?
They observe not the treaty they made with you?
Will you not fight the bloke who broke his word and attacked you?
Bit of last day end of times fires of hell stuff?
Go to the heavenly gardens and reside with pleasure?
If money and possessions are more important to you then you are on the wrong bus?
Invisible heavenly bodies doing gods work?
Some clergy have been hording wealth instead of doing gods work god knows and will send them to their doom as he is not happy about that sort of thing?
More fires of hell stuff with bottoms getting roasted?
The comforts of life mean nothing in the hereafter, don't go looking for them if you want a happy time in heaven?
Don't accept the contributions if they are given unwillingly?(so that's the forced tax scuppered:03:)
More painful doom in the afterlife?
More painful doom in the afterlife?
Hypocrits eternal doom fires of hell?
Becoming like the prattling hypocrits sends you to the doom?
Keeping the Sura in context what do think Sura 9 as a whole is saying?
...
Now your bit, why is it cut short?
.....their destination is hell?
Come on if you are going to say 9:73 give 9:73
So wahts aftyer :73....
Oh no they are going to be sent to eternal doom, that's a bit harsh:rotfl2:
oh my , they will be heaped with derision and endup with eternal doom. That's really harsh that derision stuff.
Here is the whole of Sura 9:73 O you prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern in dealing with them. Their destiny is Hell; what a miserable abode!
My understanding of this is the same as my last post. It deals with what the practioner of Islam should do to the unbeliever. The part you make so much drama about the 'Their destiny iin hell' you caught my red handed on, simply indicates to me the reason why they may deal harshly with the unbeliever, because they are going to hell anyways.
Not only is that my understanding it appears by all news accounts the understanding of the practioners of this sura.
Seriously Rockstar you can do better than that.:nope:
Ok then lots more of the same . now your next bit ....
You blokes in Madinah who are being persecuted , rise up against the aggressor
Damn that nasty stuff relating to :123 how dare they rise up against their persecutors.:har:
Oh yes persecutors, that covers your bit from 8: doesn't it.
So whats left, oh yeah 48, damn you cut that short too.
So you blokes that didn't fight the persecutors last time but then came for protection, if you don't fight the persecutors next time but whish to claim the reward your reward will be eternal doom in the fires of hell.
honestly Rockstar, is that the best you could manage?
Honestly Tribesman I have no idea what this rambling is about.
Platapus
09-17-14, 06:29 PM
So, anyway, I moved all the offtopic posts from the ISIS and Ukraine threads here... now, if we can get back on topic.
Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?
A reasonable question that deserves reasonable answers. Until then, may I share my opinions?
1. The moderators need to be stricter about keeping members on topic. As evidenced, the mods/admin have the capability of taking posts and moving them to other threads. This needs to be done more often.
If someone makes a thread on topic abc then all the posts need to be related (how that is defined) to topic abc. The hijacking of threads on GT is getting a bit too common for my liking.
2. The mods need to be more willing to move posts to other threads that cover the same topic. Far too often someone makes a new thread that discusses the exact same thread we had last week. Move the new thread to the existing thread so the conversation can continue. It also makes searching a bit easier.
3. Some threads should have a life span. Some of the threads like the funny pictures don't. They can and should go on. It is kinda fun to see how many posts we can get on these fun threads.
On the other hand, there are too many threads where the discussion is circular. There comes a point (difficult to define) where a thread discussion has completed. Nothing new is being discussed, nothing new is being added.
4. I don't know what the mods can/should do about this one, but while I am bitchin'... I wish there was some way to limit the private arguing on the public threads. It is becoming more common for a thread to devolve into an argument between two people, each copying walls of text to insert comments so the other person copies walls of text to add comments.
Unfortunately, there are people who simply must have the last word in a conversation. When there is one of those, it is not too bad. On this forum, we have, unfortunately, several people who will not acknowledge that a person can have a different viewpoint without being wrong and must "win" every argument, no matter how many copied walls of text it takes.
5. It has been brought up before and I think it needs discussion. Should we have sub forums in GT? It seems like there are repeating topics that come up every few weeks. A religious thread that gets people spun up; then a political thread that gets people spun up. An gun thread... you get the idea. Why not have religious, political, ... sub forums. That way all threads are there (or are moved by mods). It is easy to search. People are are interested in that sub topic (pun intended) can find threads they would enjoy reading. Those who don't won't.
There are forums that have strict no politics and no religion rules. They tend to be pretty nice friendly forums to visit. We don't have to allow political or religious threads.
6. Last but not least (then why the hell did I not put it first?) I would like the mods to be more active in enforcing the rules. The mods don't need to brig people. That does not really accomplish much. I would like the mods to either delete or censure offending posts. If I start breaking the rules, either delete my whole post or just the offending lines. That will get the point across far better than posting my offending post and brigging me. The best way to handle trolls is to remove what they seek -- attention.
7. Boobies. This site needs a lot more boobies
https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/sf?f=60294d3cc8c5c721180ae1b760e112ea.jpg&anticache=836390
Rockstar
09-17-14, 06:36 PM
I vote for more Boobies we could definitely use more Boobies.
7. Boobies. This site needs a lot more boobies
https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/sf?f=60294d3cc8c5c721180ae1b760e112ea.jpg&anticache=836390
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0qDW9shiD8
Damn, now I'm off topic...
<O>
Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?
That is the tricky line which the moderators have to walk, and one of the big reasons that I've held back from volunteering because I have a feeling that I'd be a bit too strict.
We've got a list of names that are off limits in the forum censor...including a famous Luftwaffe fighter-bomber (thanks Dowly :haha:), so I see no reason to change that to be honest, Steve does a good job of patrolling for offensive language so that's not a problem.
When it comes down to using perjorative terms, I think it's a Mutually Assured Destruction situation really, for instance we have seen Tarjak call Skybird a bigot, which is partly what inspired this thread, however Skybird has on numerous occasions called those who dispute his Islamic theory naive or foolish, which is the greater insult? :hmmm: The fact is, in the minds of both Skybird and Tarjak both terms are used accurately and as a matter of fact, which is opened to interpretation by all that view this thread. There may be those on this forum who don't view Skybird as a bigot, just as there may be those who don't view those of us who disagree with Skybird as naive fools.
The problem also lies in the fact that by the book neither Tarjak or Skybird have done anything wrong, with exception of perhaps the 'express yourself with respect' part of the rules.
I think that quite possibly the rules and code of conduct for GT and the Subsim forum might need a little overhaul and work to bring up to date with the current situation. Perhaps it would be a good idea to open up a thread, give it some publicity and ask the forum members what they think needs tightening up in the rules, whether perhaps the discussion of politics should be forbidden, or whether name calling of any kind is forbidden, or so on. Jim and Steve will obviously want to chime in to put forward ideas which will make things easier for them to book those who are crossing lines of decency and perhaps we can put forward an updated list of hate groups. I fully agree with the names mentioned on the current one but I think there are some glaring omissions, or perhaps it could be simplified by stating that Subsim does not tolerate racial, religious or sexual persecution or the promotion of such ideologies. That covers a broad spectrum and gives the moderators more lee-way to clamp down on the promotion of hatred in GT which has spawned this discussion. :hmmm:
Sailor Steve
09-17-14, 07:07 PM
And, against my better judgement, and because it's been moved to a different thread...
Habitual again, you really should choose your words better, you know they are not true.
You should avoid absolutes at all costs, it just makes it very easy to prove you wrong.
Fine. Prove me wrong. Give us a link to show where you've ever given a link to prove your claims. I'm curious to see this.
Yeah right
I believe another person recently made a post about why certain members who post crazy Nazi anti jewish stuff which is specificly banned are not banned from the forum.
You believe? Can you give us a link to it?
How is your memory? Not too good it seems.
So are you the person who participated in that topic?
I'm the person who asked that you provide links to prove your claims. I didn't participate in the topic proper.
Are you the person who handed me an infraction for calling the individual a Nazi.
I'm the person who gave you an infraction for insulting another member without bothering to back up your claim and then for making a game out of arguing about it while still refusing to justify your claims. Much like what is going on now.
Was it proven in the topic that the individual really likes that Nazi ideology and hates jews?
No. If it was proven the individual would have been banned. If you want to claim it you'd better be ready to prove it.
As a bonus was it proven in that topic that the person really liked some rather infamous anti semitic literary "masterpieces"?
Good. Show us how it was "proven".
So you think a flat earther cannot be summarily dismissed by the mere reference to established scientific fact, people have to put up a picture:har:
I think he needs to be shown the error of his ways, not mocked at your whim.
If you look above you will see a comment about you using absolutes.
you really should heed it as not doing so proves me right in what I said about you.
You should really provide proof of that. As it stands, it's just your word. It really looks to me like you're playing games again. Again you claim it but you don't bother to even try to show everyone how I'm wrong.
You mean this post....
Unlike you, I linked to the post I meant. It wasn't about city-states and it wasn't about economics. It was about making fun of people without bothering to actually talk about what was said. You continually do this, and have done so for years. You can try to make this about me all you like, but the only time I come in is when you do this to people.
@ Oberon
But wouldn't that sexual persecution put the gay marriage topic on the banned list, what happens next time there is a Republican primary or yet another activist liberal court striking down the ban on it?
Yes it would, and rightly so. All those threads tend to do is create a soap-box for homophobic viewpoints.
Actually would "liberal" be on the list of perjorative terms? a lot of people throw that word around as an insult
Aye, just as Bigot, Nazi and the like gets thrown back in real life and on GT, but if you start cutting down on that then it's hard to know where to stop, I think, personally, that swearing is a good cut off point, beyond that it's just a case of breaking up a circular argument when it's run its course. For example your discussion with Rockstar is pretty much running to the end of its life now, and it would serve no real purpose for either of you if it were to continue in public. If there is a real interest to discuss the finer points of the Qu'ran between the two of you then perhaps it would be better taken to Private Messages? :hmmm:
Armistead
09-17-14, 07:19 PM
Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?
No! I think the rules are good as are.
I think the biggest problem with some terms are those that people make up and refer upon another person as if they said it.
Armistead
09-17-14, 07:46 PM
Already done dear.
You really should avoid those absolutes:har:
Already done, and I told you a while ago in that PM after your last round of nonsense how you would be treated from now on, I gave you a few breaks lately but you have again proven yourself to be what you are.
I fully understand that when you apologised previously for making the same identical baseless accusations you were just spouting empty words with not an iota of honesty in them.
Good day young man.
How's Steve to be treated from now on? What has he proven himself to be this time? I thought Steve was old....
I swear, one would think you're trying to get banned....
Buddahaid
09-17-14, 08:12 PM
I actually think it's been working pretty well although I'm not one of those tasked with monitoring it. One of the things I enjoy most about GT is the discussion over controversial subjects and current events and I'd hate to see that squashed in the name of overt PC. I can't even watch what passes for news these days without feeling I'm being fed a line and played like a fish, and I can care less about who wore what dress and who snubbed who at the gala and who's dated who behind whoever's back which is what the lion share of the news feeds seem to be.
Don't mess with it
overt PC
Oh no...no, no, no, no...no...
All I am asking for is some common decency. Subsim is supposed to be a family friendly forum...so since when has racism, sexism and religious persecution been a family friendly affair?
I would hold as little truck with a radical Islamist posting about how the decadent west is doomed to fall under Islam as I would with those who decry that every Muslim is an extremist.
Now, really, we're living in the 21st century, we're supposed to be better than this, is it too much to ask that each and every human being be treated equally? Is it too much to ask that they be allowed to live without the fear of persecution because of their choice or their upbringing, or even just because of an accident of birth?
Sure, I hear many people saying, but ISIL isn't going to give them that opportunity...no, no they're not, and that is something that we must fight against just as strongly as we fight against any other form of persecution, but you cannot condemn ISIL on one hand, and then make the same fundamental flaws in judgement that they do and expect to be treated differently.
Now, obviously I'm not saying that you do Buddahaid, but there are people who do and they seem to be either unable or unwilling to see the irony in it, and so that's why I think in order to give a level playing field to any discussion here we need to remove religious, sexual or racial prejudices from the table. Humour is one thing, we all had a good chuckle at the 'Arab scud launcher' pic with the camel that went around in the post-9/11 era, just as we have a good chuckle at pictures lampooning ISIL and the like, but we must also be prepared to have the humour used back at us, the rise of the 'Murca meme, or the French surrender epics, however incorrect they may be, we are just as guilty of making the same assumptions against others.
That is one thing, but in a serious discussion such as we promote happening in General Topics (depending on the thread) then rational thinking should be encouraged and emotional outbursts, not banned but controlled. Obviously in the aftermath of an atrocity people are going to be emotional, and that is to be expected, but when this emotional train continues into ingrained hatred...then dangerous things happen.
I'm rambling a bit here, as I sometimes do...but basically, I don't want PC, I don't want jokes to be verboten or anything like that...what I want is for people to stop using General Topics as a vehicle for the promotion of the persecution of an entire people on the basis of their beliefs, just as I would like to stop radical Imams from using British mosques to promote the persecution of an entire people on the basis of their beliefs...honestly, I see little difference between the two.
Sailor Steve
09-17-14, 09:19 PM
Already done dear.
You really should avoid those absolutes:har:
And as always when you can't prove it you fall into insulting language and mockery. But you still can't show it.
Already done, and I told you a while ago in that PM after your last round of nonsense how you would be treated from now on, I gave you a few breaks lately but you have again proven yourself to be what you are.
I fully understand that when you apologised previously for making the same identical baseless accusations you were just spouting empty words with not an iota of honesty in them.
Good day young man.
More mockery and more talk. Still nothing to show. Talk is cheap. Let's see a single proof of anything you say. Don't just claim it, show it.
Flamebatter90
09-17-14, 10:32 PM
Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone? Sub-section, where we put those members who are constantly fighting and pickering. They can't post anywhere else but there (and only they can post there) and can only get out by conceding or calling it a draw. If they keep on pickering after that, both get the banhammer.
I vote that the two first are Sailor Steve and Tribesman.
Basically, what I am calling for is Thunderdome minus Tina Turner's stupid hair.
I vote that the two first are Sailor Steve and Tribesman.
That's the problem with your idea. One already deserves the ban hammer and the other doesn't and never will.
Armistead
09-18-14, 12:12 AM
Sub-section, where we put those members who are constantly fighting and pickering. They can't post anywhere else but there (and only they can post there) and can only get out by conceding or calling it a draw. If they keep on pickering after that, both get the banhammer.
I vote that the two first are Sailor Steve and Tribesman.
Basically, what I am calling for is Thunderdome minus Tina Turner's stupid hair.
http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd457/cp7k1rk/tumblr_ls5orzcGR81qbobg6.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/cp7k1rk/media/tumblr_ls5orzcGR81qbobg6.jpg.html)
Flamebatter90
09-18-14, 03:35 AM
That's the problem with your idea. One already deserves the ban hammer and the other doesn't and never will.
http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd457/cp7k1rk/tumblr_ls5orzcGR81qbobg6.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/cp7k1rk/media/tumblr_ls5orzcGR81qbobg6.jpg.html)
I was not exactly being serious there. :O:
Skybird
09-18-14, 05:23 AM
So, anyway, I moved all the offtopic posts from the ISIS and Ukraine threads here... now, if we can get back on topic.
Exactly! I for one am pretty tolerant of different opinions. And I understand a person is like to let off some steam occasionally. Like ikalugin said: I do not mind sensible replies and even reasonable amounts of burning emotion. After all we are all humans and have limited rationality, as well as access to information and ability to process it.
Where is the line, indeed? Two big factors: who defines where it is, and who interprets each statement and measures it to determine if it is line. And that falls to me, the moderators, and the community. In the past, when we got a person who repeatedly made it clear he was an anti-semite or nazi, enough of the community would voice their disapproval and he was left out of future discussions. But not everyone is going to agree. Personally, I can stand a little more than some people. We've had a couple of avowed commies post here. I need to see a pretty blatant example before I feel compelled to yank someone. For me, I prefer to skip their posts and ignore them. And if that leads to topic spamming to get my attention, then that is sufficient grounds for dismissal.
I also cast a sour look at calling people names: Idiot, racist, liar, fool, sheep, etc. If you want to say Miley Cyrus is a tart, or some rapper is an idiot, that's less bothersome. I believe we should give elected officials a modicum of respect for their office, but they can still be criticized (just less severely than thugs, and Miley Cyrus). :P
Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?
Three things. First, some of us who are around since long, can remember times when things were much worse. Say ten years ago or so.
Second, what is offending a name by the standards of one, is more or is not as offending by the standards of somebody else. I defend my use of terms like "naive" and "foolish, fool", because by the standards of German language they are not at all like calling somebody right to his face that he is an "idiot" - that would be an offence if being done in a personal message. In a more generally, anonymously addressed statement, describing for example the bad behaviour of car drivers in a certain region, or the members of a cult doing some really weird stuff, the term again already is less aggressive again.
And third, not only names can be offending - but behaviour and the way in which you react to somebody elses's reply can be an offence, too. And there I speak by plenty of bad experience of having been at the receiving end of such talks over the past ten years. Suggestive phrasing, manipulative wording, underhanded implications, when you get intentionally misquoted and the quote ripped out of context to make it appear that something else was said and meant than originally was said for sure, when you address what the other demanded you to reply to, and when you did he totally ignores it, when the other tries to make you jump through the burning rings he holds up and wants you to again and again react to his demand and question, but never himself does he take that answers of yours into account bu treats it as if you refuse to answer, or when you gave a reply and see the other turning it in your mouth - that is imo much worse than just calling somebody names, in real life outside virtual, written talks it is the difference between spoken word, and aggressive action. This is the stuff that makes ME angry for sure, and I sometimes then react to it by ignoring it, or cutting things short, or giving a snappy, laconic, sarcastic reply - or telling the other quite frankly what [enterwordhere] I think he is by his shown behaviour. I do not necessarily endlessly honour the cheating behaviour of the other, I do not accept that then I nevertheless should get demanded to honour such tricky behavior by reasonably, endlessly reasonably, always patiently and reaosnably recting ot it again and again and again. We have some specialists for doing like this here, for example the currently only remaining name entry on my ignore list, Tribesman. Haven't read him since years, will never care to read him again. To me he is the worst troll since Akula ten years ago. And last months and years I caredf for him, he was a master of described tactics - and judging by some feedback that sometimes I cannot avoid to snap up, he still is.
I often got and get accused of "walls of text" (one could argue that already is a derogatory term too, couldn't you...), but not rarely these come from replying to somebody else's post sentence by sentence - something that several other people over the years have come to copy (which I do not mean as criticism). regarding offences and attacks conducted not by word choice, but rhetoric and behaviour, moderation sometimes leaves much to be desired, or allows repeated offenders to many months to have their ways. Other people also sometimes overlook that they sometimes fail in trying to maintain precision in expression of what they want to say - when cutting things too short themselves.
I am wondering. Years ago we repeatedly exchanged some emails about forum behaviour, and I complained about things that were worse than what we have now, and I advised you that it might be a good idea to simply ban certain themes like religion or politics, deleting all threads starting such topics. You always decided against such measures and refused moderation like this. Today, things are much less troubled, but you think about tightening moderation. Well, conflicts there are in GT, and probably always will be. Its subsim's rumble pit. It ended the way it is now because of your extremely liberal policies of moderation, and I must say I occasionally thought indeed that moderation set in far too late, and was far too forgiving, allowing quite some personally-aimed rhetorics hurting somebody. Or that an offender got relativized and the victim of his attack got made sharing responsibility, only to give the outcome of moderation a more balanced look. The situation as it is now is what you deserved by your forum policies, Neal. You called for it, and considering that this is the rumble pit for sure, it is not the worst outcome possible - all in all your policies still worked more for the better than for the worse.
So what's the fuzz about now? It has been so much worse in the past, with moderation not reacting at all.
The present debate is much about nothing, I'd say.
HunterICX
09-18-14, 05:26 AM
Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?
One of the ideas I have is ''Thread time outs'', if a thread spirals down into a back and forth between 2 or more of the same members which have A)Nothing to do with the OT, B) Is like a dog chasing it's own tail and gets nowhere or C)where it turns into namecalling and accusations the thread should be locked for 48 Hours untill a 2nd try can be made but if it spirals again then it should be locked again but this time permanently.
---
@Steve and Tribesman, could you please take this over to PM it's really tiring to see this same bickering in public carried over from one thread to the other.
Betonov
09-18-14, 06:59 AM
One of the ideas I have is ''Thread time outs'', if a thread spirals down into a back and forth between 2 or more of the same members which have A)Nothing to do with the OT, B) Is like a dog chasing it's own tail and gets nowhere or C)where it turns into namecalling and accusations the thread should be locked for 48 Hours untill a 2nd try can be made but if it spirals again then it should be locked again but this time permanently.
I second this. (Until I see a black and white flag near Königratz)
I second this. (Until I see a black and white flag near Königratz)
I agree and disagree. The problem with this is that you're then punishing the whole forum readership for the actions of a minority. If two members cannot stop arguing in a circular fashion then they are the ones that need to have a time-out, and thus any normal discussion can continue in the thread.
Betonov
09-18-14, 08:09 AM
Good point.
But, it's the two parties in a circular argument that punish the community in the beginning. Like trying to have a say in an Italian parliament.
the thread is already dead by that point.
Good point.
But, it's the two parties in a circular argument that punish the community in the beginning. Like trying to have a say in an Italian parliament.
the thread is already dead by that point.
True, but take for example the Ukrainian thread, this has seen multiple circular based arguments in it, however it's still a relevant thread because the situation is on going and requires discussion. Likewise the 'Beheaded' thread which is the new de facto ISIL thread, that too has dissolved into the usual circular argument, but it's still an ongoing news story that will no doubt spark discussion in the future.
Betonov
09-18-14, 08:36 AM
Maybe Neal can implement an IP ban to thread system
Maybe Neal can implement an IP ban to thread system
Well, I dunno about going that far, but certainly it would be better if the moderators stepped in when a circular argument had gone on for long enough and ask the two parties involved to take it to PM, and if they ignored him or her then infact them and if they ignored that then brig them.
Armistead
09-18-14, 08:52 AM
We are accepting new members in the bilge. We have our own way of dealing with people there....
Sailor Steve
09-18-14, 09:18 AM
He has proven himself to be what he is again. He is to be treated exactly how one would treat anyone who is an habitual liar, pay no heed to what they say.
But I'm not saying anything. I'm asking a simple question: Can you show it? If you can prove what you claim, do so. If not, then admit you have nothing to offer.
Armistead
09-18-14, 09:18 AM
Well, I dunno about going that far, but certainly it would be better if the moderators stepped in when a circular argument had gone on for long enough and ask the two parties involved to take it to PM, and if they ignored him or her then infact them and if they ignored that then brig them.
I know some forums if two people get fired up they have a debate between the two players in a thread only they can post. Each is allowed an opening, a limited number of remarks/questions and responses and the thread is closed, then deleted after a week or placed in a sub forum.
I really hate to see forum policing get out of control, seems to kill out a forum and then people become wary of numerous topics. I understand the need to avoid racist terms, but are we to become politically correct as in numerous corporate forums?
Honestly, I have the option to ignore or not read many rants. Sometimes I've been accused of not reading a response post, well, if after the 2nd paragraph I see nothing, I generally tend not to read the next 10....
Sailor Steve
09-18-14, 09:31 AM
Pardon?
You accused me of certain behavior. No one else has ever made that claim against me. I asked if you could prove it. If you can, please do so. If not, then stop claiming it.
As to the rest, all I've ever asked of you is to:
A) Stop making fun of people you disagree with, and
B) If you make a claim against anyone or their arguments, back it up. It's the claimant's job to prove what they say, with links and arguments. That's the accepted etiquette and everyone else follows it without too much trouble.
I know some forums if two people get fired up they have a debate between the two players in a thread only they can post. Each is allowed an opening, a limited number of remarks/questions and responses and the thread is closed, then deleted after a week or placed in a sub forum.
That's a possibility, but to be honest it's better taken to PMs, nine times out of ten the people involved won't even bother because they just want to publically involve the person they're arguing with, to try to make them look foolish rather than to actually discuss.
I really hate to see forum policing get out of control, seems to kill out a forum and then people become wary of numerous topics. I understand the need to avoid racist terms, but are we to become politically correct as in numerous corporate forums?
As I have already said, I'm not looking for political correctness, I'm looking for common decency and respect. Respect for people of all religions, sexual orientations and race. Is that really such a bad thing?
Honestly, I have the option to ignore or not read many rants. Sometimes I've been accused of not reading a response post, well, if after the 2nd paragraph I see nothing, I generally tend not to read the next 10....
I've started using the ignore function more and more now, I don't like to do it, but I feel that it's the only way to continue. However it's the lurkers and the newcomers that, as Tarjak put it in the thread that prompted this discussion "the point is not to change the view of the bigoted, but to prevent others from being infected by thier poisonous thinking".
Do we really want this kind of attitude on Subsim? Do we want hate speech? Do we want radicalisation of people to be promoted?
That's the question we need to ask ourselves, and not be sidetracked by the easy to apply label of 'Political correctness' when all that is required is respect and decency towards all people, regardless of their religion, gender, sexual orientation or race.
You accused me of certain behavior. No one else has ever made that claim against me. I asked if you could prove it. If you can, please do so. If not, then stop claiming it.
As to the rest, all I've ever asked of you is to:
A) Stop making fun of people you disagree with, and
B) If you make a claim against anyone or their arguments, back it up. It's the claimant's job to prove what they say, with links and arguments. That's the accepted etiquette and everyone else follows it without too much trouble.
This is getting silly now, both of you please stop or take it to PMs, this is the perfect example of what I think needs to be stopped on GT. You've both had your say, made your points and now you can carry on in private or not at all.
HunterICX
09-18-14, 10:15 AM
True, but take for example the Ukrainian thread, this has seen multiple circular based arguments in it, however it's still a relevant thread because the situation is on going and requires discussion. Likewise the 'Beheaded' thread which is the new de facto ISIL thread, that too has dissolved into the usual circular argument, but it's still an ongoing news story that will no doubt spark discussion in the future.
The Ukrainian thread is doing fine as far I have seen, the circular arguments are short and the thread itselfs moves on I see no problem in that.
The Beheaded thread however spirals into the usual
Islam vs Christianity which is worse arguments going back and forth for pages and the thread gets stuck and imo lost it's purpose to serve to continue the discussion.
Well, I dunno about going that far, but certainly it would be better if the moderators stepped in when a circular argument had gone on for long enough and ask the two parties involved to take it to PM, and if they ignored him or her then infact them and if they ignored that then brig them.
Well then what about the following?
-Lock the thread for 48 hours to serve as a time out and give the moderators plenty of time to see who and what had the thread stray of it's path.
-Hand out ''warnings'' to the members having taken part in the circular arguments to no end.
-Re-open and the first one(s) to stray again to the same path gets an own time out in the brig for 24 hours.
HunterICX
09-18-14, 10:48 AM
Both of you, which part of the request made by me and Oberon didn't you understand?
Take it private, as Oberon already mentioned this is exactly the problem there is in the GT.
Well then what about the following?
-Lock the thread for 48 hours to serve as a time out and give the moderators plenty of time to see who and what had the thread stray of it's path.
-Hand out ''warnings'' to the members having taken part in the circular arguments to no end.
-Re-open and the first one(s) to stray again to the same path gets an own time out in the brig for 24 hours.
That sounds like a fair compromise. :yep:
Sailor Steve
09-18-14, 11:48 AM
Fair enough, and again I apologize. I've copied the last two posts into a new thread here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=215694). I want this to remain public because it's not a private argument but is based on an ongoing situation. I will transfer any further replies there.
Onkel Neal
09-18-14, 01:08 PM
Both of you, which part of the request made by me and Oberon didn't you understand?
Take it private, as Oberon already mentioned this is exactly the problem there is in the GT.
This discussion is why I created this thread :88)
Onkel Neal
09-18-14, 02:23 PM
Man, I love your comments, thanks :salute:
1. The moderators need to be stricter about keeping members on topic. As evidenced, the mods/admin have the capability of taking posts and moving them to other threads. This needs to be done more often.
If someone makes a thread on topic abc then all the posts need to be related (how that is defined) to topic abc. The hijacking of threads on GT is getting a bit too common for my liking.
2. The mods need to be more willing to move posts to other threads that cover the same topic. Far too often someone makes a new thread that discusses the exact same thread we had last week. Move the new thread to the existing thread so the conversation can continue. It also makes searching a bit easier.
You are right, allowing discsussions to go off topic is disruptive. We try to use requests to stay on topic to handle this, instead of moving posts because 1. moving posts is work, time intensive 2. Moving posts can be risky, as in something goes awry and breaks the forum (dont ask me how I know :dead:).
Sometimes, it's ok to let a topic go a little offtopic, ie a humorous aside or two. But yes, when the moderator steps in (or when a member does it) and asks to return to topic, we need to comply.
On the other hand, there are too many threads where the discussion is circular. There comes a point (difficult to define) where a thread discussion has completed. Nothing new is being discussed, nothing new is being added.
4. I don't know what the mods can/should do about this one, but while I am bitchin'... I wish there was some way to limit the private arguing on the public threads. It is becoming more common for a thread to devolve into an argument between two people, each copying walls of text to insert comments so the other person copies walls of text to add comments.
Unfortunately, there are people who simply must have the last word in a conversation. When there is one of those, it is not too bad. On this forum, we have, unfortunately, several people who will not acknowledge that a person can have a different viewpoint without being wrong and must "win" every argument, no matter how many copied walls of text it takes.
You know, when the wall of text posts are made, I just read the first paragraph and move on. Especially when the poster has a rep for this sort of thing. It does not mean he cannot post his thoughts, but I am not obliged to read it all. That's a suggestion for everyone. :03:
5. It has been brought up before and I think it needs discussion. Should we have sub forums in GT? It seems like there are repeating topics that come up every few weeks. A religious thread that gets people spun up; then a political thread that gets people spun up. An gun thread... you get the idea. Why not have religious, political, ... sub forums. That way all threads are there (or are moved by mods). It is easy to search. People are are interested in that sub topic (pun intended) can find threads they would enjoy reading. Those who don't won't.
There are forums that have strict no politics and no religion rules. They tend to be pretty nice friendly forums to visit. We don't have to allow political or religious threads.
I have thought about this, it is a good suggestion. I think what will happen though, is all the conversations will end up in the new subforum for politics and stuff.... I mean, we have a Naval Topics forum for general submarine and naval news and people still post that stuff in GT.
6. Last but not least (then why the hell did I not put it first?) I would like the mods to be more active in enforcing the rules. The mods don't need to brig people. That does not really accomplish much. I would like the mods to either delete or censure offending posts. If I start breaking the rules, either delete my whole post or just the offending lines. That will get the point across far better than posting my offending post and brigging me. The best way to handle trolls is to remove what they seek -- attention.
This is done, but we try to use this power sparingly. HEAR ME ALL PEOPLE! I, Neal Stevens, wishes with all his heart to stay out of other people's posts.:/\\k: Really, I hate to be the censor. It is a last resort. We (moderators and I) will usually ask a member to change his post via PM. We use the infractions and brig only when the member has a track record of ignoring the rules.
Hey, I appreciate your thoughts!:up:
Onkel Neal
09-18-14, 02:42 PM
Sub-section, where we put those members who are constantly fighting and pickering. They can't post anywhere else but there (and only they can post there) and can only get out by conceding or calling it a draw. If they keep on pickering after that, both get the banhammer.
Basically, what I am calling for is Thunderdome minus Tina Turner's stupid hair.
:rotfl2: This is why I still come back to my own forum. :up:
Oh no...no, no, no, no...no...
All I am asking for is some common decency. Subsim is supposed to be a family friendly forum...so since when has racism, sexism and religious persecution been a family friendly affair?
I would hold as little truck with a radical Islamist posting about how the decadent west is doomed to fall under Islam as I would with those who decry that every Muslim is an extremist.
Now, really, we're living in the 21st century, we're supposed to be better than this, is it too much to ask that each and every human being be treated equally? Is it too much to ask that they be allowed to live without the fear of persecution because of their choice or their upbringing, or even just because of an accident of birth?
Sure, I hear many people saying, but ISIL isn't going to give them that opportunity...no, no they're not, and that is something that we must fight against just as strongly as we fight against any other form of persecution, but you cannot condemn ISIL on one hand, and then make the same fundamental flaws in judgement that they do and expect to be treated differently.
Now, obviously I'm not saying that you do Buddahaid, but there are people who do and they seem to be either unable or unwilling to see the irony in it, and so that's why I think in order to give a level playing field to any discussion here we need to remove religious, sexual or racial prejudices from the table. Humour is one thing, we all had a good chuckle at the 'Arab scud launcher' pic with the camel that went around in the post-9/11 era, just as we have a good chuckle at pictures lampooning ISIL and the like, but we must also be prepared to have the humour used back at us, the rise of the 'Murca meme, or the French surrender epics, however incorrect they may be, we are just as guilty of making the same assumptions against others.
That is one thing, but in a serious discussion such as we promote happening in General Topics (depending on the thread) then rational thinking should be encouraged and emotional outbursts, not banned but controlled. Obviously in the aftermath of an atrocity people are going to be emotional, and that is to be expected, but when this emotional train continues into ingrained hatred...then dangerous things happen.
I'm rambling a bit here, as I sometimes do...but basically, I don't want PC, I don't want jokes to be verboten or anything like that...what I want is for people to stop using General Topics as a vehicle for the promotion of the persecution of an entire people on the basis of their beliefs, just as I would like to stop radical Imams from using British mosques to promote the persecution of an entire people on the basis of their beliefs...honestly, I see little difference between the two.
Sorry, I have to break my replies to multiple people into multiple posts. As a truck driver, I only have about an hour a day to go online.
So, what you have said makes sense. It does not ask for a comprehensive list of do's and don'ts, which would never work, but it centers on a few smart specifics.
Yes, when the thread is about Islamists (as they call themselves) hacking the heads off of aid workers and journalists and airing it all over the internet, people are going to be emotional. If they post some generalization about ALL Muslims, or ALL Russkies, or ALL 'muricans, we have the right to contradict them, educate them, and persuade them to be reasonable. Calling someone a bigot is not going to help a damn thing, it's just a lazy ploy to shut someone up, and they will still have the same opinion, only with more anger. As one wise man said, If you feel the larger society rejects you, you reject it back. When a guy as inteligent as you lays out a good, level-headed rebuttal to "kill all the muslims!", that has a decent chance of making an impact on the speaker. I believe this, anyway.
Also, there are some words like bigot and racist that are grossly overused these days. It's like a guy walking into a room of people, and says to you, "Hey, did you ever get taken off the sexual predator list?" Hell, that's bad stuff, it's not funny. These days if you express an opinion that is not in line with the current PC, you are a bigot! You better resign your position, post a pleading apology, grovel. :stare: Ah, no, not me. I try to be reasonable and civil when talking with other people (criminals excepted), and I started this forum 15 years ago with that as a main platform, but I am not PC, just normal.
Onkel Neal
09-18-14, 02:54 PM
Three things. First, some of us who are around since long, can remember times when things were much worse. Say ten years ago or so.
Second, what is offending a name by the standards of one, is more or is not as offending by the standards of somebody else. I defend my use of terms like "naive" and "foolish, fool", because by the standards of German language they are not at all like calling somebody right to his face that he is an "idiot" - that would be an offence if being done in a personal message. In a more generally, anonymously addressed statement, describing for example the bad behaviour of car drivers in a certain region, or the members of a cult doing some really weird stuff, the term again already is less aggressive again.
And third, not only names can be offending - but behaviour and the way in which you react to somebody elses's reply can be an offence, too. And there I speak by plenty of bad experience of having been at the receiving end of such talks over the past ten years. Suggestive phrasing, manipulative wording, underhanded implications, when you get intentionally misquoted and the quote ripped out of context to make it appear that something else was said and meant than originally was said for sure, when you address what the other demanded you to reply to, and when you did he totally ignores it, when the other tries to make you jump through the burning rings he holds up and wants you to again and again react to his demand and question, but never himself does he take that answers of yours into account bu treats it as if you refuse to answer, or when you gave a reply and see the other turning it in your mouth - that is imo much worse than just calling somebody names, in real life outside virtual, written talks it is the difference between spoken word, and aggressive action. This is the stuff that makes ME angry for sure, and I sometimes then react to it by ignoring it, or cutting things short, or giving a snappy, laconic, sarcastic reply - or telling the other quite frankly what [enterwordhere] I think he is by his shown behaviour. I do not necessarily endlessly honour the cheating behaviour of the other, I do not accept that then I nevertheless should get demanded to honour such tricky behavior by reasonably, endlessly reasonably, always patiently and reaosnably recting ot it again and again and again. We have some specialists for doing like this here, for example the currently only remaining name entry on my ignore list, Tribesman. Haven't read him since years, will never care to read him again. To me he is the worst troll since Akula ten years ago. And last months and years I caredf for him, he was a master of described tactics - and judging by some feedback that sometimes I cannot avoid to snap up, he still is.
I often got and get accused of "walls of text" (one could argue that already is a derogatory term too, couldn't you...), but not rarely these come from replying to somebody else's post sentence by sentence - something that several other people over the years have come to copy (which I do not mean as criticism). regarding offences and attacks conducted not by word choice, but rhetoric and behaviour, moderation sometimes leaves much to be desired, or allows repeated offenders to many months to have their ways. Other people also sometimes overlook that they sometimes fail in trying to maintain precision in expression of what they want to say - when cutting things too short themselves.
I am wondering. Years ago we repeatedly exchanged some emails about forum behaviour, and I complained about things that were worse than what we have now, and I advised you that it might be a good idea to simply ban certain themes like religion or politics, deleting all threads starting such topics. You always decided against such measures and refused moderation like this. Today, things are much less troubled, but you think about tightening moderation. Well, conflicts there are in GT, and probably always will be. Its subsim's rumble pit. It ended the way it is now because of your extremely liberal policies of moderation, and I must say I occasionally thought indeed that moderation set in far too late, and was far too forgiving, allowing quite some personally-aimed rhetorics hurting somebody. Or that an offender got relativized and the victim of his attack got made sharing responsibility, only to give the outcome of moderation a more balanced look. The situation as it is now is what you deserved by your forum policies, Neal. You called for it, and considering that this is the rumble pit for sure, it is not the worst outcome possible - all in all your policies still worked more for the better than for the worse.
So what's the fuzz about now? It has been so much worse in the past, with moderation not reacting at all.
The present debate is much about nothing, I'd say.
Eh, I thought you and Tribesman had some recent discussions, how is he on your ignore list?
Yes, you may be right, the current level of disharmony may be caused by the moderation rules I set in place years ago. One thing those rules count on is the cooperation of older members here to set the right tone and help encourage others to stay reasonable. I think that may be where the leaks in this boat are coming from....
Onkel Neal
09-18-14, 02:57 PM
Maybe Neal can implement an IP ban to thread system
No, no, we don't want to go down that road :06:
Well, I dunno about going that far, but certainly it would be better if the moderators stepped in when a circular argument had gone on for long enough and ask the two parties involved to take it to PM, and if they ignored him or her then infact them and if they ignored that then brig them.
How about: if you come to a thread that has devolved into a circular argument, just don't visit it any more? Man, isn't that simple? :know:
Onkel Neal
09-18-14, 03:21 PM
Well the thing there is it has been done in PMs many times already.
With this present baseless claim he makes plus another which he regularly made.
It solves nothing, he will sometimes apologise and sometimes reverse the infraction he gave, but regular as clockwork he will repeat exactly the same lies.
Tribesman, I've asked you not to call Steve a liar, not to call anyone here a liar. Please edit your post.
HunterICX
09-18-14, 03:52 PM
This discussion is why I created this thread :88)
I'm not having a problem they're having a discussion but I have a problem with that what they're having is something that's been carried over from thread to thread and keeps on going and probably never end either.
The same happens to Terrorist threads and topics about Muslims that it turns into a Islam vs Christianty argument cycle that has jumped thread to thread because it's the same thing as they where having a few threads/pages back and serves imo no purpose to the OT.
So yes I could choose to ignore it but if it jumps from thread to thread where some perhaps try to have a normal discussion and they budge in and degraded it to the same cycle argument they where having in the other thread then I should just ignore GT all together? Isn't it a moderators job to keep the discussion as normal, civil and as on the topic as possible without it degrade into that same sh!tsandwhich not everone chooses to take a bite from?
I don't care if they're having that cycle argument but keep that in a single thread..for example that ''Heartless Tories strike again (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=193711)'' thread. All in one thread and isn't spreading all over the GT. Or okay it's still public but what Steve just did with his discussion with Tribesman and put it in it's own thread that's a fair compremise.
At least I can ignore that thread without having to worry if I poke my head into another discussion I'm interest in to take part of that they're having a go there as well about the same thing they had in the other threads.
Skybird
09-18-14, 05:30 PM
Eh, I thought you and Tribesman had some recent discussions, how is he on your ignore list?
Silent like a dead body he is on my ignore list.
Since YEARS.
There was no discussion, and there will be no discussion. Maybe you saw him talking with himself. Ask others on that, I really do not care for what he does, and I wonder why Steve seems to invest energy into it.
Yes, you may be right, the current level of disharmony may be caused by the moderation rules I set in place years ago. One thing those rules count on is the cooperation of older members here to set the right tone and help encourage others to stay reasonable. I think that may be where the leaks in this boat are coming from.... Maybe you mistake leaks that come from accidents, with intentional sabotage. See the above mentioned subject. The latter you cannot tackle with just good will and pedagogics. The problem with reasonable, well-meaning people often is that they simply overestimate the convincing power of reason and its power to make a change. You do that with your pedagofic approach maybe. And maybe I do it with my belief that if I explain something long enough, I will convince the other. And it seems we both must see that we are overestimating of what can be achieved that way. :) But the habits, oh those habits... they stick with us like our shadows.
For myself, I came to doing like this: that when I find myself deadlocked with somebody, I try a bit to convince him, but then stop the discussion from my side on day two or three. Any returning fire still coming in after that time, is at my cost - I cannot help that. Some people realise that and act with selfrestraint of their own, if they only were about their opinion indeed, but had no destructive, personally hostile mindset from beginning on. Thats why me and these people nevertheless can still talk with each other - whether we always want that, is something different. Others refuse to do so, and use the cheap opportunity to home in as many hits as they can, and after that start sniping at the subject at any later opportunities long after the thread went down on the list, again and again and again. That also qualifies as trolling, imo. Against trolls, warnings do not help, and hopes do not help - only termination of their right to access the forum.
Betonov
09-19-14, 01:36 AM
How about: if you come to a thread that has devolved into a circular argument, just don't visit it any more? Man, isn't that simple? :know:
Impossible, it's like driving past a car accident. You have to look
u crank
09-19-14, 05:45 AM
Impossible, it's like driving past a car accident. You have to look
Agreed. That is why I have never used the ignore feature. I'm too curious or nosy although I admit that when it comes to 'wall of text' posts I seldom read the whole thing unless it can hold my attention.
@ Neal. Good thread. Nice to know what other members think. For me this forum is in some ways like real life. Personal integrity is important even though most of us have anonymous forum personalities. Maybe it's my generation, (old), but that is important to me. Out of respect for other members and the administration I can only act as if it were an 'in person' interaction. I judge others by what they say and how they say it. I assume they do the same for what I say.
I like a good debate and I would not want it to be restricted beyond what current forum rules dictate. General Topics can be a battle ground and it's not for everybody. Personally I have become interested in a number of subjects because of GT and have learned a few things. How about that? You can teach an old dog...:O:
Jimbuna
09-19-14, 05:56 AM
A bit late coming in here but there was the matter of the Scottish referendum vote to oversee last night....
I see some good and valid points raised in the previous page or so of threads and I'll readily admit I've spoken privately to both Neal and Steve on the general issues raised hereabouts so if I may I'll make my position clear for the benefit of not only myself but all of our community who post on GT.
Forgive me if I sound utopian but my fundamental wish is that all contributors here show a modicum of respect toward one another. There is nothing wrong in disagreeing with anothers viewpoint in a debate provided it does not resort to insults and or name calling. There are far better adult and acceptable ways to make ones point.
If you receive a PM from a moderator or see a cautionary post in the thread ask yourself 'why the need'? because myself personally am far happier simply watching the thread go about its business than having to go to the trouble of posting said messages.
I also restrain myself from getting involved in posts that turn contentious because that would limit my ability to intercede at a later juncture....but believe me when I say I READ EVERY POST IN GT.
As a last resort there is always the infraction and brigging route but by the time that point is reached I try to ensure sufficient cause has been established...not only does one have to be right but they should also be seen to be right.
Right, enough from me...fair winds and following seas to all in our community.
Onkel Neal
09-19-14, 08:25 AM
Impossible, it's like driving past a car accident. You have to look
Haha, then don't get mad at me, and don't make one of those "Another Subsim GT thread goes down in flames" posts :) (not that you do this, but some people do) as if "Subsim" created the human race and raised it.
Hmmm.... notes for a new project....:hmmm:
Agreed. That is why I have never used the ignore feature. I'm too curious or nosy although I admit that when it comes to 'wall of text' posts I seldom read the whole thing unless it can hold my attention.
@ Neal. Good thread. Nice to know what other members think. For me this forum is in some ways like real life. Personal integrity is important even though most of us have anonymous forum personalities. Maybe it's my generation, (old), but that is important to me. Out of respect for other members and the administration I can only act as if it were an 'in person' interaction. I judge others by what they say and how they say it. I assume they do the same for what I say.
I like a good debate and I would not want it to be restricted beyond what current forum rules dictate. General Topics can be a battle ground and it's not for everybody. Personally I have become interested in a number of subjects because of GT and have learned a few things. How about that? You can teach an old dog...:O:
Yeah, I agree. I have learned from others too. There are several members who have made impressions on my outlook and thinking.:yep: Usually, the people who try the hardest to convince everyone that they know the truth or the only way to look at something, these guys are the easiest to ignore. It ceases to be a discussion and becomes a lecture, mostly for validation. Not much value there.
A bit late coming in here but there was the matter of the Scottish referendum vote to oversee last night....
I see some good and valid points raised in the previous page or so of threads and I'll readily admit I've spoken privately to both Neal and Steve on the general issues raised hereabouts so if I may I'll make my position clear for the benefit of not only myself but all of our community who post on GT.
Forgive me if I sound utopian but my fundamental wish is that all contributors here show a modicum of respect toward one another. There is nothing wrong in disagreeing with anothers viewpoint in a debate provided it does not resort to insults and or name calling. There are far better adult and acceptable ways to make ones point.
If you receive a PM from a moderator or see a cautionary post in the thread ask yourself 'why the need'? because myself personally am far happier simply watching the thread go about its business than having to go to the trouble of posting said messages.
I also restrain myself from getting involved in posts that turn contentious because that would limit my ability to intercede at a later juncture....but believe me when I say I READ EVERY POST IN GT.
As a last resort there is always the infraction and brigging route but by the time that point is reached I try to ensure sufficient cause has been established...not only does one have to be right but they should also be seen to be right.
Right, enough from me...fair winds and following seas to all in our community.
Thank you, Jim, you are a sterling moderator. I shudder to think what this place would be like without you.:huh:
Jimbuna
09-19-14, 09:03 AM
Flattery................will get you everywhere :oops::)
Betonov
09-19-14, 10:29 AM
Haha, then don't get mad at me, and don't make one of those "Another Subsim GT thread goes down in flames" posts :) (not that you do this, but some people do) as if "Subsim" created the human race and raised it.
Me mad at you ??
You're a truck driver from Texas. In a fight you'd knock me out, shoot me, run me over until I'm nice and tender and then put me in a BBQ for a few hours.
Tchocky
09-19-14, 11:06 AM
I've always thought that threads like this make things worse. Road to hell being paved with "why don't we try being nice to each other" leaflets, etc.
Nothing against your intentions, Neal, but look at what's going on the the spinoff to this thread. Usual cast of characters yelling past each other. I enjoy reading both Tribes and Sailor Steve most of the time, this one is just hard to watch.
Those who will say stupid things, will say them. Those who counter will counter. Mods will reap the harvest and we'll all sail off into the "let's have a chat about GT" sunset together, dreaming of a new start.
Pigs will not ready their crash helmets and nobody in Hell will stockpile snowshoes.
EDIT - Just noticed I missed my decade on the boards anniversary. Bollocks anyway.
Me mad at you ??
You're a truck driver from Texas. In a fight you'd knock me out, shoot me, run me over until I'm nice and tender and then put me in a BBQ for a few hours.
Well, in Texas that's only a citable misdemeanor...
<O>
Onkel Neal
09-19-14, 06:23 PM
And abuse of BBQ
Sailor Steve
09-19-14, 06:24 PM
Well, in Texas that's only a citable misdemeanor...
If you invite the right people it'll get you a commendation. :sunny:
Armistead
09-19-14, 10:10 PM
That's a good point.
Another good point, so if an action taken by a moderator results in other people posting stuff like what the hell was that infraction given to him for, is it indicative that it is not being seen as being right?
But back to that first point, this comment is made by someone in this topic
One already deserves the ban hammer and the other doesn't and never will.
Recently there was this little bit of a hoohah where a moderator wanted to ban the person who made that post because they considered them nothing but a troll.
They had disagreed with each other in many topics and quite a few insults were thrown both ways.
I think that person suggested that moderators should not participate in topics or they should have a separate account where they could participate in topics, or they should participate in topics but bar themselves from doing any moderation in those topics.
None of which is really practical but it does kind of illustrate the problem with moderation.
Plus of course it illustrates that what one person sees as a troll who should be banned may well be seen by others as being a troll who should be banned themselves.
How bout you let us put it to a vote, loser is banned?
nikimcbee
09-20-14, 02:42 AM
And abuse of BBQ
:hmmm::hmmm:hmm, BBQed Slovenian? Sounds intriguing. What kind of beer goes with that?
Jimbuna
09-20-14, 06:18 AM
:hmmm::hmmm:hmm, BBQed Slovenian? Sounds intriguing. What kind of beer goes with that?
Forget the beer, try the Slovenian mead schnappe....I dare you :know:
http://s25.postimg.org/3ndk4qltb/IMAG0228.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
Betonov
09-20-14, 07:09 AM
:hmmm::hmmm:hmm, BBQed Slovenian? Sounds intriguing. What kind of beer goes with that?
If you season me with Slovene pi... brew, I will come back and haunt you :stare:
nikimcbee
09-20-14, 02:00 PM
Everybody quiet, Betonov is here... Go fetch the BBQ sauce.
Question. Do you think we should use mesquite or applewood wood chips?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbiE4fwr8fU
nikimcbee
09-20-14, 02:04 PM
If you season me with Slovene pi... brew, I will come back and haunt you :stare:
http://www.jumpinjoker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/286f4__2011062406330571d358f159a3e48e39616c2fef761 c71.jpg
http://s25.postimg.org/3ndk4qltb/IMAG0228.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
LMAO, that is how side discussions should be like:salute:
LMAO, that is how side discussions should be like:salute:
Well, he was definitely sideways at the time... :haha:
Jimbuna
09-21-14, 06:29 AM
LMAO, that is how side discussions should be like:salute:
Well, he was definitely sideways at the time... :haha:
Aye....happy memories :cool:
Aktungbby
05-20-24, 08:07 PM
Gadzooks! Ten years later, Tarjac, Oberon, Betenov, Tribesman and Wolferz are gone; Sailor Steve is on eternal patrol, and Jimbuna has fled to Mexico...and the situation reguarding Islam and it's tenets, constantly referenced in this thread, has altered considerably for the worse!??:hmmm::yep::shucks:
Otto Harkaman
05-20-24, 08:37 PM
It’s a testament to the passage of time and the transient nature of human memory.
Jimbuna
05-29-24, 01:47 PM
Gadzooks! Ten years later, Tarjac, Oberon, Betenov, Tribesman and Wolferz are gone; Sailor Steve is on eternal patrol, and Jimbuna has fled to Mexico...and the situation reguarding Islam and it's tenets, constantly referenced in this thread, has altered considerably for the worse!??:hmmm::yep::shucks:
Well, I'm back now and still remain in touch with three of those mentioned above.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.