Side discussion about General Topics forum

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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
Did I respond to it
Did I quote additional material to support what I wrote
Calling someone a Nazi isn't calling names, its a description of a rather disgusting political ideology.
....
Already proven
.....
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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So in essence to deal thoroughly, absolutely and in detail with your claim the answer should be...
Errrrrr...no
Though maybe as it is such an obvious, Errrrr...no, a few more 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.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

So, anyway, I moved all the offtopic posts from the ISIS and Ukraine threads here... now, if we can get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Oberon

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?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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

[Rockstar]

I vote for more Boobies we could definitely use more Boobies.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

7. Boobies. This site needs a lot more boobies

Damn, now I'm off topic...


<O>

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

@ 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?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Already done dear.
You really should avoid those absolutes


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]

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Already done dear.
You really should avoid those absolutes

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.

[Onkel Neal]

Man, I love your comments, thanks

Originally Posted by Platapus

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 ).

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.

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

Originally Posted by Platapus

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. 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!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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 ), 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? 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.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.

[Flamebatter90]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.