complaint about US Politics moderating

metrovelvet

This is specifically a complaint about Guan Yin and how he moderates the politics forum.

I have been posting from time to time on the US politics forum .

To my surprise I received an "infraction" from Guan Yin under the reason "breach of peace". I had playfully referred to the Obama/Biden camp as Obama bin Baden. It was a cheap pun, no one seemed to take any notice of it and the conversation continued. Breach of Peace? How? When no cententious dialogue or arguments were caused by it. Guan Yin then claimed in a pm to me that it was bigoted if not a racist remark. This accusation is still not something I am quite clear on: Osama bin Laden is Arab, Barack Obama is half black, half white and Biden is white. How could this play on names possibly be construed as racist? I tried to explain to him the comment implicit in the pun on the democratic "soft" attitude to terrorists and pointed out that I had provided a link to an Irish Times article were Jean Kennedy Smith sang Clinton's praises for giving Gerry Adams a visa, all three people are white. Racist? Breach of Peace? If you say so.....

So... some days later a thread [http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055392411]is started about Palin's comments about Obama's links to terrorists [Ayers] and the conversation meandered into one about one campaign making negative spins on the other. I illustrated how the democrats were quite capable of destroying things for themselves without help from the republicans and posted a link to an article in the Asia Times which quotes Michelle Obama saying demotive things about her husband. Guan Yin then decides that I was saying that Obama is a bad husband, whereas my point was the democratic party will throw their own campaign under a bus with comments like this. Guan Yin accused me of bringing "tabloid" [I wont even comment on the elitist snobbery in this comment] onto the boards. It's news to me that the Asia Times, which quoted the New York Times, is tabloid, and nowhere is there a boards list of media that is permissable to reference on threads.

In same thread, in his last post to me he says that if I post again off topic I will be banned. But before I had a chance to obey the threat he banned me via pm from US politics for seven days. Reason given: going off topic and questioning a decision by a moderator.

In my pm back to him I pointed out that 1. he had not yet made a decision and 2. He was the one who went off topic, not me. As a result of this pm he then decided that when I was ready to calm down and obey the rules he would unban me. I DIDNT BREAK ANY RULES. I told him to **** himself and that he was a moron, so he banned me for good from both US politics and the general politics forum. I later apologised for this, with reflection I realised that what I hear people shouting of their cars in midtown traffic is considered abuse by the rest of the world.

Let me illustrate again Guan Yin broke the rules, I didn't.

1.He posted off topic, not me.

2.He also broke the charter:

"Moderators will not moderate anything which is directed at themselves. The issue will be taken up with the individual via PM, reported to another moderator of the forum and/or taken to the Admins to be dealt with."

3. Guan Yin is the one causing tensions with his big brother interference, his refusal to tolerate different opinions and viewpoints and his troublemaking. He is the one BREACHING THE PEACE

I would strongly advise that you remove him as a moderator or you start another political fora for alternative politics where a diversity of viewpoints is not only tolerated but encouraged. Otherwise you will end up with a very boring and conformist forum.

Time Magazine

GuanYin is a complete fraud of a mod. I even heard "he" has a vagina.

Overheal

I pretty much glazed over your in-thread argument with Guan Yin and others but to say the least you really handed over your ball sack when you attacked the moderator via PM. I'll have a re-read anyway as I was in the neighborhood.

edit: ah yes, as I recall Michelle Obama made some in-jest remarks about her husband not being able to butter his own toast and you took it way too literally and tried to insinuate that buttering toast is an essential skill for a Commander in Chief to have:

"Don't bet on it, not with Michelle Obama around publically bitch slapping her husband."

Then you mistook some remarks about McCain not making his own bed either to mean McCain was incapable of making a bed (not the case - he simply hires a maid for each of his 8 homes, I'm sure. At least he's fighting the unemployment rate.)

So after countering your poorly constructed argument by citing John McCain's first wife (zing) Guan Yin told you that "twisting an innocuous interview into something negative is readily equatable to the spurious conclusions I drew on McCain above. It doesn't need to be discussed, its an axiom." - in Mod talk, this is shut up and get back on topic.

Not willing to let the matter drop,

"Well then [if you're the mod] you should be more equitable and responsible. Or there should be a job desription as part of the sticky that declares what is considered tabloid and what isn't and what is permitted to be referenced and what isn't."

After that you got your final in-thread warning and at that point we lost sight of you because apparently you got your ass banned. gg

No sympathy from me: I think the mods are surprisingly flexible in the US forum (we're keeping it after the election right? Cant we just call it US Politics?)

Jesus Wept

The Economist wrote: »

GuanYin is a complete fraud of a mod. I even heard "he" has a vagina.

I heard it's sandy.

metrovelvet

let me be clear. I do not want your sympathy overheal. This is a complaint;not an appeal. When and if Guan Yin is removed either voluntarily or by admins then I will appeal. Until then, I am not interested in the politics forum unless an alternative politics forum [where he is banned from moderating] is created. Until then, the current politics forum will remain an insipid, uninspired place to talk and read. With maybe 3 exceptions what do I read there? The same perspective over and over and over and over again.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Overheal wrote: »

\

edit: ah yes, as I recall Michelle Obama made some in-jest remarks about her husband not being able to butter his own toast and you took it way too literally and tried to insinuate that buttering toast is an essential skill for a Commander in Chief to have:

"Don't bet on it, not with Michelle Obama around publically bitch slapping her husband."

No. That is not what I did. What I did was point to an article which pointed out the remarks Michelle Obama was making about her husband, demotive remarks.

I never said making the bed and buttering toast were essential skills, that was not my point at all, but GUan Yin tried to make it out that was my point. Hey you pay peanuts you get monkeys, you pay nothing, you get Guan Yin.

And even if I did make a negative conclusion about remarks,innocuous or not [which is a subjective judgement], where does it say in the charter you can't do that?

nouveau_4.0

If recieving an infraction from the US politics board is the biggest problem you have in life your doing well. Chill out in AH tillits over my friend

Overheal

It falls under soap-boxing rules if I have my head on straight, but Im kinda fighting a stomach bug at the moment thats making me a bit antsy.

Topics should not be verbatim quotes from some article sans comment. Add a comment before or after the post, offering your opinion on the subject, or at the very least, your reason for adding the topic.

Please remeber that we are neither a news channel nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it.

Either way I think it was reasonable to presume from your post that is what you were insinuating, claiming that Michelle bitch slapped her husband and posted some quotes that on paper make Obama seem less than perfect.

specifically, she merely commented that considering the comments as negativity was [url=Topics should not be verbatim quotes from some article sans comment. Add a comment before or after the post, offering your opinion on the subject, or at the very least, your reason for adding the topic.

Please remeber that we are neither a news channel nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it.]"ridiculous"[/url]. She never put words in your mouth.

it was YOU that went on to make it about incompetency, sir:

metrovelvet wrote: »

You mean "my husband is as incompetant as yours."

before you brought that into the discussion nobody was trying to say you were calling him incompetent: we only thought it silly that you considered the comments to be negative. Thats about the time your mole hill made a move for globalisation.

ultimately, Guan Yin was discussing the matter with you and giving you chances to respond. Its only after Guan constructed a detailed counter argument that you played the Lawyer-Card and mouthed off to a moderator to boot:

I would like to reply to this but it would be off topic. Can you suggest where we can continue this? Because it has strayed from the point being that the Obama camp will do there own sabatoage to their own campaign. You have brought the discussion to two different places: one being about who can honor contracts and the other one being about bringing tabloid to the boards, where in fact Michelle's quote was taken from the NY Times. [I don''t believe there is a list of media that boards prohibits from posters referencing.}

And who are you to decide what is said intelligently when there is so much idiocy posted on this board. I guess it's only the idiocy you agree with that is ok with you.

edit:

I do not want your sympathy overheal.

I was giving you sympathy?

This is a complaint;not an appeal. When and if Guan Yin is removed either voluntarily or by admins then I will appeal. Until then, I am not interested in the politics forum unless an alternative politics forum [where he is banned from moderating] is created. Until then, the current politics forum will remain an insipid, uninspired place to talk and read. With maybe 3 exceptions what do I read there? The same perspective over and over and over and over

So long we hardly knew ye. 4 more years of GuanYin! You should add OscarBravo to your hitlist though - a politics complaint thread just doesnt feel right unless someone is attacking OscarBravo

GuanYin

I warned you about introducing underhanded comments into discussions (such as the Obama Bin Biden comment) and explained I considered it trolling.

You continued and in a thread I (as the only active mod of politics at the time) tried to reason with you in the thread but made it clear what was acceptable.

You continued to argue with my moderating and even attempted to flamebait. I banned you for posting off topic and arguing with the moderation instructions in the thread. I then offered you an olive branch and said you would be unbanned as soon as you accepted the ground rules on respectful discussion of the candidates.

You responded by posting an EXTREMELY abusive PM which I will happily post if you allow it.

As a result you're perm banned from politics.

Regarding my moderating of the forum. I am equally strict on Obama supporters as McCain, as I'm sure the forum regulars will attest.

Ludo

The modding in US Politics forum is gone too far and for no reason. There has been absolutely no arguments in recent times or forum charter violations and suddenly commenting on posts from blogs and other non-MSM news sources is banned.

In fact the discussions on the forum have all been very good natured and open considering the topics involved so the clampdown is completely pointless and smacks of "elitism" and biased modding.

In fact to show the bias in these new rules, see the comment in the new rules thread:
"The daily show is satire and not a political source, a news source nor motivated blog."
Now, I love the daily show and watch it every day it is on..but it is actually the equivalent of a motivated blog. He picks the stories that make his views look good and ridicule the other side.

I have had a pointless discussion with Guanyin about this when he locked the Track Palin thread. These blog and non-MSM stories ARE valid discussion topics when related to the US presidential election as they DO play a part in the process. Now we are not allowed discuss them because a mod disagrees with them on principle. In a "dirty" election is seems stupid to have a forum about it which cannot talk about the tactics and stories being used by both sides.

What are we allowed discuss? Reports only from the MSM...they are just as bad. Does Fox News count as a valid source of news? If so, I for one disagree with that. Some of the stuff there is worse than any blog.

Caoimhín

metrovelvet wrote: »

I told him to **** himself and that he was a moron, so he banned me for good from both US politics and the general politics forum.

Theres your problem my friend.

There is NEVER an excuse to resort to sending abusive private messages. All you succeeded in doing is belittling yourself.

Losing your head and being abusive then expecting to be forgiven when you calm down is a bit childish to say the least.

Gordon

Complaints noted metrovelvet, thanks for your feedback.

Lafortezza

Stuff like this is why the politics forum is a good read and has an excellent signal to noise ratio imo.

GuanYin

Ludo wrote: »

In a "dirty" election is seems stupid to have a forum about it which cannot talk about the tactics and stories being used by both sides..

Noone says you can't discuss the tactics and stories being used by both sides.

What you can't do, is make up stories and rumors and start threads as if they're real issues.

metrovelvet

GuanYin wrote: »

I warned you about introducing underhanded comments into discussions (such as the Obama Bin Biden comment) and explained I considered it trolling.

You called it a breach of peace/bigoted if not racist. Whatever about the warning and what you consider to be trolling, I do not consider my later post to be an "underhanded comment." You do.

GuanYin wrote: »

You continued to argue with my moderating and even attempted to flamebait. I banned you for posting off topic and arguing with the moderation instructions in the thread. I then offered you an olive branch and said you would be unbanned as soon as you accepted the ground rules on respectful discussion of the candidates.

Ah. Herein lies the problem. You asked me to accept ground rules, which is what I had been doing, at least according to the charter. I did not break any charter rules, just the rules you make up ad lib. This is where your modding gets unworkable. You cant make up rules as you feel like it while also breaking charter rules yourself

GuanYin wrote: »

You responded by posting an EXTREMELY abusive PM which I will happily post if you allow it.

Feel free to post it. I have already been very straight forward about what I said. "Go **** yourself. You are a moron." Why did I do this? To give you a real reason to ban me, I may as well get my money's worth. If Im going to pay a price, I may as well get something for it, and not pay for what I consider to be unjustifiable causes.

Ludo

GuanYin wrote: »

Noone says you can't discuss the tactics and stories being used by both sides.

What you can't do, is make up stories and rumors and start threads as if they're real issues.

Well the Track Palin story was not made up by the topic starter in the forum. But it got locked as one of the mods found it unworthy. Why? It did not break forum charter and was a rumour that is out there and being discussed...I had heard about it weeks before it appeared here. People out there do actually believe some of this crap so it is a real issue in the election and as such should merit inclusion in any US Election forum. Just coz mods find it beneath their intellectual level (make baby jebus weep comment) should not result in locking of threads.

What is the harm in talking about rediculous stories here an debunking them (see the Osama bin biden thread..shown as a fake).

metrovelvet

caoibhin wrote: »

Theres your problem my friend.

There is NEVER an excuse to resort to sending abusive private messages. All you succeeded in doing is belittling yourself.

Losing your head and being abusive then expecting to be forgiven when you calm down is a bit childish to say the least.

Who's expecting to be forgiven? I assume by forgiven, you mean having the ban lifted. I have no interest in this while GuanYin remains a moderator. The forum will remain anemic.

GuanYin

metrovelvet wrote: »

You called it a breach of peace/bigoted if not racist. Whatever about the warning and what you consider to be trolling, I do not consider my later post to be an "underhanded comment." You do.

Maybe you meant it as a joke, however it is almost exclusively used here by biggots who wantto link Obama's past and skin color to islam and terrorism.

It is a phrase designed to provoke hate, it offers nothing to political discussion and it is childish and idiotic.

Either way, the warning is valid.

Ah. Herein lies the problem. You asked me to accept ground rules, which is what I had been doing, at least according to the charter. I did not break any charter rules, just the rules you make up ad lib. This is where your modding gets unworkable. You cant make up rules as you feel like it while also breaking charter rules yourself

Charters are a guideline, they are not set in stone. The mods cannot conceive charters to cover every possible situation and often "ad lib".

Regarding the charter on self moderation, that is referring to abuse or insults or heated discussion. My point of discussion with you was always one of moderation, thus your banning was a follow-up to my warning and explanation not being heeded.

Either way, what you did is academic after your PM.

Feel free to post it. I have already been very straight forward about what I said. "Go **** yourself. You are a moron." Why did I do this? To give you a real reason to ban me, I may as well get my money's worth. If Im going to pay a price, I may as well get something for it, and not pay for what I consider to be unjustifiable causes.

No you're contradicting yourself.

You specifically said before that the insult was not intentional:

NOTE: PERMISSION TO POST PMs was GRANTED.

metrovelvet wrote:

Hi Lynn,

I want to apologise for telling you to **** yourself and that you are a moron. I got very frustrated with your cynicism and being from New York City I forget that what we consider everyday language here, the rest of the world finds abusive. I should be more sensitive and aware of that.

Thank you for your consideration.

You alluded to this above.

Now you are saying that you did it on purpose to get banned and get "your money's worth". So which is it?

Do you just make stuff up as you go along or do you have a plan.

GuanYin wrote:

I'll tell you what.

When you're ready to calm down, accept moderation and agree to listen to moderation in future, I'll unban you from Politics immediately.

While you continue to argue every point and not listen to what you're told, you'll stay banned.

The power is yours.

metrovelvet wrote:

You broke the charter, not me. From the Politics Charter. Now go **** yourself you moron.
"
Moderators will not moderate anything which is directed at themselves. The issue will be taken up with the individual via PM, reported to another moderator of the forum and/or taken to the Admins to be dealt with."

I'm not sure at what point you can claim moral ground here.

metrovelvet

Right. That was my initial thinking behind my abusive pm but on reflection I had realised it was inappropriate.

No, the insult was intentional, but I hadn't classified it as abusive. When you labelled it abusive, I had to consider that I have become desensitised to strong language and it may have had more impact on landing than I had intended.

[QUOTE/GuanYin]
It is a phrase designed to provoke hate, it offers nothing to political discussion and it is childish and idiotic.[/QUOTE]

And I hate to tell you this.... but your modding style does this also.

[QUOTE/GuanYin]
Charters are a guideline, they are not set in stone. The mods cannot conceive charters to cover every possible situation and often "ad lib".[/QUOTE]

Well, how the hell is anyone going to able to write anything without ESP and a crystal ball?

Look, I have apologised for my pm to you and I stand by it. It was an over reaction and inappropriate. I am not asking for the ban to be lifted unless you are not modding because no one can have conversations under these conditions. There are only a few weeks left to the election and it would be nice to participate in the US politics board, but seriously you take all the value and possibility out of it with improvisational guidelines and regulation. Live and let live GuanYin.

Overheal

Ludo wrote: »

Well the Track Palin story was not made up by the topic starter in the forum. But it got locked as one of the mods found it unworthy. Why? It did not break forum charter and was a rumour that is out there and being discussed...I had heard about it weeks before it appeared here. People out there do actually believe some of this crap so it is a real issue in the election and as such should merit inclusion in any US Election forum. Just coz mods find it beneath their intellectual level (make baby jebus weep comment) should not result in locking of threads.

What is the harm in talking about rediculous stories here an debunking them (see the Osama bin biden thread..shown as a fake).

The Track Palin was locked by OscarBravo (yay now you're involved - we've got a politics thread now!) after I called Shenannigans: The rumour implied that Track Palin was enlisted in the military to serve as punishment for dealing in narcotics.

I can assure you, the military does NOT service as a prison alternative, and a history of drug use (especially dealing) is one of the biggest single disqualifiers to military service. Military service is regarded as a priveledge and a responsibility; not a right.

United States Military Enlistment Standards Part 1
United States Military Enlistment Standards Part 2

The thread was a fabrication based on a misinformed rumour (probably at no fault to the OP), and was summarily locked. You can consider that rumour smashed, anyway.

metrovelvet wrote:

Look, I have apologised for my pm to you and I stand by it. It was an over reaction and inappropriate.

...

I am not asking for the ban to be lifted unless you are not modding because no one can have conversations under these conditions.

♪ One of these ones is not like the other... ♫

Ludo

Overheal wrote: »

I can assure you, the military does NOT service as a prison alternative, and a history of drug use (especially dealing) is one of the biggest single disqualifiers to military service. Military service is regarded as a priveledge and a responsibility; not a right.

I agree with you Overheal...you gave a very strong argument as to why it isn't true...but can you say with 100% certainty that in no small town in the USA, a deal isn't struck between police and a family that a person will face further action unless he basically gets out of town and joins the army. The parents may even fully support the police with this to get some discipline into their kid. There would be no official record of this so how would the army know and stop it. Some locals may very well be aware of the situation though.

Now, I am not saying the rumour is true by any means. My point is that threads should not be summarily locked at the whim of a mod when he thinks it is not worthy/intellectualy stimulating/interesting to him/etc/etc when it does not breach forum rules. It should remain unless there is a clear need to close it for breach of charter.

Then just because another thread appears which a mod does not like, but is relevant, the rules get changed. That is not a forum. That is a personal playground where the mod can take the ball home when he doesn't like the game anymore.

Overheal

well he could have lied on his enlistment application but the charges would be a matter of public record. He might get as far as basic training but by the end of the first month they will have completed any background checks and that will have popped right up

I can see the point though: I could have easilly smashed that thread without modly intervention. Manic Moran helped too

GuanYin

Actually the rumors suggest Track Palin was charged with vandalism of a school bus and does not have a drugs conviction, but that is for another forum.

Ludo

erm...which forum? not here obviously...but also not US politics due to the thread locking and new rules?

GuanYin

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. That was my initial thinking behind my abusive pm but on reflection I had realised it was inappropriate.

No, the insult was intentional, but I hadn't classified it as abusive. When you labelled it abusive, I had to consider that I have become desensitised to strong language and it may have had more impact on landing than I had intended.

It had zero impact other than making your ban permanent.

And I hate to tell you this.... but your modding style does this also.

If this is true, you should seek professional help.

Well, how the hell is anyone going to able to write anything without ESP and a crystal ball?

They can't. Thats why mods exist to intervene.

I intervened, you decided not to listen to me and you got banned.

Where is your problem understanding this.

Look, I have apologised for my pm to you and I stand by it. It was an over reaction and inappropriate. I am not asking for the ban to be lifted unless you are not modding because no one can have conversations under these conditions. There are only a few weeks left to the election and it would be nice to participate in the US politics board, but seriously you take all the value and possibility out of it with improvisational guidelines and regulation. Live and let live GuanYin.

I don't accept your apology, you won't be unbanned regardless of whether you want to be or not and you will also remained banned from the US politics board after the election.

Thats where the matter ends as far as I'm concerned.

In addition, I'd personally advise against sending personal abuse to moderators in response to their moderation PMs, I would have been well within my rights to request you be site banned from boards.ie over your PM.

Also, as a general rule, if a moderator give you an instruction here, you're wiser to follow it and complain rather than ignore it, disrupt the thread fighting it, abuse the moderator and then try and make some sort of feedback like you have an inch of moral ground. It just doesn't wash as well that way.

GuanYin

Ludo wrote: »

erm...which forum? not here obviously...but also not US politics due to the thread locking and new rules?

An intelligent and informed discussion is always welcomed. The only two threads locked were effectively:

"FACT: Palin's son is being sent to war because hes a drug dealer"

and

"All Palin-McCain fans are morons"

I'm not exactly sure why people think these are valid discussion threads in a politics forum.

metrovelvet

Thats fine GUanYin. You are within your rights not to accept it, but I did not apologise so I could get unbanned. Unlike many, I dont use apologies to keep the game going.

Your latest RULES are just more censorship. Basically people can only post what you want them to post.

While we're at it; let's take a look at some of them in comparison's with bonkey's charter. There are some direct conflicts.

Bonkey - under the heading civility
"Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not. "

GuanYin
"Posts that are wildly insulting to either groups of supporters, posts that are unfounded or inaccurate or attempts to portray candidates in a way that generates hate will result in an immediate banning."

So they are insulting because you say they are. The "Are the people who watch Fox News idiots" thread is still there. That hasn't been pulled. Some people could be offended by that, reading it with their hankies, wiping their tears away. What about the ageism in the "one 72 year old heartbeat away". You havent pulled that either. And what about the Mother Id Like to **** [MILF] thread Hobbes posted. You didn't pull that one either.

"This is a discussion forum, I expect intelligent contributions and debate, not propaganda and tabloidism."

HA HA HA HA. No, you expect people to spout the insipid, unchallenging things that you happen to agree with and approve of.

As a side note, do you even know what a tabloid is? Do you know it refers to the form the newspaper comes in, that it opens like a book, unlike a broadsheet?

And you follow in your third post:

"I do have a problem with threads that are started suggesting that all McCain-Palin supporters are idiots, posts that suggest Obama is Muslim/a terrorist/ traitor or posts that suggest that african americans people only vote on color or women only vote on gender'

You seem to have a lot of problems with people discussing things that YOU seem aren't worthwhile. Let the people decide. Lay off your interventionist, Orwellian, micro-managing, thought policing ways. If you had KKK supporters or the anti vivisection league on I may have some sympathy for you, but you are trying to more than moderate, as in keep things moderate, you are trying to decide what conversations can and can't happen. That is just wrong, counter intellectual, limited, prohibitive,and parental.

You wont accept links to a taboid but it's ok to link the Daily Show.

"I've no problem with Colbert or The Daily Show."


As I said as long as you are the moderator there, it is not a politics forum, but the Guan YIN forum.

Overheal

you realise even if GuanYin stepped down your ban would still be permanent...right?

metrovelvet

Overheal wrote: »

you realise even if GuanYin stepped down your ban would still be permanent...right?

Yes I do realise that. But I would have no interest in an appeal until he was gone or an entirely new forum for alternative politics was set up.

Overheal

in that case we're done here arent we? bring me a kitten.

VH

Are you a moderator Overheal. You don't appear to be as your name isn't in bold?

Chinafoot

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes I do realise that. But I would have no interest in an appeal until he was gone or an entirely new forum for alternative politics was set up.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=461

Off you go then..

Overheal

VH wrote: »

Are you a moderator Overheal. You don't appear to be as your name isn't in bold?

I'm still waiting for my sacrificial kitten nonetheless. Preferably a tabby. They're so cute.

Trojan

Bit of a storm in a teacup this one (ironic for a Feedback thread, eh?).

Metro, the fact is you made your bed with that abuse, so surely you see that now you've got to lie in it? Anything else is irrelevant to your banning. Since you're banned for what you admit is a legitimate reason, you're not going to be taken seriously in your complaint against the mod that banned you, regardless of how legimate you believe the secondary issue is. And the 3rd (4th? 5th) nail in the coffin is that it's not a convincing secondary compaint anyway.

GuanYin

Regarding the new rules, I see no point in entering a discussion into the rules here, or wasting time responding here as metrovelvet will never be posting in the forum so his/her opinion of the rules really doesn't bother me.

Those who the rules do effect and are concerned, I've detailed the process to clarify or discuss the rules.

Ludo

GuanYin wrote: »

An intelligent and informed discussion is always welcomed. The only two threads locked were effectively:

"FACT: Palin's son is being sent to war because hes a drug dealer"

and

"All Palin-McCain fans are morons"

I'm not exactly sure why people think these are valid discussion threads in a politics forum.

The first thread never says FACT as you make out..in fact it starts saying there is a RUMOUR. And there is no option to discuss these new rules as you locked the thread about them after Overheal asked a question and pm's serve no purpose for open discussion.
Anyway, I have had my say anyway on them and respect your decision that my points are invalid. I just hope (and will assume) that you will exercise good judgement in what is valid for discussion or not irrespective of your personal feelings on a subject.

GuanYin

Ludo wrote: »

The first thread never says FACT as you make out..in fact it starts saying there is a RUMOUR. And there is no option to discuss these new rules as you locked the thread about them after Overheal asked a question and pm's serve no purpose for open discussion.

I didn't actually close the thread, but the thread was still not a political issue, it was discussion on heresay and innuendo about a candidates son, an issue that the candidates themselves have refused to enter into and an issue that is respected by most of the major news outlets.

If you like, as a compromise, I can move the thread to another suitable forum if the moderators there agree.

Anyway, I have had my say anyway on them and respect your decision that my points are invalid. I just hope (and will assume) that you will exercise good judgement in what is valid for discussion or not irrespective of your personal feelings on a subject.

If you think I have been biased towards either camp, please do tell me.

I'm merely trying to keep the US political forum discussing politics and not the sideshow that goes with it.

I don't see anyone posting movie reviews of PS, I love you in the main politics forum

Ludo

I didn't say you were politically biased at all and do not think you are to any side...sorry if I implied that you are...I did say "I hope (AND ASSUME)" you will be fair.

I am aware that you didnt close it also but you agreed wholeheartedly with the decision and were the one who defended it as OB refered my enquiry onto you.

I still maintain that "the sideshow" as you call it is part of the election. When some people believe these rumours and vote on them, then it is valid for discussion (if only to debunk them or discuss how innuendo plays a part in the election process). Is people thinking Obama is a arab/terrorist a sideshow also? It is not based on any fact but is playing a large part as McCain has found out recently.
To say a US Election forum can only discuss FACTS will reduce a hell of a lot of the discussion as facts are hard to prove to say the least in the current climate.

Mentioning a movie review of PS I love you is a silly argument to make and has no bearing at all on the discussion as you well know.

Overheal

GuanYin wrote: »

I don't see anyone posting movie reviews of PS, I love you in the main politics forum

That sounds like a challenge.

GuanYin

Ludo wrote: »

I still maintain that "the sideshow" as you call it is part of the election. When some people believe these rumours and vote on them, then it is valid for discussion (if only to debunk them or discuss how innuendo plays a part in the election process). Is people thinking Obama is a arab/terrorist a sideshow also? It is not based on any fact but is playing a large part as McCain has found out recently.
To say a US Election forum can only discuss FACTS will reduce a hell of a lot of the discussion as facts are hard to prove to say the least in the current climate.

Thought I replied to this

I've no problem with a discussion of the sideshow.

I have a problem when posters try to become ringmasters.

nesf

Ludo wrote: »

I still maintain that "the sideshow" as you call it is part of the election. When some people believe these rumours and vote on them, then it is valid for discussion (if only to debunk them or discuss how innuendo plays a part in the election process). Is people thinking Obama is a arab/terrorist a sideshow also? It is not based on any fact but is playing a large part as McCain has found out recently.
To say a US Election forum can only discuss FACTS will reduce a hell of a lot of the discussion as facts are hard to prove to say the least in the current climate

The line for me would be between discussing the rumours and their impact on things and stating rumours as fact. One is soapboxing, the other is analysis. It's a fine line but it's one that can be maintained without choking off discussion.

A bit like in Politics, I'd have no issue with people discussing a rumour about a TD and what should happen or will happen so long as they are discussing it as a rumour which could be false and the discussion is "theoretical". Someone starting a thread to say that TD X did Y and that you shouldn't vote for them wouldn't be tolerated or someone posting to that effect in a thread would get their post removed.

It's an awkward and potentially contentious division but we have two choices if we're going to prevent people using the site to spread libel, either ban all discussion of rumour (which no one wants to see) or try to limit conversation in such a way that limits it to theoretical/hypothetical discussion or the discussion of the impact of possibly false rumours instead.

Does that seem fair and/or reasonable?

Beruthiel

GuanYin wrote: »

You responded by posting an EXTREMELY abusive PM which I will happily post if you allow it.

No Mod should ever have to put up with that.