A&A Feedback

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Kind of contradicts "within reason", don't you think?

Cabaal wrote: »

Stop the political attacks!
You know Bannasidhe is part of the People's Front of Jaffa Cakes,

I defected.

I am now a proud comrade custard cream.

Thread temporarily locked as this is no longer feedback. Will clear up after Chile match. Or a co mod will clear before then. In either case a cooling period is probably good.

Personally, I would prefer any 'rebuttal' that takes the line 'typical right/left blah blah sweeping insulting generalisation' was a cardable offence. It's pathetic school yard tactics which should be seen as trolling/flaming.

I would be hesitant in laying down a definitive list of what is and is not permitted in discussions - as in mods coming in and saying 'nope, you can't branch off down that verboten tangent' - one of the things I love about A&A is it's freewheeling (careering?? ) attitude to what is 'on topic' and many the time I have read a completely 'off topic' post and thought 'ohhh, I did not know that!'. I like learning new things. I also find that is even a tenuous connection isn't obvious then other posters will quickly question the relevance. Plus, like one of Billy Connelly's rambling stories - we usually get back on topic again all by ourselves without mod intervention.

A&A - home of the light touch regulation.

I also don't see why any set of beliefs - be they religious or political (pharmaceutical/ horticultural/multicultural/yoghurtcultural) should be protected from interrogation. Don't like what has been said? Rebut it! As I said earlier - this does not in any way include 'typical:rolleyes:' type comments which are best ignored.

No Protectionism in A&A

I wrote this in a pm to another user so I hope that don't mind be quoting.

The problem as I can see is that a and a mocks loony positions. Other posters feel offended by their beliefs being mocked. This can't really be changed. I mean, the forum ripped the piss into feminism and that upset a few posters that some left. It's really tough line to establish as clearly loony religious views get the piss taken of them. So do bizarre pseudo science groups. Every so often various groups are going to feel offended as they perceive their views get considered loony. Often times this isn't even the case, but the appearance is there. Often times it is the case in both cases moderating wise as long as there's nothing personal or blatantly untoward we let things continue that's what makes this forum what it is.

Threads like abortion and laws concerning rape show serious discussions can be had.

The biggest problem I see that some people are overly attached to their viewpoints. They're fine when other stances are being mocked but not their own. A and a is at the end of the day a forum that mocks everything.

Where possible we let threads steer themselves. Only when the line is blatantly crossed do we step in. I think this approach is best to any discussion. No idea is sacred. Regardless how obviously stupid something is if you can't explain why then it's not stupid.


Regarding jank all too often posts pointless posts asking "what about x" in a thread that is clearly got nothing to do with X. He also straw man positions far too often. And gets vigorous and confrontational in tone. Every card and infraction I gave him had nothing to do with politics. Strictly speaking I should have given more. So no more political bias shyte using jank please. There may have political bias for some of his actions, not saying there was. Fact is it's irrelevant, he's been given an unbelievable amount of leniency. If he has reformed his ways then that leniency will have been worth it and we'll be glad to have his other contributions.

I think the suggestion of not modding self active heated discussion is a fair one. There is one obvious time constraint. The mod in active discussion will have read the thread, there is no guarantee another mod will be able to read the thread in a fair and reflective manner. I think the onus should be on the mod to know when their impartiality is compromised and report the posts, letting their co mods know immediately. If a mod can't do this autonomously then frankly they've no business in modding. I do actually believe it's possible for a mod to be active in discussion and still remain impartial to the degrees that is humanely possible. We're posters first mod second and many posters can remain impartial for most topics. Everyone just has different triggers.

One more thing:

Religion gets marginalised in a lot of threads. Mostly by the gay agenda, but often times by other things. This forum itself is the non stamp collecting category of stamp collecting. So some threads will have very little, if anything, to do with religion.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is a forum for those who share a&a views clearly, do you need a poll to see how many of us believe in a god? It doesn't say it's a forum for discussing the topics of atheism and/or agnosticism, it says it's a forum for people who subscribe to those views.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's a forum for people who share atheist and agnostic views, that's surely only unclear if you're going out of your way to get confused.

bluewolf wrote: »

Should we all be gay now? I just like a cup of tea in the evenings

I don't know do you feel gay? I think I feel a bit more gay now.

Coffee is the chosen beverage as decreed by his mighty teapot.( Which may seem a little paradoxical but that's because you don't understand the context.)

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Her name is Bannasidhe, get it straight.

...I mean right. Get it right.

LEFT NO-GOD DAMMIT! :mad:

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'm willing to give it a go. The tea, that is. Chocolate hobnobs?

Don't like tea, Hate hob nobs.

Sheeeh...you people are sooo str8.