Every other post from the liberals that are dumber than average is "yes, well wil says punch kids in the face, so wil's logic is invalid." The people that react to wil are pretty terrible posters for the most part. Each time I see it, I think about how this collective movement is going to commit political suicide with their own idiocy like last time.

I think it depends on how you look at it. The way I see it, it allows the actual users of the forum to have direct influence in how it is structured, and how discourse happens.

One of the things that could originally be worked on by the users is establishing a set of rules to be applied equally to everyone. Here's a toy example:

A user proposes making a rule that prohibits advocating white supremacy. It is opened for amendments. An amendment is proposed stating that if a user does this, they are banned on sight, and their post is deleted. If most people aren't white supremacists, this should pass, and then the proposal should pass, so already, through the direct action taken by users, through direct Democracy, a new rule prohibiting advocating white supremacy with the punitive measure of an immediate ban will have been passed.

This is a simple example, but it illustrates how it could work. The most "work" the users would have to do, would be discussing how things should be in the forum, making and voting on proposals and amendments. The greatest amount of work would be on the facilitator, but even that could be distribute among several different facilitators.

The proposals themselves would take some time to be approved or to fail, but how long have people been debating the rules and moderation of the forum? From taking a quick look around, it appears to me that it has been debated for quite some time.

I think organization is the biggest thing the forum is lacking, and this would allow the users to organize the forum themselves. And like I stated earlier in either this thread, or a different thread, the users would actually be engaging in a process of politics, in a politics forum.

I'm not sure what movement you're referring to, but I think it's worth noting that Hillary Clinton easily won the popular vote. Take that for what it's worth.

Progressives, and it was 24/7 how the election was a lock, etc. and I don't understand the obsession with the popular vote which doesn't matter. HC's campaign was entirely complacent, and she did not work nearly as hard to be president as Obama did, or Trump. It's like she expected it to fall in her lap, as though she was entitled to be president, and the progressives were entitled to win, and they it was a huge blubber-fest afterwards. Obviously a libertarian is hardly likely to win, but it's just bizarre to watch from the outside looking in. To be honest, I was half-glad Wookums had to eat crow for a change, because of his modding bias, though the wall is a vieled racist/nationalist notion that fermented from a lack-luster economy (I know, economy under Obama was super, and this Trumpism movement came out of the sky, but pretend for a moment that the job numbers don't tell how many people actually left the workforce, and how much the health care industry has changed, and how much debt everyone is in).

Well, we are obviously straying far from the original topic of this thread, but I like to engage in political discussion, so ...

Hillary Clinton is not a progressive, in my opinion. But I agree with your statements in that Hillary thought it was her time, as did the DNC, and other candidates, particularly Bernie Sanders, were actively denied equal opportunity in the process. The DNC was actively biased towards Clinton in many different ways. In my view, if Sanders had been the nominee, not only would he also have won the popular vote (which is definitely relevant, how is it not?), but he would have won the electoral vote as well, and would now be President.

Bernie definitely would've campaigned harder, and people would've campaigned for him harder. We'll have to leave it at that.

No matter what you do, there's no way to satisfy everyone fully in a politics forum.

But if the issue is problem posters ruining the forums, why don't you gather 20-30 of the most active contributors in the forum, make sure it's fairly balanced politics wise (to prevent party line voting) and if 60% of the group feels a user is actively making the forum a worse place for everyone else, then that user is banned from the politics forum by the mod.

If less than 60% care, then there's not enough of a clear reason to take that larger action.

Mods still delete stuff that goes against the guidelines.

This seems like a plan that doesn't require a lot of time or energy and could be effective at dealing with the consensus worst posters, rather than putting it all on a mod's shoulders. I know in the forums I'm a regular reader/poster in, noticing an awful poster is not hard and it's pretty easy to say yay or nay if the question of a poster bringing down the forum comes up.

New software with an upvote/downvote system on posters/threads/posts would solve it in no time.

Politics is inherently more contentious than other topics, but it seems like every other subforum here gets a steady stream of terrible posters and the mods manage to either contain or boot out the troublemakers. One of the problems is that when posters get booted out of, say, OOT, they make a beeline for politics or PU where they know they'll have a free hand to ****post. I dunno, for people who follow politics, it sucks that this topic has to be the de facto safe haven for people who just want to stir up ****.

I've created a thread to conduct an experiment in Direct Democracy, which I outlined in this thread earlier. It includes a flowchart to help visually illustrate the process. Anyone is welcome to participate, but please do so in a good-faith manner, not with the intentions of disrupting the process. I'll note that whatever happens in the thread only applies to the thread. It's intended to be a little experimental world, so people can get an idea of how the process I outlined could work.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...cracy-1657348/

The problem with this approach is that among the otherwise reasonable posters there are too many who take it as a badge of honor to not ignore anyone and to not want anyone banned.

This is only a problem if your goal is to ban people.

It's not the goal. It's a means to an end which is to improve the quality of the site.

The problem with giving people choices is that they may make the wrong ones!

Okay, then it's a problem only if you think the site con be improved in that fashion. Your "otherwise reasonable posters" will probably disagree.

If many don't want to ban any posters, then what's wrong with not banning?

If it's more divided, like American politics, then the system still works well, you have like 45% of people on either side that will always vote for their person, then some % of the remaining can be convinced to go one way or another, even if they lean towards one side normally. The leaners will push one side over the edge, in US politics that's R or D, but in your forum it'd be ban or no ban.

I think outside the scope of the politics community, the forum doesn't have a large impact on the site because it isn't related to the major subject of the site (poker). And most poker politics goes in NVG, so it further keeps politics its own community within the site.

I am reading on the phone and really disagree with noodle. I don't post there that often but I found wil to be one of the more normal posters out of the PU regs and enjoyed talking to him.

I get the impression that many value the principle of not banning anyone higher than the quality of the discussion. Maybe it's some form of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" which is laudable.
Most of the time though the problem is not the content but the complete lack of any.

It takes much more than a simple majority to want someone banned and I don't think it should be up for a majority vote anyway.
It takes only one bad poster and a small minority of other posters who engage him to make threads terrible. In my opinion too many think they achieve something positive when they deconstruct someone's incoherent ramblings. One can't score points while talking to a chimp throwing feces.
"please stop quoting user x" is a frequent demand in the politics forum which goes mostly unheeded and completely unproductive discussions go on for pages or years (see ikestoys).

I included the politics forum in "the quality of the site". Maybe I should have been more specific and said "the quality of the politics forum".

Louis, a message board isn't a straight jacket for excellence. The way you experience posting isn't the same as a lot of people. I know a very powerful and influential person who was banned who the forum did not know who he was. Had the forum known who this person was 20-30 guys would have Benin talking about how brilliant all his posts were. The simple truth is the social forums are slightly dysfunctional because of pokers decline and mediocrity breeding mediocrity.

Liberals get the forum Bill of Rights. Everyone else is trolling. 2p2 polscience 101.

Ahh - the old addage of being a social democrat that they loved to be controlled and have someone else do the thinking (or in this case the commanding) for them but only to the extent that they agree with them or else they are equally or even more greatly against being controlled (i.e. modded).

It's just not a strong medium for Carrot Top.

Are you saying we were talking to a real millionaire!

yes, a real centamillionaire. at some point criticising everyone's sucess because you understand some basic game theory becomes excessive, even for people who like you.

you havetomakean environment thatisn't entirely based on trolling in these social forums and i shouldnt' have to tell you this.

lousi cyphre needs to explain why he would ignore my post but respomnd to chiogaco ry. what is he on drugs
?

wil's a guy witha duaghter who posts things he actually thinks. both of thoise attributes are rar...good now.

ad everyone reading this should know that one day dodger irish and louis will regret acting that way to me but they don't know it yet