HAPPY NEW YEARS TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE BEST POLITICS FORUM I HAVE EVER MODDED!

And you you. The best mod we have had all year

and thanks to T_D and KS (and well named)

^^ reporting the above two posts for egregious spam in the moderator thread








Happy new year all

😂

There is a certain reg in this forum who continually misrepresents the actual positions of other posters. When asked to give an actual quote, he virtually never does so, because 'he's not going to play that game.'

What is this forum's policy about continuously misrepresenting the views of other posters?

Thank you.

I've been watching these back and forth posts in several threads. They reminded me of this quote, that I have seen attributed to several different people :

For now, I'm going to monitor them and see how they go. There is an element of "you said...I did not say...yes you did...prove it..." in many arguments. As long as they don't cross over into name calling and insults, I'm leaning towards leaving them alone. If they end up getting very long and numerous to where it bogs down the thread, I may ask people to move the thread along.

While I've generally advocated for browser to be less interventionalist in his moderation, this is actually a good example where I think he should be more interventionalist. Basically my position is people should argue against what someone actually says - and even further - what they meant when they said it. Sometimes misinterpretations happen in "good faith" and can be quickly resolved. But vague allusions to the idea that someone previously said something ridiculous when they repeatedly deny it and you can't provide a single quote showing they said anything like it? That should be shut down immediately.

I actually don't think it needs any extra rules. When the negative claim isn't substantiated with any evidence, then this is just a personal attack and should be deleted under the normal personal attack rule.

Thank you, Browser!

As I mentioned I'll monitor the situation and see what develops. But I'm hopeful that now the everyone is aware of this issue the people will simply be more precise when quoting or recapping another posters position as part of the discussion. That way little modding action will be required.

Should someone use this as a way to troll we can deal with that. But remember, the best defense against trolls is to not feed them. So if you believe someone is deliberately misstating your position as a troll then don't respond. Dont take the bait. Don't go back and forth about it. Just shut the discussion down. And report the post.

Well said.

I have many times been misunderstood by another poster, and I have also misunderstood other posters on many occasions.

But this type of dialogue should never have to happen:

Mr. A: "Mr. B has said many times that raisins cause blood clots.

Mr. B: "I have never said that. I think you must have misunderstood me or have me confused with someone else who may have said that."

Mr. A: "No, you have said that raisins cause blood clots many times over the past year."

Mr B: "I don't recall ever saying that. There is no reason I would say that, because I don't believe that now nor have I ever believed it. Please quote me saying that, or just admit you have me confused with someone else."

Mr. A: "You know you've said it many times! I'm not going to play this game with you and let you lie about what you said many times."

Mr. B: "I don't now believe nor have I ever said that raisins cause blood clots. If I said that, then please quote me saying it. You obviously have me confused without someone else saying that."

Mr A: "You're just like Mr. C and Mrs. D. I'm not going to play games like this with you guys. You know you said it. Just admit that you have pivoted and now agree with me that raisins don't cause blood clots."

etc...etc....

Probably an insult was excised or something, but if browser is editing people's posts to make them sound sycophantic then the end is nigh

No, he quoted me in full!

First, this is a discussion about a certain type of issue that could apply to anyone. Let's stop referencing a certain poster(I deleted that line ). Tomorrow it might be a different poster. Let's just focus on the issue.

The example clearly shows trolling (unless Mr B did in fact say raisins cause blood clots and is trying to hide that fact now. But if that were the case Mr A should just quote the post showing it) As I mentioned above, don't let this trolling continue on and on by responding. Mr B's second line in the example could just say:

"I didn't say that. So there is no point in continuing this conversation since you are basing it on an incorrect premise. Good day. "

Note: mr B doesn't call him a troll or anything else. Just nicely end it and don't respond again.

Fair enough.

Just so there is no misunderstanding for those reading your above response: I did not call out anybody by name.

There definitely have been threads like that, although I have just skimmed them because they didn't add anything to the discussion. But I don't think that particular issue needs to be discussed further until it happens again though. I assume people will shape up or browser will ship them out (or ship out at least the offending posts).

I appreciated that. I just wanted to take the focus off a single individual, named or unnamed and just look at the issue.

Thanks for your input.

I get that, and I agree with your decision to excise even a vague allusion to any particular poster.

And you are welcome for my input.

Welcome to Browser2920 as a member of the i̶l̶l̶u̶m̶i̶n̶ P&S moderators.

My available time here has dwindled during the last half year, and to boot I now have time-periods where it is difficult to use the internet much. Moderation here has suffered as a result, but this will improve now (and has already improved).

Finding a new mod took time and the gates weren't overrun with volunteers. Browser voluntereed and Bobo and KS took part in the following process to make sure everything was a good fit. Mods on 2+2 are given a lot of leeway. As a result a new mod will bring with it new ways to resolve things, which we probably need. I will hang about in the background, but I think a refresh of the mod team is a good thing on a forum like this, so that will hopefully happen naturally over some time.

As always, it is the quality posts that keeps any forum worth reading, be it for the wit, humor or insight. I know a lot of people like to throw about that everything in here is bad, but I genuinely think there are people here with some brilliant insights. And forums like this might be archaic, but we are at least not steered by mystic algorithms, posts are not promoted for engagement and you can't use likes to bury reasonable arguments. As a result we still have people from different parts of the political spectrum arguing, and that's worth keeping even if we're just a small group of individuals compared to what you find on the titans of social media.

As parting words of this long-winded post, I will say that moderation is a bit like politics, in that any action creates some social friction. Over time that effect can make even the most reasonable individual grating, and it can certainly make the rest of us grating. This effect is completely natural and I expected it, but it would still have been tough to moderate here without the odd positive feedback and posters who took moderation of their posts in stride.

Thank you for donating your time (and sanity!) to oversee this Forum for several years.

I think you, KS and Bobo have made an excellent choice in Browser2920.

I have to be nice from now on. (Because if I'm not nice and get banned, the forum will be void of anyone who voted for Mr. Trump twice )

That point has already been reached. Posters should be posting in good faith. And when someone pretends to now exactly what multiple people have said on a specific topic discussed months or even years ago without even bothering to check they simply don’t care whether they are being honest or not. It really makes discussion worse. If the solution is just to ignore, why do we even need mods to begin with?

You once attempted to steal over 10 years of my life. I won't forgive you for that.

Browser,


Since you have taken over moderation December 23, are you doing less and less moderating / deleting as the days go by?

The best action for postersto take is to ignore the troll and report the post. Filling a thread with a dozen "I didn't say that...yes you did..." posts does nothing but clog up the thread making it unreadable. So everyone should stop doing that, and do their part by cutting off oxygen to the troll. They need your increasingly frustrated responses to breathe. That's Step 1.

Step 2 is for mods to do mod stuff. (That's why you need mods bc only mods can do mod stuff). I have done and am doing mod stuff on this issue. Of course I have the ability to delete and ban, and you can see the results of those actions (or in the case of deletions stop seeing). But my preferred modding approach, as some of you have experienced, is to talk with members privately, discussing the issue, hearing their side, and seeking their voluntary support for our rules. Ultimately our forum will only become the type of forum we are seeking to create if our members adopt the standards as their own and self enforce rather than having me play Thor with my ban hammer. I'm perfectly willing to do that when needed. Some people just refuse to get on board. But in most cases gaining buy in to our standards is a much more effective approach, imo.

So you won't see any public calling out of "certain posters" from me. That's generally counterproductive. While I appreciate that some of these issues have been going on for years, as I said in my intro post, everyone started with a clean slate with me. So as I see posting behavior that needs to be adjusted I address it. And I make further disciplinary decisions based on the response. I will say that for the most part members have been very cooperative and supportive once we talk it over. Sometimes old habits take a little time to change and a reminder is needed. But I have yet to have anyone force the issue by refusing to change, and I appreciate that.

It’s just not reasonable to expect everyone to ignore somebody who’s lying in bad faith. If you agree it’s trolling that’s the issue, not people responding to it.

But in the post I was responding to, you’d say we’ll “deal with it” if it’s used as a trolling technique . But you’re also saying just ignore them which is the opposite. So I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying. And as has been pointed out, it’s something ongoing in active threads, not a we can figure it out when it happens situation.

The history of demanding someone go back and quote even the most obvious things they said is that is more often than not a troll tactic.

- Trump or XYZ never said that, Prove it.

- person spends time proving it and getting material

- so what, he said it. Does not matter. I am still right

- well then why did you ask me to prove it if your position is you are right either way. That was pointless

- You mad. Rustled. Haha.


Quoting what people said rarely to never yields anything but a statement of why they are still right regardless and it became a troll tool. So I always say, if you want me to spend time going back and searching then tell me FIRST what you will concede if true and accurate. Make it worth my while but acknowledging first what it means if accurate.

If not, if the goal is to make me search back only for you to say 'ya i said it, who cares, i am still right' then I am not playing that game.

There are regulars who play that game constantly here. Pages of arguments that as soon as new context comes out, showing their prior position erroneous the 'I never said' or attempt to focus on one word denying all other context becomes the norm.