Thanks for your feedback.

Oh and since it went on for 30 posts I have no problem with deleting all the posts including mine after the initial false claim and initial rebuttal that were saying the same thing over and over. If a mod makes the call that those are tedious, repetitive and add no value I take no issue with that.

lol

The first post about the dream was completely a satirical humor piece in response to the post that stated that everything was running flawlessly. I thought the smiley face thing was an indicator of that. My bad if that wasn't clear.

As to the second one about the cats, that analogy is not an insult to posters who have been here a long time. It is descriptive of the very common situation that occurs in every organization when changes occur. Those who have been there the longest are the least likely to recognize potential problems with the current situation and be the most resistant to change, because they have settled into a comfortable niche and anything the disrupts that comes across as very jarring. That's why it doesn't matter if the change results in an improvement or not. It's the fact that any change at all is by definition uncomfortable for those who think things are perfect as they are.

I understand your feelings about the changes I've made and my modding style. I appreciate your input and have, and will continue to seriously consider it, along with the feedback I have received from other posters as we move forward. Every decision and policy will be continuously reviewed to see if it is having the desired effect on the forum. The goal, as I've stated before, is to have a forum where people can come and vigorously debate political issues in a respectful manner without personal attacks. And by doing so, attract more people to participate in our forum on a regular basis.

It is my initial assessment that we are not quite there yet in terms of creating the goal atmosphere which in turn is limiting the number of new posters we attract. If you believe our current situation is fine and needs no changes, that's great. But obviously I don't share that assessment. So if we are at X and want to get to Y, we can't simply continue doing what has been done. Another saying goes "whatever was sufficient to get you where you are is by definition insufficient to take you further."

Please keep the feedback coming i value it.

It’s 2023 and this is a poker book publisher’s message board. Literally every one of those things is in decline: Poker, books, publishing and message boards. That’s why we are not getting new posters

News to me.

The key point is the quantity along with the quality of the posts. I believe threads need to be able to breathe a little bit as forks in the discussions develop. However, if they are too numerous or too off topic then I will either move them or delete them. A good example of a total derail that I saw during my first visits was when somehow, transgender discussions morphed into trans fat discussions which turned into a full blown discussion of healthy eating. A worthy topic to be sure but someone coming to our forum and clicking in the transgender issues thread shouldn't have to wade through dozens of posts about the best food groups.

It's also a good example of how the modding may differ at times. By the time I saw all those posts, there were tons of them. So I would have created a new thread as I believe TD did. But if I had happened to see that first post with the no bad foods video I prob would just delete it immediately as off topic as it had nothing to do with transgender issues. This would have staved off the entire derail taking over the transgender thread.

So a little bickering, if not over the insult line, is OK. Clogging a thread with it so the bickering has blotted out the view of the actual thread is not.

As it happens, I was the person who requested that tame deuces move the obesity tangent to its own thread. But the bolded is where I think you make a fairly significant mistake. Tangents of that sort can be a great thing! Yes it ivery tangential that a discussion of what "trans" means meant we jumped from trans people to trans fats and that made a whole discussion about obesity, but the discussion about obesity was also really interesting! We actually went and read a whole bunch of scientific papers and had a whole debate about that, I'm sure you hated the tone of it, but it actually was quite fascinating to me and I personally learned a lot. So if you had deleted the tangent at the very beginning, you would have inadvertently deprived the forum a whole bunch of activity.

Perhaps the better metaphor is that conversations are like plants growing from seeds. I think you are correctly noting that some of these plants are just weeds. But what worries me is that you will excise waaaaayyyyyyyyy to aggressively and cut out the plants that might actually grow into something like us chatting about actual papers in obesity even though the seed began in the strawberry plot. Ok maybe the metaphor is a little tortured, but it is definitely better than cats pissing.

OK. I've edited the quote above to just leave the example of a false assertion type post so we can all be on the same sheet of music. Here is what I am leaning towards as the policy:

I will allow the initial false assertion post and the initial rebuttals to remain as a visible record of the interaction. In this example I would prob let it go to #6 by Mr B. I want Mr B to have the last word.

THEN, it is best for Mr B to NOT respond to Mr As last post. That's where you should report it and pop smoke. Continuing just grows the chain that I will later delete.

Any posts in the example covered by etc, etc will be deleted if they continue the back and forth. Even Mr B's post will be deleted, even if they are not insulting. That is because at this point the thread is getting derailed by the bickering. So be aware of that, and don't combine bickering responses in the same post as actual thread content. The delete hammer is not a surgical scalpel. I won't be trying to cut the cancer while saving brain tissue.

In addition to this deletion policy, warnings or temp bans may be used as appropriate to deter further violations.

IMPORTANT DISTINCTION:

This policy applies to one poster misrepresenting another posters position and who refuses to provide a quote supporting his accusation. It deals with a poster describing ANOTHER POSTER'S words or position.

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ONE POSTER MISREPRESENTING A POLITICAL FIGURE'S POSITIONS..

If someone says "Trump supports X. Another says "No he doesn't". At that point, both posters can provide whatever evidence they want, and the assessing of the validity of that evidence will be up to the members who read the posts. There will be no declaration of a winner by a mod, or any deletion of weak evidence. That's the heart of the political discussion. Lay out your case and let the readers decide what they believe. A back and forth on a political figures position can go 1000 posts if desired, if it can remain civil (a challenge for sure).

Please look this over and provide any last comments before I finalize a policy.
Thanks

browser with respect above i said this and you countered with what followed...



Looking at the dispute that spawned this discussion you seem to feel I should be obligated to provide to the poster ecriture d'adulte the 'Proof' that he had a different position on Manchin and Sinema or be prevented from saying he did.


To prove a point, i was going to find and post what such proof would look like and went back and found one thread, that had about 4 posts I was going to copy and paste that referenced a prior thread were the argument originated.

I then got bored and stopped knowing i would be quoting about 10 posts of mine and many of there's overall to substantiate that they 'indeed did hold the position about Manchin and Sinema they now deny'.

How can you, the mod, without reading the entire exchange decide whether it is apt for me to say 'they changed their view'. And if they read and say 'so what, I don't see that as proof, you are wrong', then you, the mod, either have to agree with me, 'it is proof and leave it' or with them 'it is not and stop saying it'.


Again, with respect i simply do not think you have thought through what you are going to get.

Another example is one where ecriture d'adulte and i agree and call out a poster for 'repeating Right wing talking points'. THat posters denies he gets them from right wing sources. We can quote numerous cases and make our case, and he denies. So if he says 'prove i get them from right wing talking points or stop saying that', who is going to be the judge of that. ecriture d'adulte
and i can cite what we see, but in he then denies it. You, the mod, must now come in and tell us to never say that again, agreeing with the other, or we are ok to say and have proved it, because you agree with us.

I never mentioned you and you weren't the only one in the discussion,.

Giving examples of 'when xyz does ABC that just won't work for modding' is far harder to follow and understand if not relatable context is provided.

See the post where e_d and I agree. How can i highlight that without using an example that is anywhere near as effective in that people here will be able to understand and see how appropriate the point is based on that context?

Re browser: So I both think that is reasonable and think it is unnecessary in the sense of being subsumed into other policies. As in, I think a continued insistence that someone said something they didn't without providing evidence is just a personal attack and should be deleted via Rule 1. I'm generally an advocate of less-is-more approaches to enumerated rules (not dissimilar from an analogous political view!).

Anyways, I have great news for you! I've returned to work and am behind on everything and so I'm likely to annoy you less in the coming days!

Discussion forums die if moderated to shut out all tangential discussions that flow naturally from them.

The bulk of 'engaged discussions' often start as hot tangents, then moved to their own thread, but what you do not want is every thought to start with their own thread. Thus why if a tangent gains legs it can and should be moved but if it dies quickly then leave it where it was.

Imagine trying to in person chat so tightly that no tangent can be discussed. 'I asked you if you were enjoying the weather and now you are talking about your kids' DELETE.


I asked you about Trump and the Ukraine war and now you are brining up Trump and Russia, delete.

Often times if i see a tangent discussion gaining some momentum I would take the initiative to create a new thread and put that link in the prior to save Tame having to move to many discussions. Other times i would think, this tangent will die soon so I won't bother, and Tame would set up a new thread anyway and it would take off.

I've disagreed with a lot of the claims you've made ITT (and haven't really responded, because I think browser has dealt with your objections well). But here.....uh.....I agree with Cuepee? Ick, this feels uncomfortable. Maybe it is because I'm definitely that dude that turns every IRL conversation into a conversation about my kids (ya, that guy sucks). But ya know what, it is a new era. A nice era. So I'm going to say it, loudly, proudly, and in the spirit of good faithness for all: I AGREE WITH CUEPEE

YOu need to add more colour to what constitutes 'evidence'.

YOu know and i know what you say is evidence i did something, I often reject and vice versa.

just because i can quote something saying 'see that is proof uke....' does not mean uke will agree. So in your view is the Mod acting as referee between us when we inevitably disagree as that is one of the biggest ongoing issues we have had. You take my words one way, and when i tell you that was not how i intended them and you have chosen one (the worst) interpretation, you keep insisting anyway.

To help the Mod out, how do we fix that? What is your suggestion when I do not agree with your classification nor with what you cite as proof?

As that's not an example of you and e.d. stating that another poster said something which they deny saying, it seems not to be what this conversation is about.

Just post in good faith. That should be enough in 99% of instances imo. FOr example, linked quote (i.e. keeps the arrows so you can see the original conversation in context) is sufficient to make clear what someone said, and if you interpreted it differently than they intended it then...listen.

Not proof. Just some justification for your claim. And other people asked for it also.

I notice you’ve already changed the subject (I never mentioned Manchin at all yesterday). I made a very specific claim: I have never said Sinema had to vote as one of the most conservative Dems because of who she represents. I don’t think that and I checked my history and don’t see any post that can even be read that way. That’s why I asked to see why you thought the opposite and you basically became non responsive.

You can think it's not "nice", but it's a perfect description of most of the regulars.

Not if the trolls are banned after doing this a few times.

That was never really brought up by the mod as a remedy.

Why would you feel the need to "prove" to anyone that they changed their position? People are allowed to change positions. Even if they claim never to have changed, I don't see why that's a big deal.

And I really don't know why you would want to say someone was "repeating right wing talking points". That's not only quite impossible to prove, it's in no way a substantive argument, it's just brushing away what could be a valid point.

I am one of the people who has been accused of the right wing talking points thing. I have never voluntarily taken in any right wing media, and whenever I took in a bit by accident I disagreed with what was being said. But people can come up with similar things independently.

He has said a lot, so I'm not going to be able to find it, but I'm pretty sure he has said trolling will not be tolerated. I think he has also said banning are a possibility for repeated breaking of forum rules, though maybe not these two things together. I certainly hope he would ban anyone who has a trolling post removed more than two or three times.

We now have the hi-lo thread for people to put single posts that don't fit in other threads. So going forward you you put a post like that bad foods video in the fertile soil of the Hilo thread rather than graft it on to the transgender thread which makes no sense at all.

He read the exact posts I was referring to and felt deleting was the only mod action required.