I think we're over complicating this.

Be nice and don't make garbage posts.

If someone in your opinion has violated this rule, then report it. Then Browser can choose to intervene or not.

We're not launching the Robinson family into deep space in the Jupiter II here.

That is not important in the least, and it violates two rules the new mod has already given: don't attack people and don't bring up things from the past.

Comparing current issues to issues previously discussed can and probably should be part of any vibrant discussion of politics. If you are just doing so as a bad faith attack and making up the claims, sure, those should be deleted according to rule 1, but no further edict is needed here. Thankfully, I don’t believe browser did make such an edict.

Is there ever a point we're you have all made your points now let the new moderator do what he will for a few months
I think he hasn't all the concerns by now

You don't need to bring up someone else's earlier posts to compare issues. If that person wants to express an opinion, they will do so.

I believe he did say that we shouldn't dredge up people's previous positions, but maybe I was interpreting something incorrectly.

I doubt it.

My feeling on that is if there is some useful reason that referring to a discussion months or years ago because it is pertinent to the current discussion, that's fine. What I'd like to see reduced is when people dredge up old stuff to play gotcha with another poster, like " see, 6 months ago you disagreed with me but now you do, ao I was right!" Those kinds of post are really just ego related and a form of gloating. But the thing is, 6 months ago the situation may have been different, or new info has come to light since then, so even though the poster has changed his position, he may have been right 6 months ago with the opposite position.

And in particular I want to eliminate bringing up old arguments or insults, like you called me an idiot last year so Im going to call you an idiot today.

Just a note. I really appreciate everyone's feedback and the effort you put into it. It has been very helpful and informative, both the ones agreeing with new policies and those disagreeing. I rely on candid feedback to inform my decisions.

If there was one thing I would mention though, it's that I think some people are very concerned about me having a stifling effect on the discussions. I want to assure you that will not be the case, unless a major part of your posting game is insulting people or trolling. Then you will feel constricted for sure. But as far as political content, you should feel free to discuss your positions, whether left, right or center (nevermind center. There is no center anymore. ). In PSYOP an important precept is Perception is Reality for your target audience. So when you just can't understand how another poster can believe what they do, and your brilliant arguments aren't penetrating, don't get angry and resort to name calling and insults. Try and figure out why they believe what they do, and what information sources are feeding those beliefs. Then regroup for another round of posts.

At the end of the day, though, recognize that after a good discussion, the minds of the other poster will not likely be changed. But there is another target audience you may indeed influence. It's the visitors and lurkers who want to learn about various issues and maybe don't know a lot about them. You can win the day with them, and they walk away thinking, "yeah that browser guy really nailed it". That's why I stress so much about not shifting the argument to a one on one personal attack game, but rather want to keep the focus on the topic. Others are reading and following the threads. The more on topic and insult free we can keep them, the more likely it is they will enjoy their visit and return.

So I'd just say to everyone, relax, post what you want to talk about, and be nice. When we get to that point this mod thread will go cold, and we really will have a self driving forum that requires very little maintenance from a mod.

For several years I belonged to a monthly philosophy discussion group. The emphasis was on religion, so the discussions often got very heated.

There were basically only three rules:

1. No personal attacks.

2. If you're angry at somebody, leave the room.

3. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer to a question.

The back and forth objective as I've mentioned would be a big leap. One thing I have to say I don't like is that every post, seeming to me, has to be on target. There are some rather witty people in here, no matter how I much I disagree or think they need help

Flaming and trolling are just two seperate things. If poster X keeps saying he thinks vaccines are killing his friends. Someone should be able to deliver some light hearted ribbing without backing it up. Without this, the forum loses a lot of its color

This then turns into...well why does this one rando guy get to decide what crosses the line? (Answer bc the site says so). This is why 2 mods are always better than 1

You could benefit from consideing peripheral threads. Maybe one just called cite or ban- where nobody can say anything without real sources. And another could be LC. Even containment threads can help for real repeat weirdos

Basically people may be wondering...well can I say poster X is dimwitted bc he keeps saying "abc"? If someone contributes to a thread's content they should be able to shut down imitators
We all know we can't say poster X should die, is useless, get a life, etc...but I think a lot of people want to be able to add their 2 cents, including me obv for saying this

Basically, flaming should be allowed but not to a mental health state. Ex: I have said my piece to poster z regarding topic/situation c and it ends there


repetitive negative behavior is bullying.

tl;dr trolling g & flaming are different. Contributors should be allowed to flame trolls without repeating

My impression of the definition of flaming was not a positive one. But I'm not always up on the various internet terms. Here's what I found

That's exactly what we are working to eliminate. So it's a definite NO for both flaming and trolling.

OTOH, there is this:

I am all for clever and witty repartee and light hearted, humorous jabs. I often incorporate some of that in my own posting (though not so much when modding--no ones likes mimes or mods trying to be funny). So if that is what you are referring too when you say light hearted ribbing, that's great. I don't really see how calling someone dimwitted falls into that category though.

I do want to reiterate though about the issue of shutting down the repetitive back and forth bickering. That only applies to the situation where a poster makes an assertion about another poster and that poster says it's not true. After a few posts of "yes you did...no I didn't" continuing that on the repeat cycle does nothing but bog down the thread and accomplishes nothing. So we shut those down. But discussion where people disagree about something a political figure did or say can go back and forth ad infinitum. By all means try to slap the other posters ideas down-- but by using wit and humor, not insults and obscenities.

So it's a big YES for repartee; and big NOs for flaming and trolling.

As for peripheral threads, here is post 1 from the Hi-Lo Content thread I created:

This is a catch all thread that anyone can post in. Discussions can go in any direction they chose. There is no such thing as an off topic post in the Hi-Lo thread. So it seems to me we have the peripheral thread thing covered. Perhaps many haven't seen the thread or post 1 yet so they arent aware that it is available.

The trolls are not supposed to be here anymore, so how would you flame them?

My three-cents worth (adjusted for inflation):

I think calling someone a "dimwit" or "dimwitted" should probably be in the witty repartee category. It's a rather archaic word and it sounds funny. (Not unlike "dunderhead")

I sometimes call someone a "dum-dum" as a humorous way to convey my dislike for a post. Calling someone the name of a candy bar should count as witty repartee, in my humble opinion.

I agree with this. It is now time to live under his regime for a few months.

Only a doofus would think that.

Or a knucklehead.

No one asked you, you dunderheaded dimwit.

Pipe down, you bubble-headed booby!

No 'A perfect call' in no way is something you can encapsulate in a quote of fact.

it is entirely a matter of opinion and how you view versus how others view it.

This will be the primary problem and i say it often as many of you do not discern properly between matters of opinion and fact.

Put it this way. If you were arguing with Trump supporters in the BFI could you convince them with a quote it was not a perfect call? Should you be able to demand they stop saying 'it is a perfect call' because you quote something you think substantive and they do not agree? Should the mod jump in and say 'I have discerned it is/isn't a perfect call' and then make a ruling.

Again the key to above is the inability of people here to separate their strongly held views of opinion with fact. You just assume you will make your case why the call is perfect and the other person and mod will agree.


If you think i am wrong about the above then make the case that Trumps Ukraine call was perfect or not in a way you would say proves definitively it was or was not, in a way the mod should agree with you and rule against the others maintaining the opposite view.

These were long rambling discussions over many months. They were singular quotable statements.


In those discussion i was the one ALWAYS starting them and i was typically opposed in my statements by the same rotating group of posters whom i would classify as the usual one to defend more corporate dem positions and to mock anything they find approaching a Progressive position. The former poster RFlush would typically be the only one agreeing with me in these areas.

If we cannot, under the new rules classify such conversations saying 'you guys always argued against X' despite the months and years where they argued against 'X' because it cannot be captured in a quote or a series of statements they will agree with, that is problematic.



You guys really are not thinking this thru if you think you can sanitize discussion this much and it will survie.

No one EVER mention what the person they are debating with 'said'? Really? Just state your view and your view only? One of the best ways to get a person to expand on their point is to attempt to restate what you heard and prompt them to clarify.

Imagine if the former poster Toothsayer still posted here and no one could raise any of his prior positions of views to make a point when he was pretending he never said any of that prior?

I will give this one last try as you completely misunderstood me a second time.

The following is ok and not something the mod will adjudicate:
A: "B said it was a perfect call."
B: "yes, did you not hear it? It was perfect."
Discussion ensues about whether this call was perfect or terrible.

The following is what we are actually discussing in this thread:
A: "B said it was a perfect call."
B: "I never said that."
A: "Yes you did."
B: "Quote me saying it was a perfect call."
A: "No."

In the first case, which you alone keep bringing up, the discussion is about the political topic. Proving anything there is not so possible. In the second case, which everyone else is talking about, the discussion is about whether a poster made a statement or expressed a view. This can be easily proved.

Right but again the issue here is you are struggling to see how this applies to other scenarios. You have limited ability to look outward and see the result of actions in a similar way to how Garland could not foresee the need for a Special Counsel and that inability causes problems down the road.

Ganstaman : this is my transcript of a call i made for all you to read It is a perfect call.

Posters : that is not a perfect call. It is likely illegal and certainly unethical and certainly disgusting

ganstaman : no it is not. DO not ever accuse me of any of that stuff again in this forum if you cannot quote speicifically what you say

Posters : ok, we quote the transcript

ganstaman : yes its perfect you are wrong. So you have no proof stop saying it

Posters : we are right. It is right there in what you wrote

ganstaman : nope. Get the mod to adjudicate it as i maintain it is perfect.


(and if you need to replace call with simply 'posint' above please do and then tell me how the mod avoids having to adjudicate that if you maintain it was 'Perfect', "demand others stop saying it was not' and they maintain it was not)

Posters 1 and Chillrob arguing:

Chillrob : we've been arguing about this topic for a month and you have consistently said 'X' in opposition to my position 'Y' but now the data is out you are saying the opposite

Poster 2 : you are not supposed to use my past statements against me nor quote them so i maintain i never said them and you were the one saying 'Y' and i was the one saying 'X'

Chillrob : that is nuts. We can read what you said prior on this issue

Poster 2 : MOD, please give him an infraction

How you Chillrob think creating that type of scenario makes sense is beyond me. I do not think the MOd is suggesting that and it would not make sense. Conversation and debate is by its nature often combative with people taking positions and if i take a position for months that 'Hillary Clinton is the best person to beat Trump' and i argue vehemently with those who disagree, and then when she lost the election, i come in to threads saying 'I never said Hilary would win' and try to attribute those views to others it is madness to say for the sake of civility no one should call me out on that with citations.

It doesn't apply to other scenarios. Browser has said that. I mean, a back and forth with no content other than "no" "yes" "no" "yes" will likely get stopped but not adjudicated. But a claim that a poster said something can be adjudicated.

Lol no.

Pointing out hypocrisy that you can substantiate is not an attack, that is debate, and that is fine going forward or we might as well close the forum down.

Nakedly calling someone a hypocrite and showing no evidence is an attack and should not be allowed and technically has never been allowed.