QP : that post you call a perfect post (perfect call) is not perfect. It is full of deception, lies and is unethical

ganstaman : it is no such thing. It was a perfect post. DO NOT ever again say it was anything but perfect and do not accuse of me of deception, lies and being unethical without citing proof

QP - :: quotes 'perfect post'

ganstaman - ya see that proves it was perfect

QP - no it does not. It proves you are unethical, dishonest and lie

Other posters - ya QP is clearly right. We can all read it.

ganstaman - MOD get in here and stop them saying that as he has not provided any proof



Again with no adults in the room you struggle to see how if that situation plays out the mod will not BE FORCED to read it and adjudicate it. You keep looking down the road and just see the back and forth continuing without mod intervention.

There is simply no way, the mod can stop or delete that exchange without reading it first and making some conclusions.

- Is the accusation justified and proven and do i leave the post
- is the accusation unproven and do i delete it
- does it break any rules and do i delete it


These are not self fixing issues. They will require the mod to take a stance. It is impossible to determine if the person gave the 'required' proof for the accusation otherwise. And in deciding the mod will be adjudicating who is correct in this instance, you or i.

I can't say it's long been a realization of mine but for at least a few years I've held that the issue with humanity-- the reason why we can't have nice things-- is not because of the ruling class but because of 1) hypocrisy and 2) whataboutism (they go together). So not only are they a part of debate but it should be our mission to find them and root them out.

I hope the Mod agrees with you and I and Luckbox on this and not Chillrob once we see actions as it certainly will be the death of the forum, imo, if it went the way Chillrob is interpreting the rules.


I speak often of the 'Road to hell being paved with good intentions' by well meaning folk who screw things up thinking being 'nice' is the highest priority. We see damage in real time in all aspects and interactions of the failed Self Esteem Movement, that puts 'nice' over 'common sense' and 'human nature',

For me to be able to change everything i said one day to something completely different as i realize i was wrong and don't want to own it and then hide behind the 'nice' rules so no one can call me out, will just make discussion of interest to no one. Debate requires 'debate' which includes, often, allowing things to seek resolution through pointing out the history of the discussions, when a person denies certain aspects to try and maintain they are correct, when they were not. If looking back becomes against the rules, as Chillrob thinks it should, then watch out. Trolls will take over the forum just changing their views daily and demanding others be infracted for calling them out

You are misapplying the guidelines.

I say Trump's call was perfect. You say it wasn't. We have a difference of opinion on a political issue (and yes, that is allowed in the forum).

I present my reasoning why I say it was perfect. I may quote parts of the call, cite other public figures who share my opinion, or just reiterate my opinion.

You don't believe my evidence proves the call was perfect. In fact you think my evidence actually shows it was a terrible call. So you say that.

I disagree. I maintain my opinion that it was a perfect call.

This back and forth discussion can go on forever, as long as the posters don't give into the frustration of not changing the other persons mind and start hurling personal insults. There is no right or wrong answer when discussing a persons opinion on something like the quality of a call. You can't make someone interpret evidence the same way you do. (That's why you get hung juries). Carry on with the discussion until you get tired of it. Then just stop posting. You don't have to "agree to disagree." No concession is required. There will be no satisfying closure to this discussion. It will be stuck in a do loop forever. So either argue it forever, or decide to stop responding as the discussion is going nowhere. No mod is swooping in to declare a winner. There is no ruling to be made here

Contrast that with this situation:

You post that I said Trumps call was perfect.
I say I never said that.
You say yes you did.
I say show me where I said that.

this is a dispute of facts pertaining to a poster, not a public figure. Either i posted in the forum that the call was perfect or I didn't. Our default setting when a poster is accused of saying something and they deny it, is that it is incumbent on the accuser to show where he said it. This should be easy to show. Either there is an earlier post where I stated the call was perfect or not. So quote it. There is no great analysis by a mod required to adjudicate the evidence. Either I said it or I didnt.

No mod is going to pick a winner or loser in a political opinion debate, or cut those discussions off. We will only get involved when one member accuses another member of saying or doing something that the other member insists they never said or did. In that case the accuser either must show where the other poster said or did it, or drop the accusation.

browser,

It seems like you are proposing a rule that boils down to the following:

If someone mischaracterizes your previous posts, you can go back and forth a few rounds but then you need to report the offender.

That's fine with me. I haven't followed this protocol in the past because I didn't want to bother unpaid mods with whiny complaints about other posters. I don't know how practical your solution will be, but I'm happy to give it a try.

This has been covered over and over. No mod is going to adjudicate whether that Call is perfect or not. It's a matter of opinion. OTOH if you claim he made a call and he says he didn't, that's a matter of fact. Just quote the post where he says he msde the call and thst's it. Simple.

Very specifically then resolve this for me.

I am the one saying my call or post was PERFECT.

I take offense to others saying it was not and how they characterize it. I demand they stop or cite proof and deny any of what they cite in quoting the post IS proof.

I demand they stop and report it to you the Mod. They won't as they feel they provided proof and disagree with me.


How do you, THE MOD, get involved in this :

- without reading the entirety of the exchange
- without making a calculation of who is right or wrong here

It's not really an issue of mischaracterization per se. People reading a post can often interpret it as meaning something different than the poster intended. (Just take a look at this thread for multiple examples of that). So people can go back and forth as to what was said vs what was meant. No need to report anything there, even if you never end up agreeing on what the post says. Just stop going back and forth once it's clear no one is changing their mind.

It's when someone makes an assertion about you that is factually incorrect, e,g they said you stated a position X and you say you made no such statement. Either they show the post or drop it. If they wont provide the quote, but insist on repeating the claim without evidence, report it.

The reason we keep going over and over is because this same error seems to be the default assumption and keeps getting repeated.


Most, MOST politics issue disputes are not simple fact discussions that can be boiled down to a singular quote as PROOF. The ENTIRE assumption here is 'just quote it'.

If i say you have been a consistent Putin shill and apologist that is usually an IMPRESSION over years of posting and how you rationalize your positions and defenses of Putin and blame on Ukraine.]


If you then say "I have never shilled for Putin quote it', that is not easily done. It could take going back years and re quoting a major part of exchanges to capture the positions. Ones the parties denied to begin with, and thus the dispute, and thus in requoting will not get resolution.

If you then demand i stop saying it as i have not provided 'PROOF you accept' but i say have and point to what i quoted, how, besides a MOD reading and interpretation does it get solved?

We keep coming back to this 'covered ground' as you keep saying 'it will be easy... just quote it or stop saying it', and that simply will not be the case.


Going back to what prompted the origins of this current discussion is how I READ and CLASSIFY months of exchanges with certain posters over questions of Manchin and Sinema, I can hold an opinion they have been more akin to Corporate Media shills in repeating talking points about them. T hey can take great offense to that. YOu, the mod, can say 'quote something that shows them being shills' as if it is a singular quote as opposed to months of excuse making. I can quote months of excuse making and we can all agree to disagree, that does not make me wrong.

But by your rule, when they object and demand a quote it must be supplied because you keep thinking it will be easy to supply.

the poster I disagree with e_d agrees with me and is more vehement about another posters 'right wing talking point shilling'. The other poster does not agree. For either of us to make that case to you would take the citing of numerous posts to establish the pattern as no singular quote generally makes that case.

This is a total side issue. The main problem now is people just assigning fake views to others and feeling no need to really back that up. After reading the posts you deleted, I don’t see how we can have a political forum if that type of behavior doesn’t result in infractions. Just deleting the posts isn’t going to make him stop doing it.

To be clear, this is not a 'him' issue. I can say for fact no one has complained to the prior Mod, and i am sure he will back that up, about people being able to attribute fake views with no back such as racist, sexist, transphobe, etc.

No one is more happy with that rule than me. So infract away.

What i am pointing to and want to see you address above.

First off, calling someone a shill is problematic. The definition of a shill is someone who is part of a con; who endorses or supports a person or product without disclosing that have a financial interest or other interest. So of course anyone here would object and take offense to being a shill. What is the point of accusing someone of being a shill in the first if not just to troll him?

But let's just say you state that they, in the past, supported Putin's actions. They claim they never did. If they in fact have been supporting Putin for months or years, there must be dozens of posts showing that. So post one or two of them as examples. It can't be that hard to find posts in a thread when a person has held a position for years.

I reported you for horrific mischaracterisation of arguments specifically for doing in it a meta cross post way, e.g. taking a post from a completely different thread, transplating it into a new thread, then strawmanning it.

Mod note: IAMTHISNOW-- honesty is great. The language you used in referring to another posters input was not. That's why I deleted it.

Different mods use different methods irt infractions. Some use a point system, where points accumulate and then if you reach a certain number of points you receive temp bans, etc. i, along with other mods, do not use the points system. So if you are concerned that nothing is happening because you don't see any infractions listed on a users profile, that is why.

I have described in an earlier post how the nonpoint system works, but it is likely hard to find in the flurry of posts occurring right now. Once we have completed our discussions of how various issues will be handled, I will be capturing all the new policies and procedures in an update to the forum guidelines. So please bear with me during this transition period where people aren't sure what is and isn't allowed anymore, and how disciplinary actions are applied.

Ok now finish that thought.


I post one or two exchanges from the past that Putin or Trump is 'bad', 'wrong', etc and another person was making 'excuses' for them (get rid of shill there) . The other person says and believes they have never made 'excuses' and their assessment of Putin and Trump is the accurate and not mine. They want me to stop saying 'they made excuses' or post proof. I say i did, and they are.

- How do you, browser adjudicate who is right if you do not read the exchange
- how do you browser propose to decide fairly who is correct in this scenario and whether i can keep saying or not 'they made excuses'?


You, browser, will be forced to read, two or more (it could be 10 to substantiate, you cannot arbitrarily say if you cannot make your case in two posts and deny it when 10 does prove CONSISTENCY), and you browser have said prior you will not be doing that.


So we have this dispute where i keep saying 'you have been making excuses ....' and they deny it, and want me to stop saying it.

HOw does that get resolved?

I don’t really see what you want me to address. Maybe state it briefly.

Bowser,

Thanks. There have been a lot of posts snd I probably haven’t read all of yours so I’ll definitely wait for new guidelines. Keeping in mind you’re not actually being paid for any of this, so take your time.

I find it amusing that the discussion on how to deal with a certain type of behavior in the forum has turned into a pretty good example of why that behavior should be curtailed.


I wish bowser good luck.

There was nothing for you to address there. i was agreeing and pointing out how i am the LEAD proponent for calling it out as such.

People see me arguing the other point and i think they think i am trying to protect myself but what i am doing is pointing out how what is being said is not well thought and is doomed to failure but people just do not have the foresight to see it.

Everyone thinks some version of 'this will be easy as the mod will read what i write and agree with me'. They struggle to see that most conflict and arguments and ACCUSATIONS are characterizations and others are allowed to hold them even if others disagree and trying to prevent them being said simply because others disagree is folly for a chat forum.

If i characterize a former poster as a 'religious zealot who would gladly deny others rights if they had power or could vote in others to do it', i can have that view, even if the 'other' person disagrees with that classification.

I am not going to prove that assertion in one or two citations as one or two citations does not define anyone, It is the TOTALITY of their posting, or the constant theme or ripple on topics, that allows me (us) to make that assessment and for a mod to say 'capture it in one or two posts or stop saying he is a religious zealot' is just folly and it will fail.

Yes broad generalisations of a posters position that are probably accurate will become harder but the gain is blatant mis representation of peoples actual current on topic arguments will also become harder and thus on the whole, that is a massive win.

This is really the same issue again. After this, we will just see how things play out going forward, rather than continuing hypotheticals and revisiting past discussions.

First off, again, your choice of wording in characterizing the the other poster's position contributes to the problem in the first place. If I support Putin's actions and you don't hardly means I am making excuses for Putin. So anyone would object to that characterization. Making excuses is not a matter of fact; it is your opinion. It is no different than if I said that someone who supported US aid to Ukrainec was making excuses for Biden. So when you accuse someone of "making excuses" you have immediately removed it from a determination of facts to a matter of opinion as to what constitutes "making excuses".

And as I have said many times, I am not going to adjudicate differences of opinion. And I don't require anyone to post evidence regarding opinion matters.


Please do not post any additional hypotheticals regarding this policy. The parameters of the policy are clear. You have your doubts as to whether the policy will work our not. But continuing to go back and forth at this point on slight variations of the previous examples will not clarify anything. So we will wait and see how it works in real time as the situation arises.

BTW, I'm Browser, with an R, not Bowser (the skinny guy from the doo wop group Sha na na).

But your argument now is it’s okay to call anyone you want a religious zealot and not provide any evidence because one guy who may actually be one won’t admit it. That makes no sense.

OK. The policy discussion about false assertions, facts vs opinions, etc has been amply explored. I appreciate everyones input. But I have made the new policy clear through several examples. So at this point, please do not engage each other in this thread any further on this topic. We will see how it plays out in the future and if necessary, adjust from there.

We have crossed the GICL (good idea cutoff line) on this policy discussion. It's time to implement. Any further posts on it will be deleted without comment.

Small suggestion: Can we unsticky the ukraine thread? It hasn't had anyone since august. The original purpose was to keep separate someone whose contact gave a unique perspective from the day to day, but I think it is obsolete now.