View Full Version : White Blaze Political Forums - Stay or Go?
51% voted for a WhiteBlaze timeout day and got two days for general forums and two weeks for political forums. Anyone for permanent removal of political forums? Vote yea or nay here (poll coming).
Disclaimer: Not sanctioned by management. :)
Jason of the Woods
07-02-2008, 07:44
It would give us somewhere to argue without fear of losing the precious WB membership.;)
4eyedbuzzard
07-02-2008, 07:46
Better than having political comments in with the rest. It's an election year and pretty much inevitably people will talk and comment.
I for one will not donate when current one expires if PF is restored. Its a hiking site!!!
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-02-2008, 07:50
If I thought such a forum would have the same rules as the rest of the site, I might vote for keeping it. However, I just don't think that is possible here.
For that reason, I vote to permanently remove the political and world abroad areas and to bar the discussion of politics from this site unless it is directly related to hiking or conservation of hiking lands.
Why would anyone vote to get rid of the political forums? You have to subscribe to see them, if you do not like them do not subscribe, and it will be as if they are not there. On the other hand if you do like them you can still use them. I personally have never had any problem with them, because I have never subscribed, and never seen them, or posted there, so it really does not limit me, but I see no reason to get rid of them.
saimyoji
07-02-2008, 07:59
Well, you obviously are a grownup and have self control. Not everyone does. :rolleyes:
orangebug
07-02-2008, 08:01
there are many political forum out there. This is a hiking site that is being ruined by several hotheads.
Let them find somewhere else to run amok.
I wasn't a subscriber to the political forums. So initially, my thought was, "who cares?"
However, if there's any chance that the general nastiness on the main forums was "spilling over" from the political forums, then yes, that would be a reason to ditch them.
Why would anyone vote to get rid of the political forums? You have to subscribe to see them, if you do not like them do not subscribe, and it will be as if they are not there. On the other hand if you do like them you can still use them. I personally have never had any problem with them, because I have never subscribed, and never seen them, or posted there, so it really does not limit me, but I see no reason to get rid of them.
While I agree with you I still protest. As a donating member I will no longer financially support a HIKING site that allows political "discussions". Does anyone here know of a political discussion website that has a hiking forum? :rolleyes:
saimyoji
07-02-2008, 08:13
Does anyone here know of a political discussion website that has a hiking forum? :rolleyes:
Other than WB?
I participated in the political area for a short while. There is no discussion. It is simply a big rant that takes up a lot of bandwidth. And I could see some of that spill-over here when people would "forget" where they were. If you don't paticipate in the PF, you would be amazed at the number of people posting there regularly who are rarely or never seen here.
Question is: Is WB a hiking forum or everything forum?
I participated in the political area for a short while. There is no discussion. It is simply a big rant that takes up a lot of bandwidth. And I could see some of that spill-over here when people would "forget" where they were. If you don't paticipate in the PF, you would be amazed at the number of people posting there regularly who are rarely or never seen here.
Question is: Is WB a hiking forum or everything forum?
Lotsa "packsniffers" there!!
Odd Thomas
07-02-2008, 08:19
While I agree with you I still protest. As a donating member I will no longer financially support a HIKING site that allows political "discussions". Does anyone here know of a political discussion website that has a hiking forum? :rolleyes:
never hear of a tax hike?:D
If I meet one of the candidates on the trail somewhere I am sure I could find an appropriate forum for a thread such as "Guess who I met on the trail?". Otherwise I see no reason for such a forum on a site such as this one.
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 08:31
I for one will not donate when current one expires if PF is restored. Its a hiking site!!!
ditto. get rid of the politcs. most that post there don't hike much
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 08:34
Why would anyone vote to get rid of the political forums? You have to subscribe to see them, if you do not like them do not subscribe, and it will be as if they are not there.
because the sewer poo spills out of the manhole cover and taints the rest of the site
because the sewer poo spills out of the manhole cover and taints the rest of the site
correct
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 08:45
,,,,,,,,,,
max patch
07-02-2008, 08:47
i would delete that if i were you. it's inflammatory
yeah, but truth is the ultimate defense!
generoll
07-02-2008, 08:50
I opted out of the special forums because I got tired of the BS. Feel free to do the same.
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 08:52
Is it? Or does it serve as an example of why politics should go? :)
I deleted it. Feel free to delete my quote in your post.
you know damn well a simple statement like that will explode into a big mess. no politics on this site. it's a no brainer
Two Speed
07-02-2008, 08:54
. . . However, if there's any chance that the general nastiness on the main forums was "spilling over" from the political forums, then yes, that would be a reason to ditch them.I don't have an inside track, but I suspect the moderation is going to be a lot more stringent in the future.
My vote is to ditch the political forums. When this came up last time my vote was to make the political forum available to contributing members only. My mistake. From what I'm seeing that forum is taking up waaaaaaay too much of the admin team's time and efforts.
berninbush
07-02-2008, 08:55
When I checked in on Monday and saw the "forum closed" notice, it was a surprise, but I applauded the site owners for taking a stand.
I would give the following reasons for keeping the political forums closed:
1. It's not hiking. Any organization, whether it's a website or a business or a nonprofit, does well to keep the main thing the main thing and not over-extend itself by doing too much.
2. The poison spills over, no question. It's human nature.
3. Even if all the other members have a choice, the mods have to read it. They're volunteers. They shouldn't be subjected to that.
4. There are plenty of other places on the WWW to go, if you want to discuss politics.
5. Bandwidth costs $$$. Better to spend it on hiking-related things.
The "non-AT" section is a little bit tougher call. I do have a suggestion for the management on this. Instead of having a whole forum devoted to random non-AT threads, why don't you just have one big "general conversation" thread? I've seen this on another website (where I was a mod) and it worked extremely well. The "respect" rule (i.e. respect other people and don't make personal attacks) applied there, but the thread had no "subject" other than whatever people were posting at the time. You could go back and read several days' worth of conversation, and a lot of it was thoughtful interesting stuff. It built friendships without blowing things up or distracting from the (very narrow) focus of the site.
Skidsteer
07-02-2008, 08:56
Is it? Or does it serve as an example of why politics should go? :)
I deleted it. Feel free to delete my quote in your post.
It's still inflammatory. Care to take another crack at it?
51% voted for a WhiteBlaze timeout day and got two days for general forums and two weeks for political forums. Anyone for permanent removal of political forums? Vote yea or nay here (poll coming).
Disclaimer: Not sanctioned by management. :)
I'm all for keeping it as long as we are aware that any arguing and so on stays in said thread. If a member comes to any hiking related thread and continues said argument he or she should be banned or given a time out.
I don't care what website has what rules, there is going to be crap from time to time. But by golly keep your crap where it belongs.
Dpn't we have an ignore button?
Odd Thomas
07-02-2008, 08:59
My vote is to ditch the political forums. When this came up last time my vote was to make the political forum available to contributing members only. My mistake. From what I'm seeing that forum is taking up waaaaaaay too much of the admin team's time and efforts.
Another idea is to just not moderate it, and leave it to those who dare, no complaining allowed.
Another idea is to just not moderate it, and leave it to those who dare, no complaining allowed.
I agree with that! But if the kids come out to play in another forum, spank them!
Skidsteer
07-02-2008, 09:03
correct
,,,,,,,,,,
Thanks fellas.
It's still inflammatory. Care to take another crack at it?
My apologies to the Skidster (and anyone who might have ... read it).
I thought you were hiking?
I think L.Wolf is exactly right that it does spill out. I think without a politics forum anywhere on this site we are all more apt to focus on the finer things in life while here, and when we want to roll in the muck we can always find another place to do that. Sometimes other topics can bridge into politics in the general sense, but I don't think
there is ever a reason to mention or reference partisan politics on a hiking website. With the political forum gone, people will be less likely to be triggered into partisan rhetoric by even the silliest words like, I don't know, 'green', or 'gap'.
berninbush
07-02-2008, 09:05
The Only Wanderer and Odd Thomas, I understand what you're saying, but the problem is that the ARGUMENT doesn't have to spill over in order for the bad feelings to do so. What I (as a non-subscriber to the PF) was seeing was this: someone would post a legitimate suggestion in a hiking related forum, and someone else would come along and say the equivalent of "That's a stupid idea because you're a stupid person." I don't know for sure but I think that was because of emotions spilling over from subscription forums. Of course you can't prevent people from going at each other's throats off-forum, but you can limit their opportunity to do so here, to keep that kind of emotion from building in the first place.
Some people just shouldn't discuss politics with each other. I recently met a friend of a friend whose political views are about as far from mine as possible, but we knew that in advance, and we were able to have a pleasant time together because we studiously avoided it. If I'd gotten into it with her, we would have had much more trouble with a civil conversation!!
And the same will apply if I ever meet Frolicking Dinosaurs in person. ;) I respect her and enjoy "meeting" her online... as long as I can keep her political views out of the picture.
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 09:06
My vote is to ditch the political forums. When this came up last time my vote was to make the political forum available to contributing members only. My mistake. From what I'm seeing that forum is taking up waaaaaaay too much of the admin team's time and efforts.
a few of the posters in that forum were constantly PMing and reporting posts to the moderators
I understand what you are saying berninbush. I've been called an idiot a few times for something related to the hiking community and my opinion about it. And I've given into the argument.
Zeven that kind of behavior needs to be squashed.
a few of the posters in that forum were constantly PMing and reporting posts to the moderators
I suspect that was also the case here and why we had the timeout/new rules. People used to PM me to whine and seek support and I ain't associated with the site. Mostly I told them to calm down and grow a set.
saimyoji
07-02-2008, 09:27
Very early on when I first joined WB someone called me out on my choice of beer. How lame is that? My beer is better than your beer? :rolleyes:
The problem doesn't lie with politics or the content of whatever discussion (stoves, dogs, hammocks....). The problem lies with the individuals' lack of self control. Dumping the pols. section will only suppress the symptoms, but the vitriol will return. Some people need to be banned, made examples of.
berninbush
07-02-2008, 09:35
The problem lies with the individuals' lack of self control. Dumping the pols. section will only suppress the symptoms, but the vitriol will return. Some people need to be banned, made examples of.
I agree. But suppressing the symptoms is a good thing. The most blatant offenders who are looking for a fight will probably get banned in short order. Getting rid of the most inflammable section makes it easier for the "marginal" folks who aren't instigators but get sucked in easily, to stay on the straight and narrow. And it makes the moderators' life much easier and keeps them from burning out.
Odd Thomas
07-02-2008, 09:36
The Only Wanderer and Odd Thomas, I understand what you're saying, but the problem is that the ARGUMENT doesn't have to spill over in order for the bad feelings to do so. What I (as a non-subscriber to the PF) was seeing was this: someone would post a legitimate suggestion in a hiking related forum, and someone else would come along and say the equivalent of "That's a stupid idea because you're a stupid person." I don't know for sure but I think that was because of emotions spilling over from subscription forums. Of course you can't prevent people from going at each other's throats off-forum, but you can limit their opportunity to do so here, to keep that kind of emotion from building in the first place.
I just figured when that happened it was due to people who've had animosity towards each other for years, not necessarily over politics.
Get rid of it. It serves no useful purpose.
Jack Tarlin
07-02-2008, 09:46
I don't have a problem with the Politics section going away, provided there's assurance that political commentary will NOT make its way into the rest of the website. There were several folks who regularly frequented the Political Forums who essentially had virtually nothing much to say to the website EXCEPT political stuff, and I think some of these folks are going to have a real problem NOT introducing politics elsewhere on the site. The great advantage of the Political forums was that it effectively kept 99% of this stuff OUT of the rest of the site, and this fact, coupled with the fact that nobody went into the Political section unless they wanted to be there......well for these two reasons, I thought having a separate political section was a good idea, and in some ways I think it's STILL a good idea. There are people who will ALWAYS find a way to inject political stuff into virtually any subject, and I think it's going to start happening again if the political section is killed off.
RITBlake
07-02-2008, 09:52
Nothing productive or helpful ever comes out of the politics forums, just a bunch of pointless bickering.
Get rid of it.
I don't care what website has what rules, there is going to be crap from time to time. But by golly keep your crap where it belongs.
Dpn't we have an ignore button?There doesn't have to be crap from time to time. Go to viewsfromthetop or the adirondak hiking forums. You don't see crap because it is deleted as soon as it appears.
Half of my posts here wouldn't make it on those sites. Every site has a "feel" to it, a sense of what is allowed and what is usual.
I don't think requiring users to use an "ignore" button to sort out apprpriate and inappropriate posts is a good idea. At least it hasn't worked all that well the last few months. Certainly, keeping "crap where it belongs" is a good idea, but not allowing crap is a better one IMO.
Here's a very simple concept, apparently too simple for many here, if you don't want to view or participate in the politic forum, unsubscribe! :rolleyes:
Flush2wice
07-02-2008, 10:16
Like Twospeed, the last time this came up I said keep it. I thought it could be kept isolated and it would help to keep the BS out of the main forums. But now I think it causes too many problems. I occasionally look at them, but never post there. As a general rule I don't discuss politics or religion when I'm on the trail, so I'm not going to do it here. I don't understand why anyone would want to spend so much time and energy bickering over partisan politics on a hiking forum. I vote to flush it.
That said there will always be some legitimate political stuff to discuss. Since the trail is on public lands, the government is involved. IMO adults can discuss those issues respectfully. It's the partisan bickering and personal attacks that need to stop.
The Sensitive Issues forum should probably stay. Most of that was legit.
Is it entirely relevant? It's not clear to me that there's much of a relationship. In other words: it seems to me that a good deal of the nastiness on the main forums had its origins elsewhere.
berninbush
07-02-2008, 10:27
Here's a very simple concept, apparently too simple for many here, if you don't want to view or participate in the politic forum, unsubscribe! :rolleyes:
I did. The fallout continues to affect me. Enough is enough.
It's the partisan bickering and personal attacks that need to stop.
From my view, the personal attacks that led to the site closure came from one or two people. It's like they entered a hostel and broke all the rules. The owner got tired of it and closed the doors. Now the others, that behaved themselves and enjoyed discussing politics are forced to find another site thanks to them. Ironic too, since the offenders are always screaming about rude behavior and breaking rules.
I did. The fallout continues to affect me. Enough is enough.
What fallout? Show me a concrete example. If someone was rude to you in the politics forum what makes you think they'll be civil in the hiking forum? It doesn't make sense.
In other words: it seems to me that a good deal of the nastiness on the main forums had its origins elsewhere.
Yeah, like someone's childhood.
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 10:34
Shouldn't the poll read, "Should WhiteBlaze bring back the political forums?" They're already gone.
Shouldn't the poll read, "Should WhiteBlaze bring back the political forums?" They're already gone.
They are on two week timeout while they decide whether they should stay or go permanently. I thought we might want to discuss it, calmly and rationally.
Nothing can get two people arguing like politics, especially this year! Who needs it? This board is about hiking and more specifically, the AT. It seemed to me that people carried their 'differences' from politics into other sections of the forum.
the goat
07-02-2008, 10:41
this has been discussed ad nauseum. two points:
1.) if the politics forum is removed, political speech will make it's way into every nook and crannie of the general forums.
2.) one has to actively join that forum to be a part of it. no one stumbles in there by accident.
Nothing can get two people arguing like politics, especially this year! Who needs it? This board is about hiking and more specifically, the AT. It seemed to me that people carried their 'differences' from politics into other sections of the forum.
When I participated, I saw no evidence that anyone was changing their position on anything. It was just a one-upmanship, mud-slinging fest. Total waste of time and effort.
the goat
07-02-2008, 10:42
Total waste of time and effort.
that's why you don't have to be a part of that forum if you don't want to!
It seemed to me that people carried their 'differences' from politics into other sections of the forum.
Well then, if those people can't act rationally maybe they should be banned from the site? Why make the others, that can behave rationally, suffer?
On the main hiking site there's an ongoing fued. AFAIK, one of them isn't even subscribed to politics. A handful of people need to clean up their acts. They're taking the whole site down, not the politics forum.
that's why you don't have to be a part of that forum if you don't want to!
Yup, the simple concept. It's common sense, what's so hard for some to understand.
world abroad doesnt always mean politics..keep the one and do away with the politics
The PF's seemed pretty silly to me, the same 6-8 people having the same hackneyed arguments every day, over and over. And the fact that at least half of those people only posted about politics and seemed to have no interest in hiking.
But, the fact is, they were its own forum, seperate from the site, and I think they worked for the most part. That wasn't the reason this site came crashing down.
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 10:50
When I participated, I saw no evidence that anyone was changing their position on anything. It was just a one-upmanship, mud-slinging fest. Total waste of time and effort.You had to opt-in to the political forums to read or post in them. If you didn't like what you found, you could change your mind and opt-out. No one forced anyone to participate if they felt like it was a waste of time. If someone chose to participate, they could spend as much or as little time there as they wanted.
For that matter, no one is FORCED to read or post on WhiteBlaze at all. If someone isn't interested on the information and opinions on the website, there are millions of other websites for them to look at.
Since no one was forced to participate and those who chose to participate decided how much and when they participated, I really think it should be left to the owners of the website to decide if they want to have a political forum or not.
If anyone else thinks there shouldn't be a political forum, it's just a matter of them trying to impose on others their opinion of what other people should do or shouldn't do.
Odd Thomas
07-02-2008, 10:50
Well then, if those people can't act rationally maybe they should be banned from the site? Why make the others, that can behave rationally, suffer?
On the main hiking site there's an ongoing fued. AFAIK, one of them isn't even subscribed to politics. A handful of people need to clean up their acts. They're taking the whole site down, not the politics forum.
Besides, if you keep narrowing what's allowed due to people misbehaving, you end up with a forum that's scope is defined by the misbehavers.
that's why you don't have to be a part of that forum if you don't want to!
Yes, that's why I don't. The point I was making, that you quoted me out of context on, is that nothing positive happens there - no one convinces any one else of anything. It is/was just a rant. Have things changed there or are you supporting a rant?
Since no one was forced to participate and those who chose to participate decided how much and when they participated, I really think it should be left to the owners of the website to decide if they want to have a political forum or not.
If anyone else thinks there shouldn't be a political forum, it's just a matter of them trying to impose on others their opinion of what other people should do or shouldn't do.
Just thought we could provide some input for the owners to use in their decision making process. They too can decide what is valuable input or not. ;)
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 10:58
Just thought we could provide some input for the owners to use in their decision making process. They too can decide what is valuable input or not. ;)Did they ask for input?
Yes, that's why I don't. The point I was making, that you quoted me out of context on, is that nothing positive happens there - no one convinces any one else of anything. It is/was just a rant. Have things changed there or are you supporting a rant?
That can also be said about discussions involving guns, dogs on the trail, dogs in shelters, shelters, cellphones and umbrellas etc. in the hiking forum. Should they be off topic and banned from the site also? You want to stifle free speech (regardless of it's usefulness), it's unAmerican.
the goat
07-02-2008, 11:00
Yes, that's why I don't. The point I was making, that you quoted me out of context on, is that nothing positive happens there - no one convinces any one else of anything. It is/was just a rant. Have things changed there or are you supporting a rant?
nobody ever convinces anyone else of anything with regard to a lot of things around here:
- hiking poles vs no poles
- filer vs non-filter
- tent vs hammock
- janet's vs johnny's
- yellow/blue blaze vs purist
should we end all of these discussions too?
or do some people need to grow a little thicker skin? ( we are talking about an optional forum here!)
It is true that people aren't forced to participate in the political forum.
However, if the administrators feel that either:
1) the partisan rhetorical crap that goes on in their leads to hard feelings that carry on out to the main forums, or
2) most of the violators on the main forums are also violators in the political forums, and so removing the political forums might have a punitive if not preventative role, or
3) the stuff in the political forum is just so distasteful they don't even want in on their site, or
4) serves no useful purpose, or
5) not worth the effort.
then any one of those would be sufficient cause for the proprietors to scrap it.
It's not like it is serious political debate.
It's just partisan political rhetoric, and very low grade at that.
I think that's the best reason of all to get rid of it, because it isn't real political discourse.
It's just crap.
Odd Thomas
07-02-2008, 11:01
Yes, that's why I don't. The point I was making, that you quoted me out of context on, is that nothing positive happens there - no one convinces any one else of anything. It is/was just a rant. Have things changed there or are you supporting a rant?
Has anyone changed their mind over filtering water, shelters sucking, hammocking or dirting, dogs carrying packs, trail vices of choice, etc? There's more to a discussion than weather or not you change someone's mind. :)
For that matter, no one is FORCED to read or post on WhiteBlaze at all. If someone isn't interested on the information and opinions on the website, there are millions of other websites for them to look at.Maybe there are millions of other political discussion websites to look at, but there are very few decent hiking websites, and the focus of this one is unique.
It is one of a kind, and worth visiting for the hiking talk alone.
If a cancerous growth appears on your body, get rid of it, don't cover it up with gauze so you don't have to look at it. Because cancer often spreads.
Did they ask for input?
No and from what I've seen in the past, Tin Man isn't above stirring the pot.
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 11:03
Has anyone changed their mind over filtering water, shelters sucking, hammocking or dirting, dogs carrying packs, trail vices of choice, etc? There's more to a discussion than weather or not you change someone's mind. :)I decided, based by information on this website, that filtering water was not necessary, but learned from experience that it is certainly desirable and that a filter is worth carrying.
Jack Tarlin
07-02-2008, 11:04
Tin Man:
I think the point that Goat and myself have been trying to make is that there are some folks here who pretty much ONLY contribute to the politics section, and if that section is gone, it's inevitable that politics will find its way on to the rest of the website. And in that nobody went into the Political section unless they CHOSE to be there, I can really see the problem; it's not like anyone was forced to go there.
Oh, and as to my point about how some folks ONLY want to contribute to political discussions, I just checked this whole thread and guess what......the majority of folks who've contributed to this discussion haven't contributed ANYTHING else today on any of the other (i.e. the hiking) threads. In short, these folks are only interested in talking politics, period. At least right now.
Which sort of proves my point. :rolleyes:
But the bottom line is that if we killed off the Politics thread right now, within a day, political stuff would snake its way onto other threads.....a discussion of bear activity in New Jersey would turn into anti-gun and anti-hunting ranting; a discussion of wind power would turn into a denunciation of the present Administration; a thread on the declining number of thru-hikers would immediately turn into a discussion of the economy or the gas crisis, i.e., in about two minutes someone would be blaming the declining hiker figures on the President. This has happened before here, many times, and it'll happen again. Maintaining a separate section for these discussions, and keeping it a section where nobody is compelled to visit, is not a bad idea.
Frosty, you're assuming the poltics forum is bringing WB down. It's not that, but the actions of a few posters, both there and in the hiking forum. They're the cancer. Cut them out.
Maybe there are millions of other political discussion websites to look at, but there are very few decent hiking websites, and the focus of this one is unique.
It is one of a kind, and worth visiting for the hiking talk alone.
If a cancerous growth appears on your body, get rid of it, don't cover it up with gauze so you don't have to look at it. Because cancer often spreads.
A few random thoughts:
•The existence of the opt-in political section is not a problem. The personal attacks are the problem.
•There can be a political forum with strict rules against attacking the messenger instead of debating his or her message. IMHO keeping politics 99% in a separate, segregated area is a good and smart thing. That 1% that spills over can be dealt with by moderators.
•The personal animosities that exist between (a few) specific strong personalities on WB are not the product of the political forum. Their roots extend backward longer than WB's existence in some cases. They will not go away if the political section is shut down permanently. They already show themselves in non-political threads that are not segregated. They will likely continue.
•It's not an everyday occurence, but I have seen personal "growth" and even a shift in opinion on an issue or two among a few folks who are regulars in the political section. To say no one ever changes his or her minds there is a blanket statement that is often true, but not always true. On a personal note, I think I've had my mind opened to a possibility or two I didn't previously have. If the political section is reopened, I will be happy to expand upon this with a few examples, but I can see this is not the place to do so.
•Those WB members who were moved to donate mainly so they could have access to the politics, non-AT, world forums, etc. should not have their terms of service altered after they've paid.
•Hiker-related bulletin boards, including the poltical section of WB, are just a collection of long, ongoing conversations around a campfire albeit one in cyberspace. The talk might get heated and opinionated, but so long as no one acts in a threatening manner or makes personal verbal attacks on the others enjoying the fire, no harm. Once in awhile someone might need to be shown the exit. That's a lot easier for a moderator to do sitting at a keyboard than trying to physically remove a bully from the campground.
Did they ask for input?
Nope. I look at the WB owners as a step above other website owners. Rock, Troll and the mods support a more open and freer environment than say Trailplace of old (or even of new). I believe this is a reason why WB is the biggest. Free thinking (and spirited) people were attracted to this kind of openness. So, I think the owners have come to a cross-roads, if you will, on how far to allow free-thinking posting to go. Certainly, they decided more moderation was needed on the main forums, while they mull over the options for the political forums. I would think people who made whiteblaze what it is, the subscribers, might want to speak their minds, just like they do on most other topics. Perhaps the owners are not interested in what we think but they can tune this out, just like you or I can tune out the pros and cons of pop tarts in our hiking menus.
dragonfeet
07-02-2008, 11:10
IMO keep it about hiking.
nobody ever convinces anyone else of anything with regard to a lot of things around here:
- hiking poles vs no poles
- filer vs non-filter
- tent vs hammock
- janet's vs johnny's
- yellow/blue blaze vs purist
should we end all of these discussions too?
or do some people need to grow a little thicker skin? ( we are talking about an optional forum here!)
Has anyone changed their mind over filtering water, shelters sucking, hammocking or dirting, dogs carrying packs, trail vices of choice, etc? There's more to a discussion than weather or not you change someone's mind. :)
Actually, I found some of it interesting when I was new to the site. Now, I think many of these topics could be summarized in well-balanced articles that people could point folks to when the topics come up rather than repeating the same stuff. When I first suggested this, ATTroll thought it was a good idea, not sure where Rock stands on it. I think it would give the mods another tool to hold back non-productive discussions, because we been there done that. Why not capture all the knowledge people have shared in the past into an article? Not easy, but I believe it can be done.
Perhaps the owners are not interested in what we think but they can tune this out, just like you or I can tune out the pros and cons of pop tarts in our hiking menus.
If that's the case, why can't y'all that aren't interested in poltics just tune it out and not subscribe or unsubscribe? Again, it's not the subject (or the forum) but the behaviour of particular posters that needs to be dealt with.
Nice post Skyline. I think one of the problems the mods have is whether or not they care to take the time and considerable effort to moderate the political forums.
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 11:22
they can tune this out, just like you or I can tune out the pros and cons of pop tarts in our hiking menus.So you believe that the owners are expected to tune out this thread if they don't like it and that you and I are should tune out pop tart threads but when it comes to subscription political forums they should be eliminated?
Here's my vote then:
Eliminate this thread and bring back the political forum.
No and from what I've seen in the past, Tin Man isn't above stirring the pot.
That was not my intent. If the owners feel this discussion is just a pot stirring thread then they can delete the whole thing.
So you believe that the owners are expected to tune out this thread if they don't like it and that you and I are should tune out pop tart threads but when it comes to subscription political forums they should be eliminated?
Here's my vote then:
Eliminate this thread and bring back the political forum.
That's one way of looking at it. And I am not disagreeing with you. I think the question is: are political discussions part of the hiking "diet"?
I decided, based by information on this website, that filtering water was not necessary, but learned from experience that it is certainly desirable and that a filter is worth carrying.
My sentiments exactly. But everytime the discussion comes up, we start all over. A well-balanced article can summarize past discussions and prevent all the cross talk. :)
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 11:36
This whole thread so far - there are over 80 posts this morning - proves three things:
1) It's hilarious. There's a raucous debate here about whether there should be debates, with - as Jack aptly noted - not only nothing about hiking, but most people not even posting elsewhere about hiking. Don't you people see the surreal nature ("It's a fish!") of this whole discussion? As Ferris Bueller famously said, "Don't you have lives? Go home!"
2) Politics has, as Jack also correctly noted, crept back in, or at least a big hunk of it, to the 'regular threads' such as this. See above. It's inevitable. The existence of this thread establishes that people will try until they learn it won't be allowed.
3) Moderation has been, frankly, too gentle to accomplish the goal as Skidsteer attempted earlier. The TrailForums site started getting a bunch of nasty posts about WB yesterday. There weren't polite posts saying, "Don't do this," or "Try again." They were just - BAM! - erased. Totally. No explanation. It worked. As a suggestion, people would learn something if this whole thread were immediately erased. Yes, it's hard to eliminate crab grass, but if you keep at it for a few weeks, you can. As Henry Ford II said about firing Lee Iacocca, "Never complain, never explain." Just do it.
End the political/world sections. End this thread.
TW
If that's the case, why can't y'all that aren't interested in poltics just tune it out and not subscribe or unsubscribe? Again, it's not the subject (or the forum) but the behaviour of particular posters that needs to be dealt with.
Sounds good to me. But deal with "particular posters" where? On the main forums, political forums, both? IMO, dealing with "particular posters" on the political forums would take considerable effort.
Jack Tarlin
07-02-2008, 11:36
In many cases, people DON'T want to talk politics while they're on the Trail, and they sure don't want to have to hear heated political discussions in shelters, at hostels, etc.
On the other hand, there are folks who don't mind these discussions and even look forward to them. And being a Presidential election year, these discussions WILL take place sooner or later, regardless of how one feels about them.
On the Trail, people have the option of participating in these discussions, or opting out of them completely. Nobody's forced to participate in them, and most folks voluntarily avoid this subject around others so as not to cause problems.
But among folks who are interested, nobody ever complains about these folks discussing these matters amongst themselves.
Kinda like having a political section on the website. Nobody's FORCED to go there, and participation is entirely voluntary. :rolleyes:
I agree that no one is forced into the political forums. However, its quite evident that political forums are where many grudges are created. These grudges then spill over into the hiking forums for all to see. I used to visit the political forums......but no more.
I vote to get rid of the political forum.
just my opinion.....
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 11:54
My sentiments exactly. But everytime the discussion comes up, we start all over. A well-balanced article can summarize past discussions and prevent all the cross talk. :)You say, "we start all over". Well, you don't have to participate in any thread if you don't want to. Seems like you keep overlooking that. Maybe a more controlled environment is what would suit you, like the old trailplace.
What you're describing is a book, not an online forum. There are already articles on the website. Are you proposing censorship of certain topics because they are relegated to articles?
Many websites have moved beyond this type of posting interactivity to wiki formats and the like as a way of sharing information. If you think there is repeated push and pull over the same topics here, go over to Wikipedia where consensus is supposed to be the method of creating articles and get involved in a contentious subject where they can literally have layers of committees deciding on what phrase to use and whether and how to discipline people who misbehave.
If it was my site, and was up to me, I would do one of two things...
1. Heavily moderate the political forum to ban all partisan rhetoric because its killing democracy. This would amount to a very personal crusade, and eventually turn everyone away, because once all the partisan rhetoric was gone, these days, there wouldn't be much left. Few people today know the difference between low grade partisan rhetoric and the real stuff. I know I don't, and that would turn the rest off.
2. Toss the political forum, which is what I would do.
I don't go to the political forum, but I'll throw my two cents in. I vote to get rid of it. Reasons, it's not hiking related and takes up too much space. We just had WB shut down for two days because of it. My summer routine is this, get up, have coffee, read whiteblaze. Without whiteblaze for the last two days, I went shopping instead and spent nearly two hundred dollars on clothes and getting my nails done. Needless to say, my husband wants me to keep reading WB LOL.
Seriously, it's a hiking forum. If others can't keep the politics out of the general forums, then ban them. No one is irreplaceable. I don't know who is involved with getting wb shutdown, and they may be people I like and respect, but we don't need it here. Not to mention it will be a lot less headaches for admin.
This whole thread so far - there are over 80 posts this morning - proves three things:
1) It's hilarious. There's a raucous debate here about whether there should be debates, with - as Jack aptly noted - not only nothing about hiking, but most people not even posting elsewhere about hiking. Don't you people see the surreal nature ("It's a fish!") of this whole discussion? As Ferris Bueller famously said, "Don't you have lives? Go home!"
2) Politics has, as Jack also correctly noted, crept back in, or at least a big hunk of it, to the 'regular threads' such as this. See above. It's inevitable. The existence of this thread establishes that people will try until they learn it won't be allowed.
3) Moderation has been, frankly, too gentle to accomplish the goal as Skidsteer attempted earlier. The TrailForums site started getting a bunch of nasty posts about WB yesterday. There weren't polite posts saying, "Don't do this," or "Try again." They were just - BAM! - erased. Totally. No explanation. It worked. As a suggestion, people would learn something if this whole thread were immediately erased. Yes, it's hard to eliminate crab grass, but if you keep at it for a few weeks, you can. As Henry Ford II said about firing Lee Iacocca, "Never complain, never explain." Just do it.
End the political/world sections. End this thread.
TWAt least this hasn't been a partisan discussion. If the politics thread was like this thread, it would be worth keeping. I doubt this thread would hold up though, if we got into economic issues, or environmental issues, issues that should be non-partisan. This thread ain't so bad. Some of us including myself just keep saying the same thing, but at least it hasn't gotten partisan or personal.
Odd Thomas
07-02-2008, 12:05
That's one way of looking at it. And I am not disagreeing with you. I think the question is: are political discussions part of the hiking "diet"?
It might be part of the community diet. Forums are about people. I'm on a few hiking forums, this place feels more like a community though and I spend more time here than other sites. I'm afraid it might lose something. :(
You say, "we start all over". Well, you don't have to participate in any thread if you don't want to. Seems like you keep overlooking that. Maybe a more controlled environment is what would suit you, like the old trailplace.
What you're describing is a book, not an online forum. There are already articles on the website. Are you proposing censorship of certain topics because they are relegated to articles?
Not saying that at all. A book has been suggested and discussed. Articles are searchable and people could be referred to them, like they often are on Jack's re-supply article. Referring people to a book is problematic at best.
sample question:
I am thinking of taking a hike, should I filter?
sample answer:
twelve pages of opinions ***
proposed answer:
good question. this subject has been discussed extensively, please read xx article that explores all sides of the question and then come back here and post any additional questions you may have.
*** YMMV :)
I don't go to the political forum, but I'll throw my two cents in. I vote to get rid of it. Reasons, it's not hiking related and takes up too much space. We just had WB shut down for two days because of it.
If I'm not misreading the two-day hiatus, its root was in the behavior of a few individuals, not the existence of a political section. That behavior has flourished in the hiking forums as well as the political forums.
Ban the behavior, not the political section.
In many cases, people DON'T want to talk politics while they're on the Trail, and they sure don't want to have to hear heated political discussions in shelters, at hostels, etc.
On the other hand, there are folks who don't mind these discussions and even look forward to them. And being a Presidential election year, these discussions WILL take place sooner or later, regardless of how one feels about them.
On the Trail, people have the option of participating in these discussions, or opting out of them completely. Nobody's forced to participate in them, and most folks voluntarily avoid this subject around others so as not to cause problems.
But among folks who are interested, nobody ever complains about these folks discussing these matters amongst themselves.
Kinda like having a political section on the website. Nobody's FORCED to go there, and participation is entirely voluntary. :rolleyes:Jack,
You and I keep saying the same thing. In my opinion it comes down to this...
Should 'freedom of speech' protect cheap low grade partisan rhetoric which is killing democracy in this country and mine. I say no. You might say yes. Perhaps we could debate it intelligently. Perhaps we can't. In the end I think its up to the proprietors of this web site whether or not we do it here. If it was more refined, it would be different. But it ain't. I think we should send a message out there that such crap is not politics. It's just crap.
If I'm not misreading the two-day hiatus, its root was in the behavior of a few individuals, not the existence of a political section. That behavior has flourished in the hiking forums as well as the political forums.
Ban the behavior, not the political section.
Ding Ding. We could get rid of Politics and make reference to already-made articles for every possible topic from Pop tart flavors to when to start a hike, to gear choices.
Unfortunately, if a few folks decide they want to continue to air their dirty laundry and personal vendettas, the site will continue to be soiled.
Seems easier to chuck the old clothes, but I don't run this place.
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 12:19
Not saying that at all. A book has been suggested and discussed. Articles are searchable and people could be referred to them, like they often are on Jack's re-supply article. Referring people to a book is problematic at best.
sample question:
I am thinking of taking a hike, should I filter?
sample answer:
twelve pages of opinions ***
proposed answer:
good question. this subject has been discussed extensively, please read xx article that explores all sides of the question and then come back here and post any additional questions you may have.
*** YMMV :)That already happens. The whole point of an online forum is to promote conversation. That's why they call them "forums". If the only point is to provide information, there are better ways to do it than a forum or message board format.
Better than having political comments in with the rest. It's an election year and pretty much inevitably people will talk and comment.
This is obviously true. Plus the Appalachian Trail is owned by the government, is financed by appropriations approved by Congress annually, runs through national parks and forests and state lands, all of which are impacted by political decisions.
We shouldn't pretend that the trail is apolitical. It isn't. Political decisions impact the trail. Which party controls the Congress impacts the trail. Who gets elected President impacts the trail.
The problem is not political discussions, but the failure of White Blaze administrators to impose ordinary rules of constructive dialogue. And the failure of some commentors, including me occasionally, to observe such rules on their own.
Weary
IMO, dealing with "particular posters" on the political forums would take considerable effort.
Well, that's you're opinion. If I wasn't on vacation, and on an extremely slow dial up connection to boot, I'd volunteer to moderate the politics forum. As soon as someone starts shooting the messenger (personal attacks) rather than the message, thier post is deleted. Five deletions gets you banned from the forum for a week. Five more gets you permanetly banned from the subscription area.
That already happens. The whole point of an online forum is to promote conversation. That's why they call them "forums". If the only point is to provide information, there are better ways to do it than a forum or message board format.
It happens where there is an article. I am suggesting articles on the more common themes where there aren't articles today.
And Tater, what I am talking about and what my sample is about is people looking for information.
More articles would add to the website, not subtract from it. IMO.
Well, that's you're opinion. If I wasn't on vacation, and on an extremely slow dial up connection to boot, I'd volunteer to moderate the politics forum. As soon as someone starts shooting the messenger (personal attacks) rather than the message, thier post is deleted. Five deletions gets you banned from the forum for a week. Five more gets you permanetly banned from the subscription area.
If the rules were spelled out that clearly, that would work. IMO.
At least this hasn't been a partisan discussion. If the politics thread was like this thread, it would be worth keeping. I doubt this thread would hold up though, if we got into economic issues, or environmental issues, issues that should be non-partisan. This thread ain't so bad. Some of us including myself just keep saying the same thing, but at least it hasn't gotten partisan or personal.Well put. The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with reflecting on the events and reasons we find ourselves in this situation. The Admin. has provided the members with a warning about behavior here. They have decided to suspend some of the subscription areas temporarily. As far as I know, no final decision has been made. The Admin. might peruse this thread and take note of what has been said, or may ignore it altogether. That is their choice. As far as contributing to this thread goes, I see nothing wrong with it. I haven't posted on any other threads today and that says absolutly nothing about my contributions to WB in general. Maybe folks will come away with something that improves the way they contribute by checking this thread out. I'm sure the Admin and moderators would be all for that. I have read quite a few thoughtful posts on this thread. That is not suprising to me because I know there are plenty of thoughtful folks who frequent this site.
This is obviously true. Plus the Appalachian Trail is owned by the government, is financed by appropriations approved by Congress annually, runs through national parks and forests and state lands, all of which are impacted by political decisions.
We shouldn't pretend that the trail is apolitical. It isn't. Political decisions impact the trail. Which party controls the Congress impacts the trail. Who gets elected President impacts the trail.
The problem is not political discussions, but the failure of White Blaze administrators to impose ordinary rules of constructive dialogue. And the failure of some commentors, including me occasionally, to observe such rules on their own.
Weary
Weary, what percentage of political questions in the WB forums are about the Trail? Please don't read anything into my quesion. Just curious.
Perhaps we could turn this discussion to rules or guidelines by which the level of political discource in a political forum could be improved?
1. Personal attacks - I think that's a no brainer, but perhaps there are grey areas.
2. Partisan rhetoric - What is it? Should it be banned? How should it be defined?
3. Cheap rhetoric - Is it possible to outline and ban a few cheap tricks?
Perhaps an article on rhetoric would be useful, to go along with a political forum. I've never studied it formally. Perhaps if they still taught it in school, other than to lawyers, clergy, and political science students, we might all have a better idea how to raise the level of debate.
What sort of political forum should we have, if we had one?
Free for all, or a sincere attempt at something better than the national average?
There's a simple solution. First, get rid of the political forums. Then, if someone wants to inject politics into the general forum, they will be told to knock it off. If they insist on doing it again, they are put on moderated status. If they insist on doing it a third time, they're banned. Simple, no?
ATTROLL talked about "zero tolerance" for disregarding the forum rules. What I suggest above is a three strikes policy.
Wanna discuss politics? There are umpteen political discussion boards out there. Go find one and knock yourself out!
PS: Right now, the poll is running better than 3-1 to ban the politics forum. I think it's abundantly clear how the majority feels about this issue.
Ban the behavior, not the political section.
I agree completely. Some of the usual suspects from the political forums may have been involved in the recent nastiness on the hiking forums, but from what I read they were a minority. I read quite a few posts from members I've never seen in the political forum that were just as bad, if not worse, as what's found there.
Getting rid of politics might solve some of the problem, not all of it. The main problem I see on the forums recently has more to do with clashing personalities and long standing (childish) grudges than anything else.
That said, I wouldn't miss it if/when it goes away. I've enough aggravation in my life right now without adding to it.
Anyway, that's my 2cents.
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 12:40
It happens where there is an article. I am suggesting articles on the more common themes where there aren't articles today.
And Tater, what I am talking about and what my sample is about is people looking for information.
More articles would add to the website, not subtract from it. IMO.My understanding is that anyone can submit an article for consideration and from what I have seen, new articles seem to have been very welcomed by the owners of the site and generally well-received by the members.
It's one thing to call for a bridge and more articles, better trail maintenance, and the like, and it's another thing to actually pay for a bridge, write articles, and maintain trails. No one is stopping you from doing any of these things, and it is not likely that the political forums are standing in your way. In fact, it is likely that all of these activities would bring you praise and increase the esteem your fellow hikers have for you.
Wanna discuss politics? There are umpteen political discussion boards out there. Go find one and knock yourself out!
PS: Right now, the poll is running better than 3-1 to ban the politics forum. I think it's abundantly clear how the majority feels about this issue.
Yes but there's few places one can discuss politics with people you actually know. Again, it's not the topic, but how it's being discussed.
The poll is skewered by folks that don't even belong. It's like Mexicians calling for open US borders! ;)
There's a simple solution. First, get rid of the political forums. Then, if someone wants to inject politics into the general forum, they will be told to knock it off. If they insist on doing it again, they are put on moderated status. If they insist on doing it a third time, they're banned. Simple, no?
ATTROLL talked about "zero tolerance" for disregarding the forum rules. What I suggest above is a three strikes policy.
Wanna discuss politics? There are umpteen political discussion boards out there. Go find one and knock yourself out!
PS: Right now, the poll is running better than 3-1 to ban the politics forum. I think it's abundantly clear how the majority feels about this issue.I voted for banning the political forum also. When it comes to keeping politics out of other forums, how should we define it? Environmental issues for example. Are they political? What about economic issues? Ethics? I think in the end it would be up to the moderators, but some guidelines would be useful. Personally, I think it would be sufficient to ban all references to political parties, or any language that is intended to categories people in terms of political persuation, like liberal, or conservative, or socialist. I think economic, social, and environmental issues in general, should still be permitted on a hiking forum, as long as it relates to hiking in some way, and is done in a non-partisan way.
Yes but there's few places one can discuss politics with people you actually know. Again, it's not the topic, but how it's being discussed.
The poll is skewered by folks that don't even belong. It's like Mexicians calling for open US borders! ;)
:D I was thinking the same thing.
Yeah, Tin Man's idea of having more Articles is a good one.
Tater's point that someone has to write them is a good one also.
Perhaps when someone violates the rules excessively, they should have to write an article. :D
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 12:50
Need a full time, experienced, likeable moderator to edit forums for out of line posts?
Dan Bruce.
TW
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 12:50
The poll is skewered by folks that don't even belong. It's like Mexicians calling for open US borders! ;)More like Mexicans who don't go to the U.S. saying "Get rid of the U.S. because I don't go there." Or like all the males calling to get rid of the female hikers' forum.
Yes but there's few places one can discuss politics with people you actually know. Again, it's not the topic, but how it's being discussed.
The poll is skewered by folks that don't even belong. It's like Mexicians calling for open US borders! ;)How about two political forums.
1. One for intelligent non-partisan polital discourse.
2. The other for partisan weenies. :D
Moderation has been, frankly, too gentle to accomplish the goal as Skidsteer attempted earlier. The TrailForums site started getting a bunch of nasty posts about WB yesterday. There weren't polite posts saying, "Don't do this," or "Try again." They were just - BAM! - erased. Totally. No explanation. It worked. As a suggestion, people would learn something if this whole thread were immediately erased. Exactly. Delete the thread. Delete any comments about the thread being deleted. Immediately and without explanation.
When people find that their posts don't get through any more they stop writing them pretty fast. What would be the point of writing something that no one will see?
Plus, it will take an action like that to convince anyone on WB that the owners mean what they say this time.
We've been hearing from the owners for a long time that this has to stop, posters must obey the rules, this will no longer be tolerated, yadda yadda yadda, and nothing ever changes because nothing is ever done. It's like telling teenagers they are not allowed to smoke and then not doing anything when they smoke in the house.
It's the old riddle of three frogs: Three frogs are sitting on a log. One says, "I'm going to jump off."
Q: How many frogs are left on the log?
A: Three. Saying you are going to jump off is not jumping off.
Saying you will enforce rules is not enforcing rules.
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 12:52
Yeah, Tin Man's idea of having more Articles is a good one.
Tater's point that someone has to write them is a good one also.
Perhaps when someone violates the rules excessively, they should have to write an article. :D
Articles are a nice thing. Yes, nice. No one reads them, or rarely.
Face it: Most people enjoy talking about Blood Mountain Shelter or their new stove or their equipment list or how much money to bring. That's why it's a community. And that's why there are 40 posts about how much toilet paper to bring or 800 about how Barko should sleep in the shelters.
TW
... I think economic, social, and environmental issues in general, should still be permitted on a hiking forum, as long as it relates to hiking in some way, and is done in a non-partisan way.
How you gonna take politics out of politics. If it non-partisan, it not a political issue.
How you gonna take politics out of politics. If it non-partisan, it not a political issue.So we know which of the two forums you would be sent to. :D
StarLyte
07-02-2008, 12:55
I say OUT all political and religious forums, threads.
It ignites arrogance and produces stupidity and hurtfulness.
There is no rewarding outcome.
--IF-- the political forums are kept, one should have to pay $$$ PER POSTING. This way, you'll think about it first.
Love to all :sun
Jan LiteShoe
07-02-2008, 12:55
Exactly. Delete the thread. Delete any comments about the thread being deleted. Immediately and without explanation.
When people find that their posts don't get through any more they stop writing them pretty fast. What would be the point of writing something that no one will see?
This is certainly a simple and elegant solution, and would eliminate the thrill of getting negative attention.
Exactly. Delete the thread. Delete any comments about the thread being deleted. Immediately and without explanation.:D
Captain Ammand (about Barbossa): Shoot him!
Captain Jocard: Cut out his tongue!
Jack Sparrow: Shoot him and cut out his tongue, then shoot his tongue! And trim that scraggly beard!
StarLyte
07-02-2008, 12:58
:D
Captain Ammand (about Barbossa): Shoot him!
Captain Jocard: Cut out his tongue!
Jack Sparrow: Shoot him and cut out his tongue, then shoot his tongue! And trim that scraggly beard!
I like it JAK !!!!
Blue Jay
07-02-2008, 12:59
I've been on the trail and do not have time to read this thread or post in a political section which I'm sure I would enjoy. I would just like to remind everyone the AT exists 100% due to politics. It can be eliminated immediately due to politics. To ban political subjects is to ban THE most important issue to the AT. Someone once said, to hate politics is to love war and death, you have one or the other.
Articles are a nice thing. Yes, nice. No one reads them, or rarely.
Face it: Most people enjoy talking about Blood Mountain Shelter or their new stove or their equipment list or how much money to bring. That's why it's a community. And that's why there are 40 posts about how much toilet paper to bring or 800 about how Barko should sleep in the shelters.
TW
Weasel, I was only talking articles about a select few common themes. Your examples are good for discussion. Why discuss things the common stuff a bizillion times, like to filter or not filter?
I have been meaning to take a stab at an article, rather than talking about it. So, I will shut-up for now. That should make people happy. :)
Exactly. Delete the thread. Delete any comments about the thread being deleted. Immediately and without explanation.
When people find that their posts don't get through any more they stop writing them pretty fast. What would be the point of writing something that no one will see?
Plus, it will take an action like that to convince anyone on WB that the owners mean what they say this time.
We've been hearing from the owners for a long time that this has to stop, posters must obey the rules, this will no longer be tolerated, yadda yadda yadda, and nothing ever changes because nothing is ever done. It's like telling teenagers they are not allowed to smoke and then not doing anything when they smoke in the house.
It's the old riddle of three frogs: Three frogs are sitting on a log. One says, "I'm going to jump off."
Q: How many frogs are left on the log?
A: Three. Saying you are going to jump off is not jumping off.
Saying you will enforce rules is not enforcing rules.
Your ideas sound good on paper, but it sucks when you post something that is non-inflammatory and doesn't attack or put people down and then someone posts something inflammatory using your post as a reply and next time you sign on, your post is gone. That sucks.
Jan LiteShoe
07-02-2008, 13:02
I say OUT all political and religious forums, threads.
It ignites arrogance and produces stupidity and hurtfulness.
There is no rewarding outcome.
--IF-- the political forums are kept, one should have to pay $$$ PER POSTING. This way, you'll think about it first.
Love to all :sun
Another elegant solution - pay$$$ per political post.
:sun
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 13:04
I checked in on a couple of other hiking forum sites during "The Great WhiteBlaze Blackout of the Summer of 2008" (one actually sent out e-mails requesting comment on the closure!) and the reasons people gave for not liking WhiteBlaze and preferring other sites had nothing to do with the political forum. Makes sense to me because you have to pay towards the costs of running the website and join in order to even get into the political forum. Many times it has been stated here that someone didn't even know a political forum existed on this website.
Just wanted to throw that out there.
I say OUT all political and religious forums, threads.
It ignites arrogance and produces stupidity and hurtfulness.
There is no rewarding outcome.
--IF-- the political forums are kept, one should have to pay $$$ PER POSTING. This way, you'll think about it first.
Love to all :sunPersonally, I get alot of inspiration from the religious threads.
None from the political threads.
I think it could be argued that religion and anti-religion shouldn't be interjected into other threads, but I think if someone wants to organize a hike for like minded folks, or if someone like myself wants to write a poem or short essay about the similarity between shelters and hermitages, or churches and barns, that might provide some philosophical reflection, then that should be fair game. I agree with you, I just think like politics, you have to define what religious discussion is banned from hiking forums. You really can't take the spirituality out of hiking, nor would you want to. But the dogma, yes, I would agree with that. I guess people need to come to terms with what is and what isn't political and religious dogma, in relation to hiking forums. Lot's of hiking dogma out there also. Simple faith to some is abrasive dogma to others I suppose. Don't get me started on hiking poles. ;)
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 13:15
My last perspective on all of this, and then I'll just see what Rock and Troll and Skid decide and be glad they have done so:
I've watched WB longer than anyone except for Rock and Troll, and even that's debateable. It was started because Dan Bruce kicked people off TrailPlace so often simply because he didn't think they should have posted something. He did it - much as a number of posters above have called for here - without warning. Sometimes it was for a few days, sometimes longer. "Former Admin" got totally irked at that kind of power and started this site, which almost cratered for other reasons. Rock and Troll saved it. But the principle of "free speech" was part of it from the outset.
That included discussions of trail-related public issues; on TP, you'd get booted if you posted about such things in a way that disagreed with Dan. Here, you could say that you didn't see a problem with mining in NC near the trail, or that you didn't agree with the environmental policies of the Democrat Party, and not get thrown out. It worked.
A few years later, that freedom got abused in the "normal threads" and, for various reasons, Troll and Rock created the 'septic tank' for political issues and such things. That has turned into a place to debate issues that have nothing to do with the Trail or even the environment. I thought that a mistake, but it's not my site. There have been uproars like this at least yearly since then.
It is possible to have a middle ground, and eliminate the "political" topics that are unrelated to the AT, to hiking generally, and the environment generally. It's also possible to eliminate a lot of the nastiness that happens, and to do so pretty quickly, with some intense moderation that, once imposed, will not be as necessary later and, generally, only when 'newbies' attempt it. That would restore WB to the model that it was earlier. And for a long time WB acted consistent with what is called in some places as "The Baptist Preacher's Kid Rule": Don't say anything in a way that you wouldn't say in front of a Baptist Preacher and his kids." I think that can happen again, without constant moderation.
But for now that does require some work. It isn't something that needs a lot of people, since most forums don't get a lot of problems, and there are ways to make sure that moderator quality stays consistent.
The upshot is that someone earlier very wisely said, "I don't know any political forums with hiking threads." Do we need to discuss UN policy about Israel here? No. Do we need to discuss whether John McCain should have made One Star? No. Are those reasons people come to WB? No. If having the ability to debate such topics are the primary reason someone stays, then frankly, we don't need them. And if someone needs to be on line to say repellent things, they should go elsewhere where those things are welcome.
The alternative is to become Trailplace, with long lists of "rules", "infractions" and "expulsions" and "warnings" and a whole host of things that create an internal legal system that is simply unworkable and undesireable. No one wants to become WF, and no one should, and TP nearly died because of it.
Justice William Brennan of the Supreme Court once famously said about the difficulties of defining pornography, "But I know it when I see it." There is one rule: Common sense, and moderators (and Rock and Troll) can implement it. When has someone gone too far? "We know it when we see it." If they - Rock and Troll or those they appoint - know when something goes outside the reservation, they should act. In my experience, they'll act generally in a fair and liberal way. But allowing a place to exist that inevitably creates such 'poo flinging' is not toleration, but invitation.
So say farewell to the Politics and similar forums, and let a few people implement decency. And we can still argue. But decently.
TW
I've been on the trail and do not have time to read this thread or post in a political section which I'm sure I would enjoy. I would just like to remind everyone the AT exists 100% due to politics. It can be eliminated immediately due to politics. To ban political subjects is to ban THE most important issue to the AT. Someone once said, to hate politics is to love war and death, you have one or the other.Politics has many meanings. The politics you are refering to has nothing to do with what goes on in political forums these days. The AT doesn't exist because of cheap rhetoric and partisan politics. The AT exists because of thoughtful discourse.
Where do you find that these days?
Another elegant solution - pay$$$ per political post.
:sun
Surely you jest? I was never fond of sin taxes, which is exactly what that would be. I'll contribute to WB whether they have the PF or not, but to pay extra per-post to post to a subscribe forum is likely to turn me off to a site entirely.
The AT exists because of thoughtful discourse.
Where do you find that these days?
You act as though the entire site is corrupted. You're lucky if more than a dozen posters are the root cause and in the poltics section, it's less than that.
Question:
Everyone has heard the age old wisdom and tradition about how one should not discuss religion or politics in polite company. There might have been a third. Sex maybe. Not sure. When did that tradition originate? What was it refering to? Did it mean no reference to political issues or religious teachings whatsoever, or did it simply mean avoid controversial subjects relating to politics or religion?
So what does that mean exactly? No political discussion. No religious discussion.
When did this tradition orginate?
You act as though the entire site is corrupted. You're lucky if more than a dozen posters are the root cause and in the poltics section, it's less than that.Actually I was implying that the whole country was corrupted. ;)
Seriously, you could be right about it being only a dozen posters, and fewer in the politics section. Or it could be that we could all improve the level of our discourse, political or otherwise. I think the real problem is dogma, and cheap rhetorical methods which support dogma. Not sure of the best way to combat that. I've never studied rhetoric formally. What do you think? Other than by formal instruction and education, how do you facilitate people becoming better citizens in their ability to participate constructively in civic discourse? Free for all, or is there a better way.
What do you think? Other than by formal instruction and education, how do you facilitate people becoming better citizens in their ability to participate constructively in civic discourse? Free for all, or is there a better way.
A thoughtful subject, but one that probably belongs in the politics forum for further discussion. Sorry, but I'll not be baited. :rolleyes:
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 13:42
Question:
Everyone has heard the age old wisdom and tradition about how one should not discuss religion or politics in polite company. There might have been a third. Sex maybe. Not sure. When did that tradition originate? What was it refering to? Did it mean no reference to political issues or religious teachings whatsoever, or did it simply mean avoid controversial subjects relating to politics or religion?
So what does that mean exactly? No political discussion. No religious discussion.
When did this tradition orginate?The idea is not to make other people feel uncomfortable because polite people are considerate of others' feelings and well-being.
Weary, what percentage of political questions in the WB forums are about the Trail? Please don't read anything into my quesion. Just curious.
It depends on your perspective. A lot of participants on White Blaze think the trail exists in a vacuum, that it is not influenced by what goes on in Washington and in the states through which it passes.
They are wrong. The trail is influenced by the world and the political decisions that surround it. The Maine Appalachian Trail Club stirred a state wide political debate when it opposed industrial wind turbines a mile from the trail corridor.
We were the subject of editorials in all the newspapers, months of regulatory hearings, and a fervid Legislative debate. The National Park Service AT director came to Maine twice to testify -- and was criticized by politicians in Washington for doing so.
There is a political divide in this country. Some support and seek to protect trails and public lands. Others would minimize that support and protection except for a few high profile areas. A few years ago we had calls for a "park closing commission." Some on White Blaze seem to have no idea that there is even an issue.
Money for parks and trails was slashed in the current federal budget. MATC has been told not to expect any significant money next year for trail work. That will delay or end the systematic rebuilding of the Maine trail that was relocated in a hurry during the 80s to meet a Congressional deadline for a permanent trail corridor.
This is an issue that blurs traditional party lines. But as near as I can tell, how much money becomes available for such things over the next four years will pretty much depend on who wins the Presidency and who controls the Congress.
This is not a very good answer to your question, but it is the issue I think is most important in the political forum debates. We don't talk about it directly, but it is an important consideration in the partisan discussion.
Weary
A thoughtful subject, but one that probably belongs in the politics forum for further discussion. Sorry, but I'll not be baited. :rolleyes:I really wasn't trying to bait you.
Wow! This has been a tough thread to read through. There have been excellent arguments both for and against politics on WB. I did not realize that their was a separate thread just for politics. Am I wrong in thinking that I have been reading political statements in nearly every thread on WB??
I don't feel like we should be griping about Iran, Iraq, or North Korea....but, protecting or not protecting the AT corridor, wind farms visible from the AT (yea or nay), backcountry insurance or fees, air pollution, erosion control....like it not these are political topics and directly affect the trail that we all love. Political topics affecting the AT should be discussed. We all came to this site because we love the trail. I don't feel that we should hide our heads in the sand because we have different view points. It seems to me that we are all adults here...just because someone posts a comment that makes one of us think they are an idiot, we don't have to call them an idiot. Why can't we exercise some self control.
This entire site seems to be designed to draw out our opinion. From what I have read in nearly all of the threads is we don't agree on anything. My thoughts, politics, religion, pack weight, speed (or lack there of), shoes, bag, pad, stove,and hiking style work for me. It may not work for any one else on this site...but parts of it may.
Please keep WB an open forum so that I may learn or at least try something that worked for someone else.
The idea is not to make other people feel uncomfortable because polite people are considerate of others' feelings and well-being.That makes sense.
So it's meant in the general sense, and depends on your specific company, or audience. So on a hiking forum, does it mean anyone that might read a particular thread, or those that you are addressing at the time of the post. For example, if I was to make a comment on sustainability, or evolution, or creation in the general allegorical sense, with respect to some reflection I was making on something I observed while hiking, should I be concerned about everyone on WB, or just those I am conversing with at the moment?
Where do environmental issues fit in today? Are they fit for polite conversation?
Jack Tarlin
07-02-2008, 14:05
I find it remarkable, and more than a little amusing, that the people who have posted the most frequently on this thread, and the ones who have the strongest opinions on continuance of the political Forum, are people who aren't registered there and don't participate anyway.
Prediction: I am NOT saying that I disagree with website administration's plan to institute more stringent rule and regulations regarding posts and their content.
But I'm positive that many of the same people who are advocating these measures now, including the blanket deletion of posts and entire threads without explanation......well, before too long, these are the exact same people who will be complaining about EXCESSIVE administrative control of the website.
Today, they feel there isn't enough administrative control.
Tomorrow they'll be complaining about too much.
There's no satisfying some people.
Weary makes a good case for allowing some partisan discussion, on issues that effect the AT and hiking more directly, and where there is a distinct difference between the two candidates. I think it might still be possible to focus on the importance of the issue and not the policy difference. The problem otherwise is that folks can drive an issue when they are really just driving a party, or at least that might be the perception, and then the importance of the issue itself quickly gets lost. I think it might be possible to spell out some guidelines somehow, as to how you can draw attention to policy differences on certain issues, as long as you still focus on the importance of the issues themselves. The general idea should be to raise the level of debate. Some would argue winning the election one way or the other is more important. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it isn't.
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 14:15
I find it remarkable, and more than a little amusing, that the people who have posted the most frequently on this thread, and the ones who have the strongest opinions on continuance of the political Forum, are people who aren't registered there and don't participate anyway.
Prediction: I am NOT saying that I disagree with website administration's plan to institute more stringent rule and regulations regarding posts and their content.
But I'm positive that many of the same people who are advocating these measures now, including the blanket deletion of posts and entire threads without explanation......well, before too long, these are the exact same people who will be complaining about EXCESSIVE administrative control of the website.
Today, they feel there isn't enough administrative control.
Tomorrow they'll be complaining about too much.
There's no satisfying some people.
While Jack and I disagree about keeping the politics forums, we agree on deletion styles.
I suggested elsewhere that Wingfoot is available if we want that kind of "moderator."
Those who don't know what I'm referring to don't WANT to know. As Jack says.
TW
D'Artagnan
07-02-2008, 14:15
None of this would be an issue if folks didn't whine to Admins every time they felt like their feelings were hurt. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you don't like the political forum, stay out. Seems pretty simple to me. I vote to keep it.
I think it would still be an issue.
I don't whine to Admins. Never have. But I hate cheap rhetoric.
I think there might be a case for two political forums or none at all.
One for people that love cheap rhetoric, and get embroiled in partisan politics.
The other for folks that want more intelligent political and philosophical discourse.
Some folks might be equally comfortable in both, which is fine.
I just think they are two different sports, like soccer and rugby.
I find it remarkable, and more than a little amusing, that the people who have posted the most frequently on this thread, and the ones who have the strongest opinions on continuance of the political Forum, are people who aren't registered there and don't participate anyway...
If the theory is true, that the mean and nasty environment started in the PF spills over to the rest of the site, you don't have to be a member in the PF, to have a stake in wanting it gone.
I never joined, but I participated in enough general threads that turned nasty, to know I did not want to waste my time over there. Global warming being the worst offender.
It would be nice to be able to have thoughtful discussion on global warming.
It is a very sad commentary on today's society that it has become so difficult to do so.
I think it would still be an issue.
I don't whine to Admins. Never have. But I hate cheap rhetoric.
Rhetoric, like opinion, is cheap to some but dear to others.
Well some rhetoric gives all rhetoric a bad name. That is for sure.
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 14:31
I did not realize that their was a separate thread just for politics.Exactly one of my main points.
Am I wrong in thinking that I have been reading political statements in nearly every thread on WB??
No. Politics is part of almost everything that involves more than one person.
That makes sense.
So it's meant in the general sense, and depends on your specific company, or audience. So on a hiking forum, does it mean anyone that might read a particular thread, or those that you are addressing at the time of the post. For example, if I was to make a comment on sustainability, or evolution, or creation in the general allegorical sense, with respect to some reflection I was making on something I observed while hiking, should I be concerned about everyone on WB, or just those I am conversing with at the moment?I don't think you can avoid offending people if your audience is big enough. On the internet, your audience is theoretically every person on the planet.
On the other hand, no one is forced to read what you write. They read it because they want to. If they don't want to, they can not join the forum, put you on ignore, go to another website, not click on the thread. I don't click on hammock threads most of the time. I don't care what is said in them.
The only limitation to what is said and how it is said on the internet is going to be (a.) rules (b.) enforced by site owners. Period. There will always be someone who comes along who will say something that is offensive to someone else who comes along, either in form or content. Offhand, you can screen who is allowed to read, who is allowed to write, you can censor certain words, you can delete threads or comments. All of these measures can be circumvented by someone determined to do so.
Of course, there might be legal issues at times. Many things have been posted on this site that would be illegal in European countries. Hate speech is protected in the U.S. but not there. Is it protected in Canada?
Where do environmental issues fit in today? Are they fit for polite conversation?My personal belief is that the environmental issues facing us today with all of the billions of people on the planet are more important than almost anything else, including politics, etiquette, and conversation. It's about being able to breathe clean air and drink clean water and having enough to eat. It's about survival of species.
Example:
My neighbor gave me a bunch of paper towels that are in boxes like facial tissue because he didn't like them, five or six boxes. I commented, "Thanks, these will last me a couple of years." He was shocked, said he uses that many in a couple of months.
I don't know what I should have said or if I should have said anything, I do know that what I did say puzzled him a little bit.
I'm not going to tell you what I said, you can decide for yourself what you would or should have said had you found yourself on either side of this conversation.
...well, before too long, these are the exact same people who will be complaining about EXCESSIVE administrative control of the website.
Decisions of the Administrators are final.
Complaining about Admin decisions is not something that should be tolerated. The TOS is pretty clear about that issue.
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 14:35
None of this would be an issue if folks didn't whine to Admins every time they felt like their feelings were hurt. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you don't like the political forum, stay out. Seems pretty simple to me. I vote to keep it.
bingo!....but i vote to can it
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 14:38
the owners of the website should run a 2 day poll/vote for donating members only.
keep politics?
can politics?
majority wins
the owners of the website should run a 2 day poll/vote for donating members only.
keep politics?
can politics?
majority wins
1 vote per donor?
How about 1 dollar per vote? Maybe that would pay for a moderator. ;)
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 14:45
While I appreciate the courtesies that Rock and Troll give us in seeking opinions, and while that's a good thing, in many ways, this isn't a democracy. WB isn't the "property" of its users, although some may think so. It belongs to Troll and Rock, and I think they've heard all the opinions over and over and over again. They should decide, and they will make a good decision. Those who don't like it can do the same thing that "Former Admin," Troll and Rock and a few others of us did years back when there was the exodus here from TrailPlace: Start your own.
Me, I'll stay regardless of what they do.
TW
I think it's safe to say that it is easier to discuss politics and religion and sex today than it is to discuss environmental issues. It's an almost completely non-partisan issue as far as I am concerned, except that some think they own it when they don't, and others think they don't own it when they do. So everyone just ****s in the bed.
My own feeling is that we can't achieve sustainability without freedom and democracy,
and that freedom and democracy are not sustainable without sustainability. It's a concept that, like freedom and democracy, should be raised above partisan political rhetoric. Sustainability shouldn't be treated as or used as a trojan horse.
Anyhow. It's a sensitive issue, but it seems rather ironic and a real shame if we could not talk about environmental and sustainability issues in a hiking forum. To many, that's the point of hiking in the woods. To learn something about sustainability, about life.
I say ditch the politics forum and open up a forum on environmental issues.
Jack Tarlin
07-02-2008, 14:50
And Weasel, remember what happened to Trailplace after that "Exodus" you spoke of.
In short order, the site sank into insignificance, an insignificance it has yet to recover from.
I'll say it again: In short order, some of the same people demanding firmer administrative control today will be the first people to find fault with excessive control tomorrow, and they will undoubtedly be among the first people who leave the site.
Be careful what you wish for.
musicwoman
07-02-2008, 14:55
The owner(s) of this website have the freedom to delete or keep any thread/forums they want. They pay for that right. Anyone who is in disagreement with their decisions are always free to start their own board or at the very least, not frequent this one.
That they have decided to ask for the input of the hiking community BEFORE making a decision says a ton about their fairness and concern regarding all of our opinions.
As for me, my feeling is that there has been enough trouble here already. A forum based on politics will be charged with emotion, whether people mean it to or not. It would be like kicking a hornets nest to keep it.
Just my 2 cents:).
the goat
07-02-2008, 14:57
of course rock & attroll can do whatever they want.
that still doesn't negate the fact that this debate is retarded.
Yes but there's few places one can discuss politics with people you actually know. Again, it's not the topic, but how it's being discussed.
The poll is skewered by folks that don't even belong. It's like Mexicians calling for open US borders! ;)
Perhaps it would be better to have a poll about the politics section where only those who are opted into it could vote. At least those voting would have a better understanding of what they're voting on.
Jack Tarlin
07-02-2008, 14:58
And the good thing about hornet's nests, MW, is that it tends to keep the hornets all in the same place, and it's a place that people don't enter either, unless of course, it's by their own choice. :-?
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 14:59
That they have decided to ask for the input of the hiking community BEFORE making a decision says a ton about their fairness and concern regarding all of our opinions. Just to clarify this poll and thread are not "official" and the site owners didn't create them. But the second part of your sentence is still true.
musicwoman
07-02-2008, 15:02
And Weasel, remember what happened to Trailplace after that "Exodus" you spoke of.
In short order, the site sank into insignificance, an insignificance it has yet to recover from.
I'll say it again: In short order, some of the same people demanding firmer administrative control today will be the first people to find fault with excessive control tomorrow, and they will undoubtedly be among the first people who leave the site.
Be careful what you wish for.
I completely trust the admins here to monitor the forums appropriately, and I would think the majority of posters would agree with that. I don't believe that stricter monitoring to prevent the personal attacks that have occurred here lately would qualify as "excessive control". Let's not forget what caused all this in the first place.
Jack Tarlin
07-02-2008, 15:07
Note:
I agree with MW, in that I also have great faith in the administrators, and never meant to imply otherwise.
What I said was that there are some folks here who are demanding changes today, but will squack like turpentined cats when they discover it is THEIR comments that are being trimmed, monitored, or deleted. The changes that they are hoping to see here will look a lot different when the new policies start to affect THEIR posts instead of just the ones they don't care for. :rolleyes:
musicwoman
07-02-2008, 15:14
Note:
I agree with MW, in that I also have great faith in the administrators, and never meant to imply otherwise.
What I said was that there are some folks here who are demanding changes today, but will squack like turpentined cats when they discover it is THEIR comments that are being trimmed, monitored, or deleted. The changes that they are hoping to see here will look a lot different when the new policies start to affect THEIR posts instead of just the ones they don't care for. :rolleyes:
Then I suppose it will be a rude awakening for those who need it most. :rolleyes:
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 15:15
I completely trust the admins here to monitor the forums appropriately, and I would think the majority of posters would agree with that. I don't believe that stricter monitoring to prevent the personal attacks that have occurred here lately would qualify as "excessive control". Let's not forget what caused all this in the first place.According to what I read on another hiking forum, one of the "troublemakers on WhiteBlaze", as they put it, was already banned from that site. There were a lot of comments to the effect that the problems had more to do with certain people than with anything else and that banning those people would clean things up and make moderators' jobs easier.
I've been on the trail and do not have time to read this thread or post in a political section which I'm sure I would enjoy. I would just like to remind everyone the AT exists 100% due to politics. It can be eliminated immediately due to politics. To ban political subjects is to ban THE most important issue to the AT. Someone once said, to hate politics is to love war and death, you have one or the other.
Some of us are passionate about politics because who gets elected—even which party is in power—has a direct bearing on the things we care most about. This includes hiking in general, national parks, state and national forests, and of course long distance scenic trails like the AT.
We can limit our political discussions to just these narrow interests, or we can expand upon them in many ways. The objective is the same—supporting those who we think support our best interests, and trying to convince others that we are correct.
It's very American. There's nothing wrong with having a clearly labelled politics area on this website or others that are not defined as political sites. Even less of a problem if you have to opt-in to it, like we do on WB.
I participate in other sites that have as their main focus diverse topics like passenger trains, satellite radio, minor league baseball, and mountain culture. Politics creeps in from time to time. It's not a big deal because the moderators quickly shut down those few who can't stick to the thread topic (even if it's political in nature) but sink to personal attacks. On one site, there is a button below each post that anyone can click to bring something to the attention of the mods, which they seem to appreciate and rely upon because it means they don't have to sit there and read all posts. Minus the personal attacks, these threads are fine. It could work here the same way. On one site which has more members than WB (the radio one), politics are segregated into a specific area, which works fine too. Personal attacks are strictly forbideen, and almost everyone follows that rule (the few who don't are outta there).
On one site, there is a button below each post that anyone can click to bring something to the attention of the mods, which they seem to appreciate and rely upon because it means they don't have to sit there and read all posts. Minus the personal attacks, these threads are fine. ).
They have a report post button here in the upper right corner, the triangle with the exclamation mark. :sun
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 15:23
According to what I read on another hiking forum, one of the "troublemakers on WhiteBlaze", as they put it, was already banned from that site. There were a lot of comments to the effect that the problems had more to do with certain people than with anything else and that banning those people would clean things up and make moderators' jobs easier.
that was me that was banned from trailplace which is easy on that site. disagree with the overzealous moderator more than once on a thread that he's passionate about and you're gone. no biggie. :) this site is 10 times better. bob puts out a nice guide though.
Note:
I agree with MW, in that I also have great faith in the administrators, and never meant to imply otherwise.
What I said was that there are some folks here who are demanding changes today, but will squack like turpentined cats when they discover it is THEIR comments that are being trimmed, monitored, or deleted. The changes that they are hoping to see here will look a lot different when the new policies start to affect THEIR posts instead of just the ones they don't care for. :rolleyes:
You are confusing two separate issues.
By their actions the last several days, it should be clear that the administrators of this site intend to restore civility to WB. They have vowed to apply and enforce the User Rules/Agreement (http://www.whiteblaze.net/rules.htm), to the entire site. The tighter administrative monitoring is not negotiable. It is here already, and has nothing to do with the political forum.
Whether Troll and Rock decide to eliminate the political forum is a completely separate matter. Whatever their decision about the future of the political forum, the User Rules/Agreement (http://www.whiteblaze.net/rules.htm) still applies.
Anyone who is not familiar with the Rules (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/../rules.htm) should read them.
I see there is some legitimate concern about trail politics being eliminated. One work around would be to have an Admin to handle a Trail Politics forum. The Admin (and only the Admin) would be empowered to start threads on current political topics related to trails. Members could send that individual a PM suggesting topics for discussion.
That way, we could discuss the most current political issues that relate to trails without having useless and divisive threads like "Osama Obama" or "McSame '08."
Some people chafe at moderation like that, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Time for a change.
They have a report post button here in the upper right corner, the triangle with the exclamation mark. :sun
Learned something new today! :banana
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 15:30
They have a report post button here in the upper right corner, the triangle with the exclamation mark. :sun
certain posters on this site use it a lot :)
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-02-2008, 15:33
I see there is some legitimate concern about trail politics being eliminated. One work around would be to have an Admin to handle a Trail Politics forum. The Admin (and only the Admin) would be empowered to start threads on current political topics related to trails. Members could send that individual a PM suggesting topics for discussion.
That way, we could discuss the most current political issues that relate to trails without having useless and divisive threads like "Osama Obama" or "McSame '08."
Some people chafe at moderation like that, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Time for a change.Good observation regarding insanity and good suggestion for how to handle trail related topics. Wonder if it is possible to have all posts in a forum be moderated - meaning the admin would read them before they appeared on the board - and could delete those that would be inflammatory before they were seen by others.
Jack Tarlin
07-02-2008, 15:36
Roland:
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
If you look at my past few posts, I wasn't necessarily cautioning against firmer regulation here. What I said (several times, you must have missed it) was that some of the people most strongly advocating this will feel differently when this starts getting directed at THEM.
I see there is some legitimate concern about trail politics being eliminated. One work around would be to have an Admin to handle a Trail Politics forum. The Admin (and only the Admin) would be empowered to start threads on current political topics related to trails. Members could send that individual a PM suggesting topics for discussion.
That way, we could discuss the most current political issues that relate to trails without having useless and divisive threads like "Osama Obama" or "McSame '08."
Some people chafe at moderation like that, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Time for a change.
Threads that are political in nature dealing with trails, hiking, national park funding, etc. are a great idea and this is a natural site for them to exist. Most of us should want to elect people and a party that support our best interests, and if there are some who disagree with one another about what is in our best interests this is a good place to discuss it--so long as the personal attacks go away.
To take it a step further, if any one of us has identified, even in our own minds, which candidate or party best supports our interests what's wrong with discussing the other reasons why we might support that candidate or party? Or reasons not to support his or her opponent(s)?
IMHO that's why a political section on WB is not only OK, but it's appropriate. Because it's strictly opt-in, no one has to view it or participate in it unless they jump through the hoops.
Ban bad behavior. Keep the political section.
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 15:39
time to shut this one down. nothing good is gonna come out of this thread.
Good observation regarding insanity and good suggestion for how to handle trail related topics. Wonder if it is possible to have all posts in a forum be moderated - meaning the admin would read them before they appeared on the board - and could delete those that would be inflammatory before they were seen by others.
That would work if we could find an administrator that likes being bored to death.:)
Weary
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 15:42
Threads that are political in nature dealing with trails, hiking, national park funding, etc. are a great idea and this is a natural site for them to exist. Most of us should want to elect people and a party that support our best interests, and if there are some who disagree with one another about what is in our best interests this is a good place to discuss it--so long as the personal attacks go away.
To take it a step further, if any one of us has identified, even in our own minds, which candidate or party best supports our interests what's wrong with discussing the other reasons why we might support that candidate or party? Or reasons not to support his or her opponent(s)?
IMHO that's why a political section on WB is not only OK, but it's appropriate. Because it's strictly opt-in, no one has to view it or participate in it unless they jump through the hoops.
Ban bad behavior. Keep the political section.
NOBODY ever talks about environmental/trail related politics in that forum and you know it. it's left against right. no discussion. constant bickering. get rid of the political section
IMHO that's why a political section on WB is not only OK, but it's appropriate. Because it's strictly opt-in, no one has to view it or participate in it unless they jump through the hoops.
Ban bad behavior. Keep the political section.
Yeah, and if some are having trouble with others opinions, they should place them on ignore. If everyone followed the rules and used the tools provided we wouldn't be having this conversation. :sun
time to shut this one down. nothing good is gonna come out of this thread.
I wouldn't say nothing good. The owners and mods got to hear how people feel. Perhaps it is useful input on where to take it from here.
Roland:
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
If you look at my past few posts, I wasn't necessarily cautioning against firmer regulation here. What I said (several times, you must have missed it) was that some of the people most strongly advocating this will feel differently when this starts getting directed at THEM.
Please read my post again. It doesn't matter who advocates for, or against, firmer regulation. The owners of this site have made it clear that the Rules are already in place, and will be enforced.
This thread wasn't about the Rules. It's about the future of the political forum.
Alligator
07-02-2008, 16:23
If anyone was wondering, donating members can edit their posts by using the edit button at the bottom of the post in question.
Non-donating members have I think only 15 minutes to do so.
Silver Bear
07-02-2008, 16:26
I did not know about the politcal things or threads. But if they somehow take away from the site, or suck up bandwidth than get rid of them.
I agree with others, I use this site for hiking information. If I want politics than I will go elsewhere for that type of discussion. Sports or politics can get some heated discussions going. Thanks for keeping WB up & going, I have gained a lot of information, since I am new to hiking.
I haven't posted for a while, but I just voted now to drop the politics. I contributed to the upkeep of this active, useful and amusing hiking site, with a gentle bias toward the AT. I would not contribute to a site dedicated to flame wars about politics. It seems the admins are swamped with traffic which stems mainly from the politics forum, plus a few trolls and their vendettas on the general forums. This places the whole site in jeopardy, so the easiest and most reasonable course is simply to ban purely political discussions both on the political forum and on the general fora. As this might mean a loss of income, I would also encourage more people who join for the hiking discussions to ante up and support what they joined to see here.
Silver Bear
07-02-2008, 16:32
Just one thing that may be of help in controling comments. I read knoxnews.com
You can post comments to stories, in the comment window is a botton marked (suggest removal). I don't know the software involved, but it sounds like the readers do some control if comments get out of hand.
Odd Thomas
07-02-2008, 16:37
Question:
Everyone has heard the age old wisdom and tradition about how one should not discuss religion or politics in polite company. There might have been a third. Sex maybe. Not sure. When did that tradition originate? What was it refering to? Did it mean no reference to political issues or religious teachings whatsoever, or did it simply mean avoid controversial subjects relating to politics or religion?
So what does that mean exactly? No political discussion. No religious discussion.
When did this tradition orginate?
For dealing with people you'd rather not be around, like inlaws, sure. But who wants a forum full of awkwardness with people treating each other like inlaws? :)
Alligator
07-02-2008, 16:38
Just one thing that may be of help in controling comments. I read knoxnews.com
You can post comments to stories, in the comment window is a botton marked (suggest removal). I don't know the software involved, but it sounds like the readers do some control if comments get out of hand.It was mentioned above but the red triangle with the exclamation point located in the upper right of the post lets mods and admins know of a post in need of attention.
Odd Thomas
07-02-2008, 16:38
Just one thing that may be of help in controling comments. I read knoxnews.com
You can post comments to stories, in the comment window is a botton marked (suggest removal). I don't know the software involved, but it sounds like the readers do some control if comments get out of hand.
"suggest removal" is the same as our "report post", pretty much.
It seems the admins are swamped with traffic which stems mainly from the politics forum, plus a few trolls and their vendettas on the general forums.
I've seen "it seems", "I think" the politics section is the cause for the demise of WB but, DO YOU (or any of the others) really know, or is it just a feeling? The people in politics select to go there, and I think for the most part can handle themselves. It's the "few trolls and their vendettas on the general forums" that make the site look bad because it's open to the public. Following yours and others logic, the entire site should be closed.
oldfivetango
07-02-2008, 17:00
My Dad always told me if I wanted to keep my friends then
don't discuss religion or politics with them.
I thought the political forums idea was idiotic from the outset.
When I was there I was called a misogynist,wife beater,and had
one poster use the "F" word on my with no comment coming from
the moderators.(said poster refused to apologize,too).
The hate and vitriol spills over to the general forums.
I thought this is a hiking site and not a political rant site.
My vote-can it.
Oldfivetango
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 17:05
And the good thing about hornet's nests, MW, is that it tends to keep the hornets all in the same place, and it's a place that people don't enter either, unless of course, it's by their own choice. :-?
Jack, if there is anyone who should know the fundamental difference between WF's refusal to allow differences of opinion and Troll/Rock, it's you. I trust these guys to be reasonable. Dan, no.
TW
So what if there's a lot of confrontation, it’s only cyber space!! LIGHTEN UP MODS.
I've seen "it seems", "I think" the politics section is the cause for the demise of WB but, DO YOU (or any of the others) really know, or is it just a feeling? The people in politics select to go there, and I think for the most part can handle themselves. It's the "few trolls and their vendettas on the general forums" that make the site look bad because it's open to the public. Following yours and others logic, the entire site should be closed.
Hi Sly, I don't think your comments truly follow from my post. I got my information from monitoring the comments of the admins and moderators. The words I used are my precis of their public statements here on WB and also on Hiking HQ. What I was trying to indicate is that I do not wish to support a political slugfest. I do want to support this site in its primary role, which I take to be a hiking bulletin board. Perhaps I am wrong in that asumption, as I have nothing to support it but what I read on the site itself, in the words of the administration.
Having paid my taxes, so to speak, I wish to record my vote as to the disposition of those taxes. Yes, I do recognize that it is entirely up to the admins to do as they please, as this is their site. Presumably they wish to continue to support "A Community of Appalachian Trail Enthusiasts." Again I suggest that the simplest and most effective way to do this might be to drop the dead weight which is the extraneous political bombast, and all the overhead which goes with it.
I have no issue with a polite discussion of the politics of hiking, backpacking, trails and even equipment, including the contentious issues of dogs, horses, llamas, mountain and dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, and so forth. There is even room for the odd heated discussion, or people riding their hobby horses around the forum once in a while. But when anything gets to be a burden on the site operators, that puts the whole thing in danger, which is surely the point at issue here?
I don't know what your problem is here, Sly. Is it a free speech thing? Or do you just like fighting over everything with your congenial enemies here on WB? If I want to hear a bunch of fixed positions on any issue of the day, all I need to do is read the comments under a news story. Enough flames to roast dinner in any one of them. Do we really need it here on WB?
All the best, Gavin
Why does everybody hate Wingfoot? I hiked with him years ago and found him to be a delight to be with. We shared wine, smokes, and trail stories. He has always treated me with kindness and respect.
Jack, if there is anyone who should know the fundamental difference between WF's refusal to allow differences of opinion and Troll/Rock, it's you. I trust these guys to be reasonable. Dan, no.
TW
If Dan Bruce has been following this train wreck, I suspect he is laughing right about now.
hopefulhiker
07-02-2008, 17:21
I don't have a problem with the Politics section going away, provided there's assurance that political commentary will NOT make its way into the rest of the website. There were several folks who regularly frequented the Political Forums who essentially had virtually nothing much to say to the website EXCEPT political stuff, and I think some of these folks are going to have a real problem NOT introducing politics elsewhere on the site. The great advantage of the Political forums was that it effectively kept 99% of this stuff OUT of the rest of the site, and this fact, coupled with the fact that nobody went into the Political section unless they wanted to be there......well for these two reasons, I thought having a separate political section was a good idea, and in some ways I think it's STILL a good idea. There are people who will ALWAYS find a way to inject political stuff into virtually any subject, and I think it's going to start happening again if the political section is killed off.
Amazingly I agree completely with Jack on this.
If Dan Bruce has been following this train wreck, I suspect he is laughing right about now.I'm sure you're right about about that. Too bad some folks are too uptight and/or immature to handle a little web-brawling. I guess the wingfoots win. I'm sure he's not the only one engaging in a little smug self satisfaction right now. Anyone who voted for the website time-out or political forums closing down is acknowledging their own lack of maturity and inability to handle free speech. This is a common problem in this country. We say we want freedom, but then don't want others to have it.:rolleyes:
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-02-2008, 17:40
If Dan Bruce has been following this train wreck, I suspect he is laughing right about now.You think? :D I, too, think Dan probably had a real good laugh about this.
We had the political forum and I fought for it to stay open when closing it was under consideration. It was left open last time by Dixi with the promise that the trash would be kept in there. However, it has become readily apparent that the vomit from the political forum has splatter all over the forum yet again. Enough already. Close it down
4eyedbuzzard
07-02-2008, 17:45
You think? :D I, too, think Dan probably had a real good laugh about this.
We had the political forum and I fought for it to stay open when closing it was under consideration. It was left open last time by Dixi with the promise that the trash would be kept in there. However, it has become readily apparent that the vomit from the political forum has splatter all over the forum yet again. Enough already. Close it down
Political vomit will inevitably show up sooner or later. Politics forum or not.
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 17:45
Why does everybody hate Wingfoot? I hiked with him years ago and found him to be a delight to be with. We shared wine, smokes, and trail stories. He has always treated me with kindness and respect.
B ---
I doubt that many people hate him, if any. He was, however, extremely intolerant on TrailPlace of any opinion (not just political) that differed from his, and frequently booted people from his site without any explanation. The combination made it an unpleasant site for anything other than very obsequious or innocuous postings, although Dan was fond of having other people remind the miscreants (which included the founder of WhiteBlaze) that it was HIS site for him to do what he pleased. He did, and over time his actions basically killed it.
TW
I'm sure you're right about about that. Too bad some folks are too uptight and/or immature to handle a little web-brawling. I guess the wingfoots win. I'm sure he's not the only one engaging in a little smug self satisfaction right now. Anyone who voted for the website time-out or political forums closing down is acknowledging their own lack of maturity and inability to handle free speech. This is a common problem in this country. We say we want freedom, but then don't want others to have it.:rolleyes:
BFitz for President!
Oops, sorry.
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 17:48
If Dan Bruce has been following this train wreck, I suspect he is laughing right about now.
If Dan is laughing, he shouldn't.
The difference here isn't between absolute intolerance to one man's opinions about everything - that's what TrailPlace was - other than "alcohol versus cannister?" discussions. It's between deep concern about people who get way, way, way out of line and being reasonable. In a word, it's not what people are saying here as much as how they are saying it.
TW
hopefulhiker
07-02-2008, 17:49
I voted to keep the forum open. I have never complained to the moderators. I enjoyed debating, and learned from posters like Weasel, Weary, FD, and Jack. At times it could be as entertaining as anything out there.. I will miss it if the moderators (there are stars in their crowns) decide to shut it down.
You think? :D I, too, think Dan probably had a real good laugh about this.
We had the political forum and I fought for it to stay open when closing it was under consideration. It was left open last time by Dixi with the promise that the trash would be kept in there. However, it has become readily apparent that the vomit from the political forum has splatter all over the forum yet again. Enough already. Close it down
If you think that the vomit comes only from the political forums then I can see how you might feel that way. And in your case, I can easily understand why you have that unfortunate perception. But the vomit comes from people. Actually, since Ive been away from the political forums Ive only seen the vomit apparent to everyone and none of it has been political. But it's still been vomit. And some of the vomiters play all nice while puking under the carpet and leaving it there where it stinks for years while. If no-one's allowed to call them out on it that's the vomit that stays around and stinks for months.
Most of my good friends from WB are the people that I've argued endlessly with on the political forums. Just sayin. That includes you FD.
By the way, irony is today redefined as the Weasel and Mowgli talking about this topic as if they weren't largely responsible for the type of thing we're talking about here. I suppose the eye cannot see itself.
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 18:00
One of the remarkable things is that I keep seeing references to the "new rules." I went to the link, and reread the User Agreement, and I frankly don't see much in it that is "new". It's been there all along. And nothing in there should be a surprise to anyone. It's not a lot different from the original one or subsequent versions.
To those who think it new, or restrictive, or bad or something, well....too bad you didn't read it sooner. And don't complain if the rules are actually enforced. No surprise there, either.
TW
Not that I would have it any other way.;)
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 18:02
By the way, irony is today redefined as the Weasel and Mowgli talking about this topic as if they weren't largely responsible for the type of thing we're talking about here. I suppose the eye cannot see itself.
Yes, Fitz. Thank you for not honoring Troll's suggestion that we not point fingers. I'm sure that's helpful. Perhaps that doesn't help him have the hope we want him to have that people will honor his requests to be more civil. Thank you, Fitz. Perhaps you'll join me (and, I suspect, others) in taking a deep breath and realizing what he is saying. Thank you again.
TW
Gray Blazer
07-02-2008, 18:03
By the way, irony is today redefined as the Weasel and Mowgli talking about this topic as if they weren't largely responsible for the type of thing we're talking about here. I suppose the eye cannot see itself.
Be careful, it sounds like the dissent is starting to cascade.:eek:
Yes, Fitz. Thank you for not honoring Troll's suggestion that we not point fingers. I'm sure that's helpful. Perhaps that doesn't help him have the hope we want him to have that people will honor his requests to be more civil. Thank you, Fitz. Perhaps you'll join me (and, I suspect, others) in taking a deep breath and realizing what he is saying. Thank you again.
TWAw c'mon. You're the one getting all worked up. Let's take a deep breath together and say ooooooommmmmmm. There, that's better. I can laugh at myself and my role in this issue, I'm sure you can too, if you try. :p
Why does everybody hate Wingfoot? I hiked with him years ago and found him to be a delight to be with. We shared wine, smokes, and trail stories. He has always treated me with kindness and respect.
Yep, but that's an old story. Lots of folks behave better in real-life than they do on the internet. Not sure why that is, exactly.
Appalachian Tater
07-02-2008, 18:14
Well, this thread certainly proves that it's not the political forum itself that's responsible for any issues!
Lots of folks behave better in real-life than they do on the internet. Not sure why that is, exactly.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Conan of Cimmeria
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 18:18
By the way, irony is today redefined as the Weasel and Mowgli talking about this topic as if they weren't largely responsible for the type of thing we're talking about here. I suppose the eye cannot see itself.
Yes, Fitz. Thank you for not honoring Troll's suggestion that we not point fingers. I'm sure that's helpful. Perhaps that doesn't help him have the hope we want him to have that people will honor his requests to be more civil. Thank you, Fitz. Perhaps you'll join me (and, I suspect, others) in taking a deep breath and realizing what he is saying. Thank you again.
TW
Aw c'mon. You're the one getting all worked up. Let's take a deep breath together and say ooooooommmmmmm. There, that's better. I can laugh at myself and my role in this issue, I'm sure you can too, if you try. :p
I said "Take a deep breath" FIRST. I beat you. I get more points in the competition. I win. You lose. Nyah, nyah.
PS: I told you to take a deep breath, not to exhale. Hold it. Keep holding it. Keeeeeep holding it.
TW
I said "Take a deep breath" FIRST. I beat you. I get more points in the competition. I win. You lose. Nyah, nyah.
PS: I told you to take a deep breath, not to exhale. Hold it. Keep holding it. Keeeeeep holding it.
TWI held it as long as I could but then I started coughing and couldn't hold it any more. What a rush.
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 18:23
I held it as long as I could but then I started coughing and couldn't hold it any more. What a rush.
If you can't hold it on your own, tell me and I'll help you hold it. Maybe for a couple hours. Don't worry. Trust me.
TW
I don't buy the 'it's just the internet' argument.
It's not a simple matter of some people having thin skins.
The issue is that some people think politics is best advanced if it's a total free for all,
and some people would rather not participate in discussions, even in matters they are deeply concerned about, if it's a total free for all. The problem with total free for all is that people can to easily sabotage a legitimate concern, in order to maintain the status quo, whatever that is, and when we all allow that happens, politics and society spirals down into chaos. This may serve some special interests for a period of time, but in the end we all lose.
I don't think we are capable of raising the level of debate - so shut it down.
Same on serious environmental issues - if we can't debate it seriously - shut it down.
On might argue that that only serves the status quo. Perhaps.
But perhaps some forum, some place else, is able to carry the torch if we are not.
If we can't do it right here - then shut it down.
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 18:37
I'm sure you're right about about that. Too bad some folks are too uptight and/or immature to handle a little web-brawling. I guess the wingfoots win. I'm sure he's not the only one engaging in a little smug self satisfaction right now. Anyone who voted for the website time-out or political forums closing down is acknowledging their own lack of maturity and inability to handle free speech. This is a common problem in this country. We say we want freedom, but then don't want others to have it.:rolleyes:
start your own site.
If you can't hold it on your own, tell me and I'll help you hold it. Maybe for a couple hours. Don't worry. Trust me.
TWThat's not a threat is it? Naw, couldn't be, that'd be against the sacred rules. Anyway, not to get all political but I do hope we get to inhale together some day. In honor of Clinton.
start your own site.
Too lazy.
I don't buy the 'it's just the internet' argument.
It's not a simple matter of some people having thin skins.
The issue is that some people think politics is best advanced if it's a total free for all,
and some people would rather not participate in discussions, even in matters they are deeply concerned about, if it's a total free for all. The problem with total free for all is that people can to easily sabotage a legitimate concern, in order to maintain the status quo, whatever that is, and when we all allow that happens, politics and society spirals down into chaos. This may serve some special interests for a period of time, but in the end we all lose.
I don't think we are capable of raising the level of debate - so shut it down.
Same on serious environmental issues - if we can't debate it seriously - shut it down.
On might argue that that only serves the status quo. Perhaps.
But perhaps some forum, some place else, is able to carry the torch if we are not.
If we can't do it right here - then shut it down.Swell. That way no one has a chance to rise above the fray. I'm sure glad our founding fathers didn't think that way.
What's really the case though, is that I'm kind of an ******* no matter what topic is under discussion, so there is no topic that I am capable of approaching with anything but the free-for-all mentality. And as you've pointed out, so are most other people. So what are we accomplishing here?
Don't you remember when your mom told you how to avoid antagonizers when you were a little kid? Just ignore them and they'll go away. All they want is attention and you're just feeding the fire. And she was right. I have made more posts today on whiteblaze than in the last several weeks put together. What does that tell you.
The Political Forums being temporarily closed will no doubt assist the Admin and mods in the short run. Seems like folks are making the assumption that the subscription forums are the genesis of the current situation. I don't think that is entirely true, in fact I agree with bfitz on most of this. People are responsible for the contentious atmosphere that the Admin is trying to eliminate. I will be very surprised if eliminating the subscription forums clears this up. From what I have read in this thread, many think the political forums brought us to this point. I do not think that is nearly the whole story.
I don't think we are capable of raising the level of debate - so shut it down.
Same on serious environmental issues - if we can't debate it seriously - shut it down.
If we can't do it right here - then shut it down.
Is that the best you can come up with "shut it down"? :rolleyes: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
Someone should make a list of all the people that voted to shut it down, and when, and if, the politic forum reopens they shouldn't be allowed to join but banned. From the names I've seen, I guarantee at least 3/4 of the problems would be gone
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-02-2008, 19:00
So what do you feel brought us here. Ed?
The Political Forums being temporarily closed will no doubt assist the Admin and mods in the short run. Seems like folks are making the assumption that the subscription forums are the genesis of the current situation. I don't think that is entirely true, in fact I agree with bfitz on most of this. People are responsible for the contentious atmosphere that the Admin is trying to eliminate. I will be very surprised if eliminating the subscription forums clears this up. From what I have read in this thread, many think the political forums brought us to this point. I do not think that is nearly the whole story.
Most folks here don't even know about the political forums. Not only is it not nearly the whole story, it's really only a very minor facet if it's a part of the story at all. The real problem is people are ********. And that's true no matter where you go or what you discuss.
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 19:01
That's not a threat is it? Naw, couldn't be, that'd be against the sacred rules. Anyway, not to get all political but I do hope we get to inhale together some day. In honor of Clinton.
Fitz ---
No, not a threat. An invitation. But I don't smoke anymore, and never "smoked." Still, join me for a Macallans sometime. After I let loose and you can breathe, that is. :D
TW
Wow, I'm so used to the censorship software I got used to it just replacing my words with stars. Sorry. What I meant to say was that most people are jerks. Not anyone specifically of course, just everyone in general.
The Weasel
07-02-2008, 19:04
:-?You could, of course, go back and edit it.
TW
Lone Wolf
07-02-2008, 19:08
The real problem is people are ********.
i'm not and that offends me. i'm actually a caring, loving and thoughtful person regardless of what certain posters here say.
Or maybe innuendo doesn't get deleted? Nice, a loophole!
Fitz ---
No, not a threat. An invitation. But I don't smoke anymore, and never "smoked." Still, join me for a Macallans sometime. After I let loose and you can breathe, that is. :D
TWLooking forward. I'm not so much an aficionado of said libation but I've heard that it's the good stuff. As far as not "smoking", well, we can always "eat" or "drink" it just as well, so no worries. ;)
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-02-2008, 19:12
i'm not and that offends me. i'm actually a caring, loving and thoughtful person regardless of what certain posters here say.I can affirm this. LW is the most caring, loving a-hole I know :D
i'm not and that offends me. i'm actually a caring, loving and thoughtful person regardless of what certain posters here say.Hmmmm...methinks the lady doth protest too much.....
Is that the best you can come up with "shut it down"? :rolleyes: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
Someone should make a list of all the people that voted to shut it down, and when, and if, the politic forum reopens they shouldn't be allowed to join but banned. From the names I've seen, I guarantee at least 3/4 of the problems would be gone Yeah. At this point that's all I got.
I tried other suggestions. They didn't work.
Scorch the sucker.
Swell. That way no one has a chance to rise above the fray. I'm sure glad our founding fathers didn't think that way.
What's really the case though, is that I'm kind of an ******* no matter what topic is under discussion, so there is no topic that I am capable of approaching with anything but the free-for-all mentality. And as you've pointed out, so are most other people. So what are we accomplishing here?
Don't you remember when your mom told you how to avoid antagonizers when you were a little kid? Just ignore them and they'll go away. All they want is attention and you're just feeding the fire. And she was right. I have made more posts today on whiteblaze than in the last several weeks put together. What does that tell you.Burn baby burn. That's what it tells me.
The Political Forums being temporarily closed will no doubt assist the Admin and mods in the short run. Seems like folks are making the assumption that the subscription forums are the genesis of the current situation. I don't think that is entirely true, in fact I agree with bfitz on most of this. People are responsible for the contentious atmosphere that the Admin is trying to eliminate. I will be very surprised if eliminating the subscription forums clears this up. From what I have read in this thread, many think the political forums brought us to this point. I do not think that is nearly the whole story.
Some of us made that point pretty early on. Like, almost 200 posts back. ;)
See, if all the people that don't want the PF or want them closed, weren't allowed to join, most of the complaints would vanish, gone, kaput, less work for the mods. Then we'd only have to deal with a handful of people that appear incapable of following the TOS and give them a time out. What's left would be those that actually enjoy discussing politics. Problem solved.
oldfivetango
07-02-2008, 19:25
Yep, but that's an old story. Lots of folks behave better in real-life than they do on the internet. Not sure why that is, exactly.
Could it be that some people who would tell someone over
the internet to "F-off" would not have the testosterone to
actually say it in person?Hmm......?
Oldfivetango
I'm just voicing my opinion here.
If people think it is ok to use cheap rhetoric to stop me from having intelligent discourse,
then I think it is ok to use cheap rhetoric to stop people from having any discourse at all.
If they reopen the political forum to trash talk.
They should open a serious political forum for people that want to discuss politics without trash talk.
If you don't let me have the forum I want, why should I let you have the forum you want?
Gee, I don't know old five. Could it be some folks have peculiarly selective memories? Hmm?
Skidsteer
07-02-2008, 19:34
All the positions have been stated. Closed.