Official forum cop thread

[generaladm]

I have a thought about the whole commentary of posted articles thing. Generally, I think it's an okay idea, and I'm assuming it's geared toward posters who post articles in direct response to another post without citing the relevance, which I think is a step in the right direction (to the end of making discussions clear and purposeful). The exception I think could be made is for straight AP type articles (free of commentary or analysis) posted only for breaking news. Not long ago, I posted a quote and link about a Taliban leader killed by a US strike. Since all the info was in the quote, I didn't feel the need to comment. I guess my concern is that the commentary, no matter how benign it might be, may skew the direction of the discussion, rather than allowing people to react to the basic info. I'm fine either way, just interested on what the ruling on that would be. Is this something that will be strict just to cover all the bases? Perhaps enforced until things calm down a bit, then eased a bit? Just looking for feedback.

[Deety]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

when you tell me that you cut me a break by not banning me over not posting a comment you're trying to stir the hornets nest

This thread doesn't exist and none of what transpired today happens if someone takes the rational approach

That seems to be the issue. The rational approach in my mind would be thinking, follow a few simple forum requests? Well, sure, I can do that. Let's try it and see if it works.

[jwinslow]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

then again i see the heightened posting standard lesser than slurs, or accusations directly aimed at a person as racist, x or y...

You continue to toss this in our faces. Are you referring to this post?

Racism, alive and well in New York

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by OSUsushichic

Guys, why does this have to be so hard? I mean, I admit I've violated these offenses mentioned on numerous occasions, but I'm not whining about the crackdown. The main point here is that these rules are supposed to make you think before you post. Does your post effectively contribute to a civil debate? If no, then don't hit reply/post and revise it before you do. How hard is that?

define "civil"

YouTube - korean parliament fight - 22.7.2009. -...

or
Witnesses: Waters shoves Obey on House floor - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com
or
SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES SUMNER, IN ... - Google Books
Canefight! Preston Brooks and Charles Sumner [ushistory.org]
or

YouTube - Brown vs. Cameron during Queen's Speech...

or

YouTube - Parliament fight in Ukraine.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

You continue to toss this in our faces. Are you referring to this post?

Racism, alive and well in New York

in excess of a dozen or more that are worse than that.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

You continue to toss this in our faces. Are you referring to this post?

Racism, alive and well in New York

in excess of a dozen or more posts have been worse, some imply some flat out say it.

[jwinslow]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

in excess of a dozen or more posts have been worse, some imply some flat out say it.

and your assumption is that it hasn't been addressed simply because you haven't been privy to those private conversations.

It seems like folks want heads on a stick to disprove that they aren't being singled out like they claim.

['BusNative]

Umm... there are better things to do right now:

ENOUGH ALREADY - LET'S BEAT USC!
Southern California at tOSU (Sept 12th, 8 pm, ESPN)

[jwinslow]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

my idea was for some sort of panel, it seems to me that a vast majority of the issues are hot temper and heat of passion type issues, my idea was merely a few "elected" persons who could issue these sorts of things, some level of shall i say accountability and with the some level of electorate to relatively short terms. then again i see the heightened posting standard lesser than slurs, or accusations directly aimed at a person as racist, x or y...

let's get back to this post. This is largely how to be a different moderator, but not what and how you are moderating the problem.

Give me some examples of the posts you'd target, how you'd respond to them and guidelines to improve the discourse to prevent that kind of problem from reoccurring.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

and your assumption is that it hasn't been addressed simply because you haven't been privy to those private conversations.

It seems like folks want heads on a stick to disprove that they aren't being singled out like they claim.

like post #16?
Announcement: Poli Forum Season 2009: Things Must Change


i wasnt the one who picked the post you linked since the persons involved in that specific post hasnt weighed in. so i have no idea, that person is far from alone. and that person seems to have the ability to articulate such a view that doesnt slap me across the face, why? well it has some rational relationship, maybe it was off the deep end, maybe it was van jonesy in nature, rather than the blunt assertion.

but hey sure, maybe a running list of violations is a good idea, i wouldnt be offended...

[Bucky Katt]

Damn. Who do I have to blow to get deputized around here.

Really, I just don't get what's so difficult about self-policing. (Not that I'm debating how well it's working.)

If I were an elitist pr ick, overpaid, power-hungry, super-Mod, I'd ask that every poster take a minute before clicking submit to re-read what they are about to post and make sure it is what they want to say. Check for ambiguity to make sure it is clear what you are trying to say. Monitor the tone. Ask yourself if you would appreciate somebody responding to you with the same post. Ask yourself if you are prepared to defend what you are posting. I know I've had entire posts typed out on a particular topic before deciding not to post it for whatever reason. Just have a little more respect for those reading what you write.

Originally Posted by muffler dragon

I'm not sure if this thread is focused on finding infractions in the posts of others or if it's a matter of offering suggestions. If it's the latter; then I'll provide one:

Debate has a particular decorum. Within this decorum, there are manners in which to present an argument, counterpoint, etc. In my Type A way of going about discussions/debates, I try my best to eliminate any and all fallacies.

I provide the following source, because it's easy and concise:

Fallacies

If people discussed/debated arguments with points that were devoid of the above fallacies; then I believe we'd have a smoother time in PC&D.

Your mother is a whore. How do you like THAT argument? No fallacies there, jerk.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by Bucky Katt

Damn. Who do I have to blow to get deputized around here.

I'm sure you're at the "head" of that list, but from what I hear you always get (the) "left behind".

Originally Posted by BK

If I were an elitist pr ick, overpaid, power-hungry, super-Mod, I'd ask that every poster take a minute before clicking submit to re-read what they are about to post and make sure it is what they want to say. Check for ambiguity to make sure it is clear what you are trying to say. Monitor the tone. Ask yourself if you would appreciate somebody responding to you with the same post. Ask yourself if you are prepared to defend what you are posting. I know I've had entire posts typed out on a particular topic before deciding not to post it for whatever reason. Just have a little more respect for those reading what you write.

Thanks for echoing Sushi's point that she made like three years ago. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by BK

Your mother is a whore. How do you like THAT argument? No fallacies there, jerk.

Well said. Your really took 3b, and made it your own with this one.

argument - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1 obsolete : an outward sign : indication
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : argumentation b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : quarrel, disagreement
4 : an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <an argument preceded the poem>
5 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b : a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar c : amplitude 4

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

but hey sure, maybe a running list of violations is a good idea, i wouldnt be offended...

There is a running list. It isn't publicly available.

In any case, what's your point, JO? That moderators have failed in the past? OK. Fine.

I suppose that's self evident since the board devolved to the level it did, despite moderators being available to address things as they occurred... But.. it is what it is... or was what it was.. Mods didn't issue warnings and infractions where they could have.

Fine. Point taken....

Now, then... moving forward....

Is your point to illustrate that you think these posts need attention in the future? Fine... then say that... straight up. 'Cause from where I'm sitting, I am thinking the same as Jwins.... all you're doing is bitching about past moderation and not offering your opinion on how it could be better.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by Bucky Katt

Damn. Who do I have to blow to get deputized around here.

You'll never be a deputy so long as JCOSU has a say in it. The guy stops at nothing to ruin the internet...

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

There is a running list. It isn't publicly available.
maybe its a good idea for this forum to implement a "chalkboard" system. that was just an idea to solve a problem.
In any case, what's your point, JO? That moderators have failed in the past? OK. Fine.
huh? link? really... didnt say that, certainly room for improvement but i believe that in all aspects in nearly all things.
I suppose that's self evident since the board devolved to the level it did, despite moderators being available to address things as they occurred... But.. it is what it is... or was what it was.. Mods didn't issue warnings and infractions where they could have.
nor did the board self police as should have. and likely some mod on mod tone down should have taken place, water under the bridge though...
Fine. Point taken....

Now, then... moving forward....
that has been my point all along. improvement.
Is your point to illustrate that you think these posts need attention in the future? Fine... then say that... straight up.
i did that, the post in this whole process has yet to be addressed. that post is despicable and nothing short of it. 'Cause from where I'm sitting, I am thinking the same as Jwins.... all you're doing is bitching about past moderation and not offering your opinion on how it could be better.
no no, ive offered more than one suggestion. you on the other hand, well seems to me you have provided is one view from the ivory tower.

bold.