Well, I'm impressed. is the best debate site I ever came across. Perhaps I'm easy to please but being told not to swear, or bad mouth people seems to me to be common courtesy and more than fair.

I guess fbwc must have pressed some sensitive buttons to elict so many responses but for my part, I don't see the big deal. Nor do I stand confused by his ranting departure. Left wing extremists nearly always go ballistic sooner or later. Its that hypocritical attittude towards 'violent reactions' that turned me from the left wing perspective (though this is due to domestic politics as much as any thing that happened on this forum). I'm not familiar with any debate on YouTube or MySpace that can rival nor even come close, and I've never even heard of WeAreMorons.com, but judging by the title, I guess its not a place I'd care to visit. I'm guessing that fbwc, like most left wingers who find that they can't make an impression with their poor arguments, turn to other, less civil methods. Thankfully armed revolution is still impossible on the internet.

Personally I'm not interested in winning debates, nor educating people, despite what they might think. I don't even care what people think about me. I come here to debate. I push my arguments into the debate to see how they fair and I make my mind up accordingly. Since coming here, I've been insulted by both sides of the political divide, called a bigot, a hate monger and a racist, sometimes covertly, other times openly. I've always tried to maintain a civil tongue in debates but I can understand that people get excited when writing. I do it too. Usually, I manage to delete my less savoury contributions

I don't care if I debate the same people, whose opinions I am already well aware of or new people who I've never met before. Political debate fora are only good as a crucible of idea's. A place to dry run before formulating an opinion. Any one who argues with a closed mind as fbwc did, is not debating at all (and then its no surprise he finds the forum to be no good for his purposes).

edited due to pressing the wrong button mid post

No, I don't think I am superior, Barnaby2341. I merely believe that people resort to profanity when they become overly emotional or fall back on a crude word when they can't think of a more refined word. A well-reasoned and intelligently constructed argument can be totally demolished by suddenly yanking the pin on a F-grenade and lobbing it. Nobody may ever win an debate here, but that sure seems to me to be a way to ensure losing it.

Certainly, you can catch someone's attention if instead of saying "Would you please pass those delicious mashed potatoes?" you said, "Hurry up and pass the god-blankety-blank, mother @**&# mashed potatoes!" Of course, you do run the risk of having the bowl of mashed potatoes delivered straight into your lap. But hey, you got your point across, right? Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Profanity is counter-productive to civil debate. If I have to fall back on curse words it's probably because I've run out of intelligent words.



Now who's throwing out boogeymen? As far as I know, Alberto Gonzales hasn't swept up and packed off any posters to Gitmo without a trial. There are no "reprisals or repercussions" on this board. There are rules and anyone who joined this site presumably read them before joining. If they couldn't abide by them, no one is forcing them to stay. There are no shortage of places to go on the "Internets" to express oneself as loudly and profanely as possible. This just isn't one of those places.

Some posters may chafe under the rules of the board, but it seems clear that the majority have found ways to tolerate them.
Does it really harm the quality of a post when you can't use "fighting words" to drive your point home? Too often people fixate on what ticks them off in a post and that's what they go to war over. The more salient points get trampled underfoot.

There is plenty of truthful language used by the members of this board. Some of the more skillful ones have mastered the skill to very politely tell you to go to hell.

I think it's established that no one is necessarily "superior" to anybody else, barnaby2341 with one possible exception---the better debaters don't have to turn the air blue with profanity to make a point. Like the departed fbwc, I think you bring something to the party, but I don't think should change what works well merely to increase membership or please those frustrated by the profanity filters.



Hey, I hear ya. I prefer to be where the majority isn't. You're right about not wanting to be like everyone else or to fit in. You're wrong when you brand me a conformist. You may be the anarchist you claim to be, but you don't know enough about me or have possession of enough facts to reach an informed conclusion. You're basing your opinion on a persona created over time on a debate board. That's a basis for a fatally flawed analysis.

We also differ in that I don't take pride in being disliked. It doesn't bother me that I am disliked, but this isn't a popularity contest and there's no such award.

My preference is to be respected rather than liked. There are quite a few posters here whom I do not like. But I do respect them and they have to really work hard to lose my respect. I don't dislike you Barnaby2341---not yet anyway. To dislike someone takes too much thought. That means I have to think about them and give them a consideration they don't deserve. It's much easier and takes much less effort to just ignore them. Placing someone in limbo can be a far worse fate than sending them to hell. It's a crueler fate to be dismissed as irrelevant than actively despised.

Well, nighttimer said it better than I can, but I'd just like to reiterate that the issue is respect. There are plenty of places outside this forum for dropping f bombs all you like, and it is no accident that the proof is in the result. Some places have dress codes. You don't demand to enter without a shirt because, "Hey! I don't have to wear a shirt at Smitty's!" or insist, "You all seem to feel so superior wearing clean clothes! I'll bet you stink from time to time! Neeer! Neer!" Go to the shirtless, stinky place if that's the ambiance you want, or come to the place where people have to wear appropriate attire if you want to eat the better food (even though all of us probably go shirtless/stinky on our own time on occasion)....It's pretty simple.

And, incidentally, I must say that making people generally dislike you isn't a very hard bar to hurdle. It's the lowest possible bar...a foregone conclusion if that's really your goal.

Truthmarch, why do you keep making such threads, then? You say yourself here that you set these up to be a guarenteed losing argument. As such, there is no avenue for constructive debate. Any thread with no avenue for constructive debate is indeed likely going to be closed. The solution would be to construct the thread so that there is indeed an avenue for constructive debate, and will therefore rapidly deteriorate. That is in fact why the rules are set up the way they are--to avoid such threads to begin with. Many topics are closed not because of the content, or item for discussion, but simply because the debate questions are formed, as you say, to 'guarantee a losing argument'. Change the way the questions are worded, so that they allow for reasonable debate, and these threads would be fine.

You know Moif, I absolutely agree with you on this point. Why would anybody want to use curse words when engaged in a civil or serious debate? Using bad words, name calling etc, is indeed a sign of weakness, as Nighttimer explained.

I for one, think it is unfortunate that the rules of are necessary to begin with, but I am glad that they are there to make sure discussions won't spiral down into yelling competitions, personal attacks etc.


They do not moderate passion, in my opinion. There is more than enough passion going around on this forum (just look, for example, at Nighttimers posts in debates that focuss on certain social issues). What the moderates do, is making sure that this passion do not turn into inflammatory statements or name callings during the heat of a discussions.



You don't have to adopt a pack mentality to be active on this forum. I am one of the very few active social-democrats / socialists on this board (perhaps the only one who posts on a fairly regular basis). I know my personal political and social views do not correspond with the general American opinion. I suspect even on this site there are people who do not take me serious because they see me as a secular progressive, ultra-left leaning person. Which is fine by me, I am not here trying to become the "most level-headed member", or the "member you would most like to meet" (Mrs. P. is probably much nicer than me and certainly deserves these awards ): I am here to learn something about American sentiments, opinions, politics and culture, and share some of my own specific personal, foreign views in debates. What I find nice about is that although I do stand out a bit (politically speaking), most poster do treat me with respect and courtesy eventhough sometimes we are polar opposites during certain debates. That's the way, in my opinion, how people should treat eachother on this forum, but also in real life. I for one am always trying to live up to the standards set by Jaime and Mike.

Keep up the good work!

Add me to the list of those wondering. I know Mike has ruled out account violations as far as he's been able to see, but I don't know if he's able to rule out such things as a roommate or somebody similar getting on his computer. Now I don't think I've agreed with a single sentiment fwbc has posted in his short time on AD, but I generally have appreciated his willingness to actually debate instead of dismiss points that he disagrees with. 2 and 2 just aren't adding up here.

Of course. When I speak in terms of "people" I use the masculine. It doesn't mean I'm not including women in such a statement.




It could be..............OR.....(and if it was April 1st I'd really be suspicious)..maybe Mike is playing another gag like the one he did previously.

He's after the question 'c' list. That is when a series of questions take on an predictable manner we must step back and look at the larger picture of "intent".

I'm going to put my neck out there and say many of the questions Truthmarch has asked which are worthy of an answer - if you can connect the dots. Since TM is the man of the hour I'm going to illustrate what he was going after.The difference between having a thread get locked or not is simply how we say things -the tone. I think this example highlights the loss of communication due to repetitive behaviour on both sides of the fence. TM's material itself does fall under the criteria of this website. First I would have gone straight to Stu Bykofsky's Philadelphia Daily New Column and taken out the second op-ed for the simple reason that op-eds are subjective. But then I expect my sources to be thoroughly scrutinized.

If I am asking you to entertain something conspiratorial and opinion oriented I won't ask you to buy the farm – I'd break things down into smaller parts in hopes you don't back down on me. I am more concerned with the message than a political agenda at this point in time – that can come later.

Here is how I would have phrased the question.

Do you accept Mr. Bykosfsky's assertions that consensus among Americans would make the difference between success or failure?

Is there merit to the idea of a revised approach? Should we focus more on the methods of success as opposed to the reasons behind war as Mr. Bykosfsky and other neo-conservative writers have advocated?

We all know Mr. Bykosfsky's polemical rant was designed to raise a few hairs. This is not in question. What Truthmarch was after was point C) and that is;

Are there hidden internal dynamics that could be perceived as a last ditch political manuever to revive an unpopular presidential term?

Compare this with the original questions



Same thing but said a little differently.

The difference between Mrs.Pigpen and myself is that I saw enough material within the body of the link to read into it and begin the debate. She did not. This judgement may not seem significant but if you have as many threads shut down as Truthmarch does, it seems perfectly natural to ask,"is she out to get me?"

I can also see the moderator saying, 'look I am getting tired of asking you to rephrase the question so can you please post something that does not vilify large groups of people?' Apathy isn't far away and neither is frustration on his side. My point is we have stifled communication and the article falls into oblivion. That is a loss in communication not a gain. This bugs me. Sure you could point to TM saying you brought this on himself and my counter to that is, we don't all process information same way so why should we respond the same way? In short, I'm asking for a touch of leeway, nothing more.

This was the moderator's response,



I beg to differ. All one had to do was read between the lines. Not much, but a little. Personally I would have argued against moderator discretion in this instance. My criteria for giving this particular thread the nod was content.

What we have here is an articulation problem. If the rules are to clung to as vociferously as they are - may I suggest the role of the moderator as responsible for providing suggestions for "editing" content. Such action did not occur. Maybe I am expecting too much but there is far too much "try again" in the moderating circles which is throwing a chokehold on expression.

The second problem is the communal aspect of AD is acting more like a double-edged sword. And after I punch a few holes in the wall I'll elaborate.

It's not just the questions though, like Carlito pointed out. I didn't go to great length checking out the substance of TM's Bykosfsky thread, but the premise is clear: Republicans want another 9/11. "Republicans" is vague enough to suggest any Republican. TM's questions aren't just provocative. He editorializes. That's the problem; he connects the dots for you.

People responding to threads like that feel compelled to set the record straight first, and focus on the debate question(s) second. As a result posts tend to revolve around nuance and the thread opener's intentions instead of substantive debate. TM is not the first or last poster to succumb to vanity of his or her own righteousness. Lord Helmet's threads regularly drove me up the wall.

FB did some great posting here and managed to bring a lot of personality to this place with his slightly loose cannon but informed style. I think the constraints burdened him a bit but of course getting away from the usual flaming distractions was part of the appeal of AD as he said.

Why did he leave? It appears mainly it had to do with wanting to concentrate his efforts in other areas. Tossing a little hand grenade on his way out is just well shall we say very FB.

Of course knowing FB, he may want to come back. He does a great corn pone farmer and Ingrid, the chick from Sweden, had me fooled. Who knows; you may not have seen the last of the dude.

Wow, you go away for a few days, and a thread like this breaks out

This is kind of a showcase of the best of and some of its more frustrating aspects.

My only $.02 on this is as follows:

Question formation, in my opinion, is a key deciding factor between a useful topic for and a civil, but utlimately partisan flame fest. There are exceptions, of course. Good debate can break out in a poorly formed topic and a well formed topic can dull to partisan drones just as quickly. In the end, how much the contributors decide to respect the groundwork laid for the topic is often the ultimate decider of a topic's success, either in substance or volume of debate.

is hands down my favorite source for intelligent debate (on any medium). There are reasons for that. The rules (and the moderators enforcing them) and the (usual, but not 100% persistent) respect that most members show each other are probably the biggest two that come to mind.

This thread is an unusual example of those

If we entered a discussion of "he doesn't speak for all us" that would be my definition of nuance. Heck I'd even go so far to say nuance is the debate. There is an unusual level of sensitivity here that is not on any of the international boards. I'm hesitant to open a cultural gap now but there are two perspectives to be aware of on AD. There is the American view of American politics and how the world views American politics. TM's is much more common – that doesn't make it right all the time but I feel this is the tick which causes you to say, 'no, that isn't right.' Well my answer is you are both right and had one of the more experienced members added the requisite background info supporting their stance we wouldn't be having this conversation. So yeah, if you wanted to strap TM with failure to provide enough supporting info to sustain a controversial topic I would have accepted that. Obviously you can see where I am going - the more controversial the more legwork I will force myself to do.

For those with a fear of generalization or editorializing stuff that isn't there, I would have suggested digging articles detailing the call for strike at the "official" level. At least then my back is covered by showing republican involvement on a concerted level. Bykosfsky's article was conjecture on both the Washington Post and DHS articles that got the ball rolling on the idea of a second 911 type response. At the official level Cheney pushed a contingency plan in place to which Bykosfsky ad libbed. Did republicans say this? No but the mentality was drifting heavily in this direction – enough to warrant an op-ed. To me this is not the point – it was the failure of the participant to accept, "perspective" and if you lose that are we truly an international debate site?

People responding to threads like that feel compelled to set the record straight first..

That was my response to the red herring known as the War On Terror and all the illegitimate progeny threads since, yet I still debated them. Thinking about it now three out of four threads in the current events/war on terror fit your criteria. Lesly, we have entered a time where information and disinformation are thrown out in equal measure. All the authour's believe their posts are solid – the former, it is up for the participants to show the latter. When the mods interfere this can't happen. For them I urge a little more caution. You are correct TM is not alone in this regard which is why I chose to defend him.

The profanity filter, I must admit- catches me up a bit, but also, it can boil down to how silly a profane word can be- "poopyhead" is the 5 year old way of using words that gets you in trouble here, as adult words. Kinda cracks me up.

But it is not like I dont' see the point here- IIRC, we have had actual minors posting on this board, and since this is an educational site, or as I consider it "an interactive constantly changing political educational site" for someone sophisticated enough to debate policy- of any age.

Though, I wish I could be as ascerbic as NT without getting into trouble- he just writes too damn well- man, that edumacation stuff must really work! Darn him and his ability to cry bee ess without actually getting into trouble-

but that leads back to the wierdness of the profanity filter. I don't think the letters I put up there in bold letters, well, that goes a little too far as well.

Same as the word that means urinate, drunk or angry - I just use that word all the time, and end up using it by reflex.

Still, I wonder if the perturbed roommate scenario in the post.

Though, he would have been back under another name asking forgiveness while cursing the "bad guy" by this time I would imagine!

Me too. I added a space in assertions once and had a laugh.

As for profanity there's a point you can come to in a debate where it seems perfectly logical to call someone a beeping beephole or some such thing. When that seems reasonable you should put the beer down and step away from the keyboard and do something else for a stretch. Every time I've ever gotten to spend quality time with the mods has been because I just couldn't stop from hitting Add Reply while I was explaining my position on another member's thought process. That's the PC (PG?) version of what I was doing, of course.

Personally, I don't think your questions and his are comparable at all. If you would like to start a debate on this issue using those questions I doubt that there would be objections. I would have none.



I have closed threads for this particular reason, as far as I can remember, exactly twice in the past three or so years. Party of Hate was the last one. Ol Sarge also had many threads shut down and likely might have thought I was 'out to get him' as well. But, regardless of his personal feelings on the matter the fact remains that his thread was too inflammatory, as was this one. That's one for one. One "conservative leaning" one, and now, a couple of years later I've closed a "liberal leaning" one for being inflammatory as well. Civil debate shouldn't require that all of the participants try to read between the lines and make it as constructive as they can in spite of the way the question is phrased. It starts with at least a moderately civil, debatable set of questions.

I've had a topic or two closed due to vagueness in the past. Members should keep in mind that they can PM mods for help in creating better debate questions, so that the thread may be reopened.

Eeek. Reading through my above post I came across a lot harsher than was my intent. Sorry. The bottom line is, there is nothing wrong with the subject for discussion, it was the way it was presented.

Again, Trouble, I have no problem with the set of questions you posed. It would probably lead to an interesting debate.

You are missing the point. Nebraska29 touched on it.



Or

you could take a more proactive approach if you consistently see a member fall into the same pitfalls like TM. All you had to do is plunk my questions onto a PM and say, "TM I think these questions would be better received, would you like me to change your questions?

I'm glad you accept my questions as viable but to maintain your high expectations for the the rules requires a forward thinking mod which does not continually shut down and frustrate a participant.

They do this at Capitol Hill Blue. Wonderful staff. Can pacify the most ardent ideologue and trust me they have a few LordHelmits. This is the level of cooperation needed if you want to make your rulebook work. I'm trying to provide paths for cooperation instead of heckling the mods. Right now the moderating team only makes itself known if there is problem and by that time the IED has gone off, the thread is locked and by that time all the extras who type slow are caught as collatoral damage and with our hands in the air going "what just happened?".

Why go through all this effort?

Articulation wasn't fbwc's problem. It was heavy handed moderation or at least some of it was. Your concerted air campaign of, 'be nice or else' is losing the hearts and minds of some of the AD faithful. I'm trying to work with you instead of against you. If the staff can consider this point, I would be grateful.

The other point I wanted to bring up was while the communal nature of the forum works well in casual conversation, the objectivity is not held consistently for every member here. Sometimes people form like-minded gangs. Gang A posts one way and gang B posts another. And yes the biases we all sought to avoid kick in. At this time the triumvirate of thread death sweeps down upon us typically in the race forum but in other places as well in the triage of NightTimer/aevans176/and finally Jaime. William Shatner voice: The casualties mount, we are told to knock it off, she comes in hot and hits the pickle and the rest of us are left frantically calling for our BDAs.There is nothing, not even a whisper. It is over. (lingo) And then these guys go right back at it in someone else's thread!

I mean when NightTimer, aevans176 and a moderator with the shortest fuse usually Jaime (no offense) post the thread is in serious jeopardy. They are the AD's horse people of the apocalypse. There are others. I don't want to think how many lost posts I can attribute to this lethal combination...

I'm not saying charge is bad and to be honest I like a little conflict, but sometimes people can fall into routines which pull the objectivity off coarse. I just want to see a thread mature into its full potential. If it can do that we get hits. Hits get noticed in google and AD grows. You want AD to grow right? Anyways I've said my piece and I hope some of Julian's concerns were explained in there as well. Goodnight.

Another country heard from. What is this? Bash on nighttimer day?

When precisely did I replace fbwc as the subject of this thread? I've been mentioned, referred to, quoted and now hacked off at the kneecaps no less than 20 times (so far). Apparently there are some folks here who have had some pent-up frustrations and now they see an opportunity to vent their spleens a bit.

Let me explain a few things to you, Trouble. I don't have anything against fbwc. I believe I was the first one to put his name in nomination for the Best New Debater award. Going back over his posts, I thought the majority of them were well-written and thought out. I think if he had thought it out before he melted down so memorably he might have found a way to tolerate a situation he found to be intolerable.

But I still characterize his exit post as rude, immature, insulting and totally out of line. I hope he will be happier at WeAreMorons.org because he pretty much made himself look like that where he belongs. If articulation wasn't his problem why did the profanity filter almost blow a fuse?

Presently, I am number 16 on the Top 20 list of posters on and 12 of those 20 joined the board after me but have generated more posts. I am not the most prolific poster on this board. I am probably one of the most passionate. I write with emotion to be sure, but the majority of the time, I do try to work some facts, references, source material, verifiable information and links in there too to keep the emotion and passion company.

I also looked at the eight topics you've begun, Trouble to see if or how I had killed the thread. Turns out not only have I not derailed or hijacked or caused the closing of the thread, I've never even read, let alone posted in ANY of your threads. Furthermore, checking six of the twelve pages of the topics you have posted in there is very little overlap between you and I and to the best of my knowledge I've never directly referenced or replied to any of your posts.

The last few topics in Race Debate that I've posted in remain open. Of the last dozen threads I've opened, all of them are still open or just withered away naturally with only one being closed by Jaime. That was the "nappy-headed ho's" thread which prompted almost 300 replies and over 11,000 views and also won the Best Topic: Race Issues award.

There's a lot of things you can accuse me of that I might have difficulty denying, but thread-killer? The burden of proof is on you to make that charge stick, Trouble. Otherwise, don't hate the playa; hate the game. Maybe I'm not your problem. Maybe your problem is staring back at you in the mirror.

So, you'll have to understand that I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about with this "horsemen of the apocalypse" jive, Trouble. Are Aevans176 and I likely to hang out and chat over a soul food meal during Black History Month? Not bloody likely. Still and all, he did nominate me for the Member We Most Want to Meet award. Maybe he does really want to meet me (and punch my lights out). Yet even though we aren't going to be singing "Ebony and Ivory" anytime soon, I THINK, he respects me to an extent. As I said before, respect is all I want from anyone here. But the fact that we are aren't best buddies is no secret. Heck, I even nominated a topic started by lord helmet and I couldn't stand the guy.

BoF and Net2007 or Blackstone and Vermillion and a lot of other people here don't have much love lost between them either. There are just some guys and gals whom you don't "click" with. That doesn't necessarily make for bad debate. It just means some people are going to be seen as adversaries, not allies.

I think that a lot of people don't really get what a debate board really is. They think it's a place to share their petty gripes, pet peeves, private grudges and half-baked conspiracy theories. If you can't figure out a way to debate intelligently here, then maybe you're not ready to debate. Maybe you should stick to sites where you can flame and curse and go nuts as you romp and stomp around the joint.

That's not this board and I'm happy to say that. That's why I came here and why I stay and why I'm a better debater than when I got here. Part of the reason is The Player On The Other Side.

The chessboard is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. All we know is that his play is always fair, just and patient. But, also, that he never overlooks a mistake or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance. To the man who plays well the highest stakes are paid with that sort of overflowing generosity with which the strong shows delight in strength. And one who plays ill is checkmated without haste, but without remorse. Thomas H. Huxley, 1868

Make a mistake here and you'll usually get called on it. No matter how well you write or how smart you are and no matter if you've double-checked your facts before posting it, you will find someone who writes better, is smarter than you and triple-checked their facts before stepping all over yours. The Player On the Other Side is good at what they do and if you are not they will find the fatal flaw in your argument and tear it apart.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You HAVE to step up your game when you post on because there are some very formidable individuals posting here too. If you don't you're liable to get embarrassed on multiple occasions.

And to bring it all home, THAT is a more likely reason why fbwc ran himself off the board. Deflecting the cause to "heavy-handed moderation" seems to be a rationalization and a pretty flimsy one. Most people seem to deal with the "heavy-handed moderation" quite well thank you very much.

For those who can't deal there was no door to get in so there's no need to worry about getting hit by one going out.

Trouble, I think you missed Nebraska29's point. Nebraska knows that if a new topic is closed for whatever reason, members are always welcome and almost always notified that they can contact the moderator who closed the topic for clarification and guidance. The staffer will offer guidance, and the member can either follow that guidance (and most likely restart their topic), or ignore it.

What the moderators won't do, however, is rewrite the questions for debate. If certain members are incapable of starting topics that are conducive to constructive debate, and they are unwilling to contact the staff member who closed the topic for suggestions on how increase the likelihood that their topics will remain open, then they are incapable of starting topics here.

If we consistently see a member fall into the same pitfalls, like you mentioned, and that member does not take a proactive approach and contact us for pointers and then follow through with those pointers, then we have little interest in helping those members. The site is here to provide a venue for constructive and civil debate for those who are seeking to engage in constructive and civil debate. We help those who help themselves, and we would prefer that those who don't help themselves participate elsewhere.

You make the point that we should preemptively steer open topics before rule violations occur so as to prevent rule violations, instead of reacting when the rules have been violated. This is not our policy, nor do we wish it to be our policy. If we were to even attempt to do this, you would right now be asserting that we are forcing our own personal opinions on the forum, and that we were acting in an overzealous manner by enforcing the rules before any rules were even broken.

It seems to me that we just can't please you on the issue of the rules.

You're right, when a moderator is posting in a topic and not actually debating, the topic is potentially in jeopardy. The instructions from the moderators are most often, as you know, "stay on topic" reminders and "stop the personal attacks" demands. The topic is only in jeopardy if the requests are ignored.

Your "short fuse" claim is a result of a large misperception on your part. You are confusing visibility with a perceived rush to act. Jaime moderates more than any other staffer, and as a matter of fact, she has logged more than double the moderator actions of all other staffers combined. The reason is because she is dedicated, having spent literally thousands of work hours on the site, and is obviously in a position to enforce the rules that she helped craft.

Trouble, it seems to me that much of this discussion in revolving around TruthMarch, and that one of the main issues at play is that you invited a friend to the forum, you feel your friend is being attacked or silenced, and so you are allowing emotion to trump reason in an attempt to defend your friend. Why don't you allow TruthMarch to state his own opinion and subsequently defend his assertions?

We maintain copies of all deleted and closed posts, and a review of many of his closed or deleted topics reveal that many would easily have been reopened if he would contact the staffer who closed it with clarified questions to debate. Heck, many are missing questions to debate, which falls under Topic Starting 101 as far as this site is concerned. I know that if I'm at a forum and several of my topics are closed, I would contact a staff member and ask what I was doing wrong. Given an answer, I would consider if I was willing to change the way I start topics and stick around, or refuse to change the way I start topics and go elsewhere. I find no pleasure in repeatedly banging my head into a wall.

I'm inclined to think that he hasn't yet read the section of the Survival Guide entitled Working with the Staff. His only post to this topic seems to indicate that he's not aware that when members ask to be banned, they are immediately banned. It's in the site documentation, and has been there for years with no changes. I suspect fbwc read that, and understood the actions that would be taken as a result of his request.

Trouble, if you like conflict as you stated, and you don't find enough conflict here, you can certainly find it elsewhere. Members are not required to sign an exclusivity contract when they join that prohibits them from participating in other venues of political discourse. But, as you suggest, we are certainly not changing the fundamental way we operate to increase some insignificant statistic such as hits (which don't get you noticed in Google, by the way). We do want the site to grow, but not at the expense of fundamentals of what makes this site great.

We firmly believe and practice quality over quantity. We would much prefer a membership of 100 who share the same goals of civil and constructive debate than a million members who need hand holding to understand what is expected of members who wish to participate here.

Mike

Nighttimer, I know there is next to no overlap between our posts. Your name was used as an example to describe the catastrophic traits of starting a thread and have a few perpetual feuders come in and draw warning shots from the moderator well before the thread has been debated in detail and then repeat the behavior. Let me put it this way, I'd rather see a thread continue then be asked to start one myself if my only interest in the thread is to see future evolution of an existing point. I have no more interest in villifying you than I do with aevans or any other member. Whatever fbwc's issues were, they occurred well before the word filter kicked in.


Mike, I bolded the or to highlight that this is only one option. The point of my entire post was to provide a plan B when plan A wasn't working. You keep returning to emphasis on the participant. I'm saying this aspect should be more of a group effort.




That is the problem isn't it? Thing is they still post anyway and you still hold firm and we enter a tedious holding pattern of start, stop, start, stop, which is more than a little distracting.




This has been successfully used to great effect elsewhere. I am saddened by your response. I'd like more attention placed onto the front end of the debate as opposed to the back end of the debate as practiced here. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't have any issues specifically with Jaime, however I do keep a tally sheet of who does what next to the computer to compile and organize patterns of behaviour, hers was the most prominent in this regard. The purpose is to create enough data to enhance my own learning curve and be informed of any potential triggers which may differ from one mod to the next. Granted this fell to the wayside when you revamped user statistics with the latest update but it was along those same lines. If I offended you or her I apologize that was not my intent.



My argument was based primarily around the more colourful comments of Lord Helmet and a few other banned members. The only reason I used TM was because he was brought up in the post and decided in the interest of fluid argument to just use that and go with the flow. In hindsight, I think I should have stuck with LH. I think you read too far into the flamboyant commentary. I hear you that certain individuals are not interested in cooperation of any sort. Then you are fully justified in your response. However, such a response can quickly be perceived as crutch, especially when used often. Right now I see a crutch.

As for conflict, I've seen more productive results come from less moderation. My hope was to revive an aging establishment, with expansive bureaucracy and rigid institutions and bring them back to a more grass-roots driven reform. Where you saw chaos I saw insight. We have different ideas of constructive dialog, I get that. Barnaby was talking about passion. I'm inclined to agree with him, you are seeing the word filter and missing the message. I had hoped to find middleground. I guess I was mistaken.

I have two comments:

As far as language goes, it would be impossible to moderate allowing some colorful language and then suddenly draw the line when things intensify. You must realize that certain posters will use off-color language on a regular basis (if it were allowed) and others (myself, for instance) will not. Inevitably, the brinkers will cross the line from time to time and moderation will need to occur. We base many decisions on smaller infractions on past actions of the offender. This will lead to calls of "why did I get in trouble using (insert colorful term here) when so-and-so also said in in this thread". This creates an impossibly complicated moderation decision process. It is much easier to say that certain terms will not be tolerated, period. Then everyone knows what behavior is expected and cannot complain when and if disciplinary action is taken against them.

As for Mods re-writing topic discussion questions--it's a bad idea. For one, it would lead to accusations that all questions are not only approved by the Moderation team (an accusation one could already make, given that inappropriate threads are closed), but are written by them as well. This will lead to accusations that all the discussions on are driven by the Mods and not by the folks that post here.

Second of all, how can a Mod not only decipher what an inflammatory opening post was driving at, but re-write it in a way that captures that intent and fits within the Rules? Should Mrs. P put in the time and effort to research TM's rant and come up with a more neutral way of phrasing it? What if TM doesn't agree? What if Mrs. P disagrees with the entire basis of the thread? This is an impossible burden on the Moderators.

The content here is created by the posters and is driven by what the posters want to talk about. It isn't about what the Moderators allow, as the Moderators only prune what is outside of the rules. We do not edit the content of anyone's posts or topics for debate, nor should we.

Wow, this thread is really going in all kinds of directions. Unbelievable that one post has generated such diverse thoughts. It's interesting to read though.

I agree that mods should not be helping to rewrite debate questions. However, the reaction most people will have from their topic being closed will not be "oh, let me just rewrite it": it will be "the topic itself (in any form) is forbidden so what's the point". I know that the mod comments say the opposite; I know that the mods can't be responsible for everyone's poorly phrased debate questions. Nevertheless, if someone's debate questions are repeatedly closed, it can be very disheartening.

I propose in these cases taking a proactive approach and PM'ing the poster when, say, two or three topics are closed in a row. A little explanation of exactly how the topic was poorly worded will greatly help improve the poster's ability to create proper topics. Not only that, but it will create less work in the long term for mods as there will be fewer improper topics per user count. Everyone wins.

Barnaby I can't speak for anyone else. I doubt I would "start cussing uncontrollably." I try to be careful about how I say things. I even try not to use a word twice in the same sentence. Profanity is, as I said earlier, is a "tool of language." Steinbeck, McMurtry and others have used it to their advantage, but that was in a different media.

In three years I have only tripped the profanity filter twice. The first time I typed the word "pass" and used the wrong vowel. I don't remember what caused the other instance.

And this has been done. Some topic starters don't want help and some posters like to skirt the rules, despite repeated warnings. The Mods cannot hold everyone's hand.

The solution then would be for those poster's to be a little bit introspective, and think about why their topics keep getting closed. They could even PM the moderator's (or committee members) with this very question if they wanted. The point is that the impetus for this indeed does fall on the poster, and should not fall on the moderators. Truthmarch self admits that these were never really intended to be questions for open debate:



These questions were therefore intended by design to make the other side have a losing argument. Therefore, there was never an intent to have an open discussion on the topic, allowing both sides to express their views. They were intended to make one side look bad. Those types of debates will indeed get shut down every single time. Preparing questions for open debate requires that the thread started allow for such debate to occur. If that is not the intent, then this is not the board for it. Although this can be difficult for people passionate about their cause, it is necessary for open debate to occur. This is NOT moderating passion--it is enforcing that passionate people on the other side of an issue have a forum in which to express their side of the issue. Writing such a question isn't necessarily hard--you just need to ask yourself: "Can someone who disagrees with this reasonably reasonably respond?" If the answer to that is 'No', then the question needs to be reworded until the answer is 'Yes'.

FWIW--that process forces the thread starter to think a little bit about those with opposite views and how they could be valid, which is almost certainly a beneficial experience, but can take a little effort and practice.

Like I said, the conclusion they may come to is that the topic is forbidden and not the way the topic is presented. When in a position of authority (as a mod or committee member), it is easy to look at these things strictly from that perspective and place all the "blame" on the poster. I am merely proposing a way to help reduce more work in the future. Just my 2 cents, take it or leave it (looks like "leave it" is the consensus though).

Hemingway, Pasos, Miller (oh yeah), and I hear Balzac is considered filth in Iowa, should you give that place a try. But I agree, cursing should never be left to amateurs. Misplaced F- and C-bombs become tiresome quickly and might poke your eyes out. Well, Miller does poke your eyes out, but on purpose. He sets them back in later on, along with reattaching things like hearts and minds. But if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Tropics.

Let's see if this one trips the PF: chit

Nope.

chit1 (chit), n.
1. a signed note for money owed for food, drink, etc.
2. any receipt, voucher, or similar document, esp. of an informal nature.
3. Chiefly Brit. a note; short memorandum.
[1775–85; short for chitty < Hindi chi¬¬#]

chit2 (chit), n.
a child or young person, esp. a pert girl.
[1350–1400; for sense of “the young of an animal”; 1615–25 for current sense; ME; perh. akin to KITTEN or KID]

Is it sick to read a dictionary for fun?

I think we make it clear enough on what is expected when starting new topics, and we make it clear enough that members are encouraged to contact the staff if they have problems.

First, when members register, they are sent a welcome PM. In that PM, it states:

Then, when a new topic is closed, it is most often done using the multi-moderation feature. When a multi-moderation is applied, it clearly states that members can contact the staff for more information on why their topic was closed:

Then, we have the Rules:

Then, we have the very first item listed in the help files:


Nowhere do we mention that certain topics are forbidden. At no point do we discourage people from contacting the staff for clarification.

If a new topic doesn't fall within the guidelines, the blame falls on the original poster. If the original poster fails to contact the staffer who closed the topic, the blame falls on the original poster. This is the very definition of blame.

Mike

When mods lock a thread, doesn't the mod box include a suggestion to contact one of them to reopen the thread (or something along those lines)? I think I had one thread locked a long time ago and I spoke with someone (Cyan, maybe?) about reopening it.

Depends on the reason for locking it, but yeah, its not uncommon for the lock to be open to appeal (duplicates, question issues, etc).

I've never had a thread locked. Is this box between just the poster and mod in question or open to the greater forum?

A locked thread looks just like this one. The thing is, I thought I'd seen the box include "If you want to repoen the thread contact a moderator to yadda yadda yadda..." clauses.

Here's a sample of an auto moderation note - link.

I often edit them to explain more fully why I closed a topic. Everyone deserves to know why even if they are not willing to work to reopen it.

thx Jaime

So, you don't believe I am making a legitimate claim about perceptions due to moderation?


I tried to make it clear by placing "blame" in quotes that this isn't really about blame but about perception. Some people don't know how to phrase their questions for debate very well. A little help can go a long way.

I doubt the mods would be overworked with those seeking advice on closed threads. We really don'thave that many to begin with. I'm not certain that "blame" is the right word for a person who creates a thread that doesn't take flight. Undoubtedly, it is theirs, so they should "own" it. As stated, it is suggested that they contact the mod for advice. My past experience with that has been that a general suggestion or direction is provided and then I submit new questions. If they pass muster, then thread is re-opened. It isn't rocket science, I've done it a time or two. Yes, the inititative has to be taken by the member as well it should be. Quite frankly, some of the threads weren't real winners to begin with, and that determinationis left with the thread poster. Sometimes it's best just to let sleeping dogs lie.

Given a varied enough group of people, there will always be varied perceptions, of course. Some people think the moderation is fair, some do not. Some people think the staff is too involved in topics, some think we're not involved enough. Some people think the rules are evenly applied, some people think we're out to get them. Perceptions are often varied, and are often wrong, particularly if there is no effort made to verify the perceptions. I suspect that if we came up with a way to shape the perception of every single member-- given our varied backgrounds and beliefs-- we could bottle it, sell it to political strategists, and finally have enough money to afford our own island.


Indeed it can. That is why we encourage people to contact us if their topic is closed so we may provide pointers as to what can be done to get their topic reopened.


We're not overworked, and we haven't claimed we are. But the member in question-- the one I was referring to when addressing Trouble-- has had more topics closed then left open. Pointers are sometimes provided without members having to ask, but after a certain point we're reluctant to voluntarily offer suggestions after history has proven that they are not heeded. Your example clearly shows that we are willing to help if you are interested-- all you have to do is ask.



Mike

Ah, yes, the "but we'll have to do this for everyone" argument -- which you don't, of course. Not everyone gets their topics repeatedly closed down. Anyway, why not just say the real reason? Which is. We don't want to help someone reform their debate questions unless they ask because we don't feel it's our responsibility; not only isn't it our responsibility but we're "right" and, when we're "right", doing things that appear to compromise the "right"ness weakens the authority structure of the site.

Sometimes, and the mods can back this, I too have felt that not everyone was being treated the same way. That certain people were in cliques or protected groups that kept them from Mod-Time or Thread Closings. I'm not of that mindset anymore. The Mods are people, you can "talk" to them and get their reasons and maybe get things fixed. Again, I think you'd be hard pressed to further the idea that Jamie & Mike are Right Wing Tools hoping to subvert democracy by squelching debates on this site.

The real issue is that sometimes the brilliantly structured debates that get squashed are easily seen for what they are. Flame-bait. Semantic traps designed to instantly pigeon hole a responder who makes the incorrect step the Original Poster is hoping they might. Let's not forget the possibility of insane, Golbergian conspiracy theories as starting points for debate.

All in all this is a very fair, very civil place - despite my presence.

I'm confused by your line of reasoning logo. Mostly because I can't see what your goal is with this. What is your aim in trying to get us to admit our way is 'right'? Obviously we feel closing down certain posts was the right thing to do or we wouldn't have done it. Closing certain topics is not a use of authority merely because the authority exists but because it is an enforcement of the Rules. I earnestly ask and don't intend for this to come off as snarky - what is your goal here? What do you want from us?

When a debater's threads are repeatedly closed, it *could* mean that person is just being pig-headed or it could mean that person doesn't understand how to phrase the debates very well (or likely a combination of both). Closing a debate down can feel like bei