With a national election less than two months away, presidential debates just around the corner, and the punditocracy focusing on sideshow distractions more than ever, things are bound to continue heating up here over the next couple of months. I thought it would be a good time to post links to a couple of old reminders and to raise one or two additional points.

First, this might be a good time for everyone to review the Rules and Survival Guide. I just finished going through them myself - and it's never a bad thing to remind oneself of what makes America's Debate unique (apart from Jaime and Mike, a dedicated staff, and a great assortment of participants from all walks of life and of all political stripes, of course).

During election seasons there have traditionally been more heated debates than at other times, but that is no reason to allow the discussions here to become uncivil or unconstructive. Mike put it better than I could about four years ago, so I'll just quote an announcement he made prior to the last presidential election (with a few names updated):
Let me highlight one of the points he made by reiterating it: Your commitment to civil, intelligent, and informed debate means adding original and constructive ideas instead of just parroting the talking heads. All of the points he made in the third paragraph above remain salient and pertinent, but with the blogosphere and cable chat becoming increasingly strident, trivial, and unconstructive, I thought that one was worth re-reiterating.

About a year later, Mike had to post another warning, which is worth reviewing along with the Rules and Survival Guide. It can be found here. As it raises the issue of reported posts (among several other things), it is worth mentioning something that seems to have gone by the wayside for a lot of participants. If you are going to report a post - and if you see a clear violation of the rules, you should - please cite the specific rule that you feel is being breached. Reports consisting of "ugh!" or "this is outrageous" or "wtf" or "here we go again" are not helpful and tend to be ignored, especially if (as is usually the case with such reports *sigh*) the reported post is about 10,000 words with numerous quotes from other participants. A report can be as simple as "off-topic" or "belittling" or "one-liner" or "personal attack", but they do need to address a specific rule violation or, at the very least, posts straying well beyond the guidelines.

PLEASE DO NOT REPORT POSTS just because a participant is ticking you off or because you vehemently disagree with their views. Reporting posts due to partisan bias or personal enmity is not appropriate and makes the moderation of the site no easier and no more efficient.

There is one other point I wanted to bring up here, but I couldn't find the thread in which this was originally discussed. One of the things that really helps keep the debate civil and constructive is having an opening post that is as objective and level-headed as is humanly possible. Having clear questions to debate is mandatory, but keeping the opening of a thread as unbiased as possible is expected. In other words, if your opening to new thread contains a sentence like "Since Obama poses a clear and present danger to national security..." or "As we all know John McCain is a liar and a fraud..." then you should not be starting a new thread here.

Such opinions, with substantial, sourced foundation, are maybe okay during the course of a debate, but they have no place in setting the tone for a new discussion. If you feel such sentiments are appropriate for the opening of a thread, you should probably not be participating here at all: civil, constructive debate is clearly not what brought you here and, if it isn't, you are in the wrong place. Please don't let the door hit you on your way out. Ah, what the hell - go ahead and let it hit you.

For everyone else, have fun, try not to let your emotions run away with you, and don't let the bastards on the other side goad you into posting something you'll regret. Oh - and feel free to take a few days off is you're getting too exasperated. I know it's sometimes worked for me. Good luck!

ON EDIT: If you have something constructive to add here, please feel free. But don't let this thread become an excuse for making snarky comments about the behavior of other participants. Thanks.

Good post, Wertz. I have one other suggestion for the Rules or Survival Guide: Assume good faith. I stole that from Wikipedia, but it's a good idea here, too.

Everybody's a little bit of a hypocrite, in that they don't live up to their stated ideals. Everybody's got a bit of a double standard, in that they're more likely to see bad behavior on the other side than on their own. That's just part of the human condition. Don't assume that because you've caught someone succumbing to one of these foibles that they're being dishonest, a shill, a hack.

If the only thing a debater ever posts is regurgitated talking points, that's a different matter, and Wertz and Mike are right that we shouldn't tolerate that. But it's best to assume good faith unless and until bad faith is demonstrated.

you mean wtf doesn't cut the cheese?

Just for clarification here, a "hypothetical example" if you will......

Since this forum is dedicated to "civil, constructive debate", does referring to the Republican candidate for Vice President as a "fascist pig" fall under those guidelines? Just trying to set the bar here.


Aquilla

Lesly:

Ugh. This is outrageous.

[snicker]


/waiting for the "didn't you read one word in my post?" retort
//thanks for posting that, Wertz. Good stuff.
///just getting it out of my system. Ahhh... that's better.

I was speaking specifically of opening posts - and such a characterization used to open a thread would not be conducive to civil, constructive debate, no. As I already said (and you already quoted), such characterizations can be okay during the course of a debate with substantial, sourced foundation - such as, say, investigating the ease of burning public library books. And such characterizations are only okay when used in reference to public figures (it would never fly to use such a description in reference to another participant). As an opener, though, it would only lead to setting the wrong tone at the outset. I hope that helps.


Now, you might want to re-read the note I posted ON EDIT, m'kay?

Wertz



Interesting post, I wanted to comment on the part above. I get the feeling some people use the (report button) nearly as much as the (post reply) button. I dont want to get specific on members but I'm willing to bet there are times where a moderator issues a forum warning because somebody gets jumpy and hits the (report button). Personally I've used it once since I've joined this site, but it would be interesting to hear from one of the Admins or Mods, without mentioning specific names, if some people use this feature far too excessively.

At times I've seen forum warnings issued when it didn't seem anyone was being disrespectful, or going off topic. Members with the tendency to report a post because because they like to report anything, would make sense of that.

Actually, you're wrong. It's true, we sometimes get frivolous reports, though you might be surprised at how few are unwarranted. Regardless, that's moot - merely receiving a report is never the sole ground for posting a mod note. When we get reports, they are posted in a forum in which the entire staff can review them, and check the thread. Sometimes action is warranted, and sometimes it is not. We don't base that decision on the number of reports from a particular member.

With that in light, there's no reason for anyone to be avoiding using this feature. If you think you see a rule violation, report the post. It's not tattling or whistleblowing. It's keeping this site more participatory and self-regulating. For example, reporting a post is a much better option than taking the thread off topic, or getting upset and returning a personal insult. One thing I do ask, however - please, please describe the rule violation you are seeing. There's a place in the report form that allows your input. Please use it! If you report a post, and don't describe why you are reporting it, it is less likely to get a response in the thread.

Also, if you do report a rule violation, there's really no need for you to then post a response in the thread to the post you reported, dragging the entire debate either further off track, or further into the realm of snarkiness and personal attacks. The moderators aren't online 24/7. If you report a post, then respond to the attack or the violation, by the time we come online three hours later, that person has responded to you, you've gotten sucked in, and suddenly there's seven posts dragging a topic down, and the whole thing ends up getting closed, or it dies off because it's simply gotten too far afield.

This site is a forum for civil debate. With a limited number of moderators, we don't always get to every single post of every single thread in every single forum. We rely on the honest and willing participants here to help keep AD a forum for well-mannered, civil debate. Reporting a post isn't akin to being an informant or a narc. It's about all of us, as a community, working together to keep AD up to the standard it bears.

And as far as election heat, let's remember that it always gets like this around elections. Tempers run high, and even though we're all just typing bits of conversation into computers, it can feel like a lot is at stake. The folks who grok this site understand that at the end of the day, we share something important in common - we respect having a place where we can debate about issues without every thread turning into 100 pages of flames. I am sure all of you have seen those forums where, when you see a thread with an interesting premise - say, what should US foreign policy be - and so, hoping to enter the fray, you jump in... and it's on page 46, and now the thread is three angry guys with post counts in the tens of thousands, screaming at each other about abortion rights or the ACLU. And what is one of the main reasons we aren't like that? Members who strive to keep it civil, and who, instead of jumping into the battle, use the report function when confronting a post which is against the rules. And if you think it's a violation, but you're not sure, go ahead and report it. That way we can all review it.

While I'm at it, I just wanted to add this: kudos to the rest of the administration at AD. Even though amongst us we often disagree quite stridently about many issues, we have all gotten remarkably good at taking off our partisan hats when it comes to reviewing rule violations. The moderation staff may represent a wide political spectrum, but we all agree almost all the time - without partisan bias - about what constitutes a violation. Extra kudos, of course, to Jaime and Mike, for having come up with such a solid blueprint for us to use.

Oh, I read that and found it to be somewhat "ironic" shall we say? You request "civil, constructive responses" to your thread here. Ok, so I posted a response that echoed a response you made in someone else's thread. I wasn't starting a topic, I was responding to one. Now, you take issue with that. Just trying to understand the rules here. If a poster starts a topic, must that poster specifically request only "civil, constructive responses"? or is it implied?


Aquilla

No, we shan't. There was no irony at all, as should have been apparent. Several times when threads like this have been started (mostly for the benefit of people who should already know better), someone will come in with "Oh, you mean like so-and-so who said 'yadda yadda yadda'?" That is specifically what I wanted to avoid in this thread and that is exactly what you did with your first post here. You, Aquilla, should know better. And, if you honestly don't, maybe it's about time you moved on. Clear enough for you?

The rest of your response is addressed in the Rules, in Mod Notes scattered throughout these forums, and in threads like this one. Why don't you try reading some of them before posting here again? Seriously. Jobius suggested in his response here that we "assume good faith" on the part of other participants - and that's decent advice. In your case, however, that is no longer possible. Based on your responses here alone, I can no longer assume that you have the best interests of America's Debate at heart at all. Perhaps your replies are meant to be examples of what is loosely known around here as "Aquilla's sense of humor". If so, I really have to point out that your comic value here got old long ago.

If you are genuinely confused about anything I've posted here and, after five and a half years of contributing to the site, do not actually know what is expected of opening posts (which I would find astonishing, but which would explain a lot), send me or any member of the staff a PM. Otherwise, can we leave this thread to those who really do care about America's Debate? Thanks.

Quick observation, I know it is hard if you like your news fast but I find reading rather than watching the pundi-fest takes alot of the emotional contest out of it.

Now I have never been a fan of popularity contests as the quality of material the media covers always goes down hill. I use the same approach I do for investing, read the news late during election cycles and don't follow the events of an election too closely. It's tabloid gossip and taking it seriously is just what the pundits want. This will encourage enough detachment that you should be able to focus on the content and the issues. If you can do this than I don't see an issue on making a post.

What about unsnarky comments? Look, I understand that you don't want to turn this thread into a flame war, but if messages like this are to be of any use at all, we need to be able to have some guide as to how to apply it to particular types of scenarios. The fact is, even when everybody's technically staying within the rules, there still can be serious disruption to civil discussion that the forum rules are currently inadequate for addressing. I'd get into more detail about what I mean (even without calling anyone out at all), but... is there a way I can do it without it being condemned as a "snarky comment"? Because all the generic reminders in the world to "be civil" will never get us past square one if we can't get just a little more specific.

Well, the Rules are pretty specific - so is most of the Survival Guide. But my main concern was that this thread, like so many before it in a similar vein, might degenerate into calling out individuals for specific transgressions and that it would simply become a forum for bashing other participants - exactly the sort of thing that started happening with one of the first responses to this thread. And, frankly, that sucks.

If there are more details that can be discussed regarding civility and constructive posts that will benefit everyone - without, as I mentioned in the first post, bashing "other participants" - then, by all means, bring up those "details". If such concerns can be discussed here, as you suggested, "without calling anyone out at all", go right ahead. Even if you have concerns about individual participants or specific posts, they can still be queried via PM - or, even better (if they're current), via the Report button. If you have concerns about posts you're composing yourself (and whether they might be violating or seriously brinking the rules), you can always vet them with any member of the staff before posting them.

Well, to start with something glaring, you quoted Mike in your opening comments as saying that among the things we shouldn't be doing is asking others if they've "actually read" our posts. But... what if others "actually haven't" read our posts, apart from a few isolated phrases, before launching into a big tirade against what we supposedly said? I mean, you are aware that that goes on quite a bit, right? Are we not allowed to berate them for doing that? Since it's not technically a posting violation to misrepresent what another said (at least as far as I'm aware), we can't very well report their post to the moderator, so what are we supposed to do? Just sit there and take it? Politely repeat ourselves just so that they can pull the same stunt all over again?

This is what I meant in my previous post, in that there are tactics people can (and do) use to disrupt a thread that don't necessarily involve violations of posted posting rules, but which we need to have some means of defending ourselves from. They do it because they feel threatened by the direction a discussion is moving in, but lack the ability to issue an effective rebuttal, so they try instead to poison the whole discussion with unnecessary provocations.

Well, there are a number of ways that this could be addressed. Saying something like "You might want to take another look at my second paragraph above" is somewhat less inflammatory than "Can you even read?" Also, there's nothing to prevent us from quoting ourselves: "I believe I've already addressed this here:Simply pointing out "That's not exactly what I said" or "You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by that" are better alternatives than questioning someone's grasp on the English language.

There are also those who willfully focus on a single sentence or phrase (or even word) and try to use it out of context (or in a different context) in order to score points or characterize an entire response, which is somewhat different than the more careless person who skims posts and responds to the one thing that leaps out at them. In those cases, it can just be pointed out that the comment is being taken out of context and that it might be worth re-reading your entire post. Which, again, is somewhat less inflammatory than "You must have the reading comprehension skills of a potato!" Of course, contending with such participants is bound to get frustrating and it can be mighty tempting to lash out or respond with a snappy comeback or put-down - I've done so myself (and that's not a point of pride) - but there is usually a less flammable route that can be taken in dealing with such contributions.

There's no blanket solution for obstreperousness or underhanded debating tactics and sometimes, yeah, it is best to "sit there and take it". If it's any comfort, when people resort to such tactics, it's usually pretty obvious to everyone else, as well.


First, the best way for someone to disrupt a thread is to have an unwitting accomplice who will react to such tactics, successfully enabling them to take the discussion off topic: derailing a thread is never a solo act. Some people are always going to try to skirt the rules - and most of us will do it at some point. Unfortunately, a set of rules that would include every possible instance of uncivil or unconstructive debate would be as long as the US Code and probably more draconian. It is often very clear, though, when some people are grasping for straws, deflecting questions, and evading or ignoring strong rebuttals - and it's usually even clearer when someone is intentionally trying to hijack a thread. One can draw attention to such tactics without belittling the other participant, but it may sometimes be best to allow their posts to speak for themselves.

Yes, either of those options works just fine. Part of the problem in the flame wars that erupt is that people take others posts far too personally. If someone hasn't read your posts...are they really even worth responding to, or taking their post so personally? Not really ... What's wrong with politely reiterating your position? As Wertz said, the reason these things end up in the gutter is because neither party chooses to take the high road. If you simply reiterate your position and point out where they misrepresented your stance, the other side will be the one ending up with egg on their face. If you respond in kind, you're both guilty of shoddy debating. What good does it do to shout back "Did you even read my post!" or somesuch thing? What positive response would you expect to get from that? It just ends up in a shouting match that the everyone else is forced to witness, with no one really paying much attention (and rightfully so) to what either of the parties is shouting about. When you see two kids having a tantrum, you just want it to stop -- it doesn't make much difference what the tantrum is about. Think of it like parenting, if you must -- the last thing a parent wants to do is stoop down to the level of the child having a fit, as it's well known that if you both get involved in shouting at each other, then nothing positive will be accomplished.

I have to say, in an attempt to provide some constructive criticism here, that I don't find this, Aquilla's response or your responses to be constructive. If the aim is to have an opening post that does not set a negative tone, how does "Please don't let the door hit you on your way out. Ah, what the hell - go ahead and let it hit you," achieve that aim?

In general, I agree with the idea of what you're saying, however I do find the tone somewhat ironic.

___________________________________________________

It can be difficult to frame a question without bias. And, even if it seems unbiased by the poster, you can bet that someone will project bias onto it. So, I'm with Jobius on this one... assume good faith where possible. Where not possible, it would be great if people let those posts go unanswered.

This might be too much, but I'll suggest it anyway... it would be great if the moderators were able to point out unbiased thread starting posts. Not close them down, but suggest in an IM the reframing of the post to be more unbiased. I understand that this might not work and might take more time. I wonder if it might help with these types of issues.

I can't help but think that my "I agree/I disagree" buttons idea is looking better and better all the time. Who better to judge a post than the whole of AD? If a post is snarky, racist, unsubstantiated, off topic, or otherwise bad, let the poster know with a bunch of "thumbs down" hits. And if it's brilliant, a debate winner, a bunch of "thumbs ups".

Without some kind of feedback mechanism, how are we to know where we stand? Did I say something bad? Am I one of the offenders? Have I been reported to admins? Multiple times? WHO KNOWS? But if one of my posts (or a bunch of them) gets slapped down by the readers, I'll get the hint. Fast, and anonymously.

(x) Great idea, John!
( ) Shut up already, John.

Agreed POV does play a part in how some people react. there are obviously over the top reactions but also ones where the intent is misinterpreted.
Where it goes from there is the question. What one sees as a logical assumption may be taken as an insult by another.



I really like this idea. The whole karma reaction to a question or response. Would have been useful for a recent back and forth I just participated in.

I see what you're saying here, but some (many?) threads are clearly designed to score points, not encourage any real debate. As such, there's almost no way for the other side to respond objectively. There is a pretty simple rule of thumb to apply -- if you're starting a thread, look at your question and ask yourself if someone from the other side has a reasonable way to respond to it. If you follow that rule, then you're exercising good faith, and we can all make that assumption. There are many threads where this is simply not the case--the questions are specifically designed to point out the perceived issue for the 'other side'. Such questions should be reworded, or avoided altogether.

Wouldn't JfrmCl's idea be good for this though. most posters at least read new threads. A Karma type system might just show the disdain by members for some threads and sink them, and an in thread system could show an approval rating for a responses appropriateness.
I think it could lead to better quality debate. we can plainly see what is respected and what is frowned upon.

I think JfrmCl's idea does indeed have merit. The flip side is that 'thumbs up' and 'thumbs down' could quite easily just go down party lines, and a thread or post that is clearly biased or even downright insulting might still get a lot of 'thumbs up' from like minded folks. Majority opinion isn't always the best measuring stick.... if it were, the earth would still be flat, American never would have been discovered, and we'd all think we were at the center of the universe.

I, for one, would not be quick to give a "thumbs up" to a bad argument just because the poster was on the same side. Bad arguments don't exactly advance the cause, you know?

My original intent (still valid, I think) was just to show agreement with a post, especially if you had nothing further to add, but still wanted to express your point. I think that is generally what would happen. If I want to get all partisan, I'm not going to be satisfied with adding one more "thumbs up" to the total. I'll add a post. We all know that conservatives on AD are outnumbered - nobody is going to be taking those numbers to mean anything more than "good point."

I'll support Jobius on this one. If the thread is not to one's liking do not reply. The karma thing sounds like a bad idea.

There are times when less popular ideas may need addressing, and working through less noble antics of the punditry are necessary. This by nature requires testing the validity of the criticisms which may or may not offend some viewers. I think it goes with the territory. What is worse, an unasked question, or an incendiary one? Remember this is a political site where political undercurrents surface in mainstream circles and are tested. If asking inconvenient questions was not relevant, the satires would have no market. Viva la Daily Show!

I don't think that will end. When someone asks a tough question here, they get a response. If it's a bad thread, it will die a natural death. That won't change. What will hopefully change is that a determined poster with a weak argument will see that he/she is not winning anyone over. Too often, it's one against one, a weak argument against a good one, but nobody else wants to step into the mud. How many threads end up with two posters going at it, only to end in a series of "Oh, yeah?"s?

Also, when the replies come back fast and nasty, you don't know if you are completely alone in your thinking, or if you just have a few vociferous opponents on the other side. There are some posters here who can carry the flag for 10 people of normal typing ability - but when they argue, are there really 10 other people behind what they say?

I understand what you are saying but remember Mike and Jaime are very thorough at cleaning out older threads. The posts themselves don't hang around if they are not replied to. Now that I think on it sometimes smaller discussion are more controllable because if there are too many people it becomes a free for all and addressing everyone in an individual sense, according to AD guidelines can really eat up a lot of time. I'm not saying that as a bad thing in terms of post quality but speaking as a one-fingered typing wonder.



Everyone is different. Some have more time to respond. Some are keyboard greyhounds. Some people must have the last word. One fellow from Denmark types incredibly fast replies. So much so he can easily triple his post length over mine. I don't mind debating him but for every word I manage to write he writes four or five. I understand all about carrying the flag. Speaking as a person who is on the slow side for responding at length I prefer smaller, more focused discussions.

Ironic or not, the fact remains that people who cannot adhere to the rules are not welcome here. That is not a matter of opinion nor is it question for debate. It is the policy of this site. And it is a policy which has always been stated here in the strongest possible terms. Reiterating that policy as strongly as possible only sets a "negative tone" for those who might disagree with that policy. I'm assuming that you are not opposed to civil, constructive debate (as opposed to statements of policy, regardless of their level of civility), so there should be nothing in that statement to inflame you (unless you have an irrational fear of colloquialisms).


This actually is current policy, more or less. If a thread is started with a clear bias or inflammatory language or slanted questions that would not be conducive to constructive debate, it is closed - but it can be a temporary closure. The Mod Note that's posted when such threads are closed always includes the following:
In many cases, a PM is also sent to the person who started the thread, explaining that, if the opening post and/or questions can be reframed, the thread can be re-opened. Sometimes people respond with revisions and such threads are re-opened (and the Mod Note edited or deleted). Sometimes we hear nothing back (or the contributor says they're not interested in reframing the question) and the thread remains closed permanently. Obviously, if other participants are interested in starting a new thread on the same topic, with a more objective opening post, they are free to do so (and, if the original thread remains closed, this would not constitute a "duplicate topic").

I'm not debating the policy.



Inflame. Really? Was there something in my response that read "inflamed"? Merely stating, I thought constructively, that your tone was negative, does not mean I was inflamed by that statement or would somehow be inflamed by that statement. I think that:



is unnecessarily negative and sets a bad tone. It didn't anger me. Stating that people who cannot adhere to the rules are not welcome is fine - as you say, it's a fact... although, not something within your control, as I understand it - though, I could be wrong. What you wrote was not, in my opinion, conducive to constructive debate which, ironically, is part of what you were talking about. That's all I stated; that's all I meant.

Okay. Though, until your "unnecessarily negative" repetition of the offensive phrase (twice, now), those two sentences don't appear to have set a negative tone. But, whatever - thanks for the constructive criticism. I'll work on my sense of humor should I feel the need to start a similar thread in 2012.

If you find criticism to be unnecessarily negative simply because you are quote is repeated, so be it - I don't quite understand that, but alright. And I don't recall mentioning your sense of humor at all.

Wertz, please. There is a humungous world of difference between asking someone if he did read a post, and asking him if he can read. One is a sharp rebuke (these things are sometimes necessary). The other is a personal attack.


True, but the accomplice (who isn't necessarily unwitting) doesn't necesserily have to be the person to whom the comment is addressed. Tag teams can be quite effective at derailing discussions also.

Admittedly, this tactic doesn't work so well when it's directed at people whose views are comfortably in the majority. But as Hobbes eloquently pointed out, if majority opinions were the only ones to prevail, the earth would still be flat (among other examples that you might point to).


Hence the need to allow some degree of leeway for members themselves to deal with such tactics in some kind of forceful manner. Like you said in #27, there are some people who need to have a "negative tone" set for them. It's just one of the paradoxes of maintaining a healthy debating environment, that in order to set a positive tone generally, you have to set a negative tone for certain characters.


All these things sound great in theory, but unfortunately reality doesn't have a tendency to cooperate. If it did, demagogues would never have had the kind of effect on history that they do.

Sure, yeah. But something like "Did you even look at my response?", while not quite a personal attack, is a little sharper than simply reiterating a point, quoting one's previous post, or suggesting the other contributor take another look. I'm just suggesting that, if one can contain oneself (and, admittedly, it is sometimes hard), it is best to err on the side of the softer rebuke.


Absolutely. That's why we should all try to avoid reacting to trollish behavior, whether it's directed at us or not.


If one can issue a mild rebuke or draw attention to behavior that's skirting the rules without escalating a potential flame war and without belittling or attacking the guilty party, fine. But in general it is probably safer to report iffy posts than react to them. Self-policing is strongly encouraged; self-moderating not so much. And a Mod Note admonishing a participant sets an appropriately (and more neutral) "negative tone".


Agreed. Then again, most demagogues never had to answer to the staff and participants at America's Debate. This site will never be perfect nor will the debate here ever be entirely civil and constructive, but we should all do the best we can. And some of the most effective ways to do that are to attempt to raise the tone oneself, to think twice before posting something that may be skirting the rules, and to refrain from getting drawn in to inflammatory exchanges.

The majority of my posts occur in the given election year section of the site. I try to stick to the "important" issues best I can. Avoiding threads about Obama being a muslim, Palin's lipstick, and other silly matters is a great way to avoid the items that are only put out there to destroy, not necessarily to educate or to convince. The campaigns will throw more of this stuff around, though I'm proud to say that I haven't seen a lot of that junk on here.