Reviving the Board

[canpakes]

Hi, Shades -

I’m late to the thread, but as you asked, I’ll offer that I’m willing to try Res’s suggestion, should you also be willing to give it a go. I’m not worried about the ‘extra work’, it probably can’t be any worse that what the mod team has already put up with in recent past days.

About your three questions:

Is the community here really prepared to, say, respond to the substance of Ajax18's points without calling him a racist?

Sure can; I offer my history of interaction with ajax for your perusal.

Does everyone have the self-discipline to deal with the meat of MG 2.0's assertions without calling him a deluded idiot?

Sure can; I offer my history of interaction with MG for your perusal.

Can everyone calmly and coolly refute binger's statements without calling him any names whatsoever, even if he does so first?[/b] (Before you state that doing those things isn't the same as questioning motives, I counter by saying that doing those things is assigning motives, thus putting them into the same genus, if not the same species.)

Sure can; I offer my history of interaction with binger for your perusal.

Binger may have a tough time with Res’s suggestion, though, given that he seems to currently be assigning motive in comment after comment of his Vuarnet thread, which is paralleling the conversation in this one.

ETA: mindless, repeated posting of YouTube videos arguably presenting a certain point of view are not points, assertions or statements. They’re propaganda.

[Dr. Shades]

Res Ipsa:

There's no need to apologize. There's nothing wrong with posting a suggestion and discussing it.

Because both you and canpakes are willing to tackle the extra work that I'm convinced this approach will generate, let's go ahead and implement it. From now on, questioning a poster's motives for posting what he or she posted will count as a derailment and may be split into its own thread. I'll go ahead and enumerate this within the rules now.

EDIT:

Up until now, Universal Rule #4 has read:

Do not "derail" threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post.

It has now been amended by having the following two sentences appended to it:

This includes questioning the motives of, assigning ulterior motives to, or otherwise insulting the person who created the opening post. Start a new thread in the appropriate forum if you wish to do that.

Fernando, you now have your wish. Let the revival begin.

[William G]

Res Ipsa:

There's no need to apologize. There's nothing wrong with posting a suggestion and discussing it.

Because both you and canpakes are willing to tackle the extra work that I'm convinced this approach will generate, let's go ahead and implement it. From now on, questioning a poster's motives for posting what he or she posted will count as a derailment and may be split into its own thread. I'll go ahead and enumerate this within the rules now.

EDIT:

Up until now, Universal Rule #4 has read:

Do not "derail" threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post.

It has now been amended by having the following two sentences appended to it:

This includes questioning the motives of, assigning ulterior motives to, or otherwise insulting the person who created the opening post. Start a new thread in the appropriate forum if you wish to do that.

Fernando, you now have your wish. Let the revival begin.

If you, Dr. Shades, are interested in sprucing up the message board and making it a more inviting area for members of the community to post, I suggest that you get in touch with Atlanticmike or Fernando and inquire as to whether or not they would be enthusiastic about becoming moderators on the board. It would appear that they have been responsible for more positive changes to the board than any of the moderators have chosen to implement themselves. I believe it is fair to say that your moderator, Canpakes, has done more to discourage people from posting on the board than to encourage new people to do so so that they can participate in the discussions that are taking place here. Heck! Why don't you reinstate Binger's board credentials and offer him the opportunity to moderate alongside the three progressive stooges that you already permit to moderate? Are you afraid of the people who moderate your community? Will they leave you if you give Binger free rein to post whatever he wants? I believe that the response to that question is obvious to all of us.

[Gadianton]

you reinstate Binger's board credentials and offer him the opportunity to moderate alongside the three progressive stooges

I vote 'no'. Binger is a progressive who voted for Bernie Sanders, we don't need a fourth.

[canpakes]

If you, Dr. Shades, are interested in sprucing up the message board and making it a more inviting area for members of the community to post, I suggest that you get in touch with Atlanticmike or Fernando and inquire as to whether or not they would be enthusiastic about becoming moderators on the board. It would appear that they have been responsible for more positive changes to the board than any of the moderators have chosen to implement themselves.

Can’t we just add some Trump 2024 flags? That could draw in all sorts of conservatives, and it’ll show them woke libtards that there’s a reckoning to be reckoned with.

I believe it is fair to say that your moderator, Canpakes, has done more to discourage people from posting on the board than to encourage new people to do so so that they can participate in the discussions that are taking place here.

That’s such an unfair thing to say, after I brought over that Welcome Wagon basket.

Maybe Dr. Blitzmeisch got yours by mistake. ; )

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Be careful what you wish for.

Although Res Ipsa's idea is perfectly reasonable and would, in a perfect world, be easily implemented, it's been tried before. For example, once upon a time I asked for a "jubilee" wherein MG 2.0's previous sins be forgiven and his arguments be judged on their own merits and he not be knee-jerk attacked simply because it's him. I was mercilessly raked over the coals for this off-and-on for years to come (cue the vehement disagreement / gaslighting in 3, 2, 1. . .).

That instance aside, let's think of the ramifications of Res's idea should it be actually implemented. I'm personally all for it (aside from the nightmarish amount of work it would generate for our beleaguered moderators), BUT: Is the community here really prepared to, say, respond to the substance of Ajax18's points without calling him a racist? Does everyone have the self-discipline to deal with the meat of MG 2.0's assertions without calling him a deluded idiot? Can everyone calmly and coolly refute binger's statements without calling him any names whatsoever, even if he does so first? (Before you state that doing those things isn't the same as questioning motives, I counter by saying that doing those things is assigning motives, thus putting them into the same genus, if not the same species.) 'Cause the latter options seem to be everyone's favorite sport and, I suspect, a significant reason why people keep coming back for more.

If you choose to respond to this post, please answer or address my three questions in bold, above.

yes. it's a lazy way out.

Speaking of lazy ways out, will you please capitalize the first words of your sentences from now on?

A gentle reminder for the forum. Shades was either on duty and simply didn't give two craps or AWOL when Binger ALONE shat out over 26,000 posts under three different handles a couple of years back. This isn't including AM and his socks, no DT and his socks.

Shades, without a moment of self-reflection, is suggesting the mods allow Bing Bong, AM, and DT (and other butthurt posters) to flood the board with nonsense and we're supposed to... not call a racist a racist.

-_-

- Doc

[Moksha]

Shades, without a moment of self-reflection, is suggesting the mods allow Bing Bong, AM, and DT (and other butthurt posters) to flood the board with nonsense and we're supposed to... not call a racist a racist.

-_-

- Doc

Sounds like a Strengthening the Membership Committee plot to end the Shades board.

[Fernando]

I'd like to thank Dr. Shades directly for changing UR#4 to include the part about not insulting the person who made the first post. I'm sure this will be very important in the future when some posters seem to only come to the board to insult others by calling them stupid, racist, white nationalist, dumb, and many other insults that are aimed at conservatives posters.

I do have a question Dr. Shades. I think it's likely that posters like Some Schmo, Doc Cam, and a few others who like to attack other posters personally will start insulting conservative posters in a more general way instead of doing it in a personal way. For example, Doc Cam could say that all or most Republicans are racist instead of insulting Ajax18 by name. This would get around the point of UR#4. What will be done about it?

[Fernando]

Be careful what you wish for.

Although Res Ipsa's idea is perfectly reasonable and would, in a perfect world, be easily implemented, it's been tried before. For example, once upon a time I asked for a "jubilee" wherein MG 2.0's previous sins be forgiven and his arguments be judged on their own merits and he not be knee-jerk attacked simply because it's him. I was mercilessly raked over the coals for this off-and-on for years to come (cue the vehement disagreement / gaslighting in 3, 2, 1. . .).

That instance aside, let's think of the ramifications of Res's idea should it be actually implemented. I'm personally all for it (aside from the nightmarish amount of work it would generate for our beleaguered moderators), BUT: Is the community here really prepared to, say, respond to the substance of Ajax18's points without calling him a racist? Does everyone have the self-discipline to deal with the meat of MG 2.0's assertions without calling him a deluded idiot? Can everyone calmly and coolly refute binger's statements without calling him any names whatsoever, even if he does so first? (Before you state that doing those things isn't the same as questioning motives, I counter by saying that doing those things is assigning motives, thus putting them into the same genus, if not the same species.) 'Cause the latter options seem to be everyone's favorite sport and, I suspect, a significant reason why people keep coming back for more.

If you choose to respond to this post, please answer or address my three questions in bold, above.


Speaking of lazy ways out, will you please capitalize the first words of your sentences from now on?

A gentle reminder for the forum. Shades was either on duty and simply didn't give two craps or AWOL when Binger ALONE shat out over 26,000 posts under three different handles a couple of years back. This isn't including AM and his socks, no DT and his socks.

Shades, without a moment of self-reflection, is suggesting the mods allow Bing Bong, AM, and DT (and other butthurt posters) to flood the board with nonsense and we're supposed to... not call a racist a racist.

-_-

- Doc

Be nice young man.

[Fernando]

So Atlantic Fernando...why does it look like you have failed to reply to questions or take up the comments here?

Yeah.

Sorry, work is hectic as of late.