PDA

View Full Version : Question about Rants



Ravi
04-19-2013, 09:13 AM
If someone posts a rant and someone else comes in and calls Obama a terrorist and someone else comes in and calls the moron a moron, is that really a personal attack?

Greenridgeman
04-19-2013, 09:15 AM
If someone posts a rant and someone else comes in and calls Obama a terrorist and someone else comes in and calls the moron a moron, is that really a personal attack?


Read the rules, it should be obvious.

Anyway, if you are yours were to become a victim of collateral damage from one of Obama's drone strikes, would your opinion change?

I think it probably would.

nic34
04-19-2013, 09:24 AM
Like the collateral damage done in NYC?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Chris
04-19-2013, 09:24 AM
Obama is a public figure, members are not.

If you think someone is trolling, respond with a rational argument or ignore. We don't really have a rule against trolling. We do have a guideline about posting in bad faith, but you have to build a case.



I am responding as a moderator to a GENERAL question.

Concerns about SPECIFIC moderation should be sent in PMs: Rule 8: "General discussion of forum rules and moderation is fine in public, but questions and challenges involving moderator actions must be communicated via PM." http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/6236-The-Political-Forums-Revised-Rules-and-Regulations

nic34
04-19-2013, 09:25 AM
PS, the government has always had the ability to take you out if it wanted... only the technology has changed. Welcome to 2013.

Chris
04-19-2013, 09:26 AM
PS, I'm just a moderator, I'm not the government. And this is for technical or forum questions.

Greenridgeman
04-19-2013, 09:27 AM
If someone posts a rant and someone else comes in and calls Obama a terrorist and someone else comes in and calls the moron a moron, is that really a personal attack?



Question: Was G.W. Bush a terrorist?

Ravi
04-19-2013, 09:28 AM
I guess I didn't read the rules closely enough. So no insults are allowed? I can't call anyone a moron or a dope or a troll?

Ravi
04-19-2013, 09:28 AM
Question: Was G.W. Bush a terrorist?No, but was that the topic of the thread?

Cigar
04-19-2013, 09:35 AM
I guess I didn't read the rules closely enough. So no insults are allowed? I can't call anyone a moron or a dope or a troll?


Bull Shit, this happens everyday all day with total and complete impunity

If you don't believe me... simply read the post.

Chris
04-19-2013, 09:38 AM
I guess I didn't read the rules closely enough. So no insults are allowed? I can't call anyone a moron or a dope or a troll?

Well, it's a judgment call. We do allow for a certain amount of chippiness. We try to look at patterns of behavior. And if we get a report on it we're more likely to act.

A: Obama is a moron.
B: You're a moron.

That sort of stands out.

A: Obama is a moron.
B: Moron, Obama has an IQ of 3461, he's not a moron.

That might pass as it's embedded in an argument.

Also if A and B start going at it insulting each other and distracting discussion they'd both be warned.



Here's something key to understanding moderation here. We mods don't read everything, we're not policemen, not the government. If we chance upon posting in bad faith we might warn, but generally it is up to members to report posting in bad faith (rule violations) and then we mods will look at it and decide what to do. So report things rather than take them into your own hands.


Also, the intent of rule 8 is not to prevent challenges to moderator actions, but to keep it off line. If you are warned, feel free to contact any mod to discuss the action.

Greenridgeman
04-19-2013, 09:39 AM
No, but was that the topic of the thread?


Presidents as terrorist was relevant to the thread.

Have you ever objected and called anyone an idiot, or such, for calling Bush a terrorist?

Chris
04-19-2013, 09:40 AM
Bull Shit, this happens everyday all day with total and complete impunity

If you don't believe me... simply read the post.


And you know very well that all you need to do is report it.


And it's "bullshit" not "bull shit". :rulez:

Ravi
04-19-2013, 09:50 AM
Presidents as terrorist was relevant to the thread.

Have you ever objected and called anyone an idiot, or such, for calling Bush a terrorist?
As a matter of fact, I have.

Greenridgeman
04-19-2013, 09:54 AM
As a matter of fact, I have.


Then you should have gotten a warning or infraction.

Attack the post, not the poster.

Micketto
04-19-2013, 09:57 AM
I think the important thing here is that we all learned on thing....




A: Obama is a moron.
B: You're a moron.



A: Obama is a moron.
B: Moron, Obama has an IQ of 3461, he's not a moron.



In the above... what is the common denominator.
;)

Chris
04-19-2013, 10:02 AM
One more thing while I'm on the GENERAL subject of moderation.

Warnings are not that big a deal. They are just warnings. If you tone it down a notch, go about arguing again, it's fine, thanks.

Friendly warnings, without the official decorations, are just that too, more suggestions.

The official decoration looks like this

Danger, Will Robinson!



Now if you ignore warnings, or get a few of them, we mods are likely to issue a thread ban or an infraction. A thread ban means you can't post more in that thread. An infraction lasts for 24 hours during which time you can only post in the Hole. So these are a little more serious.



What else? It's not a personal thing. Just doing a job best we can.



Also, most of these comments in this thread are my point of view as a mod. Other mods might see things differently. We discuss mod actions before or after to try and reach a team consensus.

Ravi
04-19-2013, 10:02 AM
Then you should have gotten a warning or infraction.

Attack the post, not the poster.
It wasn't here.

I'm surprised to discover that the level of moderation here is so high.

Greenridgeman
04-19-2013, 10:04 AM
One more thing while I'm on the GENERAL subject of moderation.

Warnings are not that big a deal. They are just warnings. If you tone it down a notch, go about arguing again, it's fine, thanks.

Friendly warnings, without the official decorations, are just that too, more suggestions.

The official decoration looks like this

Danger, Will Robinson!



Now if you ignore warnings, or get a few of them, we mods are likely to issue a thread ban or an infraction. A thread ban means you can't post more in that thread. An infraction lasts for 24 hours during which time you can only post in the Hole. So these are a little more serious.



What else? It's not a personal thing. Just doing a job best we can.



Also, most of these comments in this thread are my point of view as a mod. Other mods might see things differently. We discuss mod actions before or after to try and reach a team consensus.




All that hot pink jumping out at us is so aggressive, perhaps the administration could issue a warning in some less threatening manner.

Chris
04-19-2013, 10:04 AM
I think the important thing here is that we all learned on thing....



In the above... what is the common denominator.
;)

Everyone is a moron??? :icon_scratch:

Except moderators of course.

Greenridgeman
04-19-2013, 10:05 AM
It wasn't here.

I'm surprised to discover that the level of moderation here is so high.


Oh, I won't mention other places, but, I've seen much, much worse.

Chris
04-19-2013, 10:07 AM
It wasn't here.

I'm surprised to discover that the level of moderation here is so high.

It is?

So far today, one warning was issued. And I think one friendly warning.

Yesterday, I think one warning.

Day before, none, iirc.


Or did you mean high level of moderation as a compliment? :undecided20:

Common
04-19-2013, 01:12 PM
It wasn't here.

I'm surprised to discover that the level of moderation here is so high.


Marie, I recieved a friendly warning today and it was justified I stepped over the line and I readily acknowledge that. I didnt realize what area the thread was in.
I havent personally seen any indication at all that the moderation here is high or aggressive, to be honest I think its kind of mild and fair myself. I came from a lunatic forum that was created just for mods it seems. If you were in the clique you could do no wrong, if you werent in the clique of course you could do no right. This forum is not like that. :)

Ravi
04-19-2013, 01:18 PM
Marie, I recieved a friendly warning today and it was justified I stepped over the line and I readily acknowledge that. I didnt realize what area the thread was in.
I havent personally seen any indication at all that the moderation here is high or aggressive, to be honest I think its kind of mild and fair myself. I came from a lunatic forum that was created just for mods it seems. If you were in the clique you could do no wrong, if you werent in the clique of course you could do no right. This forum is not like that. :)

I didn't mean to imply that I think the mods are heavy handed, just that the rule itself is a little heavy handed. I honestly don't know if I'll be able to survive without calling some of y'all moron. :(

oceanloverOH
04-19-2013, 01:41 PM
I didn't mean to imply that I think the mods are heavy handed, just that the rule itself is a little heavy handed. I honestly don't know if I'll be able to survive without calling some of y'all moron. :(

You don't know if you can survive without namecalling? Oh, my, that's quite indicative of your position, isn't it? How about just telling the ubiquitous "ya'll" that you disagree with their opinions and why? That more adult approach can generate additional interesting debate, rather than just shutting someone down by namecalling. Of course, that's just my opinion, carry on.

Ravi
04-19-2013, 01:58 PM
You don't know if you can survive without namecalling? Oh, my, that's quite indicative of your position, isn't it? How about just telling the ubiquitous "ya'll" that you disagree with their opinions and why? That more adult approach can generate additional interesting debate, rather than just shutting someone down by namecalling. Of course, that's just my opinion, carry on.

^insulting without name calling, well done. Not really seeing the difference though.

Micketto
04-19-2013, 02:00 PM
^insulting without name calling, well done. Not really seeing the difference though.

.... I'm missing the insult.

Greenridgeman
04-19-2013, 02:01 PM
I didn't mean to imply that I think the mods are heavy handed, just that the rule itself is a little heavy handed. I honestly don't know if I'll be able to survive without calling some of y'all moron. :(



Yes, we have noticed you have an attitude.

Ravi
04-19-2013, 02:07 PM
Yes, we have noticed you have an attitude.
At least I'm honest :)

Chris
04-19-2013, 02:07 PM
^insulting without name calling, well done. Not really seeing the difference though.

Missing the insult too. It was a rational argument about name calling.

Name calling, personal attack, ad hom etc are just all forms of raising a white flag you've got nothing to argue.

Ravi
04-19-2013, 02:10 PM
You don't know if you can survive without namecalling? Oh, my, that's quite indicative of your position, isn't it?

^Implying I can't do both: insult and give a good argument.

Micketto
04-19-2013, 02:14 PM
^Implying I can't do both: insult and give a good argument.

Hmm.
Not what I inferred from that, at all.
Especially since it was you who said: "I honestly don't know if I'll be able to survive without calling some of y'all moron".

Greenridgeman
04-19-2013, 02:17 PM
At least I'm honest :)


So am I.

Chris
04-19-2013, 02:22 PM
^Implying I can't do both: insult and give a good argument.

It was a question about your comment which is where the implication came from. I read it similarly, like you were saying you had to name call like I have to have a cup of coffee in the morning.

If you didn't mean that, then you should simply say oh but that's not what i meant I meant....

This is all getting to be much ado about nothing.

Ravi
04-19-2013, 02:30 PM
I didn't realize I was being unclear.

Greenridgeman
04-19-2013, 02:30 PM
It was a question about your comment which is where the implication came from. I read it similarly, like you were saying you had to name call like I have to have a cup of coffee in the morning.

If you didn't mean that, then you should simply say oh but that's not what i meant I meant....




This is all getting to be much ado about nothing.



But it is the internet, some thrive on nit-picking over nothing.

I bet you and I could not even agree what nothing is.

Or which Rule 8 I just broke.

Ravi
04-19-2013, 02:32 PM
So am I.I wasn't really implying that you weren't, just illustrating a point.

Chris
04-19-2013, 02:32 PM
I didn't realize I was being unclear.

No problem, that's what discussion is for.

Chris
04-19-2013, 02:33 PM
But it is the internet, some thrive on nit-picking over nothing.

I bet you and I could not even agree what nothing is.

Or which Rule 8 I just broke.

It takes all kinds.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/12139-Nothing

Common
04-19-2013, 02:42 PM
I didn't mean to imply that I think the mods are heavy handed, just that the rule itself is a little heavy handed. I honestly don't know if I'll be able to survive without calling some of y'all moron. :(


You can call me a moron I dont mind :)

Chris
04-19-2013, 02:46 PM
You can call me a moron I dont mind :)

Are you a mormon?

Greenridgeman
04-19-2013, 02:55 PM
Are you a mormon?


Are you implying being a mormon(Mormon) would make him a moron, or just asking a personal question?

Ravi
04-19-2013, 02:55 PM
How about maroon?

Chris
04-19-2013, 03:13 PM
Are you implying being a mormon(Mormon) would make him a moron, or just asking a personal question?

Just punning around.

Chris
04-19-2013, 03:14 PM
How about maroon?

Or a macaroon.

Common
04-19-2013, 03:16 PM
Are you a mormon?

Noooooooooooo lol, I was raised a catholic and I still am but Im not a very good one

BillyBob
04-19-2013, 07:09 PM
Is there any doubt that Obama is a terrorist?

[are you guys talking about me?]

Dr. Who
04-19-2013, 07:18 PM
If someone posts a rant and someone else comes in and calls Obama a terrorist and someone else comes in and calls the moron a moron, is that really a personal attack?
All personal attacks are against forum rules. If you call someone a moron, it is a personal attack, irrespective of how moronic the person's response may seem to you. You may however criticize that person's opinion without being personal, but you must attack the message and not the messenger.

BillyBob
04-19-2013, 07:21 PM
All personal attacks are against forum rules. If you call someone a moron, it is a personal attack, irrespective of how moronic the person's response may seem to you. You may however criticize that person's opinion without being personal, but you must attack the message and not the messenger.


So the way around that is, instead of calling someone a moron, you say he has a moronic message.

Chris
04-19-2013, 07:31 PM
So the way around that is, instead of calling someone a moron, you say he has a moronic message.

That would be ok. Attack the message not the messenger. Messages posted are public and subject to criticism, hopefully rational and constructive, messengers are private, personal.

jillian
04-22-2013, 07:02 AM
Read the rules, it should be obvious.

Anyway, if you are yours were to become a victim of collateral damage from one of Obama's drone strikes, would your opinion change?

I think it probably would.

As opposed to being an Iraqi and getting blown up b/c bush/Cheney and their PNAC neocon cronies lie about d's?

ok

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 07:07 AM
As opposed to being an Iraqi and getting blown up b/c bush/Cheney and their PNAC neocon cronies lie about d's?


ok


What's "d's"?


I'll spare you endless quotes from the most brilliant minds in America, Hillary, John Kerry, and others, where they tell the same "b/s bush/Cheney and their PNC neocon cronies lies".



Isn't it funny how the stupidest son of a bitch in the world fooled all those brilliant Dems in the House and Senate that supported his every war move.

jillian
04-22-2013, 07:18 AM
What's "d's"?


I'll spare you endless quotes from the most brilliant minds in America, Hillary, John Kerry, and others, where they tell the same "b/s bush/Cheney and their PNC neocon cronies lies".



Isn't it funny how the stupidest son of a bitch in the world fooled all those brilliant Dems in the House and Senate that supported his every war move.

it should have been wmd's.

yes, i know rightwingers love to say that.

but the reality is
a) THEY WERE LIED TO
b) they never approved of bush going in and blowing up iraq. they gave him a weapon in his arsenal. he was REQUIRED, if you actually look at the authorization, to go back to congress AFTER DIPLOMACY, and after the final report of the inspectors WHICH SAID THERE WERE NO WMD'S and IRAQ WAS COOPERATING WITH INSPECTIONS AT THAT POINT.

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 07:21 AM
WMD's, you mean like the pressure cooker bombs the Boston Bomb Boys built?

Or, WMD's like Tim McVeigh built?

I supppose Saddam did not have pressure cookers or fertilizer.

Chris
04-22-2013, 08:03 AM
Let me assure everyone the we mods absolutely, unequivocally deny the use of WMDs in moderating the forum.

jillian
04-22-2013, 08:03 AM
WMD's, you mean like the pressure cooker bombs the Boston Bomb Boys built?

Or, WMD's like Tim McVeigh built?

I supppose Saddam did not have pressure cookers or fertilizer.

saddam kept the fundies in check and was the one thing that kept iran under control.

when did saddam attack us?

p.s. saddam HATED the fundies because they didn't approve of the secular lifestyle of him and his sons. so i'm not quite sure what your point is.

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 08:06 AM
saddam kept the fundies in check and was the one thing that kept iran under control.

when did saddam attack us?


I did not say he attacked us.

He did fund terror, he did violate numerous UN resolutions.

The Iraq War was fought by due process of law.

Change the law if you don't like it.

jillian
04-22-2013, 08:26 AM
I did not say he attacked us.

He did fund terror, he did violate numerous UN resolutions.

The Iraq War was fought by due process of law.

Change the law if you don't like it.

whether he was "funding terror" by giving money to people whose homes were bulldozed by israelis is a judgment call. it was something i disagreed with, but whether it is "terrorism" is up for discussion.

however, saudi arabia, and iran, and syria and lebanon, etc, etc, etc, fund terrorism... we don't blow up countries for that.

we aren't the UN... we're not supposed to unilateratally pretend to enforce the UN's will.

and, frankly, the UN inspector, Hans Blix, said they were being compliant.

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 08:35 AM
whether he was "funding terror" by giving money to people whose homes were bulldozed by israelis is a judgment call. it was something i disagreed with, but whether it is "terrorism" is up for discussion.

however, saudi arabia, and iran, and syria and lebanon, etc, etc, etc, fund terrorism... we don't blow up countries for that.




we aren't the UN... we're not supposed to unilateratally pretend to enforce the UN's will.

and, frankly, the UN inspector, Hans Blix, said they were being compliant.




"Bush's" Iraq War was fought according to due process of national and international law, and authorized by the Congress with considerable Democratic support in both Houses.

There was no impeachment, and no indictments in international courts ever resulted from the war.

I don't see what the gripe is.

Take it up with the Dems that voted for every significant piece of legislation passed during the Bush years.

Should not be as hard to find a Dem that supported Bush's wars as it is to find a Republican that backed HCR.

As for "unilaterally", perhaps you ought to look up what that means.

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 10:23 AM
saddam kept the fundies in check and was the one thing that kept iran under control.

when did saddam attack us?

p.s. saddam HATED the fundies because they didn't approve of the secular lifestyle of him and his sons. so i'm not quite sure what your point is.



You say Saddam had no WMD's, as if that were fact, yet a pot full of nails and blackpowder is a WMD.

You don't see the disconnect here?

Chris
04-22-2013, 07:23 PM
it should have been wmd's.

yes, i know rightwingers love to say that.

but the reality is
a) THEY WERE LIED TO
b) they never approved of bush going in and blowing up iraq. they gave him a weapon in his arsenal. he was REQUIRED, if you actually look at the authorization, to go back to congress AFTER DIPLOMACY, and after the final report of the inspectors WHICH SAID THERE WERE NO WMD'S and IRAQ WAS COOPERATING WITH INSPECTIONS AT THAT POINT.

What lie?

Micketto
04-23-2013, 12:21 PM
As opposed to being an Iraqi and getting blown up b/c bush/Cheney and their PNAC neocon cronies lie about d's?

ok
I think he meant more like being blown up in Boston by Muslim terrorists that were "under watch" by Obama's administration but lost track of due to a typo on some paperwork.... or so they are saying today.

jillian
04-23-2013, 04:52 PM
I think he meant more like being blown up in Boston by Muslim terrorists that were "under watch" by Obama's administration but lost track of due to a typo on some paperwork.... or so they are saying today.

that isn't what happened.

they had no reason to keep him "under watch" they didn't find anything.

thanks.

Micketto
04-24-2013, 11:33 AM
that isn't what happened.

Actually... it is.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57580743/boston-suspects-misspelled-name-tripped-up-fbi-senator-says/


thanks.

You're welcome.

Cigar
04-24-2013, 11:41 AM
I think he meant more like being blown up in Boston by Muslim terrorists that were "under watch" by Obama's administration but lost track of due to a typo on some paperwork.... or so they are saying today.



So do we really want to go there ... and talk about Terrorists who were "under watch" during an Administrations "watch", and the consequences of losing track of them?

Really ... do you really want to go their?

The last I checked ... and you're free to check my arithmetic, but didn't 3 die because of the Boston Bombing?

Micketto
04-24-2013, 11:56 AM
So do we really want to go there ... and talk about Terrorists who were "under watch" during an Administrations "watch", and the consequences of losing track of them?

Really ... do you really want to go their?

The last I checked ... and you're free to check my arithmetic, but didn't 3 die because of the Boston Bombing?

Doesn't matter to me. I'm quite used to the libs pointing fingers at previous administrations to distract from the failures of their own.
Why stop now ?

And the bombers killed 4 people (that we know of)... not 3.

jillian
04-24-2013, 12:19 PM
Doesn't matter to me. I'm quite used to the libs pointing fingers at previous administrations to distract from the failures of their own.
Why stop now ?

And the bombers killed 4 people (that we know of)... not 3.

you seem to have that backwards. what we see is the radical right blame the current administration for the damage caused to this country by the last.... all the while refusing to allow anything to be done to fix those problems but for the same policies that the prior administration followed... which caused the damage in the first place.

no one says it's perfect. but the do nothing, obstructionist, right... has made sure that no great strides can be made to repair things.

i blame the dems for not being better at communicating what the wingers are actually doing.

Chris
04-24-2013, 12:56 PM
you seem to have that backwards. what we see is the radical right blame the current administration for the damage caused to this country by the last.... all the while refusing to allow anything to be done to fix those problems but for the same policies that the prior administration followed... which caused the damage in the first place.

no one says it's perfect. but the do nothing, obstructionist, right... has made sure that no great strides can be made to repair things.

i blame the dems for not being better at communicating what the wingers are actually doing.

Nice partisan position for which other partisans, especially Dems, will thank you.

Micketto
04-24-2013, 01:11 PM
you seem to have that backwards. what we see...

Backwards?
So no one says "But Bush did this...!"
Not even in this very thread ?
As if...

I don't see anyone blaming previous administrations for Obama's problems.... except for the left.
Blaming Bush only worked for a couple years.... then at a certain point, the complete inability to "fix" things and instead make them worse... has to be accepted by Obama himself.
No matter how much the left keeps trying to blame Bush.


all the while refusing to allow anything to be done to fix those problems but for the same policies that the prior administration followed... which caused the damage in the first place.

So Obama is doing the same things that Bush did... and is making things worse ?

Interesting... few dems will admit that publicly.

Micketto
04-24-2013, 01:12 PM
Nice partisan position for which other partisans, especially Dems, will thank you.

No kidding.
Most liberals I have run across in online forums have that rant assigned to a hotkey ;)

Cigar
04-24-2013, 01:14 PM
Doesn't matter to me. I'm quite used to the libs pointing fingers at previous administrations to distract from the failures of their own.
Why stop now ?

And the bombers killed 4 people (that we know of)... not 3.


The Bomb Killed 3 ...

The 4th was Executed.

Cigar
04-24-2013, 01:16 PM
Backwards?
So no one says "But Bush did this...!"
Not even in this very thread ?
As if...

I don't see anyone blaming previous administrations for Obama's problems.... except for the left.
Blaming Bush only worked for a couple years.... then at a certain point, the complete inability to "fix" things and instead make them worse... has to be accepted by Obama himself.
No matter how much the left keeps trying to blame Bush.



So Obama is doing the same things that Bush did... and is making things worse ?

Interesting... few dems will admit that publicly.

Nope ... Obama got results and is ending Wars, not starting them.

Remember ... it takes time to clean up someone else Shit, especially during obstructions and filibustering, something other Administrations never has to deal with.

It's a Black Thang

Micketto
04-24-2013, 01:17 PM
The Bomb Killed 3 ...

The 4th was Executed.

So I was correct.... the bombers killed 4.

Thank you for confirming.

Micketto
04-24-2013, 01:19 PM
Remember ... it takes time to clean up someone else ShitNo kidding... it will be a careful group of people running for election in 2016


It's a Black Thang
Oh... the race card.
How liberal of you.

junie
04-24-2013, 01:25 PM
So I was correct.... the bombers killed 4.

Thank you for confirming.


plus the 3 guys tamerlan murdered in 2011 (probably)...

http://www.ibtimes.com/tamerlan-tsarnaevs-possible-involvement-waltham-triple-murder-investigated-1207921



i'm gonna speculate and say he probably killed a few prostitutes in western mass. as well, so they should probably open up those cold cases too!