The politics rule is getting out of hand

[Shaner]

This is considered politics? This is so loosely based on politics that it isn't even really politics. It's more about whether the right to strike is being eroded.
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/back-work-legislation-cp-1183858/

There's also this one
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/should-markham-become-city-1182782/

The latter is the one I'm really struggling with. If that's politics and can't be talked about, then any mention of any town, city, province, etc. is also politics and should be banned. Of course I don't want that to happen, I'm saying it to prove my point. That is no more politics than a thread about Toronto getting a new restaurant.

I don't mean to call you out Mr Perfect, you're just applying the rules as they're written and you just happen to be the guy who locked those threads, but I think this is getting out of hand. It's clear that political and religious discussions are banned and no matter what I say they're going to stay banned. That's fine, but lets not lock every single thread that is very loosely based on some form of politics. Lets use a little common sense and a little discretion to determine what is political in nature, rather than just loosely based on politics.

Political talk is banned, but why ban subjects based on politics? That may seem like the same thing, but it's not if you think about it. Any mention of a city, town, province, etc. is loosely based on politics but isn't necessarily political in nature. Any mention of any crown corporation, public service workers, taxes, etc. is based on politics, but not necessarily political.

[Tijuana]

I'm b4 they say they will consider it at their next meeting and lock this thread.

[Shaner]

I'm b4 they say they will consider it at their next meeting and lock this thread.

When I make suggestions, I never expect them to implemented or even considered. If they are, great, but I don't expect it. I'm just the type of person that likes to speak my mind. I said what I had to say and that's all I can do.

[Tijuana]

When I make suggestions, I never expect them to implemented or even considered. If they are, great, but I don't expect it. I'm just the type of person that likes to speak my mind. I said what I had to say and that's all I can do.

Yours isn't so much of a suggestion rather showing them how flawed and unrealistic their new rule is.

[D-Roc]

This type of "zero tolerence" for political / political-ish type threads is what is needed. May be heavy handed, but when they gave an inch, members took a mile. This is the only way to to clean up OT.

[mrperfect]

Shaner, Im just doing my job man. :rolleyes:
The threads in question was reported by several other as political.
If I make an exception for one then its not fair to others. Its upto the Admin to look deeper into this issue and follow up if required -- however at this time Im simply following the orders, just as you do at your penitentry.

Thanks for understanding our situation. We are trying to be level headed as much as possible. We are removing questionable content instead of locking threads. However a few outright political threads have no room for edition or further debate and warrants immediate closure as per the rules. No infractions was issued to anyone, infact all threads were closed with a reason left to the OP. :o

Thats all I can say for now my friend.

[Shaner]

Shaner, Im just doing my job man. :rolleyes:
The threads in question was reported by several other as political.
If I make an exception for one then its not fair to others. Its upto the Admin to look deeper into this issue and follow up if required -- however at this time Im simply following the orders, just as you do at your penitentry.

Thanks for understanding our situation. We are trying to be level headed as much as possible. We are removing questionable content instead of locking threads. However a few outright political threads have no room for edition or further debate and warrants immediate closure as per the rules. No infractions was issued to anyone, infact all threads were closed with a reason left to the OP. :o

Thats all I can say for now my friend.

I tried to make it clear that I'm not targeting you. I know you just happened to be the mod that closed those specific threads and it could have just as easily been any of the other mods. Although I do take issue with you locking the threads because several people reported them. So what if 100 people reported them, just because people report something doesn't mean it's worthy of being locked.

Trying to be level headed? There's nothing level headed about locking those threads, especially the Mississauga one. That's not questionable or political in nature. You wouldn't be making an exception by leaving those threads open as there's absolutely no reason to close them.

Again I'm not targeting you although it appears you've already taken it personally, so since you've responded I will ask you this. Would the other mods have also closed those threads? If yes, then so be it, but if not, then just perhaps you guys should all get on the same page.

Once again, I'm not questioning you specifically, I'm questioning the rule and how it's gotten completely out of hand.

[Shaner]

This type of "zero tolerence" for political / political-ish type threads is what is needed. May be heavy handed, but when they gave an inch, members took a mile. This is the only way to to clean up OT.

Really, we need to clean up OT from talking about whether Mississauga should be a city or not? Really, that's what is the root problem of OT? That thread is so political and emotionally charged that new rules had to be created to close threads exactly like that one?

Life isn't black and white, there is grey mixed in there too.

[gei]

Out of curiosity, WHY are political threads banned at all? They seem to generally lead to the most interesting and entertaining debates of all. Sure they may get a bit heated from time to time, but this is the internet - why does that matter?

[EmperorOfCanada]

While I actually agree with you Shaner, as others have said its the give an inch take a mile problem. Until such a time that we can trust threads not to derail and spiral out of control (and we are far far away from that trust imo), we need to be stricter than would otherwise be necessary.

[Shaner]

While I actually agree with you Shaner, as others have said its the give an inch take a mile problem. Until such a time that we can trust threads not to derail and spiral out of control (and we are far far away from that trust imo), we need to be stricter than would otherwise be necessary.

I get that completely. Like I said, I disagree with the new stance, but I get why it's being done. My issue is those two threads aren't the type of threads that are going to spiral out of control, especially the Mississauga one. How on earth is that worthy of being locked? I would stop questioning it immediately if someone could just explain to me how that thread is deserving of being locked under the new rules? How is that going to spiral out of control? The subject is about the city itself, not about politics. So is any and all talk about a city, province, country etc. now political? If so, I expect every single thread that mentions any place to be locked because it's just as political as that Mississauga one. What about talk about that aquarium coming to Toronto, that's political. Any talk about any festivals in Toronto, political. That TTC thread currently in OT, it should be locked immediately. Any talk about Canada Day, 4th of July, Christmas, New years, all political. I expect 95% of threads to be locked from now on. That thread in the travel forum about Mexico being a dangerous place to travel to, that's political, it should be locked. I can go on for hours and hours...

You guys aren't giving an inch by leaving such threads open, because there's no reason to lock threads like that in the first place.

[Shaner]

These are all extremely loosely based on politics and should be locked

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/royalties-gone-mad-get-ready-pay-more-music-played-your-wedding-event-1184040/
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/teacher-edmonton-suspended-giving-zeros-1183774/
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/body-parts-being-deilivered-tory-head-office-1182857/ (hell, this is as close to politics as you can get)
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/new-all-purpose-ttc-thread-ask-questions-make-comments-make-suggestions-1183691/ (If Canada Post is politics, so is TTC).
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/cop-takes-heat-arresting-off-duty-officer-1182788/
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/anyone-know-have-knowledge-about-canadian-armed-forces-1183658/
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/generation-fat-1182625/
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/pipe-bomb-found-brampton-church-wow-1182676/ (religion and politics)

Hopefully all those get locked too as they're all just as much political as that Mississauga one is.

[Drew87]

I haven't thought this out but maybe the only threads that should get locked when it comes to politics are the ones that directly deal with political parties like the ones Hitman21 and Dearsummer used to make....


They usually just turn a thread of people bashing the conservatives or liberals.

[EmperorOfCanada]

I get that completely. Like I said, I disagree with the new stance, but I get why it's being done. My issue is those two threads aren't the type of threads that are going to spiral out of control, especially the Mississauga one. How on earth is that worthy of being locked? I would stop questioning it immediately if someone could just explain to me how that thread is deserving of being locked under the new rules? How is that going to spiral out of control? The subject is about the city itself, not about politics. So is any and all talk about a city, province, country etc. now political? If so, I expect every single thread that mentions any place to be locked because it's just as political as that Mississauga one. What about talk about that aquarium coming to Toronto, that's political. Any talk about any festivals in Toronto, political. That TTC thread currently in OT, it should be locked immediately. Any talk about Canada Day, 4th of July, Christmas, New years, all political. I expect 95% of threads to be locked from now on. That thread in the travel forum about Mexico being a dangerous place to travel to, that's political, it should be locked. I can go on for hours and hours...

You guys aren't giving an inch by leaving such threads open, because there's no reason to lock threads like that in the first place.

Shaner, I challenge you to find a subject or topic that they cant try to derail lol. But I do get your point.

[ishfish]

It does seem that the pendulum had to swing as it was more heat than intellectual exploration.

It is not clear what it will take to reestablish trust or what that trust is defined as, but EofC implied that the pendulum may "settle in the middle" eventually.

Pendulum - that is a sneaky way of saying it was too liberal and now it is too conservative.
EofC - that is a sneaky way of avoiding spelling a long name incorrectly.
:D - this is how I wish all a really great weekend, it seems that many of us have been under a lot of stress with the new changes AND we will survive.

[mysticalinfluence]

This type of "zero tolerence" for political / political-ish type threads is what is needed. May be heavy handed, but when they gave an inch, members took a mile. This is the only way to to clean up OT.

I agree, I'm with you, It's an off topic deals forum, not a political forum. I'm glad to see the CP rail thread get locked as it would've just turned into the typical RFD union bashing thread. If people want to disscuss politics so badly then they should join a politics forum. Keep up the good work mods and lock anything related to politics/religion.

[Shaner]

I agree, I'm with you, It's an off topic deals forum, not a political forum. I'm glad to see the CP rail thread get locked as it would've just turned into the typical RFD union bashing thread. If people want to disscuss politics so badly then they should join a politics forum. Keep up the good work mods and lock anything related to politics/religion.

Okay, forget the CP thread, how is the Mississauga thread political but the one about body parts being sent to the Tory's head office isn't?

EDIT: Made a mistake.

[tebore]

Really...

At this point. Just get the old gang back together and make another RFD true to the roots that started RFD.

[Ojam]

This type of "zero tolerence" for political / political-ish type threads is what is needed. May be heavy handed, but when they gave an inch, members took a mile. This is the only way to to clean up OT.

+1 certain members were abusing it and using off topic and their personal pulpit to spew their political POV.

[flashy_mcflash]

+1 certain members were abusing it and using off topic and their personal pulpit to spew their political POV.

Agreed. They ruined it for everyone. There's political message boards for that kind of thing. I think some of the aforementioned members would be happier on Stormfront or Free Republic.

[oranr]

Shaner - I totally understand where you are coming from and your frustration with the new policy. I know we won't appease everyone and we are working to find the right balance. As it stands right now, there is a zero tolerance on Political threads. I hope that once we get back to a place were OT is a fun, respectful place to post (without heavy moderation to keep it like that), then maybe we can discuss loosening the rules.

Right now, each political debate ends up in a bicker feast between a couple users and it ruins the discussion/thread for the rest of us. I know its not really fair to judge a section by it's bad apples but unfortunately it was (not by me) but we have to deal with the hand we are dealt.

There was discussion of opening up a strictly political sub forum but this was put on the back burner as we are in a wait and see mode to see how things turn out.

I was on the fence with the Mississauga thread, could have gone either way. I do appreciate you speaking your mind and letting us know how you feel in a respectful manner.

edit: the body part case - I believe the political aspect (body parts sent to both liberal and conservative parties) was a super minor aspect, more showing off than anything, trying to get the biggest response possible from society and he did a pretty good job at it. I don't believe there was anything political associated with it as he hasn't come out with a political agenda or manifesto. To me that shows it was more about creating the biggest response to his murder than anything to do with politics.

[Syne]

Let's take the sub-forum idea off the backburner then. Zero tolerance is not a "wait and see" philosophy. People want to talk about current events, and current events are always (atleast somewhat) political in nature.

If you don't want OT to be the sandbox for this sort of discussion, I understand - but this problem isn't going away.

[Drew87]

Let's take the sub-forum idea off the backburner then. Zero tolerance is not a "wait and see" philosophy. People want to talk about current events, and current events are always (atleast somewhat) political in nature.

If you don't want OT to be the sandbox for this sort of discussion, I understand - but this problem isn't going away.

I agree with Syne....

I want to add I think a big problem that off topic had before was the users not the topics/thread...I think people like Hitman21, Dearsummer, CDNPATRIOT were a big reason why the board had problems. While they may not have been breaking rules directly their posts would have an underlying tone of instigation and after a while everytime someone saw their posts they'd call them a troll/joke/idiot and that just egged them on - I think that censoring subjects isn't an answer, I think the answer is reacting quickly to people that are obviously just posting to get a reaction.

[_Allan_]

I know with ALL modern forum software you can block individual people from viewing sections. How about you block the biggest trouble makers from accessing OT, and allow the rest to have polite political discussion in a subforum?

[Drew87]

I know with ALL modern forum software you can block individual people from viewing sections. How about you block the biggest trouble makers from accessing OT, and allow the rest to have polite political discussion in a subforum?

That's a great idea - another idea I had was that the regular viewers/posters start using the "ignore" feature under "my options" and instead of replying to people they think are "trolls" to just ignore them....Trolls will never stop posting, it doesn't matter how much you go back and forth with them.

If enough people ignore them they'll either a) leave or b) smarten up but by then it'll be too late because they'll be on ignore by the people that they wanted to annoy

[Manatus]

Personally I think they should do it like hockey - first person over the boards gets ejected. i.e. if a thread becomes political, the first person to make it political gets a temp ban and the thread gets locked. Then people can talk about whether Markham should or should not become a city, but the first person to say Mayor Scarpitti sucks, gets banned. Likewise everyone can discuss how mentally unstable someone must be to kill another person and mail their body parts out, but the first person to say that Harper deserves it or it must be a psycho commie baboon gets banned. That way people can have their discussion, but everyone will be more careful about not crossing that line. People are going to preview their posts more carefully to make sure they can't get singled out, rather than just typing whatever and hitting post. Also if someone keeps doing it, the rest of the posters are going to want serious action taken against them for ruining threads.

[tebore]

Keep up the heavy handedness and you're going to lose your free labour.

[NG]

I really don't understand the problem. Surely there are other sites out there to discuss Canadian politics?

Personally it's been a pleasure to see OT empty of threads that had titles like they came out of the press room of a right wing think tank.

Perhaps RFD could even add the words liberal, conservative and NDP to the word censor.

[Syne]

That's a great idea - another idea I had was that the regular viewers/posters start using the "ignore" feature under "my options" and instead of replying to people they think are "trolls" to just ignore them....Trolls will never stop posting, it doesn't matter how much you go back and forth with them.

If enough people ignore them they'll either a) leave or b) smarten up but by then it'll be too late because they'll be on ignore by the people that they wanted to annoy

The problem with the ignore function, is that it still lets you know that the person posted, and there is this juicy "view post" button that sits there, taunting you, daring you to open it. Since putting certain people on ignore, I think I've actually started reading their stuff more, because it's almost like their posts now have unique packaging.

The temptation needs to be removed completely from the ignore feature.

[D-Roc]

Really, we need to clean up OT from talking about whether Mississauga should be a city or not? Really, that's what is the root problem of OT? That thread is so political and emotionally charged that new rules had to be created to close threads exactly like that one?

Life isn't black and white, there is grey mixed in there too.

Of course in real life things are not always black and white, but this is not real life. This is the internet and that thread very easily could be considered politics considering the Markham thread about becoming a city is about politics.

It is unfortunate, but this heavy handed approach is what is needed to gain control of the trouble making trolls in OT.

[poedua]

This type of "zero tolerence" for political / political-ish type threads is what is needed. May be heavy handed, but when they gave an inch, members took a mile. This is the only way to to clean up OT.

+1

Couldn't agree more.

[DearSummer]

How is this thread not considered political: http://forums.redflagdeals.com/stop-borrowing-private-banks-12-year-old-speaks-out-1184160/

If you are going to enforce a rule, enforce it CONSISTENTLY.

[NG]

How is this thread not considered political: http://forums.redflagdeals.com/stop-borrowing-private-banks-12-year-old-speaks-out-1184160/

If you are going to enforce a rule, enforce it CONSISTENTLY.

I scrolled through the thread and didn't see any references to things like the Liberals, NDP, Conservatives or people like Harper, McGuinty, Hudak, Ford etc.

Therefore I can understand how that thread could be viewed as not political.

I understand and agree that it'll be a process for all users to understand exactly where the new line is (myself included) but the end goal seems to be a better and more efficient OT thanks to these new rules so far.

As a result thanks clicked to every post by a mod in this thread.

[Ojam]

The usual suspect(s) are already being rude and bickering in the thread so it won't be long before it is closed.

[Drew87]

The usual suspect(s) are already being rude and bickering in the thread so it won't be long before it is closed.

I was going to say that when I first say DS' post but refrained...LOL!!!

[Manatus]

I scrolled through the thread and didn't see any references to things like the Liberals, NDP, Conservatives or people like Harper, McGuinty, Hudak, Ford etc.

Therefore I can understand how that thread could be viewed as not political.

I understand and agree that it'll be a process for all users to understand exactly where the new line is (myself included) but the end goal seems to be a better and more efficient OT thanks to these new rules so far.

As a result thanks clicked to every post by a mod in this thread.

I agree, it's still a bit of a confusing period because it's hard to tell where the line is. For example, the thread DearSummer linked - it's debating whether capitalism is evil, basically. That's an economic issue, but it also very often becomes a political one. Is it OK to say that capitalism is evil if nobody mentions the government bailing out capitalists with public money? What about unions, can we talk about unions as long as we don't talk about whether the government should intervene in strike situations? Or public transport, can we talk about whether or not Toronto should build more subways as long as we don't mention what the Mayor and various councillors want to do? If you want to be strict about it, politics is in everything because at some point somebody has used pretty much any issue to score political points. I guess to be really topical, the hot thread right now about the sad situation at the Eaton Centre - if that becomes a discussion about gun control or whether we should be tougher on violent criminals (both of which are totally relevant to the topic), is that allowed?

[ssbtech]

Let's take the sub-forum idea off the backburner then. Zero tolerance is not a "wait and see" philosophy. People want to talk about current events, and current events are always (atleast somewhat) political in nature.


Yep - and sometimes they can be important issues that affect many Canadians. Hushing this type of discussion is essentially RFD taking a political stance.



I really don't understand the problem. Surely there are other sites out there to discuss Canadian politics?


The problem is, many other websites with large diverse groups of users also ban political discussions.


Why not implement the groups feature where users who wish to opt-in to political discussions can go into their User-CP, click "groups" and join a political group? That way it isolates it from users who don't wish to see political discussions.

[Drew87]

Yep - and sometimes they can be important issues that affect many Canadians. Hushing this type of discussion is essentially RFD taking a political stance.




The problem is, many other websites with large diverse groups of users also ban political discussions.


Why not implement the groups feature where users who wish to opt-in to political discussions can go into their User-CP, click "groups" and join a political group? That way it isolates it from users who don't wish to see political discussions.


RFD mods are taking away politics all together because certain users have derailed every single thread that's been created recently...Banning the users won't accomplish anything because others will just replace them....Certain users haven't even posted in off-topic since Politics was taken out of the forum and they were known trolls....It's easy to ban a topic then to read pages on top of pages of threads and marking individuals...

[NG]

The problem is, many other websites with large diverse groups of users also ban political discussions.

I've been open in my dissent for the banning on profanity/non-porn sexuality on this site because the RFD/YPG policy exists as an anomaly on the internet compared to other successful sites.

However what you say about politics is true which is why I understand and agree with RFD/YPG's decision here.

There's a reason why political discussion is banned on the vast majority of internet sites.

It's very labour intensive to mods and adds little or no value to the site itself.

[ssbtech]

That's why you stick the political discussions in a group that requires the user to join, knowing full well that things might get heated.

Rude/harassing members can simply be banned from the group without being banned from the rest of the site.

Stiffling political discussion doesn't help anyone.

[poedua]

That's why you stick the political discussions in a group that requires the user to join, knowing full well that things might get heated.

Rude/harassing members can simply be banned from the group without being banned from the rest of the site.

Stiffling political discussion doesn't help anyone.

I dunno, I think you could make a pretty strong case that stifling political discussion - on this site at least - doesn't really harm anyone.

Those folks who yearn for daily political discussion in their lives still have countless venues available to them elsewhere on the internet - RFD doesn't have to be everything to everybody. ;)

Very few people are going to abandon RFD simply because they can't engage in political discussion on the site IMO - and of those very few that might, I suspect the site would only benefit by their departure and I seriously doubt they'd be missed. ;)

[poedua]

the RFD/YPG policy exists as an anomaly on the internet compared to other successful sites.

Which " successful sites " are you alluding to exactly ?


I've been open in

my dissent for the banning on profanitynon-porn sexuality on this site because

And in terms of your " dissent for the banning on profanity " ...what is the ' downside ' of banning profanity on this site in your view ?

[NG]

Which " successful sites " are you alluding to exactly ?



And in terms of your " dissent for the banning on profanity " ...what is the ' downside ' of banning profanity on this site in your view ?

Podeua haven't you figured out I couldn't care less what you think?

If oranr is wondering your questions I'll be happy to answer but I'll be damned if I'll be questioned by the likes of you.

[Drew87]

If people really think that the lack of profanity is an issue that's sad - There are thousands of words in the English language, If you can't properly express your view or message without a profanity maybe you have a bigger problem then you think.....

And seriously, this site is owned by YPC - they can run it as they see fit, one or two users complaining on here really doesn't matter ....I'm sure this site's traffic is still really high and I'm sure the majority that come here get what they need out of the site (FINDING DEALS IT'S MAIN PURPOSE)

[Drew87]

I dunno, I think you could make a pretty strong case that stifling political discussion - on this site at least - doesn't really harm anyone.

Those folks who yearn for daily political discussion in their lives still have countless venues available to them elsewhere on the internet - RFD doesn't have to be everything to everybody. ;)

Very few people are going to abandon RFD simply because they can't engage in political discussion on the site IMO - and of those very few that might, I suspect the site would only benefit by their departure and I seriously doubt they'd be missed. ;)

I've been saying this for a long time, I'll never understand why being able to express and talk politics on a site based on DEALS is so important to some people....If you really need to express your views go to city hall when they have it open to the public, go to town hall meetings, email your MP's.....

I bet most users have never done any of the above.

That would be more effective/productive then sitting behind a computer screen on a DEALS site complaining about how you think Ford is an idiot.....Or better yet, start your own blog.....

[NG]

If people really think that the lack of profanity is an issue that's sad - There are thousands of words in the English language, If you can't properly express your view or message without a profanity maybe you have a bigger problem then you think.....

I was simply using that example to show contrast for why I suppose the new policy against politics.

This thread is about the new politics policy - not language/non-porn sexuality.

As I said it was just an example to show contrast and put my support of the politics policy into context and I won't allow myself to be baited with condescending posts or leading questions to derail this thread from it's intended discussion.

[poedua]

Podeua haven't you figured out I couldn't care less what you think?

If oranr is wondering your questions I'll be happy to answer but I'll be damned if I'll be questioned by the likes of you.

Well, you made the following comment ..." I've been open in my dissent for the banning on profanity/non-porn sexuality on this site because the RFD/YPG policy exists as an anomaly on the internet compared to other successful sites "

Insinuating that because RFD bans profanity and is strict in the sexual content it allows ( if any ), that RFD is somehow out of step - an " anomaly on the internet " to use your words - with other so-called " successful sites " on the internet.

So, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask you to perhaps identity some examples of these so-called " successful sites " you were alluding to that owe - in part - some of their success to the fact they allow profanity and or allow greater degrees of sexual content.

So, if you want RFD to be more like other " successful sites " on the internet, I'm simply asking you ......like ' which sites ' ?

[poedua]

If people really think that the lack of profanity is an issue that's sad - There are thousands of words in the English language, If you can't properly express your view or message without a profanity maybe you have a bigger problem then you think.....

And seriously, this site is owned by YPC - they can run it as they see fit, one or two users complaining on here really doesn't matter ....I'm sure this site's traffic is still really high and I'm sure the majority that come here get what they need out of the site (FINDING DEALS IT'S MAIN PURPOSE)

I would tend to agree.

I kinda' like the fact that blatant profanity isn't allowed on RFD....but that's just me.:)

[NG]

yada, yada, yada...

You're really desperate for someone to validate what you think and I suspect as a person.

You're not going to get it from me; I didn't even read your reply (just saw you quoted me).

Yes I think that little of you.

Go quote and question someone else to try to gain worth and validation for your views and as a person from someone else.

[Drew87]

I would tend to agree.

I kinda' like the fact that blatant profanity isn't allowed on RFD....but that's just me.:)

Yeah - I like it to, I like the fact that politics is banned too. RFD is better without it. There's isn't a logical need for either.

[ishfish]

Certainly RFD started as a deals site and is primarily devoted to that persuit - but it has grown beyond that. The parenting, pets and gardening sections are examples of that growth. Off Topic is the place to go when your message does not fit elsewhere - a vague definition which offers flexibility.

It seems that the flexibility was too much for a handful of users to respect resulting in the unfortunate need for clearer rules.

How annoying.

I have enjoyed many conversations there and been most irritated when the thread was shut down due to users abusing other users. It got to the point where I found myself having to weigh the pros and cons of the "report button" as I did not want to loose the thread entirely.

Very annoying.

And now I am not overly clear on what constitutes ok and what is not. One of my favorite topics for exploration is human attitudes. Homosexuality it an interesting topic and we have discussed nature/nurture extensively. Now on this topic it in almost impossible to avoid Religion and it's impact on beliefs. I like to explore this from a Theological/Historical perspective utilizing the published works of scholars - not passion or simple opinion.

Can one talk about the history of religion as it pertains to a non-religious topic? Or would this result to a quick trip to purgatory?

[poedua]

Can one talk about the history of religion as it pertains to a non-religious topic? Or would this result to a quick trip to purgatory?

I suppose you could run any potential thread topic ( that may have some religious references / content ) by a mod or even oranr in advance to see if it might be an issue.

[Drew87]

Certainly RFD started as a deals site and is primarily devoted to that persuit - but it has grown beyond that. The parenting, pets and gardening sections are examples of that growth. Off Topic is the place to go when your message does not fit elsewhere - a vague definition which offers flexibility.

It seems that the flexibility was too much for a handful of users to respect resulting in the unfortunate need for clearer rules.

How annoying.

I have enjoyed many conversations there and been most irritated when the thread was shut down due to users abusing other users. It got to the point where I found myself having to weigh the pros and cons of the "report button" as I did not want to loose the thread entirely.

Very annoying.

And now I am not overly clear on what constitutes ok and what is not. One of my favorite topics for exploration is human attitudes. Homosexuality it an interesting topic and we have discussed nature/nurture extensively. Now on this topic it in almost impossible to avoid Religion and it's impact on beliefs. I like to explore this from a Theological/Historical perspective utilizing the published works of scholars - not passion or simple opinion.

Can one talk about the history of religion as it pertains to a non-religious topic? Or would this result to a quick trip to purgatory?

The thing is tho as I've said - this site is primarily a deal site despite whatever its grown to, If the admins have said that religion/politics is not allowed then to me that's a simple answer.....I think it boils down to the fact they just because someone FEELS that they NEED to discuss something doesnt mean that RFD has to be the place to post or discuss it....There are other forums,groups off the net etc to discuss these things....If you have a question you can PM the mods nad they'll let you know if something is or isn't acceptable....

People say the mods don't reply quick enough to them but anytime I've ever PM'ed a mod I've gotten a quick and understandable reply....

Those that complain about the mods not replying quick enough are usually trolls so I would disregard them....

Don't talke anything I'm saying the right way - I understand you wanting to discuss certain topics because when it stays on track it can be quite interesting. As you said tho these topics are quickly derailed and for the mods it's easier to ban a whole topic and subject then go through dozens of threads to mod individual posts...

As for the record - in the Eaton centre thread in off topic there were quite of few posts last evening that had were flame baiting and trolling. Within 10 minutes of reporting them they were deleted...Sure it's was a popular topic last night but the mods were on topic of it.

And think about it, where are all the trolls now that use to visit off topic? were they all banned or did they all just disappear because they know that they can't get away with what they used to?

I'm just rambling now so I'll stop...

[poedua]

Yeah - I like it to, I like the fact that politics is banned too. RFD is better without it. There's isn't a logical need for either.

Well, to some extent, I regret the fact that politics is banned on this site - it does work on other sites.

That said, I undersand why it was done here on RFD and I support oranr's decision .....100%.

This is the second time such a ban has had to been put in place on RFD, and primarily for the same reason - an inability and or unwillingness by a number of members to obey forum rules.

[Drew87]

Well, to some extent, I regret the fact that politics is banned on this site - it does work on other sites.

That said, I undersand why it was done here on RFD and I support oranr's decision .....100%.

This is the second time such a ban has had to been put in place on RFD, and primarily for the same reason - an inability and or unwillingness by a number of members to obey forum rules.

Yeah - I do agree with the fact that a few members caused this issue. In a way they've gotten what they want - they wanted to provoke and troll people and the mods had to take a drastic but necessary action to fix the problem....

I'm just wondering if all the "trolls" were permanently banned as well....That would send a stronger message then anything else they have done so far...

[Ojam]

Yeah - I do agree with the fact that a few members caused this issue. In a way they've gotten what they want - they wanted to provoke and troll people and the mods had to take a drastic but necessary action to fix the problem....

I'm just wondering if all the "trolls" were permanently banned as well....That would send a stronger message then anything else they have done so far...

Of course they weren't, that would mean less people viewing ads and less potential revenue.

[Drew87]

Of course they weren't, that would mean less people viewing ads and less potential revenue.

LOL - I've stated that before in threads in RFD - just wanted to see if the mods would jump in and reply....I know Dearsummer wasn't banned as he's posting in the Eaton centre thread still....

[ishfish]

Don't talke anything I'm saying the right way - I understand you wanting to discuss certain topics because when it stays on track it can be quite interesting. As you said tho these topics are quickly derailed and for the mods it's easier to ban a whole topic and subject then go through dozens of threads to mod individual posts...
I'm just rambling now so I'll stop...

Don't talke it the right way - too funny.

The moderators are definitely not the problem and I appreciate the dilemma of balancing when to let a thread continue as there is some good discussion being generated or to say "It is done."

I can't say I had thought of asking if a subtopic was ok as I do not want to pester them and it does not come up that frequently.

For now I think touching on a theological subdiscussion would be premature as it would too easily be a platform for acting out - emotions have been raised with the new rules and I do not want to contribute to anyone's headache.

Theology does not come up that often - but the last time it did I found myself gathering up my academic books and doing some quick studying only to discover upon my return that the thread had been closed. What a pain in the beep beep beep beep.

[Drew87]

Don't talke it the right way - too funny.

The moderators are definitely not the problem and I appreciate the dilemma of balancing when to let a thread continue as there is some good discussion being generated or to say "It is done."

I can't say I had thought of asking if a subtopic was ok as I do not want to pester them and it does not come up that frequently.

For now I think touching on a theological subdiscussion would be premature as it would too easily be a platform for acting out - emotions have been raised with the new rules and I do not want to contribute to anyone's headache.

Theology does not come up that often - but the last time it did I found myself gathering up my academic books and doing some quick studying only to discover upon my return that the thread had been closed. What a pain in the beep beep beep beep.

I meant the wrong way LOL!!!!!!!! I didn't want you to think that I was attacking you or anything when I was saying it's not a big deal if they banned politics etc...you know - my big speech before hand....:|

[ishfish]

I meant the wrong way LOL!!!!!!!! I didn't want you to think that I was attacking you or anything when I was saying it's not a big deal if they banned politics etc...you know - my big speech before hand....:|

No, I though you had been enjoying the young and single life - and were just experiencing a resulting fatigue.:razz:

The perception of being attacked is an interesting theme in OT though. One of my first experiences in OT was an unfortunate one as there was an interpretion of attack - over time I observed the way some users interact and I came to realize that attacking and defending in some sort of Win or Loose battle was common place. It certainly makes everything so defensive and sometimes good conversations are impossible. On the other hand it is best not to take the dispositions of others for granted as I do not know them and what may be happening in their lives.

Greater clarity regarding peace and attack would have been useful though - a bomb symbol and a :). Hopefully no longer needed.

[Ojam]

I think there should be an instant perma ban for anybody who blaintenly breaks this rule. Just look at the eaton centre thread, one user has repeatly tried to bring up anti fun control politics. You have to agree to the rules before you post, but then they are breaking it anyway.

[Drew87]

I wholeheartedly agree I've reported "said" user multiple times too....Someone needs to step in and make it clear that it won't be tolerated..

[Manatus]

I think there should be an instant perma ban for anybody who blaintenly breaks this rule. Just look at the eaton centre thread, one user has repeatly tried to bring up anti fun control politics. You have to agree to the rules before you post, but then they are breaking it anyway.

Is that politics though, if it isn't tied to any political entity (e.g. he's not saying vote for X because he's tough on crime)? According to the rules, are we allowed to debate whether people should or should not be allowed to have guns? I'm honestly asking because I, like many others, don't know where the line is on this. I get the impression that in some cases, people are using this to their advantage, e.g. if they don't like someone's opinion, report him for talking politics.

[Drew87]

Is that politics though, if it isn't tied to any political entity (e.g. he's not saying vote for X because he's tough on crime)? According to the rules, are we allowed to debate whether people should or should not be allowed to have guns? I'm honestly asking because I, like many others, don't know where the line is on this. I get the impression that in some cases, people are using this to their advantage, e.g. if they don't like someone's opinion, report him for talking politics.

Why do people need to debate guns in the Eaton centre thread? Take it somewhere else/create a thread and by the replies so far it's just turned into a troll fest and people trying to push their agenda....

The focus should be on the victims/suspect - not whether someone thinks the Eaton centre is ghetto or that the gun laws suck..

[45ED]

Is that politics though, if it isn't tied to any political entity (e.g. he's not saying vote for X because he's tough on crime)? According to the rules, are we allowed to debate whether people should or should not be allowed to have guns? I'm honestly asking because I, like many others, don't know where the line is on this. I get the impression that in some cases, people are using this to their advantage, e.g. if they don't like someone's opinion, report him for talking politics.

Anecdotaly, no one has a problem with debating guns. But in a thread about an event at a mall, it derails the thread from it's original purpose rather than contributes to it.

[Syne]

If RFD wants to address something, I'd say take a look at some of posters' fixation on the macabre. There have been some pretty gruesome threads on here about kids getting run over, body parts being mailed, and people falling off hang gliders to their death. The thread usually starts off with a news story, but digresses into references of shocking video footage that anyone can easily find online. I'd rather see incidences of these sorts of posts decreased, rather than censorsing some people's animated views on progressivism vs. conservatism.

[Shaner]

The focus should be on the victims/suspect - not whether someone thinks the Eaton centre is ghetto or that the gun laws suck..

Why should the focus be on the victims/suspect, rather then guns or the mall itself? Why is one more relevant than the other?

[Shaner]

Anecdotaly, no one has a problem with debating guns. But in a thread about an event at a mall, it derails the thread from it's original purpose rather than contributes to it.

Threads evolve, that always happens. Talking about guns in a thread about a shooting is perfectly relevant and is not derailing it. You can only talk about the actual shooting for so long before the thread will evolve.

[Shaner]

I wholeheartedly agree I've reported "said" user multiple times too....Someone needs to step in and make it clear that it won't be tolerated..

What if it was talking about how there needs to be stricter gun laws or handguns should be banned, would that be okay then? I bet you wouldn't have reported those threads. This is why the new rule is such a bloody joke. People report posts they dont' agree with, and certain mod(s) simply just lock any thread that gets a certain number of reports rather than locking those worthy of being locked and leaving those open that are worthy of being left open.

[Drew87]

What if it was talking about how there needs to be stricter gun laws or handguns should be banned, would that be okay then? I bet you wouldn't have reported those threads. This is why the new rule is such a bloody joke. People report posts they dont' agree with, and certain mod(s) simply just lock any thread that gets a certain number of reports rather than locking those worthy of being locked and leaving those open that are worthy of being left open.

Talking about stricter gun laws is fine and all IMO but has no place in a thread like the Eaton centre one. The people that kept bringing it up weren't even discussing it, it was bickering and trolling and ridiculous, more then one mod and a lot of users agreed so the mods stepped in...If people think something is a joke they can leave....

It is rather simple. If the mods feel something is worth mod-ing they will, doesn't matter if people report it or not, reporting it just helps them see posts that are questionable quicker....

[poedua]

Talking about stricter gun laws is fine and all IMO but has no place in a thread like the Eaton centre one. The people that kept bringing it up weren't even discussing it, it was bickering and trolling and ridiculous, more then one mod and a lot of users agreed so the mods stepped in...If people think something is a joke they can leave....

It is rather simple. If the mods feel something is worth mod-ing they will, doesn't matter if people report it or not, reporting it just helps them see posts that are questionable quicker....

Exactly.

[CSK'sMom]

What if it was talking about how there needs to be stricter gun laws or handguns should be banned, would that be okay then? I bet you wouldn't have reported those threads. This is why the new rule is such a bloody joke. People report posts they dont' agree with, and certain mod(s) simply just lock any thread that gets a certain number of reports rather than locking those worthy of being locked and leaving those open that are worthy of being left open.

Frankly Shaner, I am offended that you seem to think all the mods are nothing but robots and no critical thinking skills of their own. There are plenty of multiple reports every single day that result in nothing happening.... Because there were no rules broken! We all look at each and every reported post on it's own merit. If rules are broken, we respond accordingly.

I get that you don't like the no politics rule and like to participate in certain kinds of threads. But you can thank those that can't follow the rules for the changes. A knock down gun control "debate" (used loosely because it wasn't) is derailing to the thread IMO and many called them out on it resulting in lots of bickering in the thread...

[Shaner]

You two apparently aren't paying attention. One mod already stated he locked several threads solely because they received several reports.

[Shaner]

Frankly Shaner, I am offended that you seem to think all the mods are nothing but robots and no critical thinking skills of their own. There are plenty of multiple reports every single day that result in nothing happening.... Because there were no rules broken! We all look at each and every reported post on it's own merit. If rules are broken, we respond accordingly.

I get that you don't like the no politics rule and like to participate in certain kinds of threads. But you can thank those that can't follow the rules for the changes. A knock down gun control "debate" (used loosely because it wasn't) is derailing to the thread IMO and many called them out on it resulting in lots of bickering in the thread...

I don't think all mods are robots without critical thinking skills. I happen to think certain mods do a great job on this site and I've said so many times.

[Drew87]

It's funny how people can't follow the rules in the eaton centre thread and keep derailing the thread complaining about the mods and then COMPLAIN on top of that when there posts are deleted....Like they have the right to do whatever they want and get away with it.

Logic doesn't exist in off topic....

[oranr]

Again, I know the new rule will take some time to used too and from the mods side, to apply it evenly and consistently. Yes, there will be an adjustment period for everyone, including the mods and myself.

I just wanted to remind everyone, that there was a strict no political rule when Ryan was here. The community was asking for Political discussion to be allowed and I did allow it. It worked for big issues like Federal and Provincial elections but when it came to city politics and such, it just became a bicker feast. Which isn't good for the health of the community and traffic. Also, we are a national site and I have a know that for those who live outside of Toronto, all the Toronto related political threads, were annoying and made the decision not to come to Off Topic easier.

Please bare with us and I am positive that everything will settle down and we can all get on with our lives and have a fun Off Topic with good discussions.

I did say the political sub forum was put on the back burner and in no way is that not dealing with the issue. Down the road in 3-6 months, it will get revisited but currently, no political discussions are allowed.

I know that all stories in the news or in life have a political aspect to it. You can't get around it as politics touches/drives our way of life. We need to make judgement calls everyday on every thread that is posted. Most times we get it right but there are the odd time when we don't. I totally understand that everyone has a different view on what is considered political and what isn't and we won't appease everyone and for that I am sorry.

I know change is hard and there will be an adjustment period. Please be patient and don't take it out on the mods, they are doing a very tough job and are doing it out of the love of the site. Calling out mods is not allowed, plain and simple!

[Shaner]

It's not going to take much time to get used to if the rule is applied consistently. You can't threaten people with bans for creating political discussions, then turn around and allow some political discussions. This thread is political.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/banned-china-tiananmen-anniversary-6-4-89-todaya-1185345/

That is as political as they come, yet you said you were going to allow it. I posted what I did in that thread as I wanted it to be locked. I don't like the new censorship rules but I can live with it no problem and so can others, provided it's actually enforced consistently. How on earth is it fair to ban some for political threads due to no tolerance and then turn around and allow some political threads. It seems you guys are still clearly missing the point I've been trying to make. I'm not bitching about the new rules, I'm complaining about how hypocritical it is to tell the members that political threads are not allowed, no exceptions, then turn around and allow some political threads, but also threaten to ban anyone who makes political threads.

It's like me training my dogs to stay off the couch, inviting them up onto the couch, then giving them trouble once they do so. It makes no sense and is confusing everyone. I don't want you guys to ban all political threads, but you have decided to do so already, so please just enforce the rule consistently so we know what to expect.

[poedua]

It's not going to take much time to get used to if the rule is applied consistently. You can't threaten people with bans for creating political discussions, then turn around and allow some political discussions. This thread is political.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/banned-china-tiananmen-anniversary-6-4-89-todaya-1185345/

That is as political as they come, yet you said you were going to allow it. I posted what I did in that thread as I wanted it to be locked. I don't like the new censorship rules but I can live with it no problem and so can others, provided it's actually enforced consistently. How on earth is it fair to ban some for political threads due to no tolerance and then turn around and allow some political threads. It seems you guys are still clearly missing the point I've been trying to make. I'm not bitching about the new rules, I'm complaining about how hypocritical it is to tell the members that political threads are not allowed, no exceptions, then turn around and allow some political threads, but also threaten to ban anyone who makes political threads.

It's like me training my dogs to stay off the couch, inviting them up onto the couch, then giving them trouble once they do so. It makes no sense and is confusing everyone. I don't want you guys to ban all political threads, but you have decided to do so already, so please just enforce the rule consistently so we know what to expect.

How many political threads have been " allowed " since the political thread ban has come into effect ?

[Shaner]

How many political threads have been " allowed " since the political thread ban has come into effect ?

Honestly poedua, I have no interest in discussing this with you. My comments were directed to the admin of this site and the answer to your question is already in the post you quoted.

[poedua]

Honestly poedua, I have no interest in discussing this with you. My comments were directed to the admin of this site and the answer to your question is already in the post you quoted.

Well, I'm not sure what ' political threads ' you're referring to that have been " allowed " - which is why I asked.

You keep saying " turn around and allow some political discussions [ threads ] "

What political discussions [ threads ] ?

I've looked at OT and I don't recognize any political threads have been " allowed " to remain since the political thread ban has come into effect.

[Drew87]

It's not going to take much time to get used to if the rule is applied consistently. You can't threaten people with bans for creating political discussions, then turn around and allow some political discussions. This thread is political.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/banned-china-tiananmen-anniversary-6-4-89-todaya-1185345/

That is as political as they come, yet you said you were going to allow it. I posted what I did in that thread as I wanted it to be locked. I don't like the new censorship rules but I can live with it no problem and so can others, provided it's actually enforced consistently. How on earth is it fair to ban some for political threads due to no tolerance and then turn around and allow some political threads. It seems you guys are still clearly missing the point I've been trying to make. I'm not bitching about the new rules, I'm complaining about how hypocritical it is to tell the members that political threads are not allowed, no exceptions, then turn around and allow some political threads, but also threaten to ban anyone who makes political threads.

It's like me training my dogs to stay off the couch, inviting them up onto the couch, then giving them trouble once they do so. It makes no sense and is confusing everyone. I don't want you guys to ban all political threads, but you have decided to do so already, so please just enforce the rule consistently so we know what to expect.

Actually they CAN - they run this site - they work for YPC - they can decide what they think is mod-able and what isn't. The fact that they CHOOSE to communicate and try to co-operate with us is a BONUS. If they think something isn't "political" in the same context as you or want to leave a thread open that's their right- I think people like you that purposely go into threads to have them locked should be banned because it's really IMMATURE imo.....You're not getting your way so you want everyone else to suffer....That's how a lot of the trolls acted in Off topic before the purge....Hell I was in the "rfd unofficial chatroom" one time and people were discussing purposely trolling threads because they didn't like that they were being modded for trolling and others weren't......It was funny because the posts that weren't modded were never reported...

I think if people want the mods to act properly and fairly they need to look at themselves first and the way their acting....Instead of derailing the Eaton centre thread complaining about mods why not PM them directly? Report the posts you think are mod-able and if action isn't taken then again PM the mods - it's quite simple...

If you don't want to discuss things with poedua and what to talk directly to the mods then PM the mods directly. This is a public forum.

[oranr]

It's not going to take much time to get used to if the rule is applied consistently. You can't threaten people with bans for creating political discussions, then turn around and allow some political discussions. This thread is political.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/banned-china-tiananmen-anniversary-6-4-89-todaya-1185345/

That is as political as they come, yet you said you were going to allow it. I posted what I did in that thread as I wanted it to be locked. I don't like the new censorship rules but I can live with it no problem and so can others, provided it's actually enforced consistently. How on earth is it fair to ban some for political threads due to no tolerance and then turn around and allow some political threads. It seems you guys are still clearly missing the point I've been trying to make. I'm not bitching about the new rules, I'm complaining about how hypocritical it is to tell the members that political threads are not allowed, no exceptions, then turn around and allow some political threads, but also threaten to ban anyone who makes political threads.

It's like me training my dogs to stay off the couch, inviting them up onto the couch, then giving them trouble once they do so. It makes no sense and is confusing everyone. I don't want you guys to ban all political threads, but you have decided to do so already, so please just enforce the rule consistently so we know what to expect.

I don't know who's been saying you will get banned for creating a political thread. This is just fear mongering at its best. We don't allow them, nobody ever said you will get banned for making them.

I totally understand your position but the Tiananmen square situation was a global defining moment, thought users would like speak their peace about it without politics like human resolve, determination, etc. You are right Shaner, I shouldn't have said I would have left it open. It's been edited to show that.

Thanks for your due diligence!

[Shaner]

I don't know who's been saying you will get banned for creating a political thread. This is just fear mongering at its best. We don't allow them, nobody ever said you will get banned for making them.


A moderator said users who make political posts/threads would be banned. I honestly don't feel like naming the mod as I'm not trying to bring heat to him/her (although that post that threatened a ban still remains). You know I don't like the new rule, but as Drew said, it's your site and you make the rules and I'll abide by them. I just didn't like reading a post from a mod that threatened a ban, and then hearing from an admin that a political thread can remain.

Anyway, I'm done with this post and the comments/suggestions forum.

[Manatus]

A moderator said users who make political posts/threads would be banned. I honestly don't feel like naming the mod as I'm not trying to bring heat to him/her (although that post that threatened a ban still remains). You know I don't like the new rule, but as Drew said, it's your site and you make the rules and I'll abide by them. I just didn't like reading a post from a mod that threatened a ban, and then hearing from an admin that a political thread can remain.

Anyway, I'm done with this post and the comments/suggestions forum.

I'm in the same boat as Shaner. I have no problem with the new rules, but I'd just like to know what they actually are in realistic terms. There are cases in OT (I believe it was the Eaton Centre thread) where a user's post is edited by a mod, and then that mod-edited post is deleted by another mod. I have no problem with the post being either edited or deleted to make the thread conform to the rules, it just feels like there is a lot of inconsistency in a) what the actual rule is, and b) how it will be enforced (e.g. some threatening bans, oranr saying no bans). Furthermore I'd just like to say I don't think Shaner has been treated very fairly, as several mod posts in the thread (where he questioned whether or not something was political) are basically along the lines of "this topic is clearly politics, so either you're a troll or an idiot", as though it's obvious to anyone with any common sense (it isn't) where the line is. Like I said I have no problem with following the rule, I just think it would be helpful to everyone involved to know more clearly what exactly is allowed and what isn't, and how these things are going to be dealt with.

Edit: In fact, looking back through the Eaton Centre thread, I believe that a user did end up getting banned for posting about politics (gun control).

[Tijuana]

I'm in the same boat as Shaner. I have no problem with the new rules, but I'd just like to know what they actually are in realistic terms. There are cases in OT (I believe it was the Eaton Centre thread) where a user's post is edited by a mod, and then that mod-edited post is deleted by another mod. I have no problem with the post being either edited or deleted to make the thread conform to the rules, it just feels like there is a lot of inconsistency in a) what the actual rule is, and b) how it will be enforced (e.g. some threatening bans, oranr saying no bans). Furthermore I'd just like to say I don't think Shaner has been treated very fairly, as several mod posts in the thread (where he questioned whether or not something was political) are basically along the lines of "this topic is clearly politics, so either you're a troll or an idiot", as though it's obvious to anyone with any common sense (it isn't) where the line is. Like I said I have no problem with following the rule, I just think it would be helpful to everyone involved to know more clearly what exactly is allowed and what isn't, and how these things are going to be dealt with.

Edit: In fact, looking back through the Eaton Centre thread, I believe that a user did end up getting banned for posting about politics (gun control).

It's already been noted that our moderators have been highly trained in determining themselves what is acceptable or not. Every decision they have made has been the correct one so leave them alone.

[Aznsilvrboy]

So someone made a thread asking if Remembrance Day threads will be locked and Mr. Perfect said:


Anyways your answer is NO. It wouldnt be locked and contrary to whats being fed, we are reasonable enough to know what should be allowed. We have no qualms with people paying their respect to the soldiers and we will try our best to moderate and delete out any irrelevant posts just as we presently do.

So how come Hairball's Tiananmen Square thread gets locked?


I would personally like to pay tribute to all those who suffered the loss of a loved one that day who tried to fight for freedom

Mods should either promise to lock the Remembrance Day threads when the time comes or re-open the Tiananmen Square thread as originally intended by Oranr.

[Drew87]

So someone made a thread asking if Remembrance Day threads will be locked and Mr. Perfect said:



So how come Hairball's Tiananmen Square thread gets locked?



Mods should either promise to lock the Remembrance Day threads when the time comes or re-open the Tiananmen Square thread as originally intended by Oranr.

HB's thread was closed because as a user himself stated in this thread earlier he clearly broke the rules to have HB's thread close...

Oranr probably could have just deleted said post and allowed the thread to stay open but who knows.

[Aznsilvrboy]

HB's thread was closed because as a user himself stated in this thread earlier he clearly broke the rules to have HB's thread close...

Oranr probably could have just deleted said post and allowed the thread to stay open but who knows.

What rules?


Oh, well, closed for Politics.

Remembrance Day is just as political.

[Drew87]

What rules?



Remembrance Day is just as political.

PM Oranr and I'm sure you'll get a prompt answer within a reasonable time explaining what happened.

[akira1971]

So someone made a thread asking if Remembrance Day threads will be locked and Mr. Perfect said:

So how come Hairball's Tiananmen Square thread gets locked?

Mods should either promise to lock the Remembrance Day threads when the time comes or re-open the Tiananmen Square thread as originally intended by Oranr.

Although I'm not a mod, I definitely can see a difference in the two threads. In most Remembrance Day threads I've read, the discussion centers mostly around the historical aspects. I'm sure the mods would jump in if members derailed it to the politics of war or certain government policies towards war. Whereas the Tiananmen thread, the OP already started to make a political statement (ie. "one day the truth will come out") and the thread would likely follow that line down towards government policies.

[Aznsilvrboy]

Although I'm not a mod, I definitely can see a difference in the two threads. In most Remembrance Day threads I've read, the discussion centers mostly around the historical aspects. I'm sure the mods would jump in if members derailed it to the politics of war or certain government policies towards war. Whereas the Tiananmen thread, the OP already started to make a political statement (ie. "one day the truth will come out") and the thread would likely follow that line down towards government policies.

That's not a political statement. The incident was not well documented and that is a fact. There's nothing political about what he said. How about I go make another Tiananmen Square thread without that statement? Can mods guarantee not to lock it right off the bat?

[Aznsilvrboy]

PM Oranr and I'm sure you'll get a prompt answer within a reasonable time explaining what happened.

Oranr monitors this thread and have posted replies to other members. I'll just wait for his response here.

[brian.gerson]

Edit: In fact, looking back through the Eaton Centre thread, I believe that a user did end up getting banned for posting about politics (gun control).

That is correct, a user was banned for making some respectful and thoughtful posts with which CSK's Mom did not happen to agree. Google "Stanford prison experiment" to see the behaviour of volunteer guards when they are given authority over others. I think some mods have relatives who were fellow travellers during the Mao period.

[AcidBomber]

I'm in the same boat as Shaner. I have no problem with the new rules, but I'd just like to know what they actually are in realistic terms. There are cases in OT (I believe it was the Eaton Centre thread) where a user's post is edited by a mod, and then that mod-edited post is deleted by another mod. I have no problem with the post being either edited or deleted to make the thread conform to the rules, it just feels like there is a lot of inconsistency in a) what the actual rule is, and b) how it will be enforced (e.g. some threatening bans, oranr saying no bans). Furthermore I'd just like to say I don't think Shaner has been treated very fairly, as several mod posts in the thread (where he questioned whether or not something was political) are basically along the lines of "this topic is clearly politics, so either you're a troll or an idiot", as though it's obvious to anyone with any common sense (it isn't) where the line is. Like I said I have no problem with following the rule, I just think it would be helpful to everyone involved to know more clearly what exactly is allowed and what isn't, and how these things are going to be dealt with.

Edit: In fact, looking back through the Eaton Centre thread, I believe that a user did end up getting banned for posting about politics (gun control).


That is correct, a user was banned for making some respectful and thoughtful posts with which CSK's Mom did not happen to agree. Google "Stanford prison experiment" to see the behaviour of volunteer guards when they are given authority over others. I think some mods have relatives who were fellow travellers during the Mao period.


Uh.. No. That was NOT the reason why the user in question was banned. It had nothing to do with that thread and its deleted posts.

If you really want to know why he/she was banned, feel free to PM the user and ask once the ban is lifted.

[geokilla]

Honestly with the lack of control here and moderators not even doing their job properly, I for one vote that RFD Forums that are not deal related get shut down. What this site needs is a complete overhaul. Some moderators are.... Ok you know what I'm gonna say. I like some moderators and administrators and the job they do but others.... Ugh.

Unless RFD administrators finds a way to get everything under control, as Chef Ramsay would say, "SHUT IT DOWN!!!" and "YOU RUN THE KITCHEN! DON'T LET THE KITCHEN RUN YOU!"

Oh and keep BST.


Sums it up pretty well in my opinion.

[divx]

you can ignore the rest and only visit those sub-forums, problem solved?

[gei]

Everything is fine. You don't like the forums, then don't read them.

[Hairball]

Relax pal, no one said you have to read the other stuff.

I have problems with some of the crap that they're doing here, but seriously? :facepalm:

[geokilla]

The problem is that it's wasting not my time, but everyone's time to deal with these problems. Yea I can skip the bad posts and/or threads. Better yet, skip the entire forum altogether. But mods and admins can't. They have to go through reports, little whiney kids, and posts to make sure everything stays good. If there's a complete overhaul, a lot of problems can be avoided for the administration team and start again. It sometimes takes two steps backwards to take one step forward. With the new rules and everything, it's like taking one step backward and one step forward. Yes things got stricter and slightly better, but in the end, I feel it's not enough.

Why did my thread get merged? It's not even related...

[poedua]

That is correct, a user was banned for making some respectful and thoughtful posts with which CSK's Mom did not happen to agree. Google "Stanford prison experiment" to see the behaviour of volunteer guards when they are given authority over others. I think some mods have relatives who were fellow travellers during the Mao period.

C'mon...that's utter nonsense. :rolleyes:

Give the mods SOME credit for crying out loud.

Members don't get banned simply for making some respectful and thoughtful posts that a mod may not personally agree with.

Members get banned for breaking forum rules - pure and simple.

[oranr]

Closed for mod bashing, derailment, bickering...can't even have a rational discussion with out it turning into a disaster.

There will be no overhauling of the site or mods, period.

I said this many of times, I know everyone is all excited about the changes we made (some good and some bad) but it's the changes we made and they are here to stay. Everyone needs to relax and carry on...

Like or don't, it's not for me to say but I expect everyone to abide by the new rules and post within them.

Calling out mods, is not productive and will not be tolerated going forward. There will be a policy to reflect this. I didn't want it to go this way but you guys forced my hand. There is a proper escalation process and you must use it. Anything else will be removed.

I've been pretty lenient when it came to questioning the mods in the past but since it can't be done in a respectful, non jerkish way, everyone has lost all mod questioning ability.