complaint about US Politics moderating

Overheal

VH wrote: »

Are you a moderator Overheal. You don't appear to be as your name isn't in bold?

I'm still waiting for my sacrificial kitten nonetheless. Preferably a tabby. They're so cute.

Trojan

Bit of a storm in a teacup this one (ironic for a Feedback thread, eh?).

Metro, the fact is you made your bed with that abuse, so surely you see that now you've got to lie in it? Anything else is irrelevant to your banning. Since you're banned for what you admit is a legitimate reason, you're not going to be taken seriously in your complaint against the mod that banned you, regardless of how legimate you believe the secondary issue is. And the 3rd (4th? 5th) nail in the coffin is that it's not a convincing secondary compaint anyway.

GuanYin

Regarding the new rules, I see no point in entering a discussion into the rules here, or wasting time responding here as metrovelvet will never be posting in the forum so his/her opinion of the rules really doesn't bother me.

Those who the rules do effect and are concerned, I've detailed the process to clarify or discuss the rules.

Ludo

GuanYin wrote: »

An intelligent and informed discussion is always welcomed. The only two threads locked were effectively:

"FACT: Palin's son is being sent to war because hes a drug dealer"

and

"All Palin-McCain fans are morons"

I'm not exactly sure why people think these are valid discussion threads in a politics forum.

The first thread never says FACT as you make out..in fact it starts saying there is a RUMOUR. And there is no option to discuss these new rules as you locked the thread about them after Overheal asked a question and pm's serve no purpose for open discussion.
Anyway, I have had my say anyway on them and respect your decision that my points are invalid. I just hope (and will assume) that you will exercise good judgement in what is valid for discussion or not irrespective of your personal feelings on a subject.

GuanYin

Ludo wrote: »

The first thread never says FACT as you make out..in fact it starts saying there is a RUMOUR. And there is no option to discuss these new rules as you locked the thread about them after Overheal asked a question and pm's serve no purpose for open discussion.

I didn't actually close the thread, but the thread was still not a political issue, it was discussion on heresay and innuendo about a candidates son, an issue that the candidates themselves have refused to enter into and an issue that is respected by most of the major news outlets.

If you like, as a compromise, I can move the thread to another suitable forum if the moderators there agree.

Anyway, I have had my say anyway on them and respect your decision that my points are invalid. I just hope (and will assume) that you will exercise good judgement in what is valid for discussion or not irrespective of your personal feelings on a subject.

If you think I have been biased towards either camp, please do tell me.

I'm merely trying to keep the US political forum discussing politics and not the sideshow that goes with it.

I don't see anyone posting movie reviews of PS, I love you in the main politics forum

Ludo

I didn't say you were politically biased at all and do not think you are to any side...sorry if I implied that you are...I did say "I hope (AND ASSUME)" you will be fair.

I am aware that you didnt close it also but you agreed wholeheartedly with the decision and were the one who defended it as OB refered my enquiry onto you.

I still maintain that "the sideshow" as you call it is part of the election. When some people believe these rumours and vote on them, then it is valid for discussion (if only to debunk them or discuss how innuendo plays a part in the election process). Is people thinking Obama is a arab/terrorist a sideshow also? It is not based on any fact but is playing a large part as McCain has found out recently.
To say a US Election forum can only discuss FACTS will reduce a hell of a lot of the discussion as facts are hard to prove to say the least in the current climate.

Mentioning a movie review of PS I love you is a silly argument to make and has no bearing at all on the discussion as you well know.

Overheal

GuanYin wrote: »

I don't see anyone posting movie reviews of PS, I love you in the main politics forum

That sounds like a challenge.

GuanYin

Ludo wrote: »

I still maintain that "the sideshow" as you call it is part of the election. When some people believe these rumours and vote on them, then it is valid for discussion (if only to debunk them or discuss how innuendo plays a part in the election process). Is people thinking Obama is a arab/terrorist a sideshow also? It is not based on any fact but is playing a large part as McCain has found out recently.
To say a US Election forum can only discuss FACTS will reduce a hell of a lot of the discussion as facts are hard to prove to say the least in the current climate.

Thought I replied to this

I've no problem with a discussion of the sideshow.

I have a problem when posters try to become ringmasters.

nesf

Ludo wrote: »

I still maintain that "the sideshow" as you call it is part of the election. When some people believe these rumours and vote on them, then it is valid for discussion (if only to debunk them or discuss how innuendo plays a part in the election process). Is people thinking Obama is a arab/terrorist a sideshow also? It is not based on any fact but is playing a large part as McCain has found out recently.
To say a US Election forum can only discuss FACTS will reduce a hell of a lot of the discussion as facts are hard to prove to say the least in the current climate

The line for me would be between discussing the rumours and their impact on things and stating rumours as fact. One is soapboxing, the other is analysis. It's a fine line but it's one that can be maintained without choking off discussion.

A bit like in Politics, I'd have no issue with people discussing a rumour about a TD and what should happen or will happen so long as they are discussing it as a rumour which could be false and the discussion is "theoretical". Someone starting a thread to say that TD X did Y and that you shouldn't vote for them wouldn't be tolerated or someone posting to that effect in a thread would get their post removed.

It's an awkward and potentially contentious division but we have two choices if we're going to prevent people using the site to spread libel, either ban all discussion of rumour (which no one wants to see) or try to limit conversation in such a way that limits it to theoretical/hypothetical discussion or the discussion of the impact of possibly false rumours instead.

Does that seem fair and/or reasonable?

Beruthiel

GuanYin wrote: »

You responded by posting an EXTREMELY abusive PM which I will happily post if you allow it.

No Mod should ever have to put up with that.