Is it just me....

[swaledale]

I would contend that if you were removed, the same would be true. Not that I am advocating that course of action. But if one boxer is removed from the ring, the other can't keep fighting.

To be honest, I rarely these days respond or comment on the Red Dogs rantings, a look back over threads will confirm this, so your analogy is flawed, his posts are so facile and pointless that I leave it to others to respond. In fact most of the dispute and disharmony on here hasn't involved any contribution from me, except for the occasional comment, I've deliberately avoided it, because one can't argue with a sick mind.

My concern over his rantings is that they should be distasteful to all people, but apparently not it seems and there we have the reason why right wing populism is so pernicious - most of the stuff Trump and others of his ilk have said isn't true, but it is believable. My mistake was thinking anybody capable of critical thinking and who could be bothered to venture to think outside their own narrow perspective would see that, but clearly there on those on here who don't, fair enough.

Though presumably your also comfortable with the level of inherent racism, xenophobia, misogyny and bigotry in his posts? If so that reflects badly those that see no ill in his ravings, but then that clearly doesn't bother them. As Trump shows, its not that people don't know that he lies, that he is a disreputable character and a convicted felon, they don't care. Maybe my other mistake was overestimating the level of intelligence being displayed here.

Its also flawed because the only one who who posts "extreme" views on here and not even his own, but those of extreme right wing media and internet sources, is our "Red friend" but hey in the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king so it seems.

Ah cut and paste and plagiarism, here we go again, I have on occasion reproduced information which succinctly describes an issue, its generally from a variety of sources none of which could be described as "extreme left media" that's a far cry from what our "Red Friend" does and I generally do it, because you and AF often accuse me of having a singular view that is not reflected elsewhere. Its telling that you both then choose to attack me for so called plagiarism, rather than dispute the facts or present a coherent argument against what I'm saying. I understand I'm casting "pearls before swine", but one has to try occasionally.

Indeed one 0f the the accusations of plagiarism, was when I posted a report of an official document which by its very nature was printed verbatim in almost every publication - but that was a distinction which both you and AF failed to recognise in your rush to attack the messenger rather than the message. I must admit that made me chuckle, as you both ****ed up with that accusation.

One can only presume that like Trump followers, your desire for truth and perspective is non existent, you'd rather have material that panders to your own prejudices, even if that's not an accurate reflection of the world as we know it, indeed even if its a pack of lies. Puzzling but hey it seems some people like that sort of thing.

Instead you throw out accusations of extreme left wing views, **** me if you think my views are that then your cognitive ability is clearly lacking.

My last thought its this - if you don't like the political threads, they are marked OT and clearly labelled, don't ****ing read them, rather than whinge about them.

[Andy_Faber]

So to get back to the thread purpose, would you be happy to see political threads either abolished or quarantined in a sub / secondary forum, thus containing the acrimony in a safe place, if it meant the forum could survive it's current suicidal mode as identified by MA??

Always assuming it's even possible

My answers are the same as they were last time this came up for discussion. I paraphrase slightly

Yes I’d be happy to see political threads at least segregated. On all other pages, groups and forums I troll, politics are poison and the best run such forums have a zero tolerance policy

Yes a separate sub forum is possible on v-bulletin boards

Administratively I doubt we’ll get any response from Admin, they are very sporadic communicators. If we have a majority wishing to explore this I’ll try

[Geoff Parkstone]

My question was posed to rA...

[ramAnag]

My question was posed to rA...

Personally I don’t mind or see the need. If people want to look at the ‘political’ threads they can…if they don’t then they needn’t. They’re all clearly marked.
If it’s helpful…fine, but for me the forum is a group of people who, one apart, have a shared interest in DCFC in common. If conversation turns to other things…so be it, and that too is fine. I’ll contribute if interested or vaguely knowledgeable (i.e. Sith’s film thread).

Sorry, not being rude but I’ll be offline now till late Tuesday evening.

[SithHappens]

I can't see an issue with politics etc. But think some self moderation would be useful, before posting something maybe ask would I say this if we were sat face to face in a pub instead of online?

Moderation is a good thing but it needs to be fair (I'm not suggesting Andy isn't btw I have no idea what had been deleted etc), but I've seen it before when politics are allowed and moderating is done by someone who has very strong views one way or the other, leading to obvious bias in what's removed or not.

This if anything created the biggest issue rather than the posts actually made as it created resentment and more arguments and personal comments.

The only way that forum was able to ultimately deal with this was a blanket ban on politics.

[Trickytreesreds]

Morning all, I see some lovely rants have occurred.

Talk about cancel culture, or censorhip. Does my mate want PRAVDA or the Morning Star running the forum now? .

Sorry RA, but you need to make your mind up mate. I have typed my opinion or spoke of something and you refuse to believe it or scream for proof.
When I give you proof, you either dismiss it(unless its BBC or Guardian), or refuse to read/listen it?
Andy to be fair, tends to fact check and gives his honest opinion.
When he gives his approval, you topic is either ignored or dropped. You need to ask yourself what you want from a discussion. A one sided rant, usually at the Tories, or acceptance that folks will not just listen to you and you alone. That is(sorry to say this) a classroom mentality. Teacher speaks, pupil listens and accepts.

NB, Can I just add this obsession with dissing GB news is really bonkers. ALL NEWS OUTLETS are biased in one form or another.
Seeing as you never watch GB news, is that an opinion based facts or just self imposed bias?
Let me tell you, when they have a discussion on there, they will invite guests from all spectrums of the political body. They will thrash it out evenly among them and there is no loaded audience either, to swing it.

I watched have I got news for you the other day.
Its supposed to be a satirical piss take of all parties in the politics of the UK.
What a load of tosh. In typical BBC fashion, there was 5, yes five jokes aimed at the current calamity government, the rest of the show was a full on assault of the Tory party and GB news, backed by a left wing audiance.
Hislop himself was a disgrace and yet how the audiance howled in approval.

The crux of it is to me.
You don't like someones opinions, don't read/respond to it.
Cut out the personal abuse and things stay a lot calmer.

Final thought, Swale calling for folks banning really is funny, seeing as said person has abused more folks on here than anyone.
But Chairman Mao would have been proud,

[Andy_Faber]

I can't see an issue with politics etc. But think some self moderation would be useful, before posting something maybe ask would I say this if we were sat face to face in a pub instead of online?

Moderation is a good thing but it needs to be fair (I'm not suggesting Andy isn't btw I have no idea what had been deleted etc), but I've seen it before when politics are allowed and moderating is done by someone who has very strong views one way or the other, leading to obvious bias in what's removed or not.

This if anything created the biggest issue rather than the posts actually made as it created resentment and more arguments and personal comments.

The only way that forum was able to ultimately deal with this was a blanket ban on politics.

Just to clarify Sith, I’ve deleted about ten posts, all but two for name calling, one was for using an ‘ism’ without foundation, one was for a potentially defamatory untruth. I’ve also edited one post to remove an islam reference from an otherwise informative post and asked one forum member to provide better context when posting links. NB im non (party) political, but even that admission caused a spat before your time here

[Ramshank72]

I don't see the point in a second message room. The football / sport threads are stickied to the top, I don't bother scrolling down much to the political threads unless curiosity gets the cat, in which case it would be my choice to read / engage, the latter I rarely do - for what it's worth, everyone pretty much wants the same thing bar one red exception, just a slightly different view on how it's achieved, I can't be bothered to get involved.
Other than 1 tedious disagreement last year, the football chats have been largely been unscathed, and represent the amount of engagement you'd expect from an ageing internet forum. The forum won't grow, people largely don't want these things anymore.
So, "enjoy" it whilst it lasts!

[macstheman]

I don't see the point in a second message room. The football / sport threads are stickied to the top, I don't bother scrolling down much to the political threads unless curiosity gets the cat, in which case it would be my choice to read / engage, the latter I rarely do - for what it's worth, everyone pretty much wants the same thing bar one red exception, just a slightly different view on how it's achieved, I can't be bothered to get involved.
Other than 1 tedious disagreement last year, the football chats have been largely been unscathed, and represent the amount of engagement you'd expect from an ageing internet forum. The forum won't grow, people largely don't want these things anymore.

So, "enjoy" it whilst it lasts!

Agreed totally RS.

I don't mind the non footie threads although I rarely if ever post on them. I do read them as some are of interest but any abuse, offensive language or general snidieness (is there such a word?) is imo both unnecessary and demeaning to the poster. I feel that it is detrimental to the forum and so I have called it out at times.

If posters think that telling members not to read such threads is the answer then I find that almost an admission that some of its contents may be unacceptable!

We may not get many newbies joining but if any came on out of interest then I am sure that they would read both the footie and non footie threads. I can't see that they would be very impressed by long running slanging matches!

It's quite simple, just maintain a sense of decorum!

[MadAmster]

Agreed totally RS.

I don't mind the non footie threads although I rarely if ever post on them. I do read them as some are of interest but any abuse, offensive language or general snidieness (is there such a word?) is imo both unnecessary and demeaning to the poster. I feel that it is detrimental to the forum and so I have called it out at times.

If posters think that telling members not to read such threads is the answer then I find that almost an admission that some of its contents may be unacceptable!

We may not get many newbies joining but if any came on out of interest then I am sure that they would read both the footie and non footie threads. I can't see that they would be very impressed by long running slanging matches!

It's quite simple, just maintain a sense of decorum!

Sometimes I really miss being able to hit "like"