What’s up with PR?

[UncleChris]

This isn't my site or your site. We're guests here. Whichever way leadership chooses to go, that's their prerogative, and I shouldn't expect my opinion on the subject to have any weight whatsoever.

Overstated, IMHO. We're a family of mostly adults. The owners of the site are the Dad(s). Any father who doesn't give weight to what his adult children say is a damned poor father. Yes, he makes the final decision, but if I thought for a minute that we had absolutely no input to the family, well........

 

[Russ Smith]

Just since the ban the amount of stuff that's happened that we can't discuss due to the ban is enormous. So yeah losing P&R would be a big deal but I've told the mods before I'm ok with whatever decision they make .

 

[Russ Smith]

My point was the hypocrisy of continuously calling out Johnny without seeing the darkness within Jon. And it is an absolute black hole of dark energy.

Make all the excuses you want about his justifications because of his sexuality at your own risk. I tend to look at him as the worst possible role-model for that community and an embarrassment to the moderator badge.



Dead serious..... You may think he's an a-hole..... but if you think Cakes doesn't believe every word he is saying then you need more time in the jungles of SE Asia. Because I assure you...... He 100% does.

We have a ton of crop-dusting posters in that forum.

No he doesn't. He routinely contradicts his own posts. He adopts the position that will annoy the most people. .

If I tried hard enough I could probably find a jungle in Siquijor but tell anybody that lives there they are "in the jungles of SE Asia" and they would call you buang.

 

[Rivercard]

There are plenty of Internet forums where political discussion is verboten.

So in the case of the Late Night thread, are we supposed to pretend that CBS did not just pay a large "settlement" to appease a Trump lawsuit, and that Colbert is a very outspoken Trump critic? Can we talk about that or is it verboten? If you can't mention those things the whole convo is worthless and a lie.

 

[Dan H]

So in the case of the Late Night thread, are we supposed to pretend that CBS did not just pay a large "settlement" to appease a Trump lawsuit, and that Colbert is a very outspoken Trump critic? Can we talk about that or is it verboten? If you can't mention those things the whole convo is worthless and a lie.

Not sure what that looks like here, but on a collectibles forum I frequent, the rule regarding tariff discussion was limited to one particular forum thread and any discussion outside of that venue was grounds for an immediate ban. An off-roading forum bans political discussion entirely. It's up to whoever runs the site.

In my home, I don't get worked up about people wearing shoes on the carpet. But I also have friends who ask that you remove your shoes at the door. When I'm a guest in their home, I take my shoes off -- I don't try to sway their opinion with discussions about orthopedic support and Big Shoe.

 

[Mainstreet]

This thread has morphed into a more polite version of the P&R forum, except without many of the topics.

It's alive…

 

[elindholm]

In my home, I don't get worked up about people wearing shoes on the carpet. But I also have friends who ask that you remove your shoes at the door. When I'm a guest in their home, I take my shoes off -- I don't try to sway their opinion with discussions about orthopedic support and Big Shoe.

I don't think that's a good analogy. Whether you're wearing shoes or not is a point of fact. (Also, you can still talk about Big Shoe even with your shoes off.) Whether something counts as "political" is more subjective. I agree with others who have said that almost everything is political; the only question is whether you want to acknowledge the political aspect of it.

The Colbert cancellation is a good example. It's apolitical only at the most superficial level. Think about it any deeper, and it's obvious that the political implications are significant and important. So do we dance around those implications, pretending they aren't there or referring to them only in code? Or is the entire topic off-limits?

 

[Dan H]

I don't think that's a good analogy. Whether you're wearing shoes or not is a point of fact. (Also, you can still talk about Big Shoe even with your shoes off.) Whether something counts as "political" is more subjective. I agree with others who have said that almost everything is political; the only question is whether you want to acknowledge the political aspect of it.

The Colbert cancellation is a good example. It's apolitical only at the most superficial level. Think about it any deeper, and it's obvious that the political implications are significant and important. So do we dance around those implications, pretending they aren't there or referring to them only in code? Or is the entire topic off-limits?

My analogy was intended more from the perspective of whatever choice the admins make is one we should respect, much like you would if you were a guest in someone's home.

And I think the Colbert example is a matter of perspective. I can see why you would think it was a political move, but to say that is fact is a logical jump. CBS was paying him $15 million a year. Was their ad revenue sufficient to make that a worthwhile investment? As a terrestrial network, they aren't getting carriage fees like a cable channel would.

His ratings at first glance look decent enough:

You must be registered for see images attach

But, when you take a deeper dive, his key demo numbers don't strike me as great, and that's what's going to drive ad revenue.

You must be registered for see images attach

Colbert was not even in the top 100 shows for key demo for 2024-2025, smack dab in the election season. (source: https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/most-popular-tv-shows-2024-25-squid-game-adolescence-1236412566/)

You must be registered for see images attach

And take a close look at that thumbnail. People, for the most part, are mostly streaming - and the only Paramount+ show in the top 25 is Landman. Streaming is kicking terrestrials butt.

So, TLDR, it's a nuanced situation, and I don't think you can say it's a purely political decision with any sort of certainty.

 

[Russ Smith]

My analogy was intended more from the perspective of whatever choice the admins make is one we should respect, much like you would if you were a guest in someone's home.

And I think the Colbert example is a matter of perspective. I can see why you would think it was a political move, but to say that is "fact" is a logical jump. CBS was paying him $15 million a year. Was their ad revenue sufficient to make that a worthwhile investment? As a terrestrial network, they aren't getting carriage fees like a cable channel would.

His ratings at first glance look decent enough:

You must be registered for see images attach

But, when you take a deeper dive, his key demo numbers don't strike me as great, and that's what's going to drive ad revenue.

You must be registered for see images attach

Colbert was not even in the top 100 shows for key demo for 2024-2025, smack dab in the election season. (source: https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/most-popular-tv-shows-2024-25-squid-game-adolescence-1236412566/)

You must be registered for see images attach

And take a close look at that thumbnail. People, for the most part, are mostly streaming - and the only Paramount+ show in the top 25 is Landman. Streaming is kicking terrestrials butt.

So, TLDR, it's a nuanced situation, and I don't think you can say "it's a purely political decision" with any sort of certainty.

Amazing coincidence 4 days after he criticized CBS, they decided to cancel the show.

 

[elindholm]

And I think the Colbert example is a matter of perspective. I can see why you would think it was a political move, but to say that is "fact" is a logical jump.

And this is how arguments start. I didn't say "fact." I said that the implications are obvious.

So, TLDR, it's a nuanced situation, and I don't think you can say "it's a purely political decision" with any sort of certainty.

It is disingenous to attribute something in quotation marks to another poster when that is not what they wrote.

 

[Dan H]

And this is how arguments start. I didn't say "fact." I said that the implications are obvious.



It is disingenous to attribute something in quotation marks to another poster when that is not what they wrote.

Not trying to start an argument and didn't mean to imply you said those things directly.

 

[Dan H]

Amazing coincidence 4 days after he criticized CBS, they decided to cancel the show.

You could also say that it's poor form to criticize your employer when you aren't generating a profit.

 

[AZCB34]

And why was the P&R board established in the first place?

 

[AZCB34]

This thread has morphed into a more polite version of the P&R forum, except without many of the topics.

It's alive…

It’s because of the absence of the topics that this convo is more polite. Almost everyone is rowing in the same direction

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

Calling someone's views psuedo-facist is name calling and breaks the rules of the forum. If we can't talk civil to each other in a discussion thread like this, it won't be done if P&R re-opens. Simple as that.

For the record, I don't agree with virtually anything Johnny says.

Agreed

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

And why was the P&R board established in the first place?

Because even back in the early phases of the board, Politics and Athletics mix and Jim didn't want that mix.

He asked me to strongly moderate the board and be the "********" because he didn't want to do it.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

LOL I thought Bung H was what the language filter changed the curse word too.

 

[Russ Smith]

You could also say that it's poor form to criticize your employer when you aren't generating a profit.

"According to reports, in 2023, CBS made the decision to replace the lower-rated "The Late Late Show with James Corden" with a cheaper show, "After Midnight," indicating that not all CBS programs were equally profitable. The decision to end Colbert's show in the future is not directly attributed to a lack of profitability. "



I don't think it's a stretch to say they settled for the exact amount of his contract and were concerned that wasn't going to end the situation so they just decided to drop the show.

 

[AZCB34]

Because even back in the early phases of the board, Politics and Athletics mix and Jim didn't want that mix.

He asked me to strongly moderate the board and be the "********" because he didn't want to do it.

I’ve been around long enoughto know that. Just felt like people needed to be reminded of that.

Even though I have benefitted from P&R, I think it should be shut down. But shutting it down will have ramifications on other boards I would expect

 

[dreamcastrocks]

So in the case of the Late Night thread, are we supposed to pretend that CBS did not just pay a large "settlement" to appease a Trump lawsuit, and that Colbert is a very outspoken Trump critic? Can we talk about that or is it verboten? If you can't mention those things the whole convo is worthless and a lie.

Maybe not. Sometimes we can't have nice things when people treat them like trash...

 

[Mainstreet]

It’s because of the absence of the topics that this convo is more polite. Almost everyone is rowing in the same direction

Except the interaction issues among posters that characterize the P&R forum still arise, except to a lesser degree.

Adding topics would further increase the temperature.

However, it's sad to think people cannot politely talk to each other. IMO, it starts with respect and following the rules.

Unfortunately, there are a relatively small number of people who cannot do this, at least consistently.

 

[oaken1]

Disagree, this is an example of why bans need to be upheld. Everyone knows Johnny’s schtick is to just troll and not engage in an actual conversation. He was allowed to do that consistently with the loosening of the rules. I’m not sure what the expectation was of that decision and to reinstate those who were perma banned, but it led to more issues.

The board needs to be moderated and people need to be banned when they cross the line, just like with the other boards. I think the issue is there’s no one who wants to moderate the board, which will likely lead to its demise, which is unfortunate given the value of it.

PFffffttt.... I will moderate it.
I aint skeered

 

[oaken1]

Trying not to push the rules here on this thread.

That poster is NOT trolling.He believes what he posts to be true and he'll happily defend his positions.

Some others ARE trolling.

Just because he believes it does not mean it is suitable to post. I once received a week long ban for posting something I truly believe

 

[oaken1]

And if you need a volunteer for a mod, I’ll do it. I’ll shut my mouth and observe and do the job if that would help keep it alive. I can set my bias aside.

I will join you. I dont have to participate to lurk and observe.

 

[jbjarko]

I will join you. I dont have to participate to lurk and observe.

I'll lurk and observe, no longer participate. I don't add anything of value anyway.