What’s up with PR?

[Town Drunk]

I meant that as everyone likes to point a finger at him since he's the easiest target because of his behavior but never look at their own or anyone else's actions. He's only a part of the overall problem but gets the majority of the vitriol. It wouldn't be shangri la around here if he never came in.

Why is it vital that it returns? This is the same as my value question earlier. We're a sports board for the local teams. What makes a politics board on it vital? This is an honest question. I want to justify its reopening.

Apologies, I forgot to come back to this. I think it’s easy to point the finger at cakes because he’s the most egregious. He’s not the only issue, no, but it is apparent that he only trolls in P&R because he’s able to engage in conversations on other boards. He doesn’t do that here. The other posters who contribute to the vitriol will have plenty of other posts that are thoughtful and engaging, whereas I can’t recall cakes being able to do that on the board.

I think the board is vital for the information it shares. Folks are able to post from a wide variety of sources and backgrounds, in addition to sharing their own personal experiences and expertise as it relates to topics. I can’t find that on any of the other sites I visit. To me, that makes it invaluable. I originally came here because I’m a Suns fan but now I really only participate because of P&R. We’ve also seen the board contribute to changing some posters perspectives and to a lesser extent, their lives, which again points to its value.

It can be successful, but it needs to be moderated under the same rules as the other boards. I think jbjarko would make an excellent addition to help in those duties, given his even keeled style of posting.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I did like the whole if you report and it's not found to be a violation you get the suspension

Mixed feelings. Posters shouldn't fear the axe for simply reporting a perceived violation but those honest mistakes aside, I'm fine with banning anyone who repeatedly cries wolf without cause.

 

[BooksOrangePlanet]

Mixed feelings. Posters shouldn't fear the axe for simply reporting a perceived violation but those honest mistakes aside, I'm fine with banning anyone who repeatedly cries wolf without cause.

exactly - when reporting becomez a hobby and goal

 

[Lorenzo]

It makes total sense for a Republican to switch parties. Just like it makes total sense for a Democrat to do the same. What makes no sense to me is voting for Bill Clinton and then being captured by TDS in barely 20-years time.

Regardless...... None of this is about "What is up with P&R".

Neither is the debate about site wide bans, or rules that should be instated. We have been asked "WHY" we think the site should remain. And my one and only big reason is that over the past 25 years, P&R has become a huge lightning rod in the country and in this forum. Removing the specific place where folks can go talk about it and where threads are sent when the topics come up creates huge complications for those respective forums. Whether it be music, movies, sports, cooking, whatever. Therefore..... It must remain. But also must be ruled with a dictatorial fist.

I can't really reply to the first part of your post without breaking rules. Maybe if P&R reopens I will. As far as the last part I do agree that politics has spilled over into daily activities that we enjoy and it is nice to separate the bashing jerry jones and Donald trump, although I see them as the same guy for the most part. I wish they would both be fired and their kids forced to sell their job duties to people who know what they are doing.

 

[Hoop Head]

Neither is the debate about site wide bans, or rules that should be instated. We have been asked "WHY" we think the site should remain. And my one and only big reason is that over the past 25 years, P&R has become a huge lightning rod in the country and in this forum. Removing the specific place where folks can go talk about it and where threads are sent when the topics come up creates huge complications for those respective forums. Whether it be music, movies, sports, cooking, whatever. Therefore..... It must remain. But also must be ruled with a dictatorial fist.

This is why P&R makes sense on a sports board. There are topics that bleed into politics (Kaepernick, Ja Morant, Kyrie Irving, etc) and stifling discussion because it treads into that direction doesn't make sense due to how it effects the sports world. Those don't seem to be very contentious here though, at least I don't believe they were. Discussions took place with civility because the context was clear and less open for interpretation, similar to sports as a whole. Things are much less personal.

There being exceptions shouldn't open the flood gates though as this is a sports board first and foremost. Political issues effect each us in different ways and to varying degrees but their impact on sports is often very easy to see. A LOT of topics in P&R don't relate to sports in any way and since it isn't our personal blog, why should we be granted a soapbox? I understand the community aspect of this site but if I'm personally effected and want to talk to a friend from here about something then I can reach out through PM or talk about those issues in a more appropriate setting.

I believe there should be a P&R setting but limited in that it only covers sports and entertainment topics. If we're discussing something that gets political in nature, like when the NFL changed their end zone signs earlier this year, and having a place to do so makes sense on a sports board. It doesn't logically track though to have discussions about the cost of exports/imports to the US that impact the tech industry.

If something comes up that is impactful to everyone (Texas Floods, California Fires) then mods can add a single thread to the Everything Else forum with normal site rules applicable at their discretion. Individual threads can be locked and hijacking is easier to control. Removing hijackers should be easier to do and less open to interpretation.


That's my 2 cents.

 

[Lorenzo]

This is why P&R makes sense on a sports board. There are topics that bleed into politics (Kaepernick, Ja Morant, Kyrie Irving, etc) and stifling discussion because it treads into that direction doesn't make sense due to how it effects the sports world. Those don't seem to be very contentious here though, at least I don't believe they were. Discussions took place with civility because the context was clear and less open for interpretation, similar to sports as a whole. Things are much less personal.

There being exceptions shouldn't open the flood gates though as this is a sports board first and foremost. Political issues effect each us in different ways and to varying degrees but their impact on sports is often very easy to see. A LOT of topics in P&R don't relate to sports in any way and since it isn't our personal blog, why should we be granted a soapbox? I understand the community aspect of this site but if I'm personally effected and want to talk to a friend from here about something then I can reach out through PM or talk about those issues in a more appropriate setting.

I believe there should be a P&R setting but limited in that it only covers sports and entertainment topics. If we're discussing something that gets political in nature, like when the NFL changed their end zone signs earlier this year, and having a place to do so makes sense on a sports board. It doesn't logically track though to have discussions about the cost of exports/imports to the US that impact the tech industry.

If something comes up that is impactful to everyone (Texas Floods, California Fires) then mods can add a single thread to the Everything Else forum with normal site rules applicable at their discretion. Individual threads can be locked and hijacking is easier to control. Removing hijackers should be easier to do and less open to interpretation.


That's my 2 cents.

that's not a bad idea. Aside from bringing P&R back as it was before, this is one of the better ideas that I've heard. it is a medium for the current situation. I didn't make a post about flooding in the everything else thread because I knew of the circumstances. both regarding what happened in California vs. Texas (regarding the federal response) and then also the NWS and local warning systems. It is inevitable that there will be another sporting topic that turns political.

 

[Town Drunk]

that's not a bad idea. Aside from bringing P&R back as it was before, this is one of the better ideas that I've heard. it is a medium for the current situation. I didn't make a post about flooding in the everything else thread because I knew of the circumstances. both regarding what happened in California vs. Texas (regarding the federal response) and then also the NWS and local warning systems. It is inevitable that there will be another sporting topic that turns political.

That’s why I don’t think it will work if the P&R board is only for sports issues, unless it would now be okay to talk politics on the EE board only on specific topics. But then why not just have a P&R board?

I had the same thought as you regarding the flooding. I didn’t make a post about it given the political aspects of it. It’s a shame, a lot has happened the last two weeks and there’s been no avenue to discuss these sort of events.

 

[Russ Smith]

My own personal experience is in the last X years I went from never going into PR to regularly being there. I was a lifelong registered Republican, i became a Dem in June of 2017. This board helped make that happen as I realized I was NOT the only Republican who had voted for Obama and HRC because I could not bring myself to vote for the Republican candidate they simply no longer represented my views. So I switched.

The other one and way more obvious was i was literally the most outspoken against Climate change on this board. I knew it was happening but insisted we were not the cause and I was VERY vocal about that. I had long running arguments with AJ and Sandan and others on here. But again this board helped give me a different perspective and that and discussions with others finally convinced me I'd let my dad heavily influence my opinion on it. I'm now in the I can't believe I was that stupid for that long side of the debate.

Both MIGHT have happened anyways without this board but not nearly as quickly. I worked at a company full of PHD physicists who all fully believed in climate change for example, yet I was still a denier.

So I do think losing PR would greatly harm the board. But I also understand it's difficult to moderate. Years ago I was asked to moderate and I said no because I knew I would not be impartial, openly admitted that thanks but no thanks I'd be a terrible moderator. So I get the challenge

 

[dreamcastrocks]

These are not sport teams where we are supposed to be loyal fans because of a logo or initial.

Not anymore. Teams seemingly want their 'team' to win, more than caring about what is good for the people around them or the country.

I feel like I MUST vote Democrat now, because of how ridiculous the Republican party has become. I consider myself a left leaning centrist, but the Republican party of the past 15+ years has likely made me a life long Democrat.

 

[Dback Jon]

This is why P&R makes sense on a sports board. There are topics that bleed into politics (Kaepernick, Ja Morant, Kyrie Irving, etc) and stifling discussion because it treads into that direction doesn't make sense due to how it effects the sports world. Those don't seem to be very contentious here though, at least I don't believe they were. Discussions took place with civility because the context was clear and less open for interpretation, similar to sports as a whole. Things are much less personal.

There being exceptions shouldn't open the flood gates though as this is a sports board first and foremost. Political issues effect each us in different ways and to varying degrees but their impact on sports is often very easy to see. A LOT of topics in P&R don't relate to sports in any way and since it isn't our personal blog, why should we be granted a soapbox? I understand the community aspect of this site but if I'm personally effected and want to talk to a friend from here about something then I can reach out through PM or talk about those issues in a more appropriate setting.

I believe there should be a P&R setting but limited in that it only covers sports and entertainment topics. If we're discussing something that gets political in nature, like when the NFL changed their end zone signs earlier this year, and having a place to do so makes sense on a sports board. It doesn't logically track though to have discussions about the cost of exports/imports to the US that impact the tech industry.

If something comes up that is impactful to everyone (Texas Floods, California Fires) then mods can add a single thread to the Everything Else forum with normal site rules applicable at their discretion. Individual threads can be locked and hijacking is easier to control. Removing hijackers should be easier to do and less open to interpretation.


That's my 2 cents.

So why limit those thoughts just to politics?

Should we ban discussion of movies unless they are sports movies?

Limit discussion of TV shows unless it’s a sports topic?

Having everything else without allowing for politics, basically just makes it a headline only thread because let’s face it. There’s very little out there right now that politics are not involved.


You really can’t truly discuss the California fires without the political implications

The same with the Texas floods.


Yes, it started as a sports board but every sports board I’ve been on, including the predecessor to this one quickly realized the value of making a community and having other discussion topics

The predecessor Board here - azprosports really took off as a community after 911 when a separate board was created for it and people could express their feelings over to what had happened.


If you’re only goal is to discuss Sports, there are multiple sports only boards, but one thing AFN has always been is a community with multiple topics

It’s kind of the come for the Sports, stay for everything else

 

[dreamcastrocks]

There have been a lot of good suggestions to make the P&R forum workable, but I think the easiest way is to improve the “ignore” function.

As an example, when an “ignored” poster posts and another poster responds, one sees: “You are ignoring content by this member.”

If one could do away with this notification or any other mention of the “ignored” poster, it would solve a lot of problems.

When one is put in position to have to read the “ignored” posts, to understand what is going on, it defeats its purpose.

Except that is literally one of the hardest. We are dependent on the forum software's capabilities and improving the ignore function, or most other functions for that matter, is out of our hands.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I can't really reply to the first part of your post without breaking rules. Maybe if P&R reopens I will. As far as the last part I do agree that politics has spilled over into daily activities that we enjoy and it is nice to separate the bashing jerry jones and Donald trump, although I see them as the same guy for the most part. I wish they would both be fired and their kids forced to sell their job duties to people who know what they are doing.

Maybe change how you post? If your post is going to break a rule, just don't do it!

 

[AzStevenCal]

Not anymore. Teams seemingly want their 'team' to win, more than caring about what is good for the people around them or the country.

I feel like I MUST vote Democrat now, because of how ridiculous the Republican party has become. I consider myself a left leaning centrist, but the Republican party of the past 15+ years has likely made me a life long Democrat.

I still can't quite call myself a Democrat but I don't know if the Republican Party I belonged to is ever coming back.

 

[Lorenzo]

That’s why I don’t think it will work if the P&R board is only for sports issues, unless it would now be okay to talk politics on the EE board only on specific topics. But then why not just have a P&R board?

I had the same thought as you regarding the flooding. I didn’t make a post about it given the political aspects of it. It’s a shame, a lot has happened the last two weeks and there’s no been avenue to discuss these sort of events.

yeah I agree. I've spent a lot of time in and around the Guad. Mostly downstream of canyon lake where you would typically have advanced notice of flooding. and I live near there now about 10 miles away. that said it is still dangerous even in the best conditions. what made it tough for me are the kids. and this happened in 1987, and that was well documented. it wasn't a holiday so there were less people impacted. there is a rescue 911 episode out there from the early 90's that documents the 1987 flood. it is worth watching if you are interested, but it is hard to watch because it's about children. the source of the guad river is extremely deadly when it floods and some people know it, others are ignorant or just ignore it.

 

[Lorenzo]

Maybe change how you post? If your post is going to break a rule, just don't do it!

that's why I didn't do it. and I wasn't going to do anything bad, I just didn't want to reply to a political topic since we aren't technically in a P&R forum now. to be fair I was doing it before a few posts before and I stopped.

 

[Russ Smith]

Except that is literally one of the hardest. We are dependent on the forum software's capabilities and improving the ignore function, or most other functions for that matter, is out of our hands.

i've said before if ignore was 2 way, it would be much better. That is if I ignore johndoe posts, johndoe can't see my posts either, he doesn't have any say in that if I decide I don't want to see him anymore, he doesn't see me either.

I guess that's much easier to say than actually do unfortunately

 

[Dr. Jones]

I still can't quite call myself a Democrat but I don't know if the Republican Party I belonged to is ever coming back.

I "ooofed" this originally but took it back because I am generally curious. You have been around here as long as I have and I have generally respected your viewpoints even when there is disagreement so I thought I would ask.

If you were a Republican.... Whose politics on the red side of the aisle (McCain, Bush, Ryan, Paul, Cheney, etc) from the past would you say you most aligned with? And how does that persons platform or ideas align with this new version of the Democrat party you now say that is more representative of your views?

And lastly..... What about the red party might never come back that you miss?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I "ooofed" this originally but took it back because I am generally curious. You have been around here as long as I have and I have generally respected your viewpoints even when there is disagreement so I thought I would ask.

If you were a Republican.... Whose politics on the red side of the aisle (McCain, Bush, Ryan, Paul, Cheney, etc) from the past would you say you most aligned with? And how does that persons platform or ideas align with this new version of the Democrat party you now say that is more representative of your views?

And lastly..... What about the red party might never come back that you miss?

I'll answer, even though it wasn't directed at me. I have voted red in the past. I would mostly align with McCain if those are the choices. The most clear example is that McCain opposed his party to get healthcare passed for the benefit of the country.

What won't come back? The Republican party putting the good of the country first. I don't believe one bit that McCain or even Bush for that matter would have played the politics as dirty as they are now. Not voting on Garland for a year, wouldn't happen in that time. Outright assault on gays and transgender, nope. Going backwards on civil rights, no way in hell.

When McConnell comes out and basically says his only goal is to stop the Democrats instead of trying to work with them, that's all you really need to know.

 

[BooksOrangePlanet]

i think this is the new (temporary?) p&r lol one long continuous thread

 

[Lorenzo]

i think this is the new (temporary?) p&r lol one long continuous thread

albeit walking on glass barefoot. like the guy on home alone when he thinks he's in the house safely, but crushes the ornament.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I'll answer, even though it wasn't directed at me. I have voted red in the past. I would mostly align with McCain if those are the choices. The most clear example is that McCain opposed his party to get healthcare passed for the benefit of the country.

Do you consider that opposition to be warranted now looking back on it? As a former republican, you must be mortified at the exponential rise in healthcare costs associated with the passing of Obamacare. Costs are way way up in relation to inflation or any other metric you choose to use.

I would argue that if you are willing to work, able to work, and were under a health care plan prior to the passing..... You would be looking back on it now with shame and guilt for the affirmative vote.

What won't come back? The Republican party putting the good of the country first. I don't believe one bit that McCain or even Bush for that matter would have played the politics as dirty as they are now. Not voting on Garland for a year, wouldn't happen in that time. Outright assault on gays and transgender, nope. Going backwards on civil rights, no way in hell.

Garland was a tactical decision. A Politically advantageous decision. And one, that I think did harm initially from a perception perspective..... but ultimately has led to positive constitutional rulings. Something every former red would approve of. In just the case of Roe vs. Wade alone..... Even RBG approved of it being overturned.

The Scotus is now ruling from a much more textualist perspective. Which protects conservative opinions in many cases.

When McConnell comes out and basically says his only goal is to stop the Democrats instead of trying to work with them, that's all you really need to know.

Although his southern directness might come across as cold and heartless..... This is completely understood by both houses at all times from the beginning of the last century.

Sen. Schumer, in February 2025, laid out a strategy for "hampering President Donald Trump's agenda" and "vowing to use every tool in their arsenal as Congress' minority party to keep Republicans in check."

And their use of the judiciary over the past 6 months has to bring alarm bells to anyone considering themselves a McCain Republican. Could you imagine a bench with 4 or 5 KBJ's on it now ruling in favor of Judge shopping, and removing explicitly assigned power from the Executive branch by a body that we didn't elect in the judiciary? Holy smokes.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Do you consider that opposition to be warranted now looking back on it? As a former republican, you must be mortified at the exponential rise in healthcare costs associated with the passing of Obamacare. Costs are way way up in relation to inflation or any other metric you choose to use.

I would argue that if you are willing to work, able to work, and were under a health care plan prior to the passing..... You would be looking back on it now with shame and guilt for the affirmative vote.

Sure, the prices were going to skyrocket no matter what. When you have a for profit health care system, and our current economy is to make as much money for shareholders as possible, it was bound to happen. It was skyrocketing well before Obamacare.

Garland was a tactical decision. A Politically advantageous decision. And one, that I think did harm initially from a perception perspective..... but ultimately has led to positive constitutional rulings. Something every former red would approve of.

And one that defies our Constitution. These votes are supposed to be done in a timely matter. Don't tell me for one second that one year is considered a timely manner. It was more about your party winning, than practicing the Constitution. Something Republicans seem to be so in favor of, unless it doesn't benefit them...

 

[Mainstreet]

@Dr. Jones

I strongly considered voting for Mitt Romney until he walked back his healthcare position in the general election.

Every U.S. citizen should be entitled to basic healthcare, period.

Even inmates in an institution should and do get healthcare.

It shouldn't be tied to how much you work, cost or whatever if we are to be a civilized society.

What's the alternative, bankruptcy, suffering, or euthanasia. Is a sick person not worthy of medical treatment?

There should be a myriad of priorities in our country, and at the top should not be a tax break for the wealthy.

 

[TJ]

@Dr. Jones

I strongly considered voting for Mitt Romney until he walked back his healthcare position in the general election.

Every U.S. citizen should be entitled to basic healthcare, period.

Even inmates in an institution should and do get healthcare.

It shouldn't be tied to how much you work, cost or whatever if we are to be a civilized society.

What's the alternative, bankruptcy, suffering, or euthanasia. Is a sick person not worthy of medical treatment?

There should be a myriad of priorities in our country, and at the top should not be a tax break for the wealthy.

Golly. If only there were a forum on this messageboard in which we can openly discuss issues related to politics and religion.

*wink* *wink*

 

[Dr. Jones]

Sure, the prices were going to skyrocket no matter what. When you have a for profit health care system, and our current economy is to make as much money for shareholders as possible, it was bound to happen. It was skyrocketing well before Obamacare.

Don't look now but you are defending socialized healthcare and demonizing capitalism.

Red's, by in large, want less government, and more economic freedom.

And one that defies our Constitution. These votes are supposed to be done in a timely matter. Don't tell me for one second that one year is considered a timely manner. It was more about your party winning, than practicing the Constitution. Something Republicans seem to be so in favor of, unless it doesn't benefit them...

It absolutely did not defy our constitution. This is incorrect. Did it defy norms, and cause controversy? Absolutely. If this is your argument.... I'd look in to the legality of what you are actually saying here. Because you are wrong.

And at that time, it was not my party. I voted for the Libertarian in 2016.

Lastly, if you're as level headed and moderate as you said, calling it "your party" is out of line. And if you are as red as you say you used to be..... Limiting the power, size and scope of the federal government is a core tenant of that vision. Certainly not governmentalized healthcare or a weaponized judiciary.

Even Sotomayor got a decision right recently. Stunning stuff from her seat.

Regardless. This is beyond the scope of this thread.