What’s up with PR?

[dreamcastrocks]

also one must consider. The purpose of disciplinary action is to remove unwanted behavior.
The purpose of a sitewide ban is to remove an unwanted person.
I dont recall seeing anybody here that did not have value in one discussion or another.

IMO, in regards to moderation it is important to actually "Be" moderate and not reactionary.

Why would you want to keep a person around that habitually breaks the rules? In my opinion, I wouldn't want them here. Besides, we already do this (remove trouble people) as a society anyway.

 

[Russ Smith]

I would only support a sitewide ban if, after being banned from P&R, one could not stop injecting their political points into other forums.

I remember some of those P&R discussions from so long ago. we have lots of posters who are passionate in there. But totally different people in the sports forums. Why remover valuable sports contributions because behavior cannot be maintained in regards to politics?
...if you site wide ban due to a single forum.. BillyBob just creates a new account and now BillyJoe is back in P&R
I say this is a guy who had 8 different Reddit accounts in a single year.

Bruinzone is a UCLA sports site. There's an open forum that's barely moderated. There's a guy on there who posts under about 8 aliases. he's a Trump supporter but 2 of his aliases are Dems, he often argues with himself. They have banned him dozens of times we think his name is Kevin. Lots of people think he gets paid to troll but the site is too small for me to believe that I think he just likes to annoy people so he keeps coming back. The format for that is REALLY old so it goes page by page not post by post so it's not uncommon for half the posts on a single page of the forum to be by him. Completel destroyed the forum those of us who still post there now do it in large part because we just refuse to let him kill the board.

 

[Russ Smith]

Why would you want to keep a person around that habitually breaks the rules? In my opinion, I wouldn't want them here. Besides, we already do this (remove trouble people) as a society anyway.

That's the question many of us were asking here about one poster in particular for literally ages now.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

FYI, you can't read P&R when banned from it. The forum is hidden from you.

Well that's crazy that we can't follow the rules then

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Dback Jon]

Well, I have been the subject of some of this thread, but haven't chimed in, yet. In fact, I haven't posted at all since P&R was closed. So it is time to say my peace.

I will acknowledge that I have made sweeping generalizations. Which, btw, is not against the current forum rules. And yes, people on "my side" have gotten on me about it. If that needs to be a rule change, I will adapt.

And contrary to the claims of "left-wing echo chamber", if you actually read the forum you would find out there are a wide range of opinions on most subjects. Indeed, I think if we were all "dittoheads", P&R would have died out on it's own a long time ago, as I don't, and from talking with others, most on this board would find that pointless and boring.

In speaking with @jf-08 in person months ago, he brought that up, and I think part of the perception (as well as the accusation of "piling on" is the threaded nature of this board. Someone makes a comment, and posters react as they come across it, not realizing that 7 other posters had already commented on it. It is the nature of the way this forum is threaded. If you looked at say, reddit, you would see the comment and x number of responses immediately below it and know how many had already responded.

One person objected to "posting bluesky or threads links" as somehow trolling. Whether that person doesn't want to bother to actually look at what is being said, they would see that there are real linked stories from legitimate, mainstream press behind those links. If the board would upgrade to show the threads and bluesky posts like it does for twitter posts, I think that might solve some confusion.

I did read every post on this thread, even from the posters I have on ignore. First, addresses the "man-up and don't ignore people" comment - ever poster I have on ignore I made weeks of attempts to engage in fruitful or rational discussion, but the failure to provide any worthwhile discussion, or in the case of two posters, failure to ha
ve any discussions without insulting my sexuality made the ignore button an easy choice.




I am curious as to who made the decision, and consulting with whom to unilaterally shutdown a board - it was not a moderator discussion. While the board is owned by Shaggy and Iceman, in essense, we, the active posters are the community, and should be involved in these discussions. The P&R board is one of the most active, and the posters on it are among the most active board wide. I find it ironic that posters/moderators that are rarely on the board anymore feel compelled to chime in to close it.

As we have seen, threads that are really P&R are popping up elsewhere. As for "It's just a sports board", does that mean you are advocating for closing all non-sports forums?


Finally (for now) - if we are to have open and free exchange of ideas, banning certain words that are actually applicable now is a bad idea. Just because those words and descriptions make you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't the wrong word to use. The right has used socialism and communism against the left, but now are yelling unfair as they descend into authoritarianism and fascism.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

That's the question many of us were asking here about one poster in particular for literally ages now.

I don't disagree with you.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I made weeks of attempts to engage in fruitful or rational discussion, but the failure to provide any worthwhile discussion, or in the case of two posters, failure to have any discussions without insulting my sexuality made the ignore button an easy choice.

I vehemently disagree.

I am curious as to who made the decision, and consulting with whom to unilaterally shutdown a board - it was not a moderator discussion.

Thank god.

While the board is owned by Shaggy and Iceman, in essense, we, the active posters are the community, and should be involved in these discussions.

I vehemently disagree. We are walking in to someone else's business/home/property every time we come here. Just like your intense defense of the former Twitter ownerships ability to censor anyone President Biden told them to. Up to and including the Former president of the United States because of.... .well..... whatever...... Until you make your own forum..... you play by their rules.

The P&R board is one of the most active, and the posters on it are among the most active board wide. I find it ironic that posters/moderators that are rarely on the board anymore feel compelled to chime in to close it.

I sort of agree with this.

The right has used socialism and communism against the left, but now are yelling unfair as they descend into authoritarianism and fascism.

Okie dokie.

 

[Lorenzo]

Well, I have been the subject of some of this thread, but haven't chimed in, yet. In fact, I haven't posted at all since P&R was closed. So it is time to say my peace.

I will acknowledge that I have made sweeping generalizations. Which, btw, is not against the current forum rules. And yes, people on "my side" have gotten on me about it. If that needs to be a rule change, I will adapt.

And contrary to the claims of "left-wing echo chamber", if you actually read the forum you would find out there are a wide range of opinions on most subjects. Indeed, I think if we were all "dittoheads", P&R would have died out on it's own a long time ago, as I don't, and from talking with others, most on this board would find that pointless and boring.

In speaking with @jf-08 in person months ago, he brought that up, and I think part of the perception (as well as the accusation of "piling on" is the threaded nature of this board. Someone makes a comment, and posters react as they come across it, not realizing that 7 other posters had already commented on it. It is the nature of the way this forum is threaded. If you looked at say, reddit, you would see the comment and x number of responses immediately below it and know how many had already responded.

One person objected to "posting bluesky or threads links" as somehow trolling. Whether that person doesn't want to bother to actually look at what is being said, they would see that there are real linked stories from legitimate, mainstream press behind those links. If the board would upgrade to show the threads and bluesky posts like it does for twitter posts, I think that might solve some confusion.

I did read every post on this thread, even from the posters I have on ignore. First, addresses the "man-up and don't ignore people" comment - ever poster I have on ignore I made weeks of attempts to engage in fruitful or rational discussion, but the failure to provide any worthwhile discussion, or in the case of two posters, failure to ha
ve any discussions without insulting my sexuality made the ignore button an easy choice.




I am curious as to who made the decision, and consulting with whom to unilaterally shutdown a board - it was not a moderator discussion. While the board is owned by Shaggy and Iceman, in essense, we, the active posters are the community, and should be involved in these discussions. The P&R board is one of the most active, and the posters on it are among the most active board wide. I find it ironic that posters/moderators that are rarely on the board anymore feel compelled to chime in to close it.

As we have seen, threads that are really P&R are popping up elsewhere. As for "It's just a sports board", does that mean you are advocating for closing all non-sports forums?


Finally (for now) - if we are to have open and free exchange of ideas, banning certain words that are actually applicable now is a bad idea. Just because those words and descriptions make you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't the wrong word to use. The right has used socialism and communism against the left, but now are yelling unfair as they descend into authoritarianism and fascism.

I’ve been posting on and off here for many years. When i first started I was a Republican voter. I since switched to independent around the time that Palin was unleashed. The Republican Party was wounded because of George W’s terrible presidency and they have basically allowed a NYC RINO to be the king of their party. I don’t understand it and it is the source of most of my criticism of that party and people that support it. I do feel that I am not alone here and many of the posters share the same sentiments and it must be very difficult for those who are supporters of the Republican Party to constantly see the criticisms on here. I wonder if that has been too much for too long…sometimes I don’t watch the news because it’s just always negative and biased.

Many of us come on here to have legitimate discussions with everyone. I brought up the floods earlier because I do think there was actual dereliction of government officials not doing their jobs and they should be called out. They shouldn’t get to hide under the umbrella of censorship or partisanship. They need to be accountable regardless of political affiliation.

 

[Dback Jon]

I’ve been posting on and off here for many years. When i first started I was a Republican voter. I since switched to independent around the time that Palin was unleashed. The Republican Party was wounded because of George W’s terrible presidency and they have basically allowed a NYC RINO to be the king of their party. I don’t understand it and it is the source of most of my criticism of that party and people that support it. I do feel that I am not alone here and many of the posters share the same sentiments and it must be very difficult for those who are supporters of the Republican Party to constantly see the criticisms on here. I wonder if that has been too much for too long…sometimes I don’t watch the news because it’s just always negative and biased.

Many of us come on here to have legitimate discussions with everyone. I brought up the floods earlier because I do think there was actual dereliction of government officials not doing their jobs and they should be called out. They shouldn’t get to hide under the umbrella of censorship or partisanship. They need to be accountable regardless of political affiliation.

But here is the thing - they aren’t obligated to support the GOP If the Dems had a Trump we wouldn’t be supporting them. And like you, a good number of the posters here used to be Republicans.

 

[elindholm]

If the Dems had a Trump we wouldn’t be supporting them.

I don't know who "we" are, but I disagree. Anyone with a D after his or her name is going to get a certain degree of automatic support from those who identify with that party, same as on the R side.

 

[Covert Rain]

I don't know who "we" are, but I disagree. Anyone with a D after his or her name is going to get a certain degree of automatic support from those who identify with that party, same as on the R side.

There would be some but not to the same degree. Democrats that were caught up in the me too stuff were given the boot and many Democrats supported it. When Biden appears to be mentally impaired after the debate, Democrats in mass asked him to drop out.

So, even though there is merit to what you say IMO, they would not be anywhere near the level of blind support Trump received.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

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.

To a certain extent, I suppose...a site is only as good as the people involved. If you take away P and R, site traffic will likely be down big time. I expect that is already the case.

 

[Mainstreet]

There would be some but not to the same degree. Democrats that were caught up in the me too stuff were given the boot and many Democrats supported it. When Biden appears to be mentally impaired after the debate, Democrats in mass asked him to drop out.

So, even though there is merit to what you say IMO, they would not be anywhere near the level of blind support Trump received.

I think it's important to separate parties from issues. When the Democrats stood up for healthcare, I changed parties because I supported this issue.

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

 

[Mainstreet]

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.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Wait, there's a streaking board? Can we post videos?

Autocorrect for the win!

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

That's a strange tack to take. There are plenty of Internet forums where political discussion is verboten.

I don't have the interpersonal face-to-face relationships that many of you share, but it occurs to me that there's been one overlooked fact in this discussion.

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.

A) A mod literally asked for the arguments in favor of its value.

B) If this was only a hobby of the site owner I could see your point. But this is a business. When your business is driven by people frequenting your cite you pretty much HAVE to seek your clientele’s opinion or, well, you’re just a bad businessman.

C) I think it’s weird that the people who keep building arguments like this, and to shut down P&R all seem to be right leaning.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

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?

Another example was the taking a knee during the national anthem in nfl games. What if the lightning rod had been a cardinal? We can’t discuss that or a potential suspension surrrounding something like that? P&R has a place. Giving it its specific place saves the rest of the board. I have no doubt of that.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

however, I do not see the value in a site wide ban due to behavior in a specific forum. I think thats just a bit petty. Many folks cannot contain themselves on one topic but are certainly well behaved on others.
Folks just need to effort being mindful of what they type.

You make a good point here. I was for the site wide ban because then it has true teeth. It was the “actions have consequences” concept. But I can think of multiple posters with whom I have an issue on a very specific topic but otherwise read regularly on other topics. And those spam the political spectrum of posters. I do have two posters that I have on ignore and try (and fail) not to read in multiple forums. They’re the special ones.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Finally (for now) - if we are to have open and free exchange of ideas, banning certain words that are actually applicable now is a bad idea. Just because those words and descriptions make you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't the wrong word to use. The right has used socialism and communism against the left, but now are yelling unfair as they descend into authoritarianism and fascism.

This is also an excellent point. I would argue sticking to those would be useful. Eliminating “Nazi” unless it is directly applicable (like discussing whether something is a “heil hitler” or the use of “88”) would help keep the conversation more descriptive and less accusatory.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I think it's important to separate parties from issues. When the Democrats stood up for healthcare, I changed parties because I supported this issue.

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

Amen

 

[Dr. Jones]

I’ve been posting on and off here for many years. When i first started I was a Republican voter. I since switched to independent around the time that Palin was unleashed. The Republican Party was wounded because of George W’s terrible presidency and they have basically allowed a CLINTON DEMOCRAT to be the king of their party. I don’t understand it and it is the source of most of my criticism of that party and people that support it. I do feel that I am not alone here and many of the posters share the same sentiments and it must be very difficult for those who are supporters of the Republican Party to constantly see the criticisms on here. I wonder if that has been too much for too long…sometimes I don’t watch the news because it’s just always negative and biased.

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.

 

[Dback Jon]

This is also an excellent point. I would argue sticking to those would be useful. Eliminating “Nazi” unless it is directly applicable (like discussing whether something is a “heil hitler” or the use of “88”) would help keep the conversation more descriptive and less accusatory.

Yes, unless of course it’s Elon Musk doing a salute or Donald Trump saying people that are actually carrying Nazi banners and shouting Nazi slogans are fine people then yes it is OK to label them as Nazis

 

[BooksOrangePlanet]

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

 

[TJ]

In a perfect world, it would be a hidden forum that you have to apply to get access to and if you mess up, you just don't have access to it anymore

Agree on application. But bans need to be site wide. You enter and post on PR at your own risk