This is a serious post, please do not respond with immature remarks. If at all possible could this be stickied for a few days?

After some lenghty pm's, I think we have come to a conclusion that will help with the debates. I think any post that has name calling, immature remarks, personal insults or personal insulting sarcasm, and posts with no point other than to cause fighting should be deleted and posts in response to those posts should be deleted.

I also ask any of the true debators out there to not respond to stupid posts, let them be deleted and we can move on in the discussion. If 1 person's remarks continue to be useless then ignore his/her posts alltogether in the thread and eventually they will either catch on or get tired that no one is falling for their trap.

I really think doing this will help bring mature debate and some of the old timers back.

Great idea DonMichaelCorleone.

Isn't that how it always was supposed to be? no name calling, etc.? I look forward to a mature and civil debate again. What has been wrong here is that there have been a few posts talking about the boy scout accident and the vactioning girl missing and those posts have turned into personal arguements. That shouldn't be.
I didn't see how those topics could turn into debates. But I guess anything is possible.

I'm with you here, we need to start having some good debates, clean and respectful, the way we used to when I first joined here.


DS

Senator DonMichaelCorleone, Governeor DonMichael Corleone.

Yes DMC, I would like to see it return back to those days when we used to debate without the name calling, hijacking and belittling of ones posts or opinions.

"How did things ever go so far?
Well, no matter. A lot of
foolishness has come to pass. It
was so unfortunate, so unnecessary."


Don Cardi

Isn't the decision of which posts to delete up to the owner/moderators? Haven't they been making the decisions to close/delete topics and ban members who happen to go a step too far for quite a while now?

Anyway, though I respect the seriousness of your post and appreciate the honorable intent behind it...it'll be very difficult if not impossible (thanks, Rocco) to to clean up debates in the way proposed above.

Good luck, though...

Apple

I agree with DMC. Use the function on the bottom right of posts (I'm not sure how many people use or are even aware of this feature)

That's a nice thought DMC and I have no doubt of your sincerity. However, it seems we've tried all this before.

There's still name calling, insults, putdowns, snide remarks, etc. and very heated "arguments". Many can't seem to simply disagree and say why without a personal war/attack starting.

We all say "ignore the post and/or poster" if you don't like him/her, and that "everyone has a right to their opinion", but it's never the case. Example: More than once, one person with a lone opinion being attacked by 25 others of the opposite opinion. Why not follow the "ignore" rule if you feel the urge for personal attacks?

Bottom line is, it's up to Geoff/SC to make any guidelines to the debating issue. (how sad that we, as adults, would need someone else to remind us of respect for others opinions isn't it? )I would only expect it would apply to everyone of us.

TIS

name calling - agreed
immature remarks - subjective, impractical
personal insults - agreed
personal insulting sarcasm - You have to do away with controversial smiley faces, not a great idea.

This point has already been mentioned in the introduction for the gen. disc. forum. Whoever responds to any posts is doing so willingly, fully knowing the consequences.

Anyway, I agree with you. Nowadays many threads end up being locked. It is better to have continuing discussion.

svsg I don't mean the smiley faces or whatever. I'm just saying that some people try and disguise their insults in sarcastic remarks.

I know JG/SC decides which posts to be deleted but we can all as adults make an effort to not respond to those kinds of posts and ask that they be deleted.

Maybe a News / Political Oriented thread could be created. One where only those serious about these things can come and post thier mature opinions,etc. Maybe if there is a seperate thread from General, those who post other things in the General Thread can be spared the political stuff, and would be less likely to come into a News,Political oriented thread. Just an idea.



Don Cardi

I swear, on the lives of my grandchildren that I will not be the one to break the peace Don Micael and I have made here this day.

DC one of my ideas was to make a forum that would only allow certain people in to it. What I mean by that is when it starts up everyone is allowed in but then could be banned for starting problems etc..

The reason I brought this topic up is because JG/SC don't need to spend time going through political threads and thats why a lot of them get closed. Lets act like adults and not cause those problems. My other solution would be to give certain people the option of deleting posts in political threads only. Just so that JG or SC doesn't have to keep looking through threads or getting report posts all the time.

No offense but I don't think posts like this are going to do anything. The people who will actually read your idea and take it seriously aren't the people making attacks in the first place. Usually the name callers are unreasonable and too arrogant to care. It'll just go in one ear and out the other.

Well I don'r know about limiting who can and who cnnot come into a political forum. In that case one should just go to Yahoo and start their own PRIVATE Political forum with private membership.

I do think that a seperate OPEN forum for Political News and Debates may work.

What I think happens sometimes is that one may tell himself or herself that they are NOT going to get involved in the political topics. But they go into General for something else, see a Poltical Topic that may get the best of their curiosity, and then wander into that topic and before you know it they are involved and start making personal remarks, etc. Let's face it, MOST of the personal attacks and remarks seem to come from those who obviously do not really have any interest in the actual topic at hand, and they make remarks that do NOT really contribute to the topic. Now maybe, just maybe, if there was a totally seperate thread, it may weed out some, not all, but some of those who are the repeat problem in these political topics.

And Yes, If it is too much for SC and Geoff, then of course Geoff could always appoint someone to CO-Moderate that thread along with him and SC. But in truth, that person would have to remain objective and it would probably be best that they NOT get involved in the debates.


Don Cardi

A large part of the problem is that we are not all adults.

I like Don Cardi's idea of a separate forum for political debate/discussion, except that

a) Too many threads that aren't meant to be political debates - or at least would appear on the surface not meant to be political debates - wind up becoming political debates;

b) We'd need at least one or two additional full-time moderators who were absolutely apolitical and 100% impartial. Although JG and SC don't get involved in these debates, with all due respect to them it's not reasonable to expect that they be around 24/7, and these debates can sometimes heat up pretty quickly, and

c) Even for someone who is totally impartial, unbiased, and apolitical, there's way too much subjectivity in determining which posts contain "immature remarks" and which are "posts with no point other than to cause fighting."

Also, from a personal standpoint, I'm against censorship in almost any form. If people want to make asses of themselves (within the rules that JG has set up), that should be their perogative. When all is said and done we know who they are, and what they have to say is usually regarded as taken from who it comes, even when they are on your side of the argument.

As a guilty party to makking some of these inappropriate posts I was pleased to have some back and forth pm's with DonMichael about this. While it is impossible to impose strict rules on anything, and while it would be too burdensom for the powers that be to be making decisions on every post, the idea is that the members would control it from within.

This is accomplished by a policy called DON'T FEED.

Here is how it works:

Hypothetical New Thread opens ....

Rainforest Fire Wipes Out Rare Species followed by an AP story.

Post 1 -- "How sad." (appropriate if lame)

Post 2 - " I don't think the elimination of one species is all that big a deal." (appropriate)

Post - 3 "Of course you don't think its a big deal. That is because you are a bullet headed right wing thug just like George Bush." (inappropriate -- ad hominem attack, and adds inflammatory and irrelevant issues).

Post - 4 "You panty wearing, sissy boy, America hating liberal weenie, go back to Havana if you don't like it"
(this is inappropriate for two reasons. First it is another ad hominem attack adding more irrelevant inflammatory issues, and second it "FEEDS" Poster number 3 by giving an inappropriate post credibility and giving it a life of its own).

The DON'T FEED policy would be to ignore posts 3 & 4 and then refer back to post 2 by saying "I agree with Poster two because..." or Poster two is wrong because ..." and so on. This IGNORES Posters 3 & 4 altogether and puts the thread back on track.

If someone continues to feed ... say in Post 5 "Just because you get all worked up about endangered species does not mean you wear panties...." is also "Feeding" and would be ignored.

I agree with you plaw. I just want to see people like you come back to the debates and are really just looking for anything to open people's eyes to what is really going on over here.

The other thing that is going to happen is people are going to lose interest in debating with immature people and there will be no debates on these boards AND PROBABLY no information being posted that could be turned into debate. For someone like me who likes to read about events that aren't national or global events it stinks.

That's exactly right. We know what we can expect from certain people - people who contribute absolutely nothing but pot-stirring for their own jollies. I know it's hard to ignore them, but by entering their traps, they get what they want -- and it's cheaper than Viagra!

This has always been the best way to report a problem, and I encourage people to use it. SC and I may not necessarily agree with the reported post being a problem, but at least it'll be drawn to our attention.

Minor incidents aside, I'm actually proud of everyone here because even the "worst" posts here have been infinitely better than most any other BB on the Net. I haven't had to suspend anyone in a loooooong time -- and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. But that doesn't mean I won't if it calls for it. But I say, "so far so good!". Some people, I think, just need a thicker skin and let things go more often, and not be sucked in.

And Plaw is right - not everyone here is an adult (or, at least, acts like one even if they are). We all know who they are. Let's try not to sink to their level.

Small disclaimer- this was not meant to step on JG or SC's toes, I figured it was just a way to work things out without JG or SC needing to get involved and lighten the load of the moderators.

A moderator does not have to be apolitical Plaw. Although I really feel that it would be in the best interest of the moderator and the poster to stay OUT of the political debates, so as not to be accused of "taking sides."

As for someone making asses out of themselves, I think that over time, with a seperate forum, those "asses" would stray away from a political forum, and only the true parites that are really interested in the topic will remain.

Again, I think that many who are really not interested in politics just stray into the topic becuase they are already in the General thread area.

And if a topic did get out of control, with "poster # 3" making a personal attack and "poster # 4 " feeding "poster # 3," then instead of Ignoring those two posts, the moderator could just delete those 2 posts and let the rest of the mature debate continue without closing the thread.

Believe me, if some "ass" keeps getting his or her posts deleted time after time because of immature attacks and remarks, they will eventually stop bothering to post, and will move on to something that really interests him or her.


Don Cardi

Actually PLaw, I think you'd be perfect for the job of "political moderator".

Now hear me out guys. I know PLaw is a liberal.....but, think about it. He is capable, I think, of listening to, reasoning, and being fair on issues. He would let the other side speak freely without "banning" him. Remember, he's all for "freedom of speech." He will disagree but still not lose his cool. He could quite simply keep everything in "check".

Plus he's retired now remember??


Then again, I suppose just this suggestion will turn into a right/left political debate hu?? I don't mean for that to happen.

TIS

I have no problem with plaw coming out of retirement and I would think that the mature people on this board would know that plaw would not be the "right/left" censorship type person.

Yea but that's my point DMC. We KNOW he wouldn't censor just because someone believes politically opposite than him. I thought the idea was to keep a level of respect, name calling, and all the other sandbox issues in tact? If a post were to be deleted, would you have any doubt that PLaw "honestly" felt it inappropriate????


TIS

Nothing right/left about it. I just disagree that plaw would be good at moderating such topics.

I'm sure he'd give it a good, honest try if pressed into the role...but judging by past threads he's just too passionate in his opinions to be able to objectively stand back and moderate without going insane. (I say that in a complimentary way...even though I realize it may not come across that way.)

Personally, I think JGeoff/SC/Don Cardi have been doing just fine. I agree w/ JG's statement that people need to be a little more thick skinned.

Plus..with all the graemlins being added practically by the day, some who's intent cannot possibly be anything OTHER than sarcasm, I really don't think immaturity-free debates/threads are a foreseeable part of the Gangster BB future.

Apple

I know he's passionate in his opinions, but especially in politics, aren't we all passionate these days?? By his own admission he loves debate as well, and if I'm not mistaken, by his own admission he likes to pose opposite views to discussions to spark up a reasonable debate. I think that's a good quality.

I agree Geoff/SC are doing a great job and I hope aren't offended in any way, or don't take my suggestions as a sign that I think otherwise, cause it's not.

TIS

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but as I said before there's waaaay too much subjectivity in determining what is an appropriate post and what isn't.

So it would just be a matter of time before one side or the other would accuse the moderator of being partial to the other side.

While I still say you'd be great, I certainly can't say that I don't see your point. Looking down the road I can see that happening too I guess.


TIS

Nothing right/left about it. I just disagree that plaw would be good at moderating such topics.

I'm sure he'd give it a good, honest try if pressed into the role...but judging by past threads he's just too passionate in his opinions to be able to objectively stand back and moderate without going insane. (I say that in a complimentary way...even though I realize it may not come across that way.)

Personally, I think JGeoff/SC/Don Cardi have been doing just fine. [/b][/quote]

Well, let me just say this.....

Nothing right/left about it. I just disagree that Don Cardi would be good at moderating such topics.

I'm sure he'd give it a good, honest try if pressed into the role...but judging by past threads he's just too passionate in his opinions to be able to objectively stand back and moderate without going insane. (I say that in a complimentary way...even though I realize it may not come across that way.)

BTW, Apple, since when did Don Cardi become a moderator in General Discussion that leads you to make the statement that he's doing "just fine"?

I could be mistaken, but if memory serves he moderated ME once a few months ago!! That was the time I was about to stop posting but then was asked back. Don C mentioned he was 'helping out' in moderating duties per request of JG/SC, one or both, I don't recall.

And if he scolded yours truly, or even if I THOUGHT he was scolding me...well then he MUST have been doing a pretty good job!!!

Please correct me, Don C if I got all that mixed up.

Apple

I have the perfect solution!

Geoff makes Plaw and I co-moderators of a new Political thread, then Plaw and I can keep an eye on everyone who posts in that thread, and Geoff and SC would only have to moderate Paul and I! That in itself may be more work for SC and Geoff.

Both Plaw and I are both too passionate in our beliefs to just stand by and keep our mouths shut when it comes to certain issues and current events.

Look, why can't we all just debate, post mature opinions, and reply in a respectable and decent manner? I say that if someone breaks the rules, and name calls or makes a personal attack on another because of one beliefs, then that person just gets their post deleted by the moderator. A no tolerance policy. You curse at someone, you attack someone, your post is gone. And if you continue, then your gone.

If Geoff wants to make a seperate political thread, that's up to him. I think that if there was one, it would ease up the personal bullshit posts, but that's just my opinion. This is Geoffs board, and he's done a great job with it so far, and I am sure that he will continue to keep it at the high level sature that it is currently at.


Don Cardi

I could be mistaken, but if memory serves he moderated ME once a few months ago!! That was the time I was about to stop posting but then was asked back. Don C mentioned he was 'helping out' in moderating duties per request of JG/SC, one or both, I don't recall.

And if he scolded yours truly, or even if I THOUGHT he was scolding me...well then he MUST have been doing a pretty good job!!!

Please correct me, Don C if I got all that mixed up.

Apple [/b][/quote]No Apple, you are not wrong. At least in part. When that happened it happened over in The GF Trilogy thread. And I happen to be a co-moderator over in that thread, along with the Scarface thread, and the Organized Crime Real Life Thread. Those are the threads where I help Geoff and SC out. And as I said, being that the incident took place in The GF Trilogy Thread, I was able to try and rectify the problem that was taking place. So you are not wrong about that time.

But thank you for the kind words and the vote of confidence. I appreciate it.


Don Cardi