Discussion in 'Announcements & Community Discussions' started by ChrisL, Mar 2, 2017.
Thank you. At least someone does!
for a compliment?
I got one already!
I just feel right now like I have far more important personal problems to deal with to spend any significant amount of time debating politics--following threads, researching issues--but I like to pop in once in even if only just to lurk. on a forum this size, it gets hard staying relevant if you don't have a continuous and routine presence.
Much of the conservative "Exodus" is primarily relabeling as the concept and ideals have been driven away from the traditional conservative, we are now referred to as either a RINO of even a Liberal. We still exists and have not really changed but, the Republican party most certainly has.
you might need another venue for exciting... http://www.bungeeamerica.com/bungee/
Someones daily excitement shouldnt be about a political forum. Its for down time to pop in on, or to discuss current issues going on in the world.
The younger gen use snapchat, instagram and some Ive never heard of. theres lots of fun sites out there.
Save the attention seeking for people who actually KNOW you in rl. That is if you want compliments based on truth.
More loosely moderated forums are more interesting, IMO. OTOH, I can see why a forum would designate certain zones for more aggressive behavior since there is a difference between those who want to discuss an issue and those who just want to vent.
Loosely moderated ones always seem to degenerate into cliques as certain groups force others out. The same sort of social dynamics that play out in real life will play out on an unmoderated or under-moderated forum.
Which is a good reason to designate zones. Agreed in general about human dynamics.
"Zones" in my experience seldom stay where intended and the general taste of the forum becomes somewhat infected by those that frequent the areas leading to increased aggression in Moderator activity. These "experiments" rarely help a forum and have led to much dissent behind the scenes by those intended to maintain civility.
If members want to be nasty, grow a set and use PM.
So you favor one forum and one level of intolerant censorship? I do not, but it's not my forum. I can only vote with my virtual feet to visit one forum or another. While I understand levels of control, such as no threats of violence to other members, to ban people for saying "You're more ****ed up than a football bat" seems extreme.
BTW, IIRC, you had your own forum at one time. Is that correct? If so, relate your experiences please.
Moderation of a large community requires a delicate level of subtle control that often requires limitations be placed on members regardless of what they might desire. Banning is seldom used and usually means warnings and directive have been ineffective. The use of attack and profanity tend to indicate a participant that most forums would prefer played elsewhere.
It is important to remember that this in NOT a free country here, but a Republic based on law.
It's understood we're all moochers here since not many are paying dues or otherwise paying for opportunity to post despite the fact every forum costs money to operate. As the old saying goes "If you go to a website and there isn't an obvious product for sale, then the product is you!"
Forums are free to set whatever rules they like. However, if too loose, it will drive away participants and if too tight, it will do the same. Some are merely echo chambers, which limits their ability to grow. Most, like the media, thrive on controversy.
It's been quite awhile since I've posted here so I'm just renewing my understanding of how the rules are applied.
The balance here is quite good and thus the stability in membership.
Separate names with a comma.