##Members Please Read##: Ending the Political Trolling

will the terms sheepole, party droop, Obamaerized, Gin G rich, ginned be allowed? just so I know what to say or not to say

reply to post by bekod


If there's any doubt or question in your mind, don't use it.

reply to post by Cosmic4life

So what happens when a member from outside of the US makes comments like Nobama as an outsider with no political affiliation ? is that baiting or fair comment ?

It's going to be a contextual driven decision in many cases. Just remember this before using characterizations such as "Nobama", etc... Not everyone is going to know you're from the UK, I certainly didn't, until you mentioned it...and I've seen you post in several places.

Personally? I don't much care for the use of "Nobama", or "Bushbot", or any of the others. I find it, well, rude. Call them by their name. For a politician, that's usually shame enough.

But, my personal feelings are of no matter. The terms and conditions abide.

Also, is it just me, or....

If I had started this thread in Political Madness, why is it I can bet you that it would have been moved to BQ&B, and yet a moderator can start a thread here that clearly deals with a BQ&B issue, and no other moderators have moved it? Is that like a perk or something that comes with being a moderator? Or just a simple double standard we are just going to conveniently overlook?

reply to post by seagull


I call it the way I see it, so in total honesty, I say rubbish. IMO, the 9/11 forum has never been cleaned up, even after repeated warnings. Numerous people there who bring nothing to the discussion except for insults and character attacks yet nothing has been done about these people. I've been around for almost six years and still have never seen action taken against these people. Without the ignore function the 9/11 forum is unreadable yet nothing changes there, the same old people using the same old tired tactics to derail, obfuscate and/or downright attack other members viewpoints.

You won't do anything about the people in there so how is this going to be any different?

I may be setting myself up for a rash of crap but I care not. That is my perspective and it won't change unless actual changes occur around here and I've not seen that happen. I've seen loads of words written but nothing has changed. I have had posts removed for simply calling someone a fool and what happens in the 9/11 forum is way worse yet those people are still around, spewing invectives and nonsense, bringing nothing to the discussions except hate, anger and lies.

Give us back the ignore function, let us have a little say in who we listen to around here. Why can I walk away from a fool in real life but I can't here? It's rather hard to remember every idiots username to try and not read the foolish posts yet a simple function that we used to have(and never caused problems as far as I have seen) can not be given to us.

I realize my words here will do nothing, change nothing. I put in my $.02 and that's all I can do. Call me jaded(or worse, I care not) but that is my honest opinion. Before you go off on me, I do realize the ignore function will never come back. Doesn't mean I won't still bitch and moan about it.

reply to post by yeahright


Ok...



I was only asking....

Cosmic..

reply to post by seagull

For a politician, that's usually shame enough.

HAH! i love that, awesome. Just awesome.

But back on track, here's a perfect example of what I'm concerned about, read this OP and tell me what you think, is this veiled trolling? I can see it leaning both ways, so IMO it would be a tough call. I am not alerting this thread, I want it as an example. The excessive use of the term "leftist" as basically a slur. Where does the line fall in relation to that?

ATS post

reply to post by TrueAmerican


No, it isn't a "double standard". Part of managing the board will sometimes necessitate a staff member making a board business - type post relevant to a specific forum within that forum.

We'll also make posts within threads that are off-topic to the thread in order to attempt to bring a thread back on topic. We ask members not do that, as well.

call it a double standard if you like. It's maintenance designed to facilitate smoother operation.

reply to post by seagull

Sorry to take this slightly off topic, but I have a policy question:

No action is taken, that hasn't been vetted by multiple members of the staff. That certainly would include such drastic actions as a bannng, whether temp. or other.

When you say "action", does that include both replacing posts with various T&C warning images and editing a user's post to make it T&C compliant? If it does include both, I have a difficult time reconciling that with your claim that all actions are by consensus. In the last week, I've seen two users post material in the same thread (it may have even been on the same page of the thread) that violated T&C in the similar ways but with two completely different outcomes.

Both cut and pasted material from other websites for the bulk of their respective posts with no indication that the material wasn't theirs. The first user's post was removed and replaced with the "Extreme T&C Violation" warning graphic. The second user's post, which included not only the plagiarized material but personal attacks directed toward specific users as well, was edited by a mod who removed some of the personal attacks but not others and then supplied links to references for where the plagiarized material came from.

I think if Mr. Overlord made ATS the subject of one of the site-wide polls and asked members whether they were more frustrated with posts being removed/edited or more frustrated with those actions being taken inconsistently, I'd argue it's the latter.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Also, is it just me, or....

If I had started this thread in Political Madness, why is it I can bet you that it would have been moved to BQ&B, and yet a moderator can start a thread here that clearly deals with a BQ&B issue, and no other moderators have moved it? Is that like a perk or something that comes with being a moderator? Or just a simple double standard we are just going to conveniently overlook?

reply to post by iterationzero


We're not going to answer questions about specific post action or non-action. If you have that sort of inquiry, please use the Alert or Complaint features.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I didn't mean "you" as in TrueAmerican.

I mean, if a Member put up a thread similar to the OP of this thread, it would be interpreted as an attack on other members, or it would be interpreted as a suggestion from a member to the admin worthy of discussion over in BBQ.

This thread is not either of those things. This thread is just an FYI to the members posting in this forum to prepare them for the upcoming scrutiny in this forum.

I do not see how any member could post something like this? It would have to come from a Mod or Admin of the site.

Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

 

 

I think he means you as a member or any other member and not you personally ...

Damn i was too slow i see they've already edited it ...

See 9 times out of 10 i like your posts True American , your a good contributer, but as we have just seen, all it takes is for something to get taken the wrong way and BOOM.

But you are all Americans............



Cosmic..

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by phishyblankwaters

 

That is a tough call. I use "Nobama" all the time, so I see where you are coming from.

That's one of the touchiest things right there. "Nobama". "Bushbot". ...and a myriad of others that we've all seen. We've also seen what happens when a hard-core supporter runs across that sort of thing. Instant warfare erupts. We've all seen it.

Usually, I'll be generous and say half the time, a poster isn't intentionally trying to start a fight, but one starts anyway. Then the big bad Mod has to get mean... We don't like being mean. We'd just as soon spend our time talking about "my little ponys", or the latest NFL games. But we have to try to corral the run amok thread. It makes for hard feelings that don't go away soon.

We'd much rather you not use such characterizations in your postings. You may not intend harm with them, but others do, and others take offense. We're all in this together, and why ruffle feathers needlessly? Save the ruffling for those times it's really necessary.

I think using names like that is the biggest instigator in discussions getting out of hand. I would like to see them all banned on ATS.

Nobama, Obummer, libtards, tea baggers, republicons....they are all there to insult a group of people without directing it at anyone.

I also don't like seeing "anyone who votes for Obama is an idiot" or "anyone against abortion is a religous freak".

If you are going to crack down...I think you need to take a hard line on these and not be "generous" and allow these to continue.

I just don't understand how you can claim you are going to crack down and then let some of the most inflamatory terms to be allowed.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I just don't understand how you can claim you are going to crack down and then let some of the most inflamatory terms to be allowed.

(1) What inflames me may not inflame you. "Most inflammatory" is highly subjective

(2) We can't action what we don't see. Alert it when you see it. And do it without responding to it. That only makes it worse, takes longer to clean up, and prevents us from potentially focusing elsewhere where we can be helpful. If you're going to make it worse, just leave it alone.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

When we see them, they get removed, sometimes as an edit, sometimes the entire post:

This has been around for some time, and it still applies:
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I just don't understand how you can claim you are going to crack down and then let some of the most inflamatory terms to be allowed.

(1) What inflames me may not inflame you. "Most inflammatory" is highly subjective

(2) We can't action what we don't see. Alert it when you see it. And do it without responding to it. That only makes it worse, takes longer to clean up, and prevents us from potentially focusing elsewhere where we can be helpful. If you're going to make it worse, just leave it alone.

I'm specifically talking about the silly terms some people make up...Libtards, Republicons, Tea Baggers, Flea Party.

None of these are done for any other reason but to inflame...no one writes these out of respect for who they are talking about. I see it as a cop out when someone says "oh, I didn't mean for it to be inflamatory".

I would love for ATS to be a place to discuss the issues...not a place to post pictures of Obama as hitler, or Romney as a Ken doll...not a place to make up silly little names for everything you disagree with and use that instead of a direct insult on those that support those things. To me, it is just circumventing the T&C...and waiting for a response. It is the definition of trolling and baiting IMO.

I alert all the time...if I do respond to the post in question, I don't respond to the T&C violation portion of it and will leave it out of any quoted text.

Most of the Moderators on here if not all are the most fairest i have ever seen on any site all they are asking you to do as respectable members is don't take the bait and follow tc condition's.

The have a tough and thankless job and i have been told many times we are responsible for our own actions and posts.

Behave is not so much to ask stay on topic and personal observation's about posters are not and never have been relevant to any civil discussion.

Not so much to ask.