A Plea to Long Time, Level-Headed Members Who Still Post Here

[The_Dude 1,142]

Actually Rob you are the one of few with coincidentally like-minded views who is guilty as charged of the following:

For example:

Rob: "Your comments are fabricated.".

Me: Any proof of this constant claim Rob?

Rob: "ha ha bigot convict."

Care to link to this, or as usual, is this you making things up. It's funny how you like to characterize your disdain for brown people. It's not like you haven't been called out and shown up for trying to pass off personal anecdotes as some sort of official statistic.

I didn't stutter. You and the rest of the loons want the RWN's gone. Am I wrong?

Not gone, certainly not. Where would all the fun go. I would like them to be able to articulate their argument in a manner that does not use racial slurs, or blatant racist ideals.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I didn't stutter. You and the rest of the loons want the RWN's gone. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not gone, certainly not. Where would all the fun go. I would like them to be able to articulate their argument in a manner that does not use racial slurs, or blatant racist ideals.

So, like I said, it's a question of manners, not content. Both sides could do well to stop the name calling. I find the first one that does that loses the argument.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So, like I said, it's a question of manners, not content.

It's manners and content.

[Darnell 8,478]

Now this is too funny. So just because we disagree with one another we are baiting or bringing down OT.

I can count on one hand how many times legacy members with right leaning views have come on and personally insulted people or thrown out labels akin to bigot, racist, brown hater, etc etc. It's obvious that to some here, that is an acceptable form of discussion. They don't know how or care to discuss, for example, the impact of illegal aliens and so forth but simply block their ears and claim that person hates brown people or is a bigot. Furthermore, then claim we are the ones debating like thirteen year olds.

People talk about the good old days. Come again? Those were the days when the board was ripe with ultra-libs who got away with every TOS violation under the sun but the second you fought back - suspension period. Yes the same people who simply enter a thread to follow members around they dislike.

Good on you for posting this - it tells me that you understand the pattern, and understand why it's not useful for a web portal that focuses on immigration issues.

[Heracles 417]

Care to link to this, or as usual, is this you making things up.

How about every third thread I comment in?

It's funny how you like to characterize your disdain for brown people.

Thanks for proving what Smoke pointed out earlier to be true. You cannot have a legitimate conversation without throwing out some sort of label.

It's not like you haven't been called out and shown up for trying to pass off personal anecdotes as some sort of official statistic.

Which you have been asked many many times before to prove or show me where but to this day never have. Instead you run on the same tired rant in every thread, as you have once again done here. Or do yo mean you simply disagreeing with the stats makes them wrong?

Talk about foot-in-mouth

Edited May 26, 2010 by Booyah!

[The_Dude 1,142]

So, like I said, it's a question of manners, not content. Both sides could do well to stop the name calling. I find the first one that does that loses the argument.

Framing your arguments around a racist premise is beyond using terms like libtards and retardlicans.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I know this idea has been unpopular in the past, but what about having anonymous moderator accounts? I think it goes well with a less ambiguous TOS and a formal suspension/termination structure.

I think this is brilliant!

[Darnell 8,478]

We are discussing an automated policy whereby members accruing a certain number of suspensions in a given period of time will automatically get "additional" time off. The "time off" would escalate if that frequency is higher.

Example (these are not solid times; example only):

Member A gets 2 suspensions within a 1 month period: Algorithm issues an additional 3 day suspension.

Member A gets 5 suspensions within 6 months period: Algorithm issues an additional 14 day suspension.

Member A gets 8 suspensions within 12 months period: Algorithm issues an additional 28 day suspension.

Member A gets 10 suspensions within 18 months period: Algorithm issues an additional two month suspension.

Members will be warned in advanced of how close they are to hitting a limit (via and automated email if they are suspended).

This is not official (yet) nor are the dates or total list of "triggers" set. The goal would be to allow the mods to do their job and automatically have habitual offenders "caught" and warnings issued. VisaJourney should be a pleasure for everyone to use. There will be disagreements, sure, however there should never be a case where people feel like they are forced off the site by purposefully "mean" members or any other type of "dark cloud".

IMO, this is 'nice' first-blush approach, but , again, IMO, is way too lenient.

Suggest you stick with '3 suspensions and yer gone on the 4th' approach, instead. Oh - you can be 'nice' at first, give everyone a clean slate, a count of zero, if you actually implement what I'm suggesting.

Good Luck ! I've managed portals in the past, I know the issues yer having.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Framing your arguments around a racist premise is beyond using terms like libtards and retardlicans.

So, certain ideas are completely off the table on face value, and cannot be discussed it any way, shape, or manner? Hence the manifesto.

Okay, then limit site content to just immigration issues, and everything else becomes a TOS violation, since we can't be adults here about controversial issues.

[The_Dude 1,142]

How about every third thread I comment in?

Thanks for proving what Smoke pointed out earlier to be true. You cannot have a legitimate conversation without throwing out some sort of label.

Which you have been asked many many times before to prove or show me where but to this day never have. Instead you run on the same tired rant in every thread, as you have once again done here. Or do yo mean you simply disagreeing with the stats makes them wrong?

Talk about foot-in-mouth

Ahhhh, good old BY. All talk, zero substance. The point of my posting IS your racist postings. It is the manner in which moderators let it go, yet crack the whip on minor infractions later on to counteract their prior indifference. I think the standard formula for any thread that you and I are in goes something like this: 1-2 pages of actual legitimate discussion, then at some point on the 3rd or 4th page, either i'll post something from a site that you think is far too liberal, or you'll post some statistics out of context, or try to pass off a story you heard from a government official or police officer friend of yours as some sort of researched citation, and then the insults fly.

So, certain ideas are completely off the table on face value, and cannot be discussed it any way, shape, or manner? Hence the manifesto.

Okay, then limit site content to just immigration issues, and everything else becomes a TOS violation, since we can't be adults here about controversial issues.

Bill, if you are arguing eugenics as a means to control our population and keep illegal immigrants out, then yes, certain ideas should be discarded out of hand.

[Heracles 417]

Good on you for posting this - it tells me that you understand the pattern, and understand why it's not useful for a web portal that focuses on immigration issues.

Well in all fairness we are in OT. Had people been attacking others in the forum, that would be a different story. The problem some have now is that they don't agree with an impartial moderation and prefer 05 to 07, where the few with non-ULW POV posted, they were attacked almost daily.

If people are not free to chat, Mike might as well just save himself the time and shutdown OT. Or simply make it free of any topics that cause friction - like religion and politics.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So, certain ideas are completely off the table on face value, and cannot be discussed it any way, shape, or manner? Hence the manifesto.

Racism and sexism are already completely off the table per TOS.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Well in all fairness we are in OT. Had people been attacking others in the forum, that would be a different story. The problem some have now is that they don't agree with an impartial moderation and prefer 05 to 07, where the few with non-ULW POV posted, they were attacked almost daily.

If people are not free to chat, Mike might as well just save himself the time and shutdown OT. Or simply make it free of any topics that cause friction - like religion and politics.

BY, i'm going to respectfully disagree. I think what we all want is an actually impartial moderation team. One that actually enforces a well articulated TOS rather than the arbitrary and vague attempts that they do now. Maybe, even get deputy moderators to stop trolling OT. I don't mind it, but it degrades the credibility of all moderators when it happens.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill, if you are arguing eugenics as a means to control our population and keep illegal immigrants out, then yes, certain ideas should be discarded out of hand.

Do you mean as a current philosophy, or as historical philosophy of the Progressive movement in the late 19th and early 20th century?