(10-02-2009 12:56 PM)Artifice Wrote:  It's a gang mentality. This is an ultraconservative ***** board. If that's what you want it to be, its a success. If not, then you're not quite where you want to be.

(10-02-2009 01:17 PM)Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:  

(10-02-2009 12:56 PM)Artifice Wrote:  It's a gang mentality. This is an ultraconservative ***** board. If that's what you want it to be, its a success. If not, then you're not quite where you want to be.

I don't want it to be about what I want it to be. I think most of the older posters on here will tell you I am not an ultra conservative.

(10-02-2009 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  On balance, it's clearly more conservative than liberal. But it's a far cry from ultraconservative.

(10-02-2009 01:32 PM)Artifice Wrote:  95% of the threads on here are Dems/Obama/Liberals are bad/etc. It's dishonest to even suggest it's anything but a very conservative bombast board.

I'm not here to pick a fight. It's just the truth. If you disagree, there's nothing I can do for you other than the facts. Thanks.

(10-02-2009 01:32 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(10-02-2009 01:17 PM)Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:  

(10-02-2009 12:56 PM)Artifice Wrote:  It's a gang mentality. This is an ultraconservative ***** board. If that's what you want it to be, its a success. If not, then you're not quite where you want to be.

I don't want it to be about what I want it to be. I think most of the older posters on here will tell you I am not an ultra conservative.

Not saying that's what you want, but it's definitely what you have. There's a place for everything though. The board I mod has a politics forum, and it's decidedly more liberal/libertarian.

(10-02-2009 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  On balance, it's clearly more conservative than liberal. But it's a far cry from ultraconservative.

95% of the threads on here are Dems/Obama/Liberals are bad/etc. It's dishonest to even suggest it's anything but a very conservative attack board.

I'm not here to pick a fight. It's just the truth. If you disagree, there's nothing I can do for you other than the facts. Thanks.

(10-02-2009 01:49 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-02-2009 01:32 PM)Artifice Wrote:  95% of the threads on here are Dems/Obama/Liberals are bad/etc. It's dishonest to even suggest it's anything but a very conservative bombast board.

I'm not here to pick a fight. It's just the truth. If you disagree, there's nothing I can do for you other than the facts. Thanks.

I never understand this attitude.

If you don't like that "95% of the threads on here are Dems/Obama/Liberals are bad/etc" POST SOMETHING THAT ISN'T!

And that ma'am is nothing but the facts.
Thanks

(10-02-2009 02:09 PM)Artifice Wrote:  Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't bother. Really depends on how bored I am. I get more interesting, informed discussions elsewhere. I rarely ever learn anything here. :shrug:

(10-02-2009 01:32 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(10-02-2009 01:17 PM)Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:  

(10-02-2009 12:56 PM)Artifice Wrote:  It's a gang mentality. This is an ultraconservative ***** board. If that's what you want it to be, its a success. If not, then you're not quite where you want to be.

I don't want it to be about what I want it to be. I think most of the older posters on here will tell you I am not an ultra conservative.

Not saying that's what you want, but it's definitely what you have. There's a place for everything though. The board I mod has a politics forum, and it's decidedly more liberal/libertarian.

(10-02-2009 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  On balance, it's clearly more conservative than liberal. But it's a far cry from ultraconservative.

95% of the threads on here are Dems/Obama/Liberals are bad/etc. It's dishonest to even suggest it's anything but a very conservative attack board.

I'm not here to pick a fight. It's just the truth. If you disagree, there's nothing I can do for you other than the facts. Thanks.

(10-02-2009 02:55 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  Spin Room AUP
Since people can't play nice, here's a much more stringent AUP that will be enforced heavily.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This forum strives to be a place for meaningful, mature and enjoyable discussion of political issues. In order to further these goals, the moderators and administrators have decided to implement the following policy with respect to the moderation of the forum and the type of posting which is appropriate. Note that these rules are in addition to, and do not replace, <a href='http://www.ncaabbs.com/frontpage/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4' target='_blank'>AUP</a> . The rules will be applied as objectively and impartially as reasonably possible, but are subject to the interpretation and judgement of the moderators and administrators.

(1) Ad hominem attacks, insults and flames are not acceptable. Posts which consist largely or entirely of such comments will be deleted. Otherwise substantive posts which contain some ad hominems or flames will be edited to remove the inappropriate material while retaining the substance of the post.

Rule #1 is violated in almost every thread.

Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or a similar accusation, is not acceptable, even if you believe that your fellow poster really is a liar or deceitful. This kind of accusation never furthers the debate. The only acceptable response on P.D. to what appears to be a lie from a fellow poster is to present evidence or argument to contradict what your fellow poster has said.

(2) Hyperbolic or overly emotive language and imagery, such as unwarranted comparisons to Nazi Germany, are generally discouraged, and will be deleted if they appear to serve no purpose other than to inflame the discussion.

Broken on many threads.

(3) Off-topic posting or hijacking of threads is inappropriate. Threads which are off topic in the Political Forum will be moved to a more appropriate forum. Posts in individual threads which have little or no relevance to the topic of that thread will likely be deleted. A person prompted to bring up a side-topic in the course of a discussion should start a new thread, and link to it in the original thread.

Happens all the time.

(4) Multiple threads on the same or very similar topics serve no purpose. If a thread is started on a subject which is already being discussed in an active thread, the new thread will be closed.

(5) Threads which become overly heated or develop into flame-wars will be closed.

Almost every thread.

(6) People who refer to arguments or comments made on other threads should include a link to the thread in question as well as a relevant quote from it.

(7) If a person breaches these rules, then in the first instance a moderator will warn the individual as to his or her behavior. Repeated and flagrant violations will result in action by the administrators, which may include the suspension or withdrawal that person's posting privileges.

Also doesn't seem to happen.

(10-02-2009 01:32 PM)Artifice Wrote:  95% of the threads on here are Dems/Obama/Liberals are bad/etc. It's dishonest to even suggest it's anything but a very conservative attack board.

(10-02-2009 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-02-2009 01:32 PM)Artifice Wrote:  95% of the threads on here are Dems/Obama/Liberals are bad/etc. It's dishonest to even suggest it's anything but a very conservative attack board.

Not at all.
Such comments could easily come (and many do) from people whose viewpoints are very much in the center.

If Obama were close to the political center, then a 95% attack rate by those more conservative than him would signify an ultraconservative bias.

But if Obama is further left than 95% of Americans, then a totally representative cross section could easily produce a result where 95% of the posts attacked him for not being conservative enough. And I'm pretty certain that Obama is way closer to beilng further left than 95% of Americans than he is to being middle of the road.

My best guess (without tedious analysis) is that the prevailing sentiment on this board is right of center but hardly ultraconservative, and that Obama is well to the left of center. I believe your perspective is also considerably left of center, so that Obama looks moderate to you and anyone to the right of him looks ultraconservative. I understand the perspective, but I don't think that your 95% observation (if correct, and I'm not sure whether it is or not) means what you say it means.

(10-02-2009 03:09 PM)Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:  dwr0109:

You're pretty much right on.

(10-02-2009 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-02-2009 01:32 PM)Artifice Wrote:  95% of the threads on here are Dems/Obama/Liberals are bad/etc. It's dishonest to even suggest it's anything but a very conservative attack board.

Not at all.
Such comments could easily come (and many do) from people whose viewpoints are very much in the center.

If Obama were close to the political center, then a 95% attack rate by those more conservative than him would signify an ultraconservative bias.

But if Obama is further left than 95% of Americans, then a totally representative cross section could easily produce a result where 95% of the posts attacked him for not being conservative enough. And I'm pretty certain that Obama is way closer to beilng further left than 95% of Americans than he is to being middle of the road.

My best guess (without tedious analysis) is that the prevailing sentiment on this board is right of center but hardly ultraconservative, and that Obama is well to the left of center. I believe your perspective is also considerably left of center, so that Obama looks moderate to you and anyone to the right of him looks ultraconservative. I understand the perspective, but I don't think that your 95% observation (if correct, and I'm not sure whether it is or not) means what you say it means.