Member pledge to tone down the rhetoric

So much for toning down the rhetoric, eh Bowerbird?

 

It goes both ways. BOTH sides are responsible for the flaming and trolling and insulting that goes on here. You cannot blame one side for it when you yourself have been responsible for it, too.

Everyone needs to make more of an effort, and use their ignore lists if they have issues with a certain poster. The last thing us Mods want to do is come online and have to spend the first hour or so deleting and editing posts because members refuse to respect each other.

 

I guess this highlights a part of the problem - we all do it.

we see the negatives in posts of people we don't agree with, but tend not to see the same in posters we generally do agree with.

maybe the problem isn't so much what we say, but how we read.

 

Yeah! Let's abandon the rhetoric for personal attacks. I was simply pointing out there was a group creating division on this board and it has been doing so for some time now

 

but that is read as an attack - while other posts in this thread, which highlight a perception of a group of posters (and note - I am not stating whether it is a valid perception or not) are being ignored by th eposter who responded to you.

I think we all do it to some extent - but if we are aware of it, we can at least try to address it.

FWIW - I don't really know how the reps system works - but it does look like there is a lot of back scratching going on among posters of certain persuasions.

I prefer to use reps when a poster makes a good point.

 

Lets just remind ourselves that this thread is NOT to discuss the reputation system. Please stay on topic.

 

Hey PatriotNews you're so full of it!
I can't believe you tell those whoppers you ignorant neanderthal! Why you're just a . . . . - oops! wait a minute, I mean

. . . nvm

 

It was on topic in the context of the thread.

 

True, as the OP did mention reputation. But we don't want this thread to go into discussion as to whether the system is being gamed.

 

I have no idea whether it is, or isn't ... and it is neither here nor there to me - but it is a good idea to rep people who make a good point - even if you generally don't agree with them.

I think if we just rep our mates, the rep system is a waste of time.

although once I had a nasty rep from some anonymous poster about something I said that they didn't like.

it would have rated as an insult if it was out in the open.

 

It should be noted that reputation comments must comply with the forum rules, including those on personal attacks. The moderators can and will deal appropriately with any such reputation comments if they are reported to us.

As has already been stated, though, this is not a thread about the reputation system itself. The information about that can be found here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/forum-help-feedback-etc/146908-all-you-need-know-about-credits-reputation-system.html

 

if it had worried me I would have reported it - but when people publicly tell untruths about posters its more of a problem.

but to get back to rhetoric - texmaster's OP says it all ... except maybe it would be good to break out of our own moulds for one post a day ... and find something nice to say about "the other side".

lols ... if I say nine nasty things about climate deniers ... the tenth thing I say will be good.

I promise.

 

It could be that certain terms are being used to elicit exactly the responses we should be avoiding.
Neo Zionists, Squatters, rightwingers, *******s, fleabaggers, *********s....while we could easily describe those who are i.e. members of the tea party movement, then refer to them as TPs, if typing it out is too bothersome.
Looking through the threads, sadly, those who quickly fall into an emotional mess are the same threads which get the most attention, usually frequented by the same people who rather name call to elicit a response.
Its a bit more complicated when having a face to face discussion and a word may slip our tongue, but when typing a response, having the time to think it through, re-reading it before we submit, I suspect intent or perhaps even carelessness.
No thought needs to go unchallenged....we are guests at a discussion board after all. But we can set the tone, carefully weighing our words and purpose, and either give into the temptation to rebut in kind, or man up and do what is right.
Being played by trolls or someone who wants to argue for argument's sake, or bowing out gracefully, not wasting our time. Its an easy choice, at least for me.

 

Very nicely said.

*applauds*

 

Clap, Clap, Clap.

 

yes. there are a lot of trolls on this forum, and they are best ignored.

including the ones on this thread.

 

Seen these little rebirths a million times.

They last about an hour.

Check that. Upon further research they last several hours, and then the mud flinging starts again by the very same people pledging to reform and be kinder, gentler souls.

 

Another thing which I think is worth mentioning is the 'Off Topic' section, where members of all political persuasions can and do get together to discuss non-political things and just chat in general about ordinary every day things, or whatever. Getting involved in those more casual and relaxed conversations is a very good way for people to remind themselves that 'opponents' aren't 'monsters', but just ordinary people who happen to have different political views. People can still get on well, be friendly, or amusing, or interesting, or whatever, even if they don't happen to vote for the same party, or think that the same particular ideology is the best one on the planet.

Being friendly with potential political 'opponents' in non-political situations doesn't somehow rob political discussion of its interest value - in fact, quite the opposite. It often allows it to become more interesting, because it makes it less likely to be disrupted by personal animosity, insults, flamebait and other violations of the rules and the spirit of the Mission Statement.

Here's that Mission Statement again, with different bolding to emphasise a slightly different aspect:

 

Sure, I'll be nice until....................

 

All for it, attack the post not the poster.

 

Yes and part of my complaint in relation to this board is that that forum is almost exclusive property of people I would not want to talk to. Sorry and I have tried to address this with mods in the past, discussing how one should look to the overall community and where you want it to be

Hasn't worked - perception remains and while that perception remains there will never be a lessening of tension between right and left on this board

And please note I am trying very carefully NOT to be specific here whilst still voicing an opinion

 

Grousing must be a national pasttime in Australia.

But it's amusing to watch it take place on a thread about civility.

 

you wouldn't want to know what this forum has told me about americans ...

although th ones I have met at home and in other countries don't seem to be cut from the same cloth - they are quite civil and decent.

but if all I knew about americans was what I saw here, and on the media ....

 

agree.

There are some great people here, but there are a significant number whose purpose doesn't seem to be to promote discussion at all.

and because of this, the "discussion" in a lot of areas is largely some kind of left/right battleline.

 

I talked earlier in the thread about "scamming a system" and everyone mods included assumed I meant the rep system but that it only a small part of the problem.

Without getting into details that would earn me an infraction may I say one solution might be to "split" the off topic forum so that the "bar" is in one forum and the other for other conversations?

At present that forum is like a bar itself - if you walked into any bar as saw it filled with people you instantly disliked you would not stay there.

The trick is to create an alternative that could mix a broader community of the board without creating further division