(09-30-2026 08:59 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote: (09-30-2026 08:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote: I did not vote in the poll because of lack of trust and presenting a false dichotomy.
Picking two moderators from "each side" means Dems employing their modus operandi will have the ability to - at the least - censor political opinions they do not favor.
I recommend another option with a single moderator deciding on posters meriting banning with other moderators handling day to day reviews and gathering of potential issues for presentation to the single moderator.
If a mod, whether they personally have a liberal or a conservative bend, uses their power to censor posts that do not break AUP, they shouldn't be a mod.
Here's the issue guys. Moderators are policemen. They aren't God! Having one moderator to decide the ultimate fate of posters is too much power in the hands of another flawed human being and will only lead to abuse.
Having board cops that say if you do the crime, you do the time is another matter.
The French are not a shining example of everything, but their concept of code law is fascinating. They aren't interested in motive. They are only interested in whether you did it or not. That's what being a moderator is about. Did you do it or not. And that works well enough in all forums on this site, which super moderators experience, except in this forum.
Your problem here is a mentality of if you aren't 100% for us you are against us! You want the license to abuse one another but want enforcement for being insulted. You project your motives onto any moderator that has to discipline you for any offense whether it is a 5% slap on the wrist or a permanent ban.
You can't have both! You can either have civil discourse or anarchy but there's not much in between. So, you either accept the same kind of moderation every other forum on this site receives, or should receive, or you do without moderation at all except for extreme violations of AUP. Hence the use of "Wild West". At least if it is labeled wild west you strap on your weapons before entering, metaphorically of course, and you don't expect the law to come to your assistance.
Personally, I dislike picking moderators to represent political sides because it indicates that sides are the only way to think. They are antithetical to the thought process. True thinking requires one to be self-critical as well as critical of alien thoughts. If we can't do that, we will never function well in society.
When I first came in here to moderate because your board moderators tend to disappear in the Summer, and I don't blame them because they are younger with families and that's when most folks vacation, and I'm old and retired and prefer to remain at home where I have plenty to do, I thought this forum was like a rumble from West Side Story. We had the Jets and the Sharks both with gang mentalities picking petty fist fights and sometimes getting out the knives. Then I realized that the analogy wasn't broad enough for what goes on in here.
There are political agitators here, but they are usually the posters registered to this site who if you check their posting history only show up before elections. Regardless of which side they are for perhaps moderators should look into that and the site may need a policy against it. Most of you are regular guys with different world views. But I think life whether it is personal losses, or business stresses, or just getting kicked around by the crap we all eventually face if we live long enough, just want to blow of steam.
If this place does that then great! But if you need to blow steam, then you need to be able to tolerate the humidity when others just need to do the same.
Tolerance is what is lacking here. And there is a reason for it beyond yourselves. The world around us sucks at being tolerant. People get kudos from their cliques for being intolerant. We reward conflict and don't expect resolution. If we attack the other side, we get rep for it. If we don't attack them, we are soft. If they attack whoever us happens to be they are evil. You come in here and break down all of your daily anxieties into stereotypes and respond in ways you cannot in public and there is some therapy in that, but only if it doesn't become personal and each side can do it.
You can't have moderators in here because none of you trust them, all of you want your way, and none of you want to spend the time to understand the position of the other side. You log in and start looking for dried cow patties to toss at your enemies.
It is why I initially argued for a Wild West room which we still need for those who don't want to kick the dog. And why we need a room tightly moderated for discussion, and discussion conducted with politeness and mutual respect.
Those two extremes can be moderated successfully and fairly. In the one only violation of AUP would be used. In the other you permit the moderators to be cops. They know the rules and if they are broken you get the penalty for the crime because there is no gray area of insults to be tolerated. You insult someone you get a flaming warning. You disrupt the conversation or topic of the OP you get hit with a harsher penalty in % for dissembling. Those are not left / right issues. Those are conduct penalties. And moderators, any moderators, worth a damn can decide regardless of politics when some poster is guilty of breaking those rules.
It may also be useful if we used one of the subforums for the airing of personal grievances, not against anyone who posts on this site but life in general. Sometimes venting that somewhere safe enables people to be more civil to one another. If you read remarks like that in the subforum I suggest perhaps you have more empathy for the personal pain some of our posters are suffering. We are all mortal beings with loves and hates, passions and displeasures, but we all will be hurt. Sometimes that is the loss of a job. Sometimes that is loss of loved ones. But we all will eventually suffer.
Message boards are faceless, so common humanity suffers due to anonymity. But anonymity also permits us to relieve that stress through venting. And that is something everyone here needs the freedom to do at times.
I really don't give a damn who is left and who is right on this forum. One vote for either party is like a drop of rain in the ocean. The world is bigger than us. Therefore, as long as someone is civil to me, why should I not be civil to them. I am more apt to ban the tedious who daily present problems than I am somebody who flies off the handle because of a personal issue. I'm more likely to ban somebody who delights in obfuscating what others are trying to discuss, or one who is just here to insult others, than I am any of the posters who only occasionally lose it. That's what warnings are for and bans are for. You ban the malignant and tolerate the rest. You enforce the law and promote the peace.
So, when the board members here decide on a course of moderation, the political stance is the last damn thing you should use for electing a moderator. You want a good cop. You don't want a jury. You don't want a judge. You don't need champions to joust for your political side. You just need someone who enforces the law.
But what you absolutely need is a Wild West forum for those who just want to beat up on each other verbally. It needs to be separate and moderated differently from the discussion forum. You need to keep your religious space separate as it is now. And you need a place to post your personal frustrations and painful events so that you have a way to humanize each other to create the empathy that should exist between all people regardless of politics or mode of communication.
/
Poll: How do you want the Spin Room to be moderated going forward?
