Posts made by flozen

@royalcrown89:

I actually don't have a problem with raphjd moderating and participating. He has never mixed the two since I've been posting on here. Like abcddddd said, he hasn't been punishing one side while ignoring the other. I've reported users and he has taken action, no matter what side their own. I did once think he had something to do with the report function acting up, but it's been working fine lately, so I apologize for that thought lol.

royalcrown89, enjoyed your post.  I will say that I favor political forums where the moderators refrain from joining in the fracas via their own posts, whatever their political leanings.  When they do engage in posting, to me, it's a bit like having the same person as judge and lawyer on a case.  Police hats or no hats, it doesn't assuage my concerns about overlap.

I realize that moderating-only requires sacrifice, but I have enjoyed forums where moderators concentrate solely on that craft, but alas, not on GT P&D.

But my main reason to write is to laud you on your "encourage civility" graphic.  It looks just great, and if only it possessed magic powers to compel others.  Nicely, nicely done.

abcddddd, I really appreciate your observations, always civil and thoughtful.  Knowing that you're mellow about our rights to post ideas freely, I will say that there are two areas where our opinions diverge:

Our neo-con posters?  I think they are 110 percent real.  Vast numbers of people, on both sides of the pond, get their news from Breitbart, think that Ann Coulter is a voice of moderation and reason, etc., etc.  Yes, their writings on GT veer toward the bombastic (and as we've seen, prone to vulgarity).  But these are essentially their core beliefs, imho.

As well, I don't favor the super-laxness of our administrator, I feel the forum rules provide a needed structure, and when the rules are largely unenforced, as on the Politics & Debate thread, one ends up with a mosh pit that may disincline some members from participation.

But how refreshing that we can exchange differing views without someone popping a gasket.  Cheers.

@raphjd:

"IT" refers to rule violations by liberals while crying about rule violations.

Let's use your example of Fred and Sutie.

They get into a slagging match.   Sutie and other liberals will complain in the forums, the help desk, reported topics and site email.     I'll be called "alt-right" and accused of abusing my powers and whatnot.    Fred won't complain and just get on with it.

Why are you insistent on limiting it to "Trumptard" vs "libtard"?    Expand it out and you'll see that both sides are pretty equal in name calling.

I was called a racist simply because I pointed out 2 proven lies told by Rep John Lewis.  I didn't mention race, just that he lied.   That was enough to make me a racist.   Why do you want to ignore things like that, if you want to talk about facts.

raphjd, liberals and many moderates go to other "institutions" within GT in the hope of fairness with their issues, because your observations about who-is-doing-what in Politics & Debate are so consistently skewed.  As the overall topic here remains Civility, there are surely other curse words where a count would confirm that cons surpass libs by a large margin.  I mean, it's not as if you've called me a fucker…

Oh wait, you did.

19-140

@pppucci:

Here's some objective evidence.  Before these words were banned, "Trumptard" was used 19 times in this forum, while "libtard" was used 140 times.  How can you really state there is no difference between the groups?

Yes, and in the future, I will respond to particularly misleading posts about inflated liberal offenses with the sign-off, "19-140."  This will stand as a reminder of how often these baseless alternative facts are peddled around here.  And it will look a little bit like

19-140

No, F,  I wrote on a similar topic – moderator oversight -- several times in the past few days, but each reply was thoughtfully adapted to the thread and the prior posts.

And all you've got is canned spam.  You should check that "Sell By" date.

@raphjd:

If I started enforcing the rules in the way liberals want, you'd be crying on the help desk far more than you guys do now.

This feels very much like you're drawing an assumption, in the belief it absolves you from doing your job.  It doesn't.

@raphjd:

Oddly, liberals violate the rules as much, if not more, than the conservatives but complain about the rules not being followed/enforced almost exclusively.

This is observationally untrue, but since you made the claim, go ahead and share the method by which you can prove it.  Or, are we back to alternative facts?

@abcddddd:

Normally I'd just keep it to myself and move on, but I'd like to save some of the more functioning forum-goers some unnecessary stress.

At the very least, Frederick and mhorndisk are straight up trolls. In the sense that they're behaving like rabid Trump supporters on a gay forum for behind the scenes chuckles. Possibly raphjd too. Some (most) of the stuff they say is borderline caricature and completely written for provocation and outrage.

Just consider this a possibility before you respond to anything they say.

There's more than a little truth in your assessment, abcddddd, but you happened to walk in during a period where we are discussing the reduction of name-attached, personal characterizations.  You're a casual user, though, and so your post is probably influenced by the hundreds of such posts that have been permitted, unfortunately, to flourish in recent times.

In any case, a small number of us are trying to restore the proper functioning of this forum, currently a dumping ground for writers who seek to do little more than provoke and outrage.  (Actually, that's prohibited by forum rules.)

We (and I'm guessing, you) would prefer that the Politics & Debate board follow GT's written rules of conduct, established in part to shut down repeated and "warned" flamers, lovers of vulgarity, and off-topic distractions.

A new post that addresses many of your observations:

https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=50735.msg275679#msg275679

In any case, nice to have the input, you alphabet lover!

@raphjd:

Clearly many of these comments are directed squarely at me, so I'll respond. 
 
You don't get to claim your enemies are X, then get butt hurt when they do it to you.

You don't get to call your enemies "alt-right", then cry when you are called a bike lock liberal.

You don't get to call your enemy stupid, then report them for calling you an idiot in response.

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,…......................

raphjd, what we DO get lately is virtually zero action, from a moderation viewpoint, to discourage the flaming and nonsensical rants that make many of us on the Politics & Debate board feel as if the loudest and angriest posters are running the asylum.

After reading your post, do you feel that your role is simply to make a list of slights from both sides, implying that all can carry on, because this is the new normal?

It wasn't that long ago that you wrote a very fine policy for conduct in the thread "Forum rules condensed":

https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=20604.0 – as follows:

_"Derailing conversations, to complain about topics or individual posters, is not allowed.

If your post adds no value to the overall conversation, it will be treated like spam."_

The civility and quality of content on this board has clearly devolved since your December 2016 post.  I appreciate the time involved in upholding this rule, and clean-up will be tough now – the result of letting the worst posts go unchallenged over these months.

Even so, you strike me as a man of your word.  Can you stand behind your forum rule, and start taking concrete actions going forward, to enforce the rules prohibiting crude, taunting and off-topic debris?

@royalcrown89:

I propose we all come to an agreement on …

rc, I agree with virtually all your points, but at the same time, I'm certain that a minority of our posters would never, ever voluntarily agree to such improved behavior.

This is why forums have administrators and moderators, whose role is to maintain order; and, when necessary, warn and then ban posters who repeatedly violate good conduct via their rudeness, name calling, etc.  You need look no further than earlier in this thread to find an example.

There's an abject lack of that needed enforcement occurring here, and as a result, this Politics & Debate board largely fails in its purpose.

While it appears that most (of the dwindling number of) posters in Politics & Debate would like to see more civility, I'm afraid that the discussion has been sidetracked by all the back and forth about one poster's choice of graphics.

I was hoping that the thread would open a discussion on HOW to actually achieve more civility.  The current, largely unmanaged and consequence-free state of affairs here is unlike any I have encountered on other gay sites (torrent or otherwise) that engage in political discourse.

Is it any wonder that so few GT members choose to participate here?

.

I will just say that much good could be accomplished by deleting threads and posts that lack any topical political content, and only seek to antagonize, belittle or insult those with differing views.

A policy to toss any thread that focuses on "tards," "turds" or "bats" would be a fine place to start.   :cheers:

@wrestling82:

Everyone is out of line. You're all embarrassing. I'm embarrsing. This forum is embarrassing. It's just pathetic really. The Dems and Repubs' days are numbered, they are both so ridiculous that they can't possibly exist another 50 years in this state of stupidity.

You're not embarrassing, wrestling82, you are just enjoying a bit of a rant.  And who could blame you, as this thread is well-suited.  In fact, it began with an insult headline, followed by content that completely lacked a topic for real political debate.

And somehow, this thread is allowed to remain here, rather than be locked or transferred to Rants and Raves.

Why is this so?  Could the administrator explain how a thread that was born for bragging on the "correcting of moonbats" meets the threshold for political discussion?

Truly, the standards need to be raised here, or our conversations will lose whatever integrity is left.

@raphjd:

Ok, raphjd, we get it.  In the Orwellian world that is gaytorrent.ru, Politics & Debate, you were forwarded some material from the HelpDesk that was unfavorable to you.  And with your cute little sunglasses emoji, you're telling us that behind those shades, you're the closest thing to the site's omniscient Oracle, and you're taking names.

Fine.  Enjoy.

Ok, I'll just let people think they can be sneaky and shop for staff to do their bidding.

And yet, we have a moderator that has allowed this original thread post – completely devoid of political content but full of taunting -- to continue, as if it merited a place here.

So yes, I can completely understand why a GT member would be looking to find another administrator for arbitration of an issue here in Politics & Debate.

This thread does not meet criteria and it needs to go.  Lock it up, I say!  Lock it up!

@raphjd:

What does that have to do with you violating 2 of the rules you love to report?

If I was as bad as you claim, I'd ban you for it.

BTW, I get forwarded helpdesk things that have to do with the forums.  :cool2:

Ok, raphjd, we get it.  In the Orwellian world that is gaytorrent.ru, Politics & Debate, you were forwarded some material from the HelpDesk that was unfavorable to you.  And with your cute little sunglasses emoji, you're telling us that behind those shades, you're the closest thing to the site's omniscient Oracle, and you're taking names.

Fine.  Enjoy.

As for the initial post of this thread, it was a mini-rant which contained zero content for political debate and thus, was off-topic.  It did, however, do some empty bragging, and included a third-grade taunt in the headline and again, in the text.  For these reasons, I found no empirical evidence in the post to support that "functioning brain" claim.

Also, mhorn, I find it ironic and a bit weird that while you inveigh against meat consumption, your avatar is some hunky farm boy with a hunting rifle.  I wouldn't expect this from an animal-rights advocate, vegan/vegetarian, etc…   :crazy2:

While the percentages vary by study, mhorndisk is correct in noting the world's growing consumption of "food animals," and the sizable amount of methane they create, is a particularly harmful element related to climate change.  There's a lot of supportive data out there, but here's a nice article from NPR…

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/04/11/301794415/gassy-cows-are-warming-the-planet-and-theyre-here-to-stay

Bearing in mind that agriculture accounted for nine percent of greenhouse gasses by sector:  "In 2011, methane from livestock accounted for 39 percent of all the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, according to a report that United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization released Friday. That's more than synthetic fertilizer or deforestation."

So yes, mhorn's numbers are inflated.  And yet, animals/methane remains an important part of the climate change equation.

mhorn, it's my sense that you get downvoted – even here, on a topic in which many of us agree with parts of your position -- because your forum manners are so very poor.  And yes, we know you don't care.

Why the need, on this thread, for umpteen little, enraged, complaining replies to your own message?   When you routinely type with all those screaming caps -- here, DEAD FLESH and such -- you do your case more harm than good.  It's called self-control, and until you learn some, you'll get down-votes -- even on issues where you might have unexpected allies.

@flozen:

@flozen:

No one is likely to refute your poisoning cloak-and-dagger tale, Frederick, because it's completely off-topic.

But you would like us to see Putin as a man of restraint, and refute the notion of Putin using his seat of power to foster violence.  So, why not speak to his provision of advanced military weapons, delivered to covert Russian advisers embedded with Ukrainian separatists?  Rebels who had been so incited to inflict harm that, well, they got a bit carried away and used that surface-to-air missile system to shoot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine two years ago, killing all 298 on board?

Oops.  And a weapon that was photographed being smuggled both in and out of Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/world/asia/malaysia-air-flight-mh17-russia-ukraine-missile.html?_r=0

Oh, let's not leave the "Putin restraint" notion quite so soon.  The article below is one of many which provides a video frame of the truck carrying the Russian anti-aircraft missile:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/russian-missile-smuggled-ukraine-malaysia-jet-shot-tapes-article-1.1872722

Please illustrate how this action, surely set in motion by Putin, promoted dialogue and minimized the escalation of hostilities.

So, the silence speaks volumes on "Putin restraint," and we are left with his legacy, caught red-handed supplying Ukrainian separatists with heavy weaponry that not only ignited a larger-scale conflict between the two sides, but cost hundreds of innocent lives from the Malaysian flight, as well as from the international peace-keeping force.  As for this sad little group with "bleed" issues, it's simply woman-hatred, and I can only hope your mothers, sisters, etc. never became aware of your ugly, ugly misogyny.

@flozen:

No one is likely to refute your poisoning cloak-and-dagger tale, Frederick, because it's completely off-topic.

But you would like us to see Putin as a man of restraint, and refute the notion of Putin using his seat of power to foster violence.  So, why not speak to his provision of advanced military weapons, delivered to covert Russian advisers embedded with Ukrainian separatists?  Rebels who had been so incited to inflict harm that, well, they got a bit carried away and used that surface-to-air missile system to shoot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine two years ago, killing all 298 on board?

Oops.  And a weapon that was photographed being smuggled both in and out of Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/world/asia/malaysia-air-flight-mh17-russia-ukraine-missile.html?_r=0

Oh, let's not leave the "Putin restraint" notion quite so soon.  The article below is one of many which provides a video frame of the truck carrying the Russian anti-aircraft missile:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/russian-missile-smuggled-ukraine-malaysia-jet-shot-tapes-article-1.1872722

Please illustrate how this action, surely set in motion by Putin, promoted dialogue and minimized the escalation of hostilities.

No one is likely to refute your poisoning cloak-and-dagger tale, Frederick, because it's completely off-topic.

But you would like us to see Putin as a man of restraint, and refute the notion of Putin using his seat of power to foster violence.  So, why not speak to his provision of advanced military weapons, delivered to covert Russian advisers embedded with Ukrainian separatists?   Rebels who had been so incited to inflict harm that, well, they got a bit carried away and used that surface-to-air missile system to shoot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine two years ago, killing all 298 on board?

Oops.  And a weapon that was photographed being smuggled both in and out of Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/world/asia/malaysia-air-flight-mh17-russia-ukraine-missile.html?_r=0

I think that many men should not occupy positions of leadership because of their far-greater tendency toward violence in conflict resolution.  We could start with Putin.

Honestly, what a poll question.  Gays who promote "period shaming," and oppose equal rights and opportunities for women?  You are living fossils.

I suppose you've held these long-antiquated views for decades, what a pity, you must be growing so embittered in your dotage.  Nurse, someone's colostomy bag needs changing.