Threadjackers Will Be Persecuted (Maybe Even Prosecuted)

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Rich Toscano on June 11, 2010 - 9:53am

This is the new, refined rule on political threadjacking, more or less:

Do not try to turn any discussion, even if already political in nature, into a left-vs-right slapfest. And do not try to turn a discussion, even if already political in nature, into a debate about a contentious and politicized issue that is only peripherally related to the original discussion (especially if the debate is polarized along left-vs-right lines).

Come to think of it, don't even bother starting such a discussion.

Political threadjacks will be deleted and repeated offenders banned.

(And remember, when I delete a comment, the system automatically deletes all replies to that comment -- so choose carefully which comment you click "reply" on).

Rich

Submitted by jpinpb on June 11, 2010 - 10:04am.

Thanks, Rich. I know it sometimes is difficult, but I'm sure there are political blogs out there where people can get into it all they want. It is unnecessary to do it here. Can't we just all get along ;)

Submitted by NotCranky on June 11, 2010 - 10:18am.

I understand a reasonable desire to have a blog's content/character be a certain way but I think sdddude has it out for brian. He could so easily ignore him or some of his content, like many of us do to each other. sdddude is being vindictive. His getting over it is just a much, or more, in order as policing posters is at this time and in my humble opinion. Looking at the content of the recent threads makes sdddudes desire to "nuke" brian questionable at best. That includes observation of comments sdddude has made.

Submitted by Rich Toscano on June 11, 2010 - 10:21am.

Russell, this isn't coming from sdduuude. His post may have prompted me to finally do something about this issue, but I've noticed and been troubled by it for a long time. And this rule doesn't just apply to Brian, it applies to everyone.

Rich

Submitted by Rich Toscano on June 11, 2010 - 10:22am.

Update: I added this to the original post:

"Come to think of it, don't even bother starting such a discussion."

rich

Submitted by NotCranky on June 11, 2010 - 10:27am.

Rich Toscano wrote:
Russell, this isn't coming from sdduuude. His post may have prompted me to finally do something about this issue, but I've noticed and been troubled by it for a long time. And this rule doesn't just apply to Brian, it applies to everyone.

Rich

If you are sitting where I am sitting it looks like it's coming from sddude and other people including his terrific friend CDMA Eng have noticed and advised him to cool it. So I understand if you interest and his are not one, just adding perspective....I hope.

I believe you asked us to email complaints, maybe sdddude did this but his schoolyard bullying tactics against brian are, or were, on the threads.

Submitted by jpinpb on June 11, 2010 - 10:30am.

I agree w/Russell. We can easily just ignore some comments, but clearly there are posts that are antagonistic and it only goes downhill from there. Once name calling starts, then it has eroded.

Submitted by mike92104 on June 11, 2010 - 1:07pm.

Hopefully folks will shift there interest over to the wine thread.

Submitted by DWCAP on June 11, 2010 - 1:43pm.

Cool! Thanks Rich. It gets irritating when I have to scan through 20-30 'neener neener' posts to get back to the origional thought process, if it ever does.

Sorry you have to start playing cop around here though.

Submitted by ucodegen on June 11, 2010 - 2:11pm.

Russell wrote:

I believe you asked us to email complaints, maybe sdddude did this but his schoolyard bullying tactics against brian are, or were, on the threads.

To be honest though, it was a case of bully against bully. "briansd1" tries(ed) to turn almost every discussion into a Democrat vs Republican mudthrowing contest.
sduuuude has been on this board far longer than briansd1 and we haven't had that much of a problem with sdduuuude before. I suspect that he may have just had enough of briansd1 and 'lost it'. I just prefer not to 'feed the trolls'.

-- tried because I am giving briansd1 the benefit of doubt on his 'reformation'.

That said, I think briansd1 will have a problem resisting the temptation. I get the feeling he likes the attention that 'stirring the pot' gives him, almost at an OCD level.

Submitted by briansd1 on June 11, 2010 - 2:26pm.

ucodegen wrote:

To be honest though, it was a case of bully against bully. "briansd1" tries(ed) to turn almost every discussion into a Democrat vs Republican mudthrowing contest.
sduuuude has been on this board far longer than briansd1 and we haven't had that much of a problem with sdduuuude before.

That's because, before I started posting, and before I started responding in kind, the other side had no opposition.

ucodegen wrote:

That said, I think briansd1 will have a problem resisting the temptation. I get the feeling he likes the attention that 'stirring the pot' gives him, almost at an OCD level.

I like stirring the pot almost a much as the other side likes to stir the pot.

I'm perfectly capable of intellectual adult discussions. I just think that partisan attacks deserve responses.

The rules have changed now and I'm happy to abide by them.

Submitted by ucodegen on June 11, 2010 - 2:36pm.

ucodegen wrote:

That said, I think briansd1 will have a problem resisting the temptation. I get the feeling he likes the attention that 'stirring the pot' gives him, almost at an OCD level.

8-]
.: QED - quod erat demonstrandum
as above..

Submitted by Rich Toscano on June 11, 2010 - 3:04pm.

briansd1 wrote:

I just think that partisan attacks deserve responses.

Since the whole issue here is STARTING political flamewars, this is meaningless and/or a mischaracterization.

But whatever. The guidelines should be clear now.

Submitted by jpinpb on June 11, 2010 - 4:15pm.

briansd1 wrote:

That's because, before I started posting, and before I started responding in kind, the other side had no opposition.

Speaking for myself, brian has a point. I prefer not to engage in political arguments, even though I don't agree w/some posts and would oppose what's said, I would not post anything. brian has taken on to be the voice of some who do not respond.

Submitted by IForget on June 11, 2010 - 4:40pm.

Does the ban extend to creepy Internet stalkers who continuously bring up your Internet handle in threads which you have nothing to do with? That's pretty antagonistic, no?

Submitted by sdduuuude on June 11, 2010 - 5:13pm.

Russell wrote:
sdddude is being vindictive.

Russell, while I am being aggressive in defense of this board, I am far from vindictive.

I perceive brian's childish "left is better than right" posts as a detriment to this site, which I have been a part of before it was even a paid site. I received a free membership for providing the motto at the bottom of this page over 4 1/2 years ago. I have some right to do some moderation here, or at least to ask the opionion of others.

Not only are brian's "left/right" posts annoying, but his continual use of strawman argtuements and ability to put words in other people's mouths makes for discussions that are both pointless and endless, and undermines that same motto.

Make no mistake - my intent is to stop brian from bullying and if I have to bully to do that, I will. Keep in mind, though, I first had to determine if others felt the same as I did so I started the poll. Note - the score was 49 to 25 against banning brian (not that they didn't like him, but that he be banned!). I challenge you to find anyone who would fare worse than that.

A second intent of mine was to send a clear message to brian that his presence here is not perceived as a good thing by many people and that he needs to change his ways.

Also, I wanted Rich to see this discussion in full view so he could take any action he felt was necessary. Had Rich say "chill out duuuude" then I'd have nothing more to say, but Rich sees a problem and took time to issue a warning.

In the face of this warning, brian proceeded with yet another pointless threadjacking political comment. I agree with the other poster that this is close to a pathalogical problem.

Blaming me for this is like blaming victims for getting robbed. brian has brought this on himself by his own behavior. I am merely highlighting it.

If he continues with the nonsensical political threadjacking of on-topic threads, I will call him out on it until he is gone.

Finally, lets be clear what CDMA Eng said:

CDMA ENG wrote:
Lastly...

I am surprised to see you leading this little insurrecton SDDuuuude...

I know how you feel about particular people on this thread but I always thought you were a little more chill about people flapping your chops. But then again, I know that things can push your button very quickly as well... Like getting sucked out on the river card!

Remind me never to take you to Nicaragua on a bad weekend with a 100 dollars in your pocket. I don't think that country could take another revolution.

See you at World Cup...

:P

CE

Where, exactly did he ask me to "cool it"? He didn't. He didn't even disagree. He just said he was surprised.

No email or other private correspondence was sent to Rich regarding this matter. His observations and actions are his own, as is this site.

Submitted by sdduuuude on June 11, 2010 - 5:10pm.

ucodegen wrote:
I suspect that he may have just had enough of briansd1 and 'lost it'. I just prefer not to 'feed the trolls'.

I pointed out that brian had threadjacked the thread and that someone responded with a "troll-feeding" remark. I recommended that either the the post be nuked, or that brian be nuked - per Rich's earlier comments about bannable offenses.

Rich chose to nuke the comment that I asked to be nuked, as well as the response, as well as my request to nuke it.

So, how, exactly did I 'lose it' ?

Submitted by briansd1 on June 11, 2010 - 5:17pm.

sdduuuude wrote:
Note - the score was 49 to 25 in favor of banning brian (not that they didn't like him, but that he be banned!). I challenge you to find anyone who would fare worse than that.

So much for bringing the data.

http://piggington.com/ot_hey_let039s_pla...

As far as trusting God, I'd want her to bring the data first.

Submitted by sdrealtor on June 11, 2010 - 5:20pm.

Brian
Before you got here we spent most of our time talking about Real Estate not politics. I have found things getting far too political for my tastes. If you want to talk politics go to a site which caters to that. This was a real estate centric site and it strayed away from that. You are not the only violator but you are the principal culprit. I welcome your real estate posts but abhor seeing your political ramblings even though politically I lean well into your direction.

Cool It!

Submitted by NotCranky on June 11, 2010 - 5:32pm.

ucodegen wrote:
Russell wrote:

I believe you asked us to email complaints, maybe sdddude did this but his schoolyard bullying tactics against brian are, or were, on the threads.

To be honest though, it was a case of bully against bully. "briansd1" tries(ed) to turn almost every discussion into a Democrat vs Republican mudthrowing contest.
sduuuude has been on this board far longer than briansd1 and we haven't had that much of a problem with sdduuuude before. I suspect that he may have just had enough of briansd1 and 'lost it'. I just prefer not to 'feed the trolls'.

-- tried because I am giving briansd1 the benefit of doubt on his 'reformation'.

That said, I think briansd1 will have a problem resisting the temptation. I get the feeling he likes the attention that 'stirring the pot' gives him, almost at an OCD level.

You make a lot of sense, ucodeng. I am not saying I don't understand people's disappointment with the partisan mudslinging . Usually it is a cooperative effort and Brian is outnumbered (admitting he more or less begs for it). I feel that talking of banning and nuking him has this slippery slope into conform or be cast out, clique territory.To their credit many of his adversaries are concerned about this.

More people should cooperate with Rich's aims of eliminating the problem,as you do by not feeding trolls, before scapegoating an individual, even if he represents the worst in their minds. On the other hand, I think that as long as there is a free forum for discussing illegal immigration,distribution of wealth and these kinds of topics, and "nutty teabaggers", kicking someone off won't change the tendency for "red meat" throwing and nasty rebuttals, or various other kinds of hi-jacks to creep back in.

Submitted by briansd1 on June 11, 2010 - 5:20pm.

IForget wrote:
Does the ban extend to creepy Internet stalkers who continuously bring up your Internet handle in threads which you have nothing to do with? That's pretty antagonistic, no?

Yes, does it extend to people who start a partisan post but can't countenance a response or rebuttal?

Submitted by sdduuuude on June 11, 2010 - 5:26pm.

Sorry brian - I caught that and edited it while you were posting.

It originally said "in favor of brian" then I messed with it and it incorrectly said "in favor of banning brian" - as you quoted it. It reads the way I meant now.

Just note that 49/25 against banning is quite atrocious. Nobody would fare that poorly. The question wasn't "do you dislike brian" or "do you agree with brian?" or "does brian annoy you a little bit?" it was "should he be banned?" 1/3 think yes.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 11, 2010 - 5:25pm.

jpinpb wrote:

Speaking for myself, brian has a point. I prefer not to engage in political arguments, even though I don't agree w/some posts and would oppose what's said, I would not post anything. brian has taken on to be the voice of some who do not respond.

Jp: Except that Brian isn't that voice. If Brian's accusation is that right-wing partisanship provoked his various sorties, in truth there are several excellent liberal and center-left posters like Gandalf, SK in CV, and afx114, who have proven more than capable in responding and who do so in thoughtful and meaningful fashion.

What's proven corrosive is exactly what you pointed out: The ad hominem, the bullying, and the pointless arguments (i.e. those without any factual basis and employed for no reason other than provocation). Framing everything as "Right is wrong and Left is right" is not only nonsensical, but it detracts from this board as a place for intelligent posters. Yeah, the political threads might be overdone, but there have been some excellent discussions between liberals and conservatives and I've learned quite a bit from posters like Arraya, SK and Gandalf, and I've also gotten a new perspective on quite a few issues. I personally find that invaluable.

Submitted by Arraya on June 11, 2010 - 5:27pm.

.

Sorry, couldn't help it

Submitted by IForget on June 11, 2010 - 5:29pm.

sdduuuude wrote:
Sorry brian - I caught that and edited it while you were posting.

It originally said "in favor of brian" then I messed with it and it incorrectly said "in favor of banning brian" - as you quoted it. It reads the way I meant now.

Just note that 49/25 against banning is quite atrocious. Nobody would fare that poorly. The question wasn't "do you dislike brian" or "do you agree with brian?" or "does brian annoy you a little bit?" it was "should he be banned?" 1/3 think yes.

So you want to ban people if only 1/3 of posters are in favor of it? That's a bit draconian.

Submitted by IForget on June 11, 2010 - 5:32pm.

If you want to stop the political posts, all you have to do is remove the OT posts from the 'Active forum topics' section on the right. I predict political posts would dry up right quick if you did that.

Submitted by sdduuuude on June 11, 2010 - 5:48pm.

IForget wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:
Sorry brian - I caught that and edited it while you were posting.

It originally said "in favor of brian" then I messed with it and it incorrectly said "in favor of banning brian" - as you quoted it. It reads the way I meant now.

Just note that 49/25 against banning is quite atrocious. Nobody would fare that poorly. The question wasn't "do you dislike brian" or "do you agree with brian?" or "does brian annoy you a little bit?" it was "should he be banned?" 1/3 think yes.

So you want to ban people if only 1/3 of posters are in favor of it? That's a bit draconian.

This is a great example of putting words in someone else's mouth. You imply that my answer is yes before I can even answer.

Did I ever say that ? No. I did not. So, let me be very clear. If brian can shape up, I'm not in favor of banning him. If he can't I am in favor of banning him.

Unfortunately for the 2/3 who are not in favor of banning him, there is the 1 vote that matters who just laid down the law and I suspect brian will not be able to contain himself for more than a few days.

Submitted by sdduuuude on June 11, 2010 - 5:47pm.

IForget wrote:
If you want to stop the political posts, all you have to do is remove the OT posts from the 'Active forum topics' section on the right. I predict political posts would dry up right quick if you did that.

The gripe is not with off-topic political threads. It is with thread-jacking of on-topic threads with political posts intended to insite tiresome and poinless "left is better than right" arguments.

Submitted by NotCranky on June 11, 2010 - 6:21pm.

sdduuuude wrote:
Russell wrote:
sdddude is being vindictive.

Russell, while I am being aggressive in defense of this board, I am far from vindictive.

I perceive brian's childish "left is better than right" posts as a detriment to this site, which I have been a part of before it was even a paid site. I received a free membership for providing the motto at the bottom of this page over 4 1/2 years ago. I have some right to do some moderation here, or at least to ask the opionion of others.

Not only are brian's "left/right" posts annoying, but his continual use of strawman argtuements and ability to put words in other people's mouths makes for discussions that are both pointless and endless, and undermines that same motto.

Make no mistake - my intent is to stop brian from bullying and if I have to bully to do that, I will. Keep in mind, though, I first had to determine if others felt the same as I did so I started the poll. Note - the score was 49 to 25 against banning brian (not that they didn't like him, but that he be banned!). I challenge you to find anyone who would fare worse than that.

A second intent of mine was to send a clear message to brian that his presence here is not perceived as a good thing by many people and that he needs to change his ways.

Also, I wanted Rich to see this discussion in full view so he could take any action he felt was necessary. Had Rich say "chill out duuuude" then I'd have nothing more to say, but Rich sees a problem and took time to issue a warning.

In the face of this warning, brian proceeded with yet another pointless threadjacking political comment. I agree with the other poster that this is close to a pathalogical problem.

Blaming me for this is like blaming victims for getting robbed. brian has brought this on himself by his own behavior. I am merely highlighting it.

If he continues with the nonsensical political threadjacking of on-topic threads, I will call him out on it until he is gone.

Finally, lets be clear what CDMA Eng said:

CDMA ENG wrote:
Lastly...

I am surprised to see you leading this little insurrecton SDDuuuude...

I know how you feel about particular people on this thread but I always thought you were a little more chill about people flapping your chops. But then again, I know that things can push your button very quickly as well... Like getting sucked out on the river card!

Remind me never to take you to Nicaragua on a bad weekend with a 100 dollars in your pocket. I don't think that country could take another revolution.

See you at World Cup...

:P

CE

Where, exactly did he ask me to "cool it"? He didn't. He didn't even disagree. He just said he was surprised.

No email or other private correspondence was sent to Rich regarding this matter. His observations and actions are his own, as is this site.

That post of his plus another shortly after the one in which you lost it and made insinuations about incest in Jamul, added up in my mind, to your good friend trying to help you get your game together and get back to the things you enjoy in life. I see it that way.It seemed like good advice and I hoped for your sake you would heed it. I am sorry but your "survivor post", regardless of how far up the pecking order you are, and the final one where you jumped in yesterday don't look good at all,in my opinion, and are not going to provide long term solutions to what you are looking for. Rich can do it but it doesn't put your bullying in a better light because he chooses that agenda.

Submitted by UCGal on June 11, 2010 - 6:22pm.

sdduuuude wrote:
IForget wrote:
If you want to stop the political posts, all you have to do is remove the OT posts from the 'Active forum topics' section on the right. I predict political posts would dry up right quick if you did that.

The gripe is not with off-topic political threads. It is with thread-jacking of on-topic threads with political posts intended to insite tiresome and poinless "left is better than right" arguments.


In fairness - the one that you linked to with +1, you've been warned comment was in the economics folder - but the OP was politically slanted. It was political before Brian got there.

I tend to skip over a lot of posts by people who I get tired of. Brian is one of those folks. His views may echo some of mine - but he's not the strongest debater and it spins to namecalling too quick. But it is far from just Brian - I skip over posts from a lot of the right wing folks for the same reason. For a long time I skipped going to the OT folder because it was almost all political stuff... I missed some good wine threads because of it.

Like JP, I feel like occasionally Brian is stating what some of the less overtly politcal piggs are thinking. Does he take it too far, sure. But when there are statements slamming anyone who listens to NPR or drives a prius or voted for Obama as being less than human... well, I'm glad someone speaks up against it.

I have to admit - I'm offended a lot more by regular posters who make blanket non-thoughtful "conservative" statements. I don't mind thoughtful and informed political debate (Allan from Fallbrook, FLU give good arguements) - but so many times, from so many piggs, it ends up with slams against anyone liberal. I tend to just keep my mouth shut.

I'll step out and go back to my policy of trying not to discuss politcs here. I agree it's gotten less fun with the level of politics rising. Lets talk real estate, economics, Clairemont vs Mira Mesa. Whether 4S will ever be as cool as Carmel Valley... And best of all - more wine threads.

Submitted by briansd1 on June 11, 2010 - 6:33pm.

sdrealtor wrote:
Brian
Before you got here we spent most of our time talking about Real Estate not politics.

There used to be right-wing threads started daily especially around the presidential elections. Remember all the Palin posts?

I started posting more frequently and rebutting the outrageous comments. I may use hyperbole myself but for good reasons, I believe.

sdrealtor wrote:

I have found things getting far too political for my tastes. If you want to talk politics go to a site which caters to that. This was a real estate centric site and it strayed away from that. You are not the only violator but you are the principal culprit. I welcome your real estate posts but abhor seeing your political ramblings even though politically I lean well into your direction.

Cool It!

sdrealtor, I've refrained from making political comments, and I haven't started new threads lately.

For some perspective, sduudde's latest fit involves this thread which quotes Arthur Laffer who is clearly partisan.

In response to a comment by UCGal who said that the estate tax only affects rich grandparents, I said that only dumb voters believe the line of right that the estate tax kills mom-and-pop businesses when it only affects 5,500 estates.

People of more modest wealth, with estate planning, can give away their wealth during their lifetimes.

I quoted this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/busine...

Then someone else called me a dumbass for voting for Obama.

Arthur Laffer mentions the estate tax in his article.

http://piggington.com/economic_collapse_...

I guess sdduddee didn't like my calling the voters dumb.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.