Quote :

"I'm sure everybody else here is painfully aware of what I'm talking about. Then again, the people who would relate the strongest have all but left by now . . . Seeing as how there's basically no moderation in this forum at all, we should set about figuring out for ourselves what we want out of this section. Obviously playing it by ear isn't working --- so yeah, let's get some discussion started. What's the ideal state of TSB to you guys? How can we, as everyday posters, improve the section, and how can we encourage more good contribution and discussion? Seems like things have been in the pits for a long time now."

McDanger

This is a conversation that needs to be had.

11/25/2007 7:47:53 PM

Thanks for reposting it, A Tanzarian.

I really hope people toss aside all of the stupid rivalries they've developed in this section if only for a while, so we can have an open and honest discussion about this. There's disagreeing, and there's what people do in TSB.

At any rate, it's impossible to have sensible discourse here; we should discuss why that is, and if people want it to change bad enough to figure out how to fix it.

11/25/2007 7:55:28 PM

One thing I'd like to see is a limit to the number of threads a person can make, 3 a week perhaps.

Much more than that and I think it becomes too much for the original poster to keep active in all their threads.

I have some more ideas, but right now it's time for some baby-back ribs smoothered in my homemade BBQ sauce!

11/25/2007 7:59:46 PM

Just come to terms with the fact that this is a college message board and that immature dipshits will often leave chit chat, come down to TSB and ruin threads with inane yapping.

11/25/2007 8:04:28 PM

I think it all comes down to what people, as a whole, want from this section. We need to compare what we want versus how we're acting as a whole.

Currently people come here to crow at each other and trade weak burns back and forth. Very few people come here with an open enough mind to change an opinion about anything, and that's usually because both sides just spit pre-packaged talking points back and forth. Is this really what most people want from this section, or is it that people are simply reacting to each other at this point? If people are just reacting then we need to clear the air in lieu of moderation.

11/25/2007 8:05:01 PM

Quote :

"Just come to terms with the fact that this is a college message board and that immature dipshits will often leave chit chat, come down to TSB and ruin threads with inane yapping."

Most TSB posters are far beyond their college years.

11/25/2007 8:05:49 PM

That doesn't necessarily exempt them from immature dipshit status.

11/25/2007 8:08:06 PM

Of course not, but that's why we're having this discussion. Do they even want a decent section at all, or do they just want to keep acting the way they have been? This is a place for them to explicitly decide in front of us all.

11/25/2007 8:16:50 PM

Even though I don't post much in this section, I still think a discussion like this is needed. Of course, as as someone who doesn't post much in this section, I feel it should be left up to those who do post more often to discuss it. (If they're mature about it, that is.)

11/25/2007 8:36:34 PM

I'm all about letting thread creators self-moderate their threads. I'm not sure what applications would need to be in place for this to work, but allowing the OP to a) block users or b) delete posts would really clean up a lot of threads.

Of course, some people would be over-zealously use these powers, but it isn't much worse than how shitty these threads get. Besides, if someone was locked out of a thread, they could always start their own counter-thread.

11/25/2007 8:44:05 PM

Quote :

"I think it all comes down to what people, as a whole, want from this section."

Personally,

- I'm not looking to change anyone's mind, nor do I expect others to change mine. That's not to say that neither one of those things could ever happen.

- I am looking for thoughts and opinions on various subjects.

- I do expect that those who start threads respond in a reasonable manner to others' questions and challenges.

- 'Respond in a reasonable manner' does not mean personal attacks or saying things that amount to 'I'm right and you're wrong'.

- If I want grammar tips, I'll start posting at Merriam-Webster.

^ I don't think I'd support self-moderation since threads should be able to go where they're going to go.

[Edited on November 25, 2007 at 8:58 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2007 8:51:19 PM

I know what you mean, but allowing the OP to edit out "you suck" / "no you suck" / "troll" / "foamie" would benefit threads. Clearly those people creating threads who genuinely wanted to hear what people had to say would allow those who dissent but those desiring partisan hackery would edit out all those who disagree. The net effect in number of quality threads wouldn't change (I don't think) just some with real potential could carry on.

I do favor a more aggressive stance on suspending habitual trollers.

11/25/2007 9:26:43 PM

(1) absolutely forget about any change that requires modification to the source code. the new owner is responsive, but it's ridiculous to think hes going to change the structure of TWW itself because some assholes cant moderate themselves in TSB.

(2) besides the fact that "self-moderation" or "limiting thread creation to 3x week" requires source code modification... those are bad ideas and go against the whole spirit of TWW.

-- 2a) self moderation in its various forms will only serve to turn threads into private discussions. thats NOT what TWW is for. if you want private discussions go to AIM or create a Facebook Group for chrissakes.

-- 2b) the last thing we need is to restrict discussion. more threads are better than less. its a "free market" of ideas here. those without any value will fall of the front page

(3) what we DO need is a consistent and largely inflexible suspension policy for people who cant refrain from shitting all over other people's threads. I've already outlined a coherent policy that I would implement if I were made a co-moderator for this forum ... see /message_topic.aspx?topic=503398 for details.

in short, I think my policy will allow a healthy (ie, very minimal) amount of venting if/when arguments get heated, but will keep the threads largely on topic. violators will face incremental suspensions that start out small, so it wouldn't permanently get rid of anyone -- unless that person just can't stop shitting on threads.

if you want to see this happen, send the new owner, nael, a PM saying you'd like joe_schmoe to be made mod.







[Edited on November 25, 2007 at 9:34 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2007 9:27:45 PM

From the locked thread:

Quote :

"how about we get a mod to suspend every time someone starts arguing semantics, or uses a logical fallacy."

Duke says this isn't practical, but I think we could make it work. We just need more than a single moderator patrolling this section. Nobody with actual moderation power, but sort of like a sub-moderator; they'll issue warnings to people who break the rules, and if the person in question is still acting up, they'll send a pm to the main moderator, who will then determine if any action needs to be taken. So all decisions regarding punishment are still the sole responsibility of TSB's moderator, but now we've got extra sets of eyes watching this place.

At the very least I don't think it's unreasonable to ask posters in this section to do simple things, such as backing up one's claims with evidence and admitting when your claim has been refuted by the opposition. It's really frustrating when somebody won't admit they're wrong, no matter how much evidence there is that says they're wrong. It's when people refuse to admit they're wrong that we get the back-and-forth flaming in this place. People like salisburyboy, with his constant cut-n-paste from a website of zero credibility, refusing to address other poster's questions, constantly exercising the broken record fallacy, etc. Note that he shouldn't be punished for his views, only for the manner in which he argues those views. It's not a crime to post stupid view points, but you shouldn't be surprised when people point out how flawed your logic is.

11/25/2007 9:46:56 PM

As a newer user, it seems like some of the people who have been around longer flame when someone new posts an idea they think is "stupid" without really knowing why. I know when I first started posting in here I looked like a dumbass a bunch of times (that may or may not have changed slightly) and I was immediately flamed without really being told why I was a dumbass. Some of this is probably just because some of the older folks have seen just about every topic there could possibly be and they're bored when they see it again. Solutions?

1) Try to keep thread topics fairly recent.

2) Don't immediately flame someone when they first post here just because they're not used to how TSB works.

11/25/2007 9:53:21 PM

Personally, I stopped posting regularly in TSB over three years ago. There have been periodic waves of retardation in this forum since long before the Treetwista/Chance issues being discussed now, the JonHGuth Cheese Crusades, or whatever the flavor of the month is for drama. Regardless, I stopped posting because it stopped being worth the time I spent typing.

Since then, I've found other ways to occupy my time, and now I'm just too busy to take the time to develop my thoughts on an issue into a post, since the atmosphere still isn't welcoming enough for open discussions to thrive without them being sidetracked by nitpicking and trolling. These days, I still skim TSB almost daily, but it's as a glorified news ticker to find out about stories I miss from other sources. I'll sometimes read beyond the first post, but it's mostly to see if additional information or any follow-up stories have been posted, rather than to read through people's reactions. I only read at any depth when I'm trying to procrastinate.

11/25/2007 9:54:37 PM

^^ flaming the noobs i think is a phenomenon common to most every internet forum... at least the ones that arent *heavily* moderated. it serves a purpose, by weeding out the people with really thin skin.

so dont take it personal. its just the intarnets. i got beat up pretty bad my first few months.

11/25/2007 10:20:00 PM

Damn, I almost thought I was special there for a minute. But seriously, if we're trying to make the debate in here more civil and whatnot n00bs should be given at least 1 stupid post per topic before they're flamed out, no?

11/25/2007 10:26:48 PM

no... fuck the noobs. they dont get shit.

11/25/2007 10:27:39 PM

Quote :

"There have been periodic waves of retardation in this forum since long before the Treetwista/Chance issues being discussed now, the JonHGuth Cheese Crusades, or whatever the flavor of the month is for drama."

That really sums it up right there; TSB has become a dumping ground for people's personal drama. Nobody's interested in talking about the ramifications about a news-worthy event anymore, now it's just "I think such and such, and anyone who disagrees with me is a retarded douche bag." This incites people in the opposite camp to spew their trash, and the cycle continues ad nauseam. Instead of trying to weigh the merits of one argument against another, we get people who are already entrenched in their views, who aren't interested in examining those views because they're already convinced that they're right and everyone else is wrong. I'm not saying that you have to change the opinions of the other guy for it to be a valid debate, but a lot of people have their heads so far up their asses that they're not even willing to defend their views. They simply dismiss any bit of information that doesn't sparkle with their pre-conceived notions.

More rules and moderation is a good start, but what we also need is an entire atmospheric change. We need to start fostering an environment in here that is conducive to critical thinking and praises intellectual honesty. We need to make it clear that you might as well stay out of TSB if all you're looking for is for people to agree with you and let you into their circle jerk. Ideas should neither be automatically accepted nor rejected, they should all get a fair trial. Let an idea sink or swim based upon how logically sound it is. Let them be examined by multiple people, that way differing views are incorporated to help balance out any biases on the parts of the examiners.

If we don't want to tolerate trolls and spam bots in this section, then we have to stop tolerating it. We have to set a good example, and let potential idiots know that their shit will not be tolerated. If you have something you honestly want to discuss, everyone should take it seriously, even if the idea seems completely stupid (Who knows? It could actually be a great idea and my bias prevents me from seeing that). But if all you're going to do is, for example, post threads about how evil non-christians are, refuse to back such claims up with evidence when asked, continue to bring the topic up again and again after it's already been defeated, etc, then you should be kicked out. There's room for open discussion, but only if people are willing to adhere to the rules about how to properly debate.

[Edited on November 25, 2007 at 10:38 PM. Reason : blah]

11/25/2007 10:37:54 PM

Quote :

"umbrellaman : But if all you're going to do is, for example, post threads about how evil non-christians are [or conversely, how stupid christians are], refuse to back such claims up with evidence when asked, continue to bring the topic up again and again after it's already been defeated, etc, then you should be kicked out."

this is what im talking about.

the focus of my campaign for mod is on our recent problems (the back and forth nonstop dickfights), but I also include as posting non-stop "Personal Issues" when all a person does is cut-and-paste regurgitated bullshit while avoiding questions and without any attempt to engage in rational debate.

see where I said:

Quote :

"joe_schmoe : it means the incessant back and forth bullshit where one or more people just cant shut the fuck up, and they just cant let it go, always trying to get the last word. i dont care who it is, or whether i personally agree or disagree with them. throw em all in the box for a day. they do it again? throw em back in for two. it also means people spamming pet conspiracy theories with the intent to flame, as evidenced by their consistent refusal to debate, but just cut-and-paste over and over -- message_topic.aspx?topic=503398&page=1#10955963 "

they wont get "kicked out", but they will find themselves starting on the path of incrementally-increasing suspensions.

i truly believe this will not have to be used much at all. never for most people, and only a few times for our most egregious offenders, before we all settle down to a steady state that is much less antagonistic and much more conducive for wide and varied discussions and debates.






[Edited on November 25, 2007 at 11:07 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2007 11:03:53 PM

I'm agreeing with you, dude.

The example I gave was just that; an example. But you are right in that we do get the "religion (ie christianity) is stupid" crowd in here. I guess I picked that specific example because of my own bias. It would be fallacious of me to dismiss pro-religious arguments out of hand simply because I already disagree with religion. Both camps should receive equal opportunity to be heard, for as long as they agree to follow the rules.

And as for kicking people out, that's really only for if they're repeat offenders. Obviously the first infraction need not be met with permanent suspension. We should give people room to learn the rules and get accustomed to the atmosphere.

I like your idea, and as long as you think you could be fair and impartial then go for it.

[Edited on November 25, 2007 at 11:25 PM. Reason : blah]

11/25/2007 11:21:55 PM

cool thanks.

my idea for "incrementally-increasing" suspensions would relieve the need for drawing a line at which a person is "supposed to know better"

(1st offense = 1 day in the box; 2nd offense = 2 days; .... 10th offense = 10 days; ... etc.)

i think even our worst trolls would learn after a suspension or three. but a person who never learns and is intent on trolling, would spend the majority of their time in suspension. each time they came back to do it again, they'd go back again.

because i can easily write a script, and the default 32-bit INT type won't roll over until a count of some 2.4 billion is reached

11/25/2007 11:45:47 PM

It puts the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again!

11/25/2007 11:50:37 PM

yes. exactly. an impersonal, behavioristic approach.

the only difference is I wont let grandma rot in the basement bathtub.

11/25/2007 11:57:17 PM

Quote :

"its a "free market" of ideas here. those without any value will fall of the front page"

THAT right there is where we fall short BIG TIME.

we, as a community, fuel the idiocy fire in a big way.

Quote :

"I'm all about letting thread creators self-moderate their threads. I'm not sure what applications would need to be in place for this to work, but allowing the OP to a) block users or b) delete posts would really clean up a lot of threads. Of course, some people would be over-zealously use these powers, but it isn't much worse than how shitty these threads get. Besides, if someone was locked out of a thread, they could always start their own counter-thread."

strongly disagree with this, for pretty much all of the reasons that Schmoe outlined.

Quote :

"Nobody with actual moderation power, but sort of like a sub-moderator; they'll issue warnings to people who break the rules, and if the person in question is still acting up, they'll send a pm to the main moderator, who will then determine if any action needs to be taken. So all decisions regarding punishment are still the sole responsibility of TSB's moderator, but now we've got extra sets of eyes watching this place."

Done.

joe_schmoe is now our unofficial "sub-moderator". I don't generally agree with him, but I generally like him. That may be for the best--I try to be as impartial as possible and leave my own political biases out of my decision loop, but nobody can be perfectly effective at never letting that creep in.

11/25/2007 11:59:46 PM

to clarify, joe_schmoe and I can work like a sniper-spotter team (or a CO/XO, if you like that analogy better). I'll be the only one with my finger on the trigger, but realize that he is my 2nd set of eyes, and if he tells you to check yourself before you wreck yourself, realize that he has my ear.


however, realize that no sort of moderation is going to be a magic pill. A lot of the brains in TSB have grown up and left TWW, and others have left TSB as a result. It's not just that there's some huge influx of idiots--the idiots have always been here. Trust me. There just isn't a lot of intelligent discourse otherwise, so every dumbass with a keyboard and too much free time gets center stage. By the way, the Garage has suffered from the same affliction.

In addition, while a select group of special dumbasses tend to be the idiocy catalyst, they can't fuck it all away on their own. If you don't respond to them--and in particular if you actually contribute worthwhile topics and posts--their dumbassery falls to yesterday's page soon enough. This is a place where those of us who ought to know better fail miserably time after time, and I can't figure out how to drive this point home. Let the dumbasses get tired of being ignored and be the ones to go elsewhere.

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 12:10 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/26/2007 12:03:16 AM

I appreciate the nice words, Duke. I also don't think we disagree as much as some might think. Fully half of me is libertarian in nature (the "social" half). lets not talk about the economic half, though ... oh, look! Second Amendment!

But my plan to help restore credibility to TSB has as its cornerstone the idea of incrementally-increasing suspensions for violators of what I call the "personal issues" rule, and it necessarily must be impersonal and inflexible -- like the algorithmic nature it is based on. It has to be immediate, final, absolute, unable to be pleaded or argued. It can not be filtered through a screen or delayed by communication lag.

This ensures that there is no favoritism or perception of bias, and that everyone knows exactly where they stand.

The linear increase from a very small number ensures a certain safety buffer -- that people aren't disproportionally punished for some minor infraction. I mean, after 1 day in the box, a person can easily come back and lodge a complaint if they feel they were unfairly treated.

This requires me to be given a certain amount of power and responsibility, and for you (as well as the rest of TSB) to trust that I won't abuse that power. While I admit that I can and have engaged in grab-ass games on occasion in the past, I think most people here recognize that I am fair, moderate, rational, and experienced enough to recognize the bullshit.

I will take the responsibility seriously, and no one -- not my friends, not even myself -- will be above the rule.

Finally, I want to address one point you made, that i think is key:

Quote :

"A lot of the brains in TSB have grown up and left TWW, and others have left TSB as a result."

this is true, but i think for a number of reasons. one of the reasons, i believe, is because theres a cacophony of stupidity that drowns out rational debate. some people (me included) throw up their hands in defeat. theres been a large number of stories lately that I've thought "OH, I ought to post that on TWW and see what people say"... but then not bother because i know it will just degenerate into a pissing contest between a few people.

I think this also prevents new users from joining in and making any significant attempt to engage or contribute to the debate. because, there just often is no debate. it's just cockslapping and circle jerking. I'm not going to spare anyone. I'll be just as hard on the "liberal moonbats" as i will the "rightwing nutjobs".

I think it's worth trying. I think TSB can rescue itself, with just a minimal amount of influence from a "Guiding Hand" so to speak. I think my idea, fairly and impartially and consistently implemented, can be that guiding hand.

If my plan doesnt work -- if the brains are truly gone and its really just the idiots and circle jerkers left behind -- then I'll concede defeat. But i think it's worth a try.





[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 2:14 AM. Reason : ]

11/26/2007 2:00:48 AM

Quote :

" Fully half of me is libertarian in nature (the "social" half)"

yeah, you and every other filthy leftist

Quote :

" lets not talk about the economic half, though ... oh, look! Second Amendment!"

haha

11/26/2007 2:03:55 AM

Quote :

"dey tukk errr jerbs!!!!"

HUR

/message_topic.aspx?topic=501338&page=3

"Soapbox Bet for Hookslobberingfool"

nutsmackr

/message_topic.aspx?topic=498452

"Right Wing Fascists Hate Children..."

nutsmackr

/message_topic.aspx?topic=488876

"Christians are insane"

moron

/message_topic.aspx?topic=364442

"The Christian Right & the Rise of American Fascism"

BridgetSPK

/message_topic.aspx?topic=462587

"Christianity -- man's immortal blunder"

McDanger

/message_topic.aspx?topic=412249

How does this quick sample of pathetic posts/threads "encourage more good contribution and discussion"? When the "intelligentsia" here wants to stop pretending that two or three users that currently post and a handful that rarely or no longer post are the problem with TSB, let me know.

11/26/2007 3:31:13 AM

this is a section based on arguments and people get upset when others argue with them

there is a reason that politics is on the list of things to avoid talking about with people that you want to be your friends - a lot of people have strong opinions and get angry when others disagree with them

it will always be a sticky situation - i do agree that the current situation can be approved though - all sections could be - it's good that the users are actually trying to discuss ways to do that

11/26/2007 9:57:01 AM

lol

more moderation

its the democratic answer!

11/26/2007 10:06:16 AM

Pretty much every major political ideology have major flaws.

Democracy's strongpoint in listening to the people is also a drawback because most people are fairly dim.

Fortunately science and logic don't fall under democratic processes. (well at least they're not really supposed to)

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

11/26/2007 10:14:20 AM

4^ I don't see what the big deal was with my thread -- at the time I had just finished The Antichrist and had decided that Nietzsche's critique of Christianity was pretty spot-on. I still pretty much think that, although I'd probably quibble over some of the finer points a little. That's exactly what happened, actually --- I remember a lot of discourse in that thread. Either way it was a pretty fun thread, and a lot of people got involved.

Did you entirely miss the point of this thread? I'm not sure.

(Besides that thread was over two years ago. What we're talking about now is how to get this current day TSB back on track. Not sure what point you were even trying to make.)

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

11/26/2007 10:19:02 AM

^ I included those threads as they relate to this post:

Quote :

"But you are right in that we do get the 'religion (ie christianity) is stupid' crowd in here. I guess I picked that specific example because of my own bias. It would be fallacious of me to dismiss pro-religious arguments out of hand simply because I already disagree with religion."

umbrellaman

Did you entirely miss the point of this thread? I'm not sure. I'm not sure what point you were even trying to make.

11/26/2007 11:41:17 AM

I got the point of this thread, which is more than I can say about you.

The primary reason TSB is in the shitter right now is because people in here don't make any actual arguments. It's just the same talking points and cleverly-crafted slogans over and over again. Nobody's interested in an earnest exchange of ideas, they just want to get up on their soap box (har har) and proclaim how their beliefs are intrinsically better than everybody else's. What joe_schmoe and others have proposed is a way to put a cap on the amount of all that bullshit. And the first step is to start with trolls like you.

11/26/2007 11:50:29 AM

^ Are you referring to me?

11/26/2007 11:51:52 AM

Are you denying the fact that you're a troll?

11/26/2007 11:52:48 AM

^ Abso-fucking-lutely. I don't troll anybody--ever. And anyone that refers to me as a troll is an idiot.

11/26/2007 11:59:26 AM

...and the thread takes a turn towards irony.

11/26/2007 12:26:43 PM

Only now do I realize that I'm calling the kettle black.

11/26/2007 12:36:31 PM

hooksaw, how do you interpret your post as anything but a troll? You were referring to an example somebody gave (the nature of the example was irrelevant to the overall point) and responded with what you felt were violations, some from over two years ago.

The contribution you've given of calling people out by name (whereas before I think barely any names had been mentioned) was deliberately inflammatory, and for the most part, exactly what we're talking about with this thread. It's notable at least that the moment this thread took a turn for the worse was your entrance.

That said though, what do YOU want out of this section?

11/26/2007 1:12:07 PM

in my casual lurking, i've been hard pressed to find any posts by hooksaw that are not inflammatory.

11/26/2007 1:19:36 PM

I'm trying to think of things that have changed in my years on this forum, since most who have been on it for a while tend to agree that it was better a few years ago than it is now.

Normally I'm leery of that sort of thinking, because wolfwebbers seem to have a special affinity for misplaced nostalgia. In this case, however, I believe it appropriate.

The overall quality of posters is, I think, pretty much the same as it has ever been, but there has been a shift in the "soap box personalities," those people who, for whatever reason, tend to leap to mind when we think of the Soap Box. Three or four years ago, my list of these individuals would've included people whose contribution involved regular posting of cogent arguments on a variety of topics. They all had "specialties," sure, but they'd cover ground and weren't "one-note guys." There were one or two exceptions, but generally I remembered soapboxers for being fun to argue with.

Now, when I think of the Soap Box personalities, I think of hooksaw. I think of treetwista. I think of a handful of other broken-records and trolls. By equal measure of their tenacity in being annoying and our willingness to acknowledge it, they have become the central figures of the forum.

That was probably an unnecessarily long-winded way of saying something that was probably unnecessary to say, but I wanted to lay out my thought very clearly. Now, of course, the problem comes with how to fix it.

Partly, we will just have to wait for new blood and new talent. Some of the lesser-knowns on this board are bound to garner attention as they post intelligent things. As we see that happening, we need to shift our focus to them, try to engage those individuals, both for our own benefit and also to drown out the hooksaws who might otherwise chase them away.

Also, I think we, the concerned, need to post new topics more frequently, and to ensure that they are on good subjects. Anything too topical is bound to become a debate framed by the talking heads and media personalities who, if I had one wish, would never be referred to here again. Honest to God, I wonder if it wouldn't benefit us to just create a slew of topics called Abortion, Capital Punishment, Gun Control, Immigration the Drug War, etc., and have the OP just say, "discuss." It's simplistic, but being broad helps prevent us from getting bogged down in the minutiae that doesn't make for good debate.

At any rate, more topics equals more chance for good Soap Box. It really doesn't matter that there's so much crap on here, it's that there's so little of anything else. I don't mind sifting through some dirt if I'm pretty sure I'm gonna find a nugget.

So, my suggestion in a nutshell:

More and better topics from the concerned, and more attention paid to engaging new guys.

That is all for now.

11/26/2007 4:27:31 PM

im flattered that so many people allow me simply posting my opinion on an issue to completely ruin their entire TSB experience

11/26/2007 4:36:10 PM

It's not your opinion that pisses us off it's the delivery of the opinion. You have no desire to debate either, despite trying to act like you do. If you simply made one post per thread with your opinion and no flames or trollbait you'd probably be just fine.

11/26/2007 4:42:12 PM

Quote :

"im flattered that so many people allow me simply posting my opinion on an issue to completely ruin their entire TSB experience"

If you're being honest, then this is the misconception that allows you to do what you do.

If you're viewing yourself as some straight-shooting, honest conservative who pisses off "open minded" liberals by bravely providing his opinion, your view is completely wrong. Nobody here is angry at your opinions -- merely at your methods.

That being said, what do you want from this section?

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2007 5:05:04 PM

Quote :

"It's not your opinion that pisses us off it's the delivery of the opinion"

thats the same BULLSHIT copout i've heard numerous times

if you can't even see past a couple cuss words or called names to see my point then fuck you I don't want you to respond...you're the same kind of people who ignore everything that someone says if they happen to use improper grammar....not my opinion but my delivery, give me a fucking break

Quote :

"That being said, what do you want from this section?"

i dunno, how bout to be able to post my opinion on a particular topic without somehow becoming "one of the worst posters in the section" just because you dont agree with me? how bout me being able to say what i think without everybody accusing me of being something i'm completely not, like somebody who just regurgitates fox news or sucks off bush all the time? is that too much to fucking ask? you act like i'm the problem when you know good and god damn well that there are lots of people contributing to one problem

11/26/2007 5:38:43 PM

He can't resist trolling, even in a thread related to what to do to improve TSB.

11/26/2007 5:40:48 PM

Quote :

"He can't resist trolling"

well look which troll can't resist following up a post of mine not directed at him...maybe one thing to do with this section is suspend this ^ bald alias post stalker troll again

he trolls me to tell me i cant resist trolling...typical hypocrisy from the worst poster on the entire wolfweb

11/26/2007 5:42:11 PM