Donation discussion - Official thread

Before considering investing my money in a site that I admittedly use almost daily I wonder if there are any plans to address the issue
of biased and vengeful moderators and the accompanying issue of sacred cow posters? I know I have gotten many private messages
from other posters complaining of just such concerns (even urging me to leave the site altogether).

While I enjoy the site itself for the people it draws the partisan micro managing from certain moderators has made me question my
presence here many times over. It is a great source of frustration.

 

I've been a member of this forum since Sept. 2008, so perhaps I can lend a few useful viewpoints about how it can be more attractive and successful to more people.

1. Do away with nearly all the censorship! Allow members to express themselves using language of their choice so long as it is not of the kind that simply curses for the sake of cursing. It's really not so hard. Example: I might want to call Obama a lying son-of-a-***** because of his admitted lies about Obamacare, BUT, I should not be able to call a fellow forum member the same name simply because he defends Obama, or holds a host of viewpoints counter to mine. Similarly, we should be able to state that sending American troops into the heart of the Ebola zone in Africa is total BULL**** without censorship. But, one forum member should not call another forum member a ****-head, again, simply for holding viewpoints and having opinions that run counter to another's beliefs.

2. Appoint Thread Moderators who are more balanced, fair, and judicious in their use of censorship. The quality of Moderators has, in general, been much better for about two years now, but from time to time their actions are, at best, capricious and unjustified, and, to say the least, uneven.

3. Continue and strengthen the requirement that members must provide substantiation for statements and claims that they make.

4. Make it a requirement that rebuttals must be adequately documented and "fleshed-out". Delete on sight all rebuttals that amount to little more than something like, "Oh, yeah? Dude, that's like total bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!" The issue should be WHY is it "total bull****"...? Too many people resort to one-liner insults, probably because they lack the imagination, and facts, to counterattack with something of greater substance....

5. I have appreciated the addition of the ability to "Like this Post". It would also be very useful to add the ability to "Dislike this post", in the same way, with the same ease.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these ideas. -- Pollycy

 

Can't say I've observed this, even though I've expressed about as much disdain for certain staffers as the rules allow.

Bang on. You've got an anti-flaming rule, and a few posters who hardly do anything BUT flame, and have been doing it for years.

Other than that, staff places way too high a premium on superficial civility, an attitude which is at odds with the idea of "vigorous, respectful debate". With this in mind, I'd say nothing would be more remedial than striking Rule 2, or at least modifying it so it's OK to call a moron a moron and a liar a liar.

 

I've found that if you challenge some mods too forcefully in threads they will follow you around and
pick off your posts while all around you posters are crucifying rules far beyond whatever you've done, or not done.

Brief exhibition: by a certain notorious poster I was once called a "moron" who
was "filling my post" with what was "filling my diapers" and I reported that...with no results whatsoever.
In an adjacent post, with another even more notorious poster, I was given a warning because I made the bad choice of calling his passive/aggressive thread derailing posts "uninformed and ignorant" (which they were, admittedly ignorant of facts).

Some posters are protected like a rare snake by the EPA and argument with them is pointless because the mods will block any
meaningful comment you can make, while simultaneously allowing them to flaunt the rules wildly.

Am I supposed to pay for the "privilege" of this?

 

No! Complain and do so with impunity like you are now, lol. But Yosh I intend to put my money- 'Where your fingers are, NOW'!

 

I'll be happy to donate when I'm assured some of these mod abuses are addressed.

 

Thanks for stating your opposition. We can Now see the and feel the livid and rational passions of other members ,Yosh-thanks man.

 

This is a problem in many internet forums. I have noticed this type of problem in this forum too, but let me say Politicalforum.com is one of the better forums out there. For the most part, there is very little censorship.

One of the funny things I have seemed to notice is that moderators are more likely to lock a thread if the debate does not go their way on the first page. I find this rather amusing.

But there is plenty of crap posting the moderators do not seem to deal with. Whole new topics started about ridiculous and worthless things.
Better too little moderation than too much, I suppose.

Ah, the politics of internet forums. Can I go off-topic for a moment and point out that this can happen in real-life governments too. Whenever you designate people to enforce rules/laws and give them a tremendous amount of discretionary power, there is the potential for misuse.

 

I wouldn't mind donating a bit of money, but I would like the rule where you have to back up a claim with a source back. If we can't be held accountable for our words, then there really isn't much point in a debate.

 

I've got a long experience on the net and I would submit to the attention of the administration of this forum some thoughts.

I joined social networks to cultivate my interests and to meet persons who had something interesting to share [and I shared a lot]. It has happened that internet has helped me with some particular researches, but this is a different tale.

Back to my early presence on the net, it was a free membership of an American social network [Hi5] where I became owner and moderator of wide groups of discussion [one was a political forum as big and as active as this and with all the connected troubles].

Then I joined a free history forum which is a real treasure [and note, it's free and they don't ask for donation, but just for fair participation to the forum ... it's well more easy to be banned from that forum than from this one!].

So, from these experiences I can elaborate some conceptions ...

Free membership is a kind of "mute contract". Who doesn't pay can only rely on the notorious TOS [Terms Of Service] which actually say that all the power is on the side of the administrators [who can ban members, moderators and owners of group in a while ... here we miss the level of the social network, so we can say that with the free membership we accept to be substantially "temporary guests"].

Donors ... donors are not exactly subscribers and this is a bit annoying from my perspective, since a donor actually, despite the payment of sums of money, is still a "temporary guest".

If I pay ... I honestly expect to have the right to discuss any moderation action which is related to my activity on the message board. Overall in case a moderator who moderates me is not a donor!

If I have to pay to remain a "temporary guest", I think I prefer to become a subscriber of a different forum [a pay forum, not a free forum] where a clear economical contract defends my rights as paying member.

 

The site is blowing up before you can make a post. I better hurry. Do away with all censorship. We don't need any Nanny moderators to police our language.

 

I would donate money if I had faith that the site administration was being honest and forthright about their expenses.

As it stands, they are asking for hundreds of dollars per month in donations, which makes zero sense at all. I am fully aware of how much it costs to host a forum of this size and activity, and I can assure everyone here that it is not in the thousands of dollars per year. Nowhere close.

 

That was always a dumb rule. People may have some knowledge on an issue, but fail to be able to remember the exact article they read, or maybe they heard it on TV, or just plain "know".

You can't always support statements, and allowing members to complain over it leaves it up to interpretation for the mods.... which as discussed... have issues of their own.

 

While I know it doesn't cost as much to run a site like this, as is being claimed... I didn't mind donating when I realized I would probably hang here on and off during weekdays when I was bored. I have the disposable cash, and didn't mind helping out. But I stopped for the reasons you stated.

Understanding this only puts a fresh target on my back....
I have received some of the stupidest warnings and infractions. Some were deserved and I knew so when I typed the offending post... others were just ridiculous. In both cases they were new mods and likely just trying to prove their worth. One was just another member who I didn't get along with, who then became a mod. Always good.

When debating global warming, and asking if the sun was in collusion with the dems, and having the comment removed for picking on dems, I can't say I'm in a rush to send more money.

Seems I'm not alone in saying a tighter grip on the moderation, would be the first step to attracting donations.

That said, based on interaction I have had with probably every mod here.... Falena stands apart from the rest. She should be the norm, not the exception.

PoliticalForum is probably fine too... have never seen or communicated with them.

 

All good points. As I said I don't mind giving a little if I don't feel I am getting into a fight where one hand is tied behind my back.
Right now, I don't feel that way.

 

As long as the mods are being unbias when they delete comments, I think it's fair. I mean, it's a private site, with a clear set of rules. However, if I noticed any bias comment removals, I'd be worried. I haven't seen anything crazy yet.

 

I can not believe we have to discuss donations. If you want to play....pay a little. I donated on Saturday. I have been (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) slapped by mods in my 2 years here. I think some mods suck as with some forum members. And some mods and members feel the same way about me....who cares?

Anyways, everyone (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about the welfare state here in the United States and wanting all the freebies and sucking all the resources and taxes from our great nation but then come here to play for free need to do some soul searching.

 

The issue for me is that I have no interest in paying above and beyond what is needed to run the site. It doesn't cost thousands of dollars to run this website, and yet that is exactly what is being asked for. I don't mind chipping in, but I want to have a clear understanding of what that money is for and why it is needed.

 

I dunno... the last couple comments of mine that have been removed, have been harmless comments about dems in general.
I don't assume it's partisan bias, but I do feel it's personality bias.

Does it matter? No.
It's not my site, and not my mods. They are free to do what they want. They can remove me any time they feel the desire.
I'm OK with that, and so are they.
But in a thread where people are seemingly allowed to voice opinions on improvements, moderation is the first area some of us recommend.

It's inconsistent at best... and biased at worst.

I recently was called racist because my avatars are white women. No big deal.
I once jokingly wrote one word: "racist"... in response to a guy disagreeing with Obama, or something. I got a warning for calling names.

Another recent one:
Some guy: "Who cares if terrorists kill 3 americans?"
Me: "Oh, you're a democrat?"

Lol... another warning.

PoliticalForum, the admin, is obviously bright enough to understand there would be a lot to be said by the members.
Hopefully he is reading.


And you're right, it is a private site with rules... but when they are asking everyone to pitch in financially....you have to assume people are going to scrutinize.

 

The MODS should create ONE thread where we can all get our anger out. A place to vent.

 

Not sure it would even matter, Army.
I tried once in the private "feedback" forum and my thread was locked before I was done, because one mod didn't like what I had to say.



I just thought of something... how about when all the mods have "donor" under their names, then I'll donate.
Some mention "pay to play".... and they do, after all, control the game.

 

I just want to say, that we appreciate the feedback, and it is being heard by the staff.

If you have specific issues with disciplinary actions, please bring them up in feedback as we do not like to talk about that kind of stuff publicly for privacy reasons.

Thank you for your support, either financially, and/or by offering suggestions on how to improve the site. It is appreciated.

 

This has merit IMHO. A playpen with very minimal moderation where things can be said that can't be in other sections.

 

exactly! Like if you get in a heated debate in a regular thread and you just want to vent, go to the "Venting" thread and let it go!

- - - Updated - - -

And people can't say they were offended by something, since it's a "enter at your own risk" thread. Meaning, if you don't think you'll like what's in it, don't click on it.