New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Feedback: Questions.

J

Jen

Senator
These are questions about how the board is run.
We, as posters, will be better able to stay within the rules if we understand what they are.

1. Are all anti Hillary threads going to be closed?

2. Will all anti Trump, Cruz, Carson, Rubio, et al be likewise closed?

3. I thought this was a political forum ("Political Jack") and passionate discourse is expected. Why then is some passionate discourse deleted and put into the "trash heap"?

Question #3 segues us to a fourth question:

4. Why did the Political Jack staff see fit to name a forum ("Trash Heap") in such a pejorative, provoking manner when in the other forums of this board, they delete such things?

Thank you for your calm response.
 
Last edited:
All great questions. It does seem odd to me why people who are Left-Winged can get away with offensive posts, but Right-Winged posters cannot. "Cankles", in particular, seems to be more offensive to some than c*nt, c**ks**ker, motherf"*ker and many other words. Why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Max R. said:
All great questions. It does seem odd to me why people who are Left-Winged can get away with offensive posts, but Right-Winged posters cannot. "Cankles", in particular, seems to be more offensive to some than c*nt, c*"ks*"ker, motherf**ker and many other words. Why?
Click to expand...
dontknow.gif


That's what I'd like to know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not difficult...a top post is supposed to have something that leads to discussion..

An "I hate Hillary and all leftists" does not do that in any way shape or form. Indeed, it does the opposite. The tone is disrespectful from the very beginning. There is no debate to be had.


The opening post of a thread sets the topic and the tone of the discussion. It should contain a member's opinions or questions with sufficient elaboration to establish a foundation for respectful discussion and debate. Threads should not be posted in the wrong forum, or be duplicates of other threads and/or topics (creating multiple threads with fundamentally the same topic is not allowed). Images, links, quotations, etc., should be used to support a member's opinion, not to replace it. Thread titles should be a description of the thread topic (and if not they may be altered by the moderators). Whether a thread has sufficiently set a basis for respectful debate on the thread topic will be at the discretion of the moderators.
 
Craig said:
It's not difficult...a top post is supposed to have something that leads to discussion..

An "I hate Hillary and all leftists" does not do that in any way shape or form. Indeed, it does the opposite. The tone is disrespectful from the very beginning. There is no debate to be had.


The opening post of a thread sets the topic and the tone of the discussion. It should contain a member's opinions or questions with sufficient elaboration to establish a foundation for respectful discussion and debate. Threads should not be posted in the wrong forum, or be duplicates of other threads and/or topics (creating multiple threads with fundamentally the same topic is not allowed). Images, links, quotations, etc., should be used to support a member's opinion, not to replace it. Thread titles should be a description of the thread topic (and if not they may be altered by the moderators). Whether a thread has sufficiently set a basis for respectful debate on the thread topic will be at the discretion of the moderators.
Click to expand...

Sure, Craig. That is assumed. But my question was whether ALL posts negative to Hillary would be deleted or thrown into the "Trash Bin". If the answer is "no" then I can expect to see anti-hillary posts remaining on the board. If the answer is "yes" then "why?" would be the obvious next question. Thank you for your opinion on that.

Now, why do you think that the forum to which posts go when the Staff doesn't like them is called something pejorative? (Trash Bin). Aren't we supposed to avoid baiting here? That is a baiting name of a forum right off the bat. It's a rules breaker as far as I can tell.
 
Jen said:
Sure, Craig. That is assumed. But my question was whether ALL posts negative to Hillary would be deleted or thrown into the "Trash Bin". If the answer is "no" then I can expect to see anti-hillary posts remaining on the board. If the answer is "yes" then "why?" would be the obvious next question. Thank you for your opinion on that.

Now, why do you think that the forum to which posts go when the Staff doesn't like them is called something pejorative? (Trash Bin). Aren't we supposed to avoid baiting here? That is a baiting name of a forum right off the bat. It's a rules breaker as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

All "anti Hillary" posts have not been placed in the trash bin. You do see them.

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/hillary-blames-ambassador-stevens.86126/page-4#post-1446855

Trash Bin, to me...for posts that are not intended for debate or discussion, seems a reasonable name. The posts are trash, aka garbage, and the extreme nature of them serves, perhaps, as a reminder of the limits, limited as there are.
 
Craig said:
All "anti Hillary" posts have not been placed in the trash bin. You do see them.

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/hillary-blames-ambassador-stevens.86126/page-4#post-1446855

Trash Bin, to me...for posts that are not intended for debate or discussion, seems a reasonable name. The posts are trash, aka garbage, and the extreme nature of them serves, perhaps, as a reminder of the limits, limited as there are.
Click to expand...

If I spend time writing a post and someone comes in and bombs it with replies that are "trash" and it ends up in the "Trash Bin" that sort of makes it so I am not willing to spend a lot of time researching for and writing a post. If it ends up in the "Trash" then I wasted my time and effort.

Maybe if some other name had been thought up ...... maybe if Staff hadn't been trying to bait someone with that name.......... it might be better for the health of the board. That's my opinion.
 
Perhaps a moderator belongs in the trash heap. How about a committee to determine worthiness or unworthiness of a thread?
 
Alias said:
Perhaps a moderator belongs in the trash heap. How about a committee to determine worthiness or unworthiness of a thread?
Click to expand...
Hopefully, it takes more than a single politically-biased mod to trash a thread or censor member's posts, but my understanding is that is exactly how it's handled. The only committee decision is banning.
 
Max R. said:
Hopefully, it takes more than a single politically-biased mod to trash a thread or censor member's posts, but my understanding is that is exactly how it's handled. The only committee decision is banning.
Click to expand...
The banning by committee is good. I'm against any form of censorship of political discourse.
 
Alias said:
The banning by committee is good. I'm against any form of censorship of political discourse.
Click to expand...
I agree, but this is a privately owned forum which entails liability issues. If one member threatened another and the owner(s) did nothing about it, they could be held liable for any subsequent issues.

That said, I can understand neutralizing aggressive behavior, but it should all be on a level playing field. Characterizing calling one politician "cankles" as offensive yet not holding anyone equally to the standard for such names of political opponents is biased. It destroys the essence of the idea behind "free speech" in that it is inherently unfair, prejudicial and biased.
 
Max R. said:
I agree, but this is a privately owned forum which entails liability issues. If one member threatened another and the owner(s) did nothing about it, they could be held liable for any subsequent issues.

That said, I can understand neutralizing aggressive behavior, but it should all be on a level playing field. Characterizing calling one politician "cankles" as offensive yet not holding anyone equally to the standard for such names of political opponents is biased. It destroys the essence of the idea behind "free speech" in that it is inherently unfair, prejudicial and biased.
Click to expand...
Threats are a totally different issue. Calling politicians names is fair for both sides. You enter the arena, you're fair game.
 
Addy said:
Ditto to that comment, Craig, well stated.
Click to expand...
Do you think a thread titled "Why Republicans are idiots" is intended for debate and honest discussion?

Any forum owner is free to turn their forum into a LW or RW echo-chamber, my humble advice is that it's a better business decision to keep a level playing field.
 
Max R. said:
Do you think a thread titled "Why Republicans are idiots" is intended for debate and honest discussion?

Any forum owner is free to turn their forum into a LW or RW echo-chamber, my humble advice is that it's a better business decision to keep a level playing field.
Click to expand...

I admit, it's not. At times a poster's frustrations becomes too much, apparently when this happens we see posters react with -- when in Rome do as the Romans... :rolleyes:
 
Addy said:
I admit, it's not. At times a poster's frustrations becomes too much, apparently when this happens we see posters react with -- when in Rome do as the Romans... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Do you think the thread is legit or does it belong in the trash bin?
 
Addy said:
The trash bin of course. .. that's the place for it.
Click to expand...
Agreed and that's my point; a level playing field is best for the forum. An echo chamber will soon be reduced to a handful of people bashing one side with everyone else agreeing with them...well, except one or two token nut jobs with opposing views.

There certainly won't be any honest discussion or debate.
 
Max R. said:
Agreed and that's my point; a level playing field is best for the forum. An echo chamber will soon be reduced to a handful of people bashing one side with everyone else agreeing with them...well, except one or two token nut jobs with opposing views.

There certainly won't be any honest discussion or debate.
Click to expand...

There seems to be quite a level playing field now, imo. The mods try their best, to keep it that way.
Both sides of the political aisles are guilty of crossing the lines on observing the rules and guidelines of PJ.
It would be unfair and untrue if it's denied. I have seen it happen too many times.

It's up to the posters including myself to use good judgement when posting. Actually our posting styles reflects our personalties/moral character to a certain degree. imo

It's up to us to make this board work well. The mods shouldn't have to monitor our behavior. My two cents. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top