The Edge's aggression on the politics subforum.

Sam Green73 said:Yeah, honestly, that feels more like a straight-up insult than just trolling. I guess.
I guess there's some hate speech going on here too, just based on what people believe politically.

So then what the hell is this supposed to be?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Yeah, I'm talking about the war hero turned peace-time coward, Ante Gotovina. A pre-war crook and a total lowlife. Just so there's zero confusion.

dustypuma5 said:Can I call you mellowraven22?

Active Infraction ( points: 35)
Just trolling
Expires
18:15 28.12.2010.
Left By
Ryan Vaughn7
18:15 28.11.2010.

So, apparently, we all have our sacred cows after all. 🙂

And just like that—the moment this user typed it out—the claim that someone would just kill people simply because we're Americans magically transformed into an objective fact?

No evidence required, right?

It’s that classic ego trip—where whatever a person scribbles down, regardless of whether they actually have any proof, suddenly becomes the "absolute truth."

The example you provided isn't just trolling; it's straight-up hate speech...

What's really funny, though—it reeks of those old Communist-era tactics that you all seem to be so terrified of...

dustypuma5 said:Then what exactly is this supposed to be?

Just a personal opinion backed up by facts...

An opinion you don't necessarily have to agree with—but hey, it's still just an opinion...

On the other hand, I’m dying to hear the logic here—I mean, what specific set of facts allows someone to claim that Pusićka was basically tearing apart everything American...

Right off the bat, Franoe is getting a yellow card on the very first page:

So, what exactly earned them a penalty here:

And this too? Is this just freedom of speech? Or the right to have a different opinion?

Meanwhile, this isn't even unnecessary spam:
Yet I get a red card just for pointing out that Ryan Vaughn7 should be penalized for trolling.

@lonehawk172/">@@lonehawk172

I guess I'll add to that, but maybe just with a quote...

Franooe said:Look, Mason is just playing the populist card. You guys are crazy for coming at him. We’ve got a traitor sitting in the presidency right now!!!!!! Compared to Jugosipović, Mason is an American through and through!

Active Infraction ( points: 30)
Breaking the forum rules (sub-forum)
Expires
14:01 28.12.2010.
Left By
Daniel Ward87
14:01 28.11.2010.

So this breaks the rules, but Ryan Vaughn7's post doesn't...

It's just double standards used to screw him over.

And you guys just twist everything however you want...

dustypuma5 said:@lonehawk172

If I can jump in here, though I might be overstating things with this quote...

Active Infraction ( points: 30)
Breaking forum rules (sub-section)
Expires
14:01 28.12.2010.
Left By
Daniel Ward87
14:01 28.11.2010.

So that’s a rule violation, but the post from Ryan Vaughn7 isn't?

That's just using double standards to screw you over.

And you guys just twist the situation however you want...

Regarding this warning, please do me a favor and look over the Politics section rules PDF—specifically Article 5, Clause 1—or just check my last post.

Once you've read that, pay close attention to how they used the term "Jugosipović." That should clear everything up for you.

Daniel Ward87

lonehawk172 said:Just open up that controversial thread about Mason—the one you linked in your first post—and start reading from the very beginning. Seriously, within just five pages, you’ll run into several people getting warnings, and later on, getting banned entirely, simply because they were talking about Mason and Pusićka the same way Ryan Vaughn7 talks about Gotovina.

So I took a look at the first ten pages or so, and honestly, I don't see anything wrong with it. They've just cleared out the off-topic stuff, posts attacking the authors instead of actually discussing the topic, and some general slogans, plus a bit of random chatter, but nothing else. A few posts did get warned for being blatant ad hominem attacks (like this one).

As for those PDF threads, politics and the stuff on the edge, let me give you some examples.

Look, again, everything seems fine to me. I might handle things a little differently if it were my call, but from what I can see, the actual relevant topics stay in politics, while all the ranting and half-spammy threads have been moved over to the edge.

dustypuma5 said:Can I call you mellowraven22?

Active Infraction ( points: 35)
Just trolling
Expires
18:15 28.12.2010.
Left By
Ryan Vaughn7
18:15 28.11.2010.

So, turns out we still have sacred cows after all. 🙂

Yeah, you're right. This isn't even trolling. Honestly, this is way below the bar for this forum and deserves way more than 35 points.

At first though, I thought you were just messing with me—like you took some old sticky post and just swapped out the names 🙂. Those kinds of posts are totally worthless; there's nothing worth saving in them, just pure, mindless hysteria. Plus, they show you clearly don't get what an actual debate looks like, and there's zero political literacy or class involved. It’s basically the same nonsense as those "patriotic" idiots we love to make fun of.

It’s honestly a bit exhausting that, even after all this time, we still find ourselves needing to explain the absolute basics. Look, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on Mason, just like they have every right to feel however they want about Gotovina. We just need to respect those different perspectives without resorting to personal attacks. That's really all there is to it. There shouldn't be any penalties for freedom of speech—unless we're talking about hate speech, racism, or just plain gutter vulgarity—but there definitely should be consequences for dropping down to ad hominem insults within the forum. That goes for how people treat the moderators, too. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to issue a penalty if an insult is aimed directly at me during a debate. I know some of the loudmouths out there are just waiting for an excuse to complain about the PŽK, but frankly, it doesn't bother me one bit. I'm always ready to stand by my decisions.
And while I'm at it, I want to give a quick thanks to mellowraven22. It's nice to see someone publicly acknowledging the work, especially since they've had to waste their time wading through the most mundane posts yet again.

I honestly haven't a clue... At first glance, even I thought he was just handing out penalties to the folks who were hitting back at him a bit harder 🤷, especially since the whole vibe of the debate wasn't exactly a shining example of democratic discourse.

Then again, you have to hand it to the guy—he actually respects a solid, well-reasoned correction, like when I pointed out the specifics regarding the US entering the VE..

On a different note, I wonder if it’s really kosher for a moderator to be an active participant in a thread while simultaneously trying to police it. To some people, it might feel a bit like when the judge is also the one filing the charges against you, or acting as both prosecutor and jury
I haven't personally been in that situation, but I can see how that impression would stick.

Maybe it would be cleaner if a moderator, should they choose to jump into a heated debate—especially those ones that get a little messy—just handed the reins over to one of their colleagues for that specific thread.
I mean, there are plenty of you around to step in..

Since there isn't anything else available, you're more than welcome to step up and offer yourself 😬

Sarah Wilson95 said:Well, if there isn't anyone else stepping up, you're more than welcome to take the reins! 😬

It's perfect timing, really. I actually decided to bow out of the race for forum president just to clear the way for viti. 🤣

Terry Palmer said:I honestly don't know... at first glance, it looked like he was just handing out bans to anyone who gave him a hard time, 🤷 even though the whole vibe of the debate wasn't exactly a shining moment for American democracy.

On the flip side, the guy actually respects a solid point when he hears one—like my correction about the US joining the EU...

Then there's the question of whether it’s kosher for a moderator to be actively debating a thread while also trying to police it. To some people, it might feel like the judge is also the prosecutor,
I haven't experienced it personally, but I get why people would feel that way.

It might be better if a moderator, if they decide to jump into a heated argument that isn't exactly high-brow, just lets a colleague handle the moderation for that specific thread.
I mean, there are plenty of you guys...

The biggest headache was always the threads attacking Josipović, but lately, it looks like the mods have just checked out from that stuff. In my humble opinion, his critics aren't getting slapped with bans nearly as much as they used to.🤷

dustypuma5 said:@lonehawk172

If I may jump in here—though I’ll probably just end up quoting you to make my point...

Active Infraction ( points: 30)
Rule violation (sub-forum)
Expires
14:01 28.12.2010.
Left By
Daniel Ward87
14:01 28.11.2010.

So apparently that breaks the rules, but Ryan Vaughn7's post is perfectly fine...

That is some textbook double standards right there. Just pure nonsense.

And you all can spin the situation however you want...

Wait, so twisting the names of public officials is totally allowed then?

Look, we're getting into an argument again simply because nobody actually knows what they're talking about—not that it stops people from acting like they have all the answers...

It would be nice if, every once in a while, someone actually offered an apology when their "expert" opinion turns out to be worth absolutely nothing.

mellowraven22 said:Yeah, you're right. This isn't trolling. It’s definitely way below the bar for this forum and should have gotten way more than 35 points.

I mean, at first I thought you were just messing with me, like you took some old sticky post and just swapped out the names🙂. Posts like that are totally useless—there's nothing worth keeping in them, just pure, mindless hysteria. Plus, they show you don't get how actual debate works and reveal zero political literacy. They're just like those "Mexican eyes" necklaces and all that other nonsense we love to make fun of.

Against what you're thinking, I don't really care about punishing a post that's already been flagged. It's got a bit of everything, basically just bad taste.

My issue is that, to me, that post is no different from Ryan Vaughn7's post, except his tone is a bit smoother, even if it's heading toward the same insinuations.

@Daniel Ward87/">@@Daniel Ward87

Mea Culpa, I didn't see that, America.

The mods over at Politics are solid, they really put in the work, and Ryan Vaughn7 is easily one of the best.

But man, the influx of aggressive trolls who don't get what a "discussion" actually is is getting out of hand. It’s that classic case of the loud bullies scaring off the reasonable people. Every time a thread touches on the American Civil War or anything involving the old South, it turns into this chaotic shouting match. It drives away the people who actually have something valuable to contribute, leaving nothing but absolute garbage posts behind.

This thread is a perfect example. You’ve got a user named duliba basically terrorizing anyone who dares to say something that doesn't fit their incredibly narrow—and frankly, chauvinistic—worldview. But here's the kicker: as long as he isn't posting something straight-up psycho like when another guy said someone "needs a bullet to the head" (that post is still up, weirdly enough), he just keeps trolling and effectively nuking the whole conversation.

Or look at DEFENSE, who explicitly stated he doesn't want any Southerners returning at all. How is a real debate even possible then? He and plenty of others just flat-out deny reality. That’s a terrible foundation for a discussion.

A lot of other folks find things problematic too, whether it's about the returnees or other issues, but hey, that’s life.
Whether we like it or not, those people are coming back. Exelon is going to be privatized, and government salaries are going to drop. Screaming about how it shouldn't happen is useless, but we should at least ask people why they think it will happen instead of shutting them down for having an opinion.

And then you have guys like Captain Rubish—who rarely posts, which is a shame because he knows his stuff regarding international law—who has to bail because the level of discourse just isn't there. It doesn't matter if the rest of us dislike what he says; the guy presents actual arguments, cites legal rulings, and sticks to the facts. How is that a problem?
If you stumble upon someone who actually knows what they're talking about, why not use that chance to learn something instead of just insulting them because you disagree?

I honestly think the criteria for what counts as trolling needs to be tightened up, especially for those notorious users whose only contribution is pure destruction. We really need to crack down on ad hominem attacks, specifically where people start questioning someone's patriotism or throwing their service in the American Civil War in their face just because they disagree. You guys have improved on this, but it’s still happening—especially with some veterans who seem to think their service gives them a free pass to aggressively attack anyone with a different perspective. There are exceptions, sure, but the loud ones are hard to miss.

Bottom line: don't be afraid to hand out more bans.

northerntiger said:Nah, there's just too much noise from aggressive types who don't understand what a real debate looks like. It’s that classic case of the loudmouths driving away the reasonable people. Any time a thread touches on the American Civil War or anything involving the former South, it turns into this chaotic shouting match. It scares off anyone actually worth listening to, leaving nothing behind but the bottom feeders.

Exactly. 🙂

You just can't have a decent conversation anymore.
I had a similar experience recently over on Reddit.
You get blindsided by some Republican zealot who doesn't even grasp the basics of the issue they're yelling about (which is almost always the case), and at that point, you just walk away.

@ Ryan Vaughn7, that last post of yours was great—it actually leaves a tiny bit of hope for a better tomorrow. 😳

The mods over on Politics are all leftists through and through. It’s totally standard for them to target only the conservatives on that board. Their own people can post whatever they want without seeing an intervention, and at worst, they just get their posts deleted. The criteria used on Politics are a complete joke. It’s become so obvious, and it was clearly planned out a long time ago, making it almost ridiculous to even complain about it. Why bother venting to the very people who handed out the penalty?

Thanks, northerntiger. Thanks, hollowdriver18.
Ladies, I owe you one. Much love to your keyboards.

Given how spotless it is, I wouldn't call that a smart move 😬