112 replies to this topic

[eVader]

Good call. I enjoy a little political debate once in a while, but that thing was getting ridiculous. I quickly tire of closed-minded people that just want to regurgitate crap from their favorite talking head rather than actually discuss/debate with real thought.

When I first joined MyFolsom, those discussions were usually more civilized and interesting. Looking back, most of the people in the discussions were also people that would actually come to the events and meet each other. So it was more like friendly debate over a couple of beers, not a rhetoric battle of the witless. We could get into a heated debate online, then meet for drinks and pizza the following week and it was no big deal. I doubt many of the recent offenders could do the same.

Maybe have a couple qualifications for accessing the political forum:

1. Provide an example of at least one topic where you actually changed your mind after some healthy conversation.
2. Only people that have participated in MyFolsom gatherings (formal or informal, like the MNF group) have access. Miscellaneous interweb tube dwellers not welcome.

Well said - if you wouldn't discuss\debate a particular topic with your neighbor, friend or member of this forum face to face then one tends to "talk big" and ignore the other sides valid points. Best if you walk away learning a different perspective.

[Robert Giacometti]

Good call. I enjoy a little political debate once in a while, but that thing was getting ridiculous. I quickly tire of closed-minded people that just want to regurgitate crap from their favorite talking head rather than actually discuss/debate with real thought.

Ken please don't take this personally, I'm just trying to use what you said as an example.

Just for clarification exactly who are you refering to when you say, "closed minded people that just want to reguritate crap from their favorite talking head rather than actually discuss/debate with real thought"?

Is it possible that the people who were active in the political forum, didn't really listen to talking heads, maybe they could think on their own, formed their own philosophies and applied those principles to the topic being discussed?

Where is your proof that people did what you are claiming?

If people didn't do what you are claiming wouldn't you be guilty of name calling? I'm curious if any of the moderators on here read your post and are willing to admit they agree with what you said?

The above is an example on how things start to get sideways. My contention is that some of the moderators on here selectively enforce the name calling when it offends their side and look the other way when its against the other side.

There were examples given about this many times when the political forum was opened yet it was never addressed.

I'll encourage John to either ensure as best as you can equall treatment to all or keep the political forum closed. If not you'll be right back where you were.

[bookwom]

Gee, John, looks like you going to have to close this thread, too.

[cw68]

I'll encourage John to either ensure as best as you can equall treatment to all or keep the political forum closed. If not you'll be right back where you were.

OR, just follow the rules. That's the simplest way to keep from going right back where we were.

For the record, here they are:

Strict enforcement:
1. No name calling or insults to other posters (You are a ____, ____ is an idiot)
2. No "baiting" to get a reaction.
3. No whining about how ___ is unfair. Especially these rules.
4. No flooding the boards with propaganda (excessive new threads all about why Bush is an idiot, etc)
5. No messages of "hate"


Moderate enforcement (usually just a warning, but we will give you a strike if you don't pay attention to warnings)
1. No cutting & pasting of articles
2. No flooding the boards with new threads (excessive new threads about random things that don't really add value to the board. 1 or 2 new threads a day is not that big of a deal, but don't add a new thread to every interesting thing you see on the internet).

Any controversial political or social topic may be discussed in the "Nat'l. Politics Forum, with the exception of abortion. This topic gets ugly fast, and it's not worth the headache. We'll close the threads if we see it being discussed.


John has the power to change any avatar or signature, at any time.

Them's the rules, folks. "Be cool or be gone!"

[Steve Heard]

Good call. I enjoy a little political debate once in a while, but that thing was getting ridiculous. I quickly tire of closed-minded people that just want to regurgitate crap from their favorite talking head rather than actually discuss/debate with real thought.

When I first joined MyFolsom, those discussions were usually more civilized and interesting. Looking back, most of the people in the discussions were also people that would actually come to the events and meet each other. So it was more like friendly debate over a couple of beers, not a rhetoric battle of the witless. We could get into a heated debate online, then meet for drinks and pizza the following week and it was no big deal. I doubt many of the recent offenders could do the same.

Great points! We need to do that again soon. For example, you and I have differed on some topics, but I sure enjoyed talking to you and Mrs. Sacken about your new family, your parents and the neighborhood you grew up in, sports, the Kings, Folsom and Sacramento over pizza and beer.

Same can be said for Davburr, John, Cvander, Cybertano, CW, and countless others. We agree on some things, not so much on others (Msgt's love of 'Four Christmases' comes to mind!). There is dimention, depth, community, and diversity of opionion over a wide range of topics. For others, it's all about political sniping and the complaints that come with it.

I am glad the political section is shut down.

So, how's your family? My daughter Jenny, the one who 7 years ago was on the forum as 'chaosforkids' is now 21 years old! Can you believe it?

[Rich_T]

Hmmm... Though I "get" why the politics forum was halted (i.e. bad behavior), it seems to me that many people here are too gleeful about the forum being shut down. It should be a more sobering event. It gives me pause to think that the way to deal with any discomfort is to simply eliminate it, in order to exist in a bubble of uncontroversial discussion.

I'm glad that many regular contributors also have their own social network, and can meet in person to discuss a broad range of topics. Others, like me, prefer to simply check the discussions from time to time, and the range of topics has just been reduced.

[supermom]

I agree with Rich_T-and with CW-and Robert.

hmmm--CW--Many times in the discourse of a conversation a poster would ask for verification of a substantial view. So, when the rule says--no copy and paste-are we talking about the whole article? 'cause normally I just copy and paste the link.

Is that not allowed?

The politics forum got less intersting about the time it was difficult to find a thread-because there were four or five pro and con on the same subject. And when posters said you couldn't go on a thread unless you agreed with the original posters view, ie--only conservatives can post here about the love of dog poo being placed on the mayors lawn...(well not really--but I couldn't actually remember the name of the actual threads).

So, ok, we just dumped a bunch of old threads.

the bright side---the search function may work faster--now

[Dave Burrell]

Hmmm... Though I "get" why the politics forum was halted (i.e. bad behavior), it seems to me that many people here are too gleeful about the forum being shut down. It should be a more sobering event. It gives me pause to think that the way to deal with any discomfort is to simply eliminate it, in order to exist in a bubble of uncontroversial discussion.

I'm glad that many regular contributors also have their own social network, and can meet in person to discuss a broad range of topics. Others, like me, prefer to simply check the discussions from time to time, and the range of topics has just been reduced.

Hey Rich, we're glad its shut down because we were tired of the negativity. You don't understand this fact because as you noted you haven't been on here for the past year and you rarely participated in any threads other then the hot political ones such as Prop 8 last year.

There's a lot more to life then just political discussions and arguments

Perhaps you might find a whole lot about this site and about Folsom if you participated in the non-political discussions- who knows, you may even find out more positive information about your fellow Folsomites other then what political party they belong to.

[Robert Giacometti]

OR, just follow the rules. That's the simplest way to keep from going right back where we were.

For the record, here they are:

Strict enforcement:
1. No name calling or insults to other posters (You are a ____, ____ is an idiot)
2. No "baiting" to get a reaction.
3. No whining about how ___ is unfair. Especially these rules.
4. No flooding the boards with propaganda (excessive new threads all about why Bush is an idiot, etc)
5. No messages of "hate"

Rules are great and every society needs them. Its the selective enforcement pattern of the rules by some of Mods, coincindently along the same lines of their political beliefs that contributes to the escalation of things getting out of control and lessens the overall integrity of the forum.

Specific examples of selective enforcenment have been given in the past, yet nothing was done. If we as a community forum are going to have a discussion about the forum to make it better for all, then we all need to be willing to listen to each others concerns.

Edit: You mods are the greatest, especially Mylo!

[Steve Heard]

Hmmm... Though I "get" why the politics forum was halted (i.e. bad behavior), it seems to me that many people here are too gleeful about the forum being shut down. It should be a more sobering event. It gives me pause to think that the way to deal with any discomfort is to simply eliminate it, in order to exist in a bubble of uncontroversial discussion.

I'm glad that many regular contributors also have their own social network, and can meet in person to discuss a broad range of topics. Others, like me, prefer to simply check the discussions from time to time, and the range of topics has just been reduced.

If you were a moderator, subjected to the nearly daily complaints from people complaining about the political posts and how we are either a bunch of hypocritical libs for not enforcing the rules or hypocritical right-wingers for not enforcing the rules, depending on the political party of the offended member, you might be gleeful to see it closed, too.

If you were trying to sell ad space, and you had people say they didn't want to buy space here because of all the negativity, you might be gleeful as well.

If you were a member of the community who was afraid to speak up for fear of getting slammed by mean-spirited partisan ridicule, again, you may find yourself in gleeful spirit.

This isn't about regulars having a social network. In fact, many of the people who have come to our social events have been new members, lurkers or infrequent posters.

It's about this online community which is party of the community of Folsom, and keeping it an enjoyable place.

Rules are great and every society needs them. Its the selective enforcement pattern of the rules by some of Mods, coincindently along the same lines of their political beliefs that contributes to the escalation of things getting out of control and lessens the overall integrity of the forum.

Specific examples of selective enforcenment have been given in the past, yet nothing was done. If we as a community forum are going to have a discussion about the forum to make it better for all, then we all need to be willing to listen to each others concerns.

Edit: You mods are the greatest, especially Mylo!

It's funny you should put it that way, because the complaints of selective enforcement, and the examples given, ALWAYS, not sometimes, but ALWAYS fall along the same lines as the political beliefs of the person complaining.

For example, a lefty will insult a righty and/or posts mean-spirited anti-right stuff and not see anything wrong with it. When we call them on it, they defend it by saying 'the guy is wrong, or lying or just putting up more right wing BS. Why don't you guys censor his crap instead of harrassing me for defending myself? You moderators always let the right-wingers get away with everything!'

Conversely, a righty insults a lefty and/or puts up mean-spirited anti-left stuff and can't see anything wrong with it. When we call them on it, they defend it by saying 'that guy is wrong, lying, wrong or just posting more left-wing BS. Why don't you guys censor his crap instead of harrassing me? You mods always let the lefties get away with everything!"

Yes, both sides seem to keep records of the times the 'other' side was allowed to say insulting and outlandish things and the rules were not being enforced.

I deal with the same thing at home. Each of my children thinks I favor the other one, and each can come up with examples to prove it.

[Rich_T]

Hey Rich, we're glad its shut down because we were tired of the negativity. You don't understand this fact because as you noted you haven't been on here for the past year and you rarely participated in any threads other then the hot political ones such as Prop 8 last year.

There's a lot more to life then just political discussions and arguments

Perhaps you might find a whole lot about this site and about Folsom if you participated in the non-political discussions- who knows, you may even find out more positive information about your fellow Folsomites other then what political party they belong to.

That seems fair enough, but what I don't get is why people couldn't simply not go onto the political discussion forum if it bothered them. But you're right, I didn't participate much, so I'm not emotionally involved.

Of course there is more to life than politics. I certainly don't focus on politics in my life, compared to other things. But it's not a question of "either/or".

[Rich_T]

If you were a moderator, subjected to the nearly daily complaints from people complaining about the political posts and how we are either a bunch of hypocritical libs for not enforcing the rules or hypocritical right-wingers for not enforcing the rules, depending on the political party of the offended member, you might be gleeful to see it closed, too.

If you were trying to sell ad space, and you had people say they didn't want to buy space here because of all the negativity, you might be gleeful as well.

If you were a member of the community who was afraid to speak up for fear of getting slammed by mean-spirited partisan ridicule, again, you may find yourself in gleeful spirit.

This isn't about regulars having a social network. In fact, many of the people who have come to our social events have been new members, lurkers or infrequent posters.

It's about this online community which is party of the community of Folsom, and keeping it an enjoyable place.

I will concede your first point, but am not so sure about some of the others. Yes, I'm sure the thread was a nightmare for the moderators. But the advertising angle doesn't make sense, because more controversy means more eyeballs, and in any case the politics thread was not available to "guest" visitors. If you were afraid to speak up before, and now no one can speak at all, then that is hardly an improvement. And the website can be enjoyable with or without the politics thread - those who don't enjoy the thread don't need to go there.

If the forum belongs more to those who run it than to those who use it - which is certainly a defensible position, although it may not necessarily be the case here -, it also makes for a blander experience. But I don't want to make a big deal of it, either.

[cw68]

I will concede your first point, but am not so sure about some of the others. Yes, I'm sure the thread was a nightmare for the moderators. But the advertising angle doesn't make sense, because more controversy means more eyeballs, and in any case the politics thread was not available to "guest" visitors. If you were afraid to speak up before, and now no one can speak at all, then that is hardly an improvement. And the website can be enjoyable with or without the politics thread - those who don't enjoy the thread don't need to go there.

If the forum belongs more to those who run it than to those who use it - which is certainly a defensible position, although it may not necessarily be the case here -, it also makes for a blander experience. But I don't want to make a big deal of it, either.

Advertisers don't just advertise to the guests. The whole site was being dragged down and I can't tell you how many people I've spoken to who used to frequent it but stopped because of the negativity. It's very true that advertisers turned down opportunities to advertise here and gave the general negativity of the site as the reason.

Bottom line: not everyone's going to agree that John did what was best. Not everyone's going to agree that we did all we could to right the ship before pulling it from the water for repairs. But I trust John to do what he thinks was best for what HE wants MyFolsom to be. While this site belongs in ways to each of us, John's the one who puts his money where his mouth is, he's the one who puts in the hours and effort for this business of his. It's his vision and he'll reap the rewards or penalties as he defines his business. Those of us who participate will make the decisions to participate or find a different forum that fits our needs. For those of us who participate, we have the opportunity to be a positive or a negative influence and we should all remember that. blah blah blah. I'm done commenting on this now.

[Dave Burrell]

I will concede your first point, but am not so sure about some of the others. Yes, I'm sure the thread was a nightmare for the moderators. But the advertising angle doesn't make sense, because more controversy means more eyeballs, and in any case the politics thread was not available to "guest" visitors. If you were afraid to speak up before, and now no one can speak at all, then that is hardly an improvement. And the website can be enjoyable with or without the politics thread - those who don't enjoy the thread don't need to go there.

If the forum belongs more to those who run it than to those who use it - which is certainly a defensible position, although it may not necessarily be the case here -, it also makes for a blander experience. But I don't want to make a big deal of it, either.

Everything is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case the long term users. Stick around a little longer this year and you'll see what I mean eventually.

For those of us users who use the site and us mods who manage the site daily, this place is the heartbeat of Folsom. Myself and many others on here are out and about in Folsom all the time at places talking to people about Folsom and the site and trust me - its been found that the vast majority does not enjoy reading negative junk and seeing people going off on each other being as jerky as they can be (we've had users on here who do nothing more then kerplunk and be general asshats to people in every thread) - that's just not fun and it turns people off from both coming here and participating here - that my friend is what hurts advertising potential, I know because I sell advertising here.

Seriously, you should stick around for a while this next year, you'll learn a lot more about the friendly people of Folsom, this is a great place to live.

Now you might call it bland, but we call it being all about our great City of Folsom.

[Dave Burrell]

Advertisers don't just advertise to the guests. The whole site was being dragged down and I can't tell you how many people I've spoken to who used to frequent it but stopped because of the negativity. It's very true that advertisers turned down opportunities to advertise here and gave the general negativity of the site as the reason.

Bottom line: not everyone's going to agree that John did what was best. Not everyone's going to agree that we did all we could to right the ship before pulling it from the water for repairs. But I trust John to do what he thinks was best for what HE wants MyFolsom to be. While this site belongs in ways to each of us, John's the one who puts his money where his mouth is, he's the one who puts in the hours and effort for this business of his. It's his vision and he'll reap the rewards or penalties as he defines his business. Those of us who participate will make the decisions to participate or find a different forum that fits our needs. For those of us who participate, we have the opportunity to be a positive or a negative influence and we should all remember that. blah blah blah. I'm done commenting on this now.

Amen to that!