Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hitech on December 30, 2020, 11:56:16 AM

Title: Rule change question.
Post by: hitech on December 30, 2020, 11:56:16 AM
What do you think the end result would be if I reinstated rule 4 but not rule 14?

HiTech
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: guncrasher on December 30, 2020, 11:59:24 AM
would be a good change.

semp
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: LCADolby on December 30, 2020, 12:05:43 PM
Please put us back to normality and reinstate both.

Suggestion; remove the PNG, but increase the timeout lengths and add a trustworthy board moderator to decrease your workload.

 :salute


Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Eagler on December 30, 2020, 12:07:33 PM
They both seem to relate to the same type of posts and posters

I would say both or neither...I am good either way

Eagler
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 12:09:32 PM
Meh. I've stated my opinion. I'm not of the delusion that it counts. You'll do what you want, sir.  :)
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 12:21:16 PM
14- Posting topics or threads which are based on politics, race, or religion is expressly forbidden.

So, will race and religion baiting be allowed? Just wondering.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: hitech on December 30, 2020, 12:22:19 PM
14- Posting topics or threads which are based on politics, race, or religion is expressly forbidden.

So, will race and religion baiting be allowed? Just wondering.

Rule 14 has nothing to do with baiting.

HiTech
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 12:26:09 PM
Rule 14 has nothing to do with baiting.

HiTech

Politics in this forum has everything to do with baiting. Then those who respond are held accountable. Rule 14 also mentions race and religion. Will those be allowed to be discussed in the same manner as politics?
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Wiley on December 30, 2020, 12:34:47 PM
I can't recall seeing a thread that had one without the other.  You'd be using time that could be better used doing pretty much anything else policing it.

Wiley.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: hitech on December 30, 2020, 12:37:01 PM
Politics in this forum has everything to do with baiting.
Is this the only reason you post politics,  to get a rise out of other people?

HiTech
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Mongoose on December 30, 2020, 01:00:01 PM
Definitely restore rule #4, I would also vote for rule #14.  But regardless of what you do, I definitely agree that a good moderator or two would be helpful to decrease your workload.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Eagler on December 30, 2020, 01:05:40 PM
Definitely restore rule #4, I would also vote for rule #14.  But regardless of what you do, I definitely agree that a good moderator or two would be helpful to decrease your workload.

May I suggest Trips and Arlo?

Eagler
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 30, 2020, 01:06:15 PM
Rule #4 should stand. No reason for character attacks.

Rule#14 should go. We are in an important point of history and we should be able to discuss global political situations. I think its good that this forum has an international audience, which messages can be read and shared. My belief is that we should be able to discuss situations even if it doesn't fit a Main stream media agenda. While it appears that no one will ever agree. At least both sides can be informed. It seems like its very popular at this point in time, relative to other post, therefore I think its okay to let rule #14 slip during this point in time. I'm sure eventually it will get old like other topics anyway.

I also agree that we need a board mod.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: CptTrips on December 30, 2020, 01:09:53 PM
Rule #4 should stand. No reason for character attacks.

You mean like "you communist clowns"?

You mean that sort of thing?
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: LCADolby on December 30, 2020, 01:12:35 PM
You mean like "you communist clowns"?

You mean that sort of thing?

Shame there's not a rule on hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Wiley on December 30, 2020, 01:13:17 PM
If rule 14 goes, can we please at least stuff it into its own forum so it doesn't infect every other aspect of the board?

Wiley.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 01:17:04 PM
Is this the only reason you post politics,  to get a rise out of other people?

HiTech

You're confusing me for some others. I've never tried to make heads explode.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: noman on December 30, 2020, 01:17:32 PM
Re-instate them both. As I said in another thread the O'Club has turned into a dumpster fire. Every thread is a plate of hot garbage.
Also can we get a like/dislike button on posts?
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Volron on December 30, 2020, 01:20:46 PM
What do you think the end result would be if I reinstated rule 4 but not rule 14?

HiTech

Well, by this point you've absolutely confirmed who your "troublemakers" are.  The end result would probably be worse than previously, since things relating to Rule 14 have almost always led to a Rule 4 in there somewhere.  Reinstate 4 but leaving 14 would mean when someone posts a 14, you'll have to go through and deal with more 4's overall.  Least that is what I think.  It seems like an increase in workload overall.

I'm going to guess you've been reading the threads and what-not, so you should have a guess-timated answer to your question.


To sum up an answer to your question: Sounds like increased workload overall.

Suggestion: Reinstate both.  Give out longer punishments sooner, be harsher on your "troublemakers".


I do not know how you hand down punishments.  Do you follow a "chart"?  EX: 1st: 1d, 2nd: 7d, 3rd: 14d, 4th: 30d, 5th: PNG. (Don't actually need to answer this question)  If not, you might want to make one for yourself and tape it to the wall. :)
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Spikes on December 30, 2020, 01:30:43 PM
Both please.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: RotBaron on December 30, 2020, 01:30:47 PM
Not sure it’s possible to have one without the other.

Politics etc have always been a problem from what I saw when I first came to the BBS and kept Skuzzy rather busy. In the current situation maybe just letting everyone get things off their chest is best.

I believe we’d all rather see your work go into the game and not time spent policing the O’club. My feeling is it will get old and tiresome for most and will simmer down considerably after January. Maybe wait until then and if it doesn’t go from there?
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: hitech on December 30, 2020, 01:34:03 PM
Well, by this point you've absolutely confirmed who your "troublemakers" are.  The end result would probably be worse than previously, since things relating to Rule 14 have almost always led to a Rule 4 in there somewhere.  Reinstate 4 but leaving 14 would mean when someone posts a 14, you'll have to go through and deal with more 4's overall.  Least that is what I think.  It seems like an increase in workload overall.

I'm going to guess you've been reading the threads and what-not, so you should have a guess-timated answer to your question.


To sum up an answer to your question: Sounds like increased workload overall.

This is almost exactly my thoughts. Especially the increased workload.

HiTech

Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Devil 505 on December 30, 2020, 01:34:34 PM
Bring back both.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 01:39:26 PM
Just add the following to the word filter:

Nazi
Commie
Liberal/librul
Socialist
Socialism
Fascism
Trump
Biden
Bush
Clinton
Proud Boys
BLM
Antifa
Militia
constitution
constitutional
agenda
88
pickle (just 'cause)
China
virus
Covid

 ;)
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Eagler on December 30, 2020, 01:45:54 PM
Yes if we cannot discuss what is the biggest deal in gov and political corruption to happen in my adult life as adults, please lock the threads now

It can be like fb, (twit)ter, utube and all other controlled media

Eagler
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 01:48:06 PM
Yes if we cannot discuss what is the biggest deal in gov and political corruption to happen in my adult life as adults, please lock the threads now

Yes, you can't.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: zack1234 on December 30, 2020, 01:49:41 PM
Freedom of speech!

Down with Communism!

If you dont like Western Capitalism go live in North Korea.

Before you go give me all of  your money.

Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 01:51:09 PM
Freedom of speech!

Down with Communism!

If you dont like Western Capitalism go live in North Korea.

Before you go give me all of  your money.

Socialist.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: zack1234 on December 30, 2020, 01:54:32 PM
You look like Fatty Arbuckle but fatter.

Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 01:56:15 PM
You look like Fatty Arbuckle but fatter.

You look like his big sister only bigger.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: AKKuya on December 30, 2020, 02:11:15 PM
My simple opinion is to re-instate #4.  Then create a separate forum for #14.  Add a warning, "Content can be unsuitable, read with caution", this way the 1st Amendment can be observed.

The suggestion of trusted moderators for the forum is excellent to take the work off you.  Remember Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #285 No good deed ever goes unpunished.

 :salute
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: RotBaron on December 30, 2020, 02:11:18 PM
Yes if we cannot discuss what is the biggest deal in gov and political corruption to happen in my adult life as adults, please lock the threads now

It can be like fb, (twit)ter, utube and all other controlled media

Eagler

This is exactly why my suggestion is to see if it goes away on its own after January. It would seem to me it will grow tired and fade away.

Maybe a separate forum for it entirely and then we only see it if we go to that forum. Then it would be like the other forums that members who aren’t into that part of the game don’t look into.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 02:22:14 PM
This is exactly why my suggestion is to see if it goes away on its own after January. It would seem to me it will grow tired and fade away.

Maybe a separate forum for it entirely and then we only see it if we go to that forum. Then it would be like the other forums that members who aren’t into that part of the game don’t look into.

You haven't tired of it. If anything, you've become more determined.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Gman on December 30, 2020, 02:22:40 PM
You mean like "you communist clowns"?

You mean that sort of thing?

Or "senile mental midgets", and "buffoons", among dozens of other insults and pejoratives you've posted?  Don't throw stones in a glass house sport.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Shuffler on December 30, 2020, 02:23:59 PM
I imagine about half these folks will be sidelined for awhile.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 02:24:45 PM
Or "senile mental midgets", and "buffoons", among dozens of other insults and pejoratives you've posted?  Don't throw stones in a glass house sport.

Are we clumping together generalization and pointed insult?
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 02:25:20 PM
I imagine about half these folks will be sidelined for awhile.

Define 'these folks.' Be careful.  :old:
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: CptTrips on December 30, 2020, 02:25:29 PM
Don't throw stones in a glass house sport.

Exactly my point to them, Sparky. 

And they were doing it even before the rule change while the rest of us bit our tongues the best we could to not reply in kind.

Now that the gloves are off, it's time for a reckoning. 



Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Shuffler on December 30, 2020, 02:26:02 PM
Define 'these folks.' Be careful.  :old:

Read the rules..... pay attention to all the words.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 02:27:04 PM
Read the rules..... pay attention to all the words.

I've read them. I've read them to others. I know what they mean. What do you mean? :)
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Gman on December 30, 2020, 02:27:25 PM
What do you think the end result would be if I reinstated rule 4 but not rule 14?

HiTech

I think with rule 4 it's difficult to define what is and isn't a troll.  I threw out a quote from Thomas Jefferson in another thread, without context or any of my own words.  That could be categorized as a troll.  Milo telling me that post was getting sent to CSIS could also be categorized as a troll. 

How do you define trolling, baiting, etc.  That should be spelled out more clearly (not sure if that's even possible), if that rule is going to stand, otherwise IMO it might as well go along with #14, and things be dealt with by HTC/Mod on a case by case basis. 

Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
I think with rule 4 it's difficult to define what is and isn't a troll.  I threw out a quote from Thomas Jefferson in another thread, without context or any of my own words.  That could be categorized as a troll.  Milo telling me that post was getting sent to CSIS could also be categorized as a troll. 

How do you define trolling, baiting, etc.  That should be spelled out more clearly (not sure if that's even possible), if that rule is going to stand, otherwise IMO it might as well go along with #14, and things be dealt with by HTC/Mod on a case by case basis.

Trolling is anything the moderator thinks it is.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Gman on December 30, 2020, 02:31:24 PM
Are we clumping together generalization and pointed insult?


What?  Go read the posts by Trips, he made as many insults as anyone, tons of pejorative attacks, and yet he posts in this thread as though he's clean and the other side is guilty.  Now he claims that before the rule changes he held his tongue and was attacked constantly.  I can't comment to that, as I wasn't reading the forum before the rules changed for a while (oclub), and only a week or so after they did.  I do know how Trips has posted since I began posting a few days ago - pejorative attacks, one after another.  I haven't done so.  Neither have others, on both sides. 

Now you're defending his actions and hypocrisy by claiming what exactly?  That his insults are "generalizations", while others on the right aren't?  You can't be serious.

Can anyone tell me the date the rules changed?

Quote
And they were doing it even before the rule change while the rest of us bit our tongues the best we could to not reply in kind.

Now that the gloves are off, it's time for a reckoning.

Trips, please provide a link to an example to which you are referring to here, specifically "before" the rule change.  I find it strange that you were being attacked and had to "bite your tongue", when political threads weren't allowed before approx the 15th of December.  How/why exactly were you forced to bite your tongue and endure endless attacks while doing your best not to reply in kind?  I sped read every post you've made since Sept, and see absolutely no evidence of this, not prior to the rule changes...maybe I missed something, which is why I'm asking.
Trolling is anything the moderator thinks it is.

On that we agree completely. It's always going to be very subjective, even to the most middle ground mod.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: zack1234 on December 30, 2020, 02:39:18 PM
Trip is awesome
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: CptTrips on December 30, 2020, 02:40:41 PM
Trip is awesome

Zack is awesomer.

Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 02:41:15 PM

What?  Go read the posts by Trips, he made as many insults as anyone, tons of pejorative attacks, and yet he posts in this thread as though he's clean and the other side is guilty.  Now he claims that before the rule changes he held his tongue and was attacked constantly.  I can't comment to that, as I wasn't reading the forum before the rules changed for a while (oclub), and only a week or so after they did.  I do know how Trips has posted since I began posting a few days ago - pejorative attacks, one after another.  I haven't done so.  Neither have others, on both sides. 

Now you're defending his actions and hypocrisy by claiming what exactly?  That his insults are "generalizations", while others on the right aren't?  You can't be seroius.

I'll repeat. Are we clumping together generalization and pointed insult? Meaning that if someone posts that they think Trump supporters are (fill in the pejorative) then they are making a generalization and if someone takes that as a personal insult they are taking on that onus all their own. However, if I disagree with someone's political claim or challenge their source and citation and they see that as validation to label me any number of things not in evidence (likely because they've fallen into the bad habit of presuming that all others have the collective traits and beliefs that they think 'other' represents) then that is personal and unjustified. I'm not saying that generalization isn't wrong. But personal insults invented to build an air of righteousness certainly is. They are separate things and should not be conflated. You can be against both, however.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: TheBug on December 30, 2020, 02:41:49 PM
Bring back both.  There are no discussions.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Gman on December 30, 2020, 02:45:06 PM
I'll repeat. Are we clumping together generalization and pointed insult? Meaning that if someone posts that they think Trump supporters are (fill in the pejorative) then they are making a generalization and if someone takes that as a personal insult they are taking on that onus all their own. However, if I disagree with someone's political claim or challenge their source and citation and they see that as validation to label me any number of things not in evidence (likely because they've fallen into the bad habit of presuming that all others have the collective traits and beliefs that they think 'other' represents) then that is personal and unjustified. I'm not saying that generalization isn't wrong. But personal insults invented to build an air of righteousness certainly is. They are separate things and should not be conflated. You can be against both, however.

I understand all of that.  And the answer, again, is NO, I'm not clumping in pejorative/personal attacks with generalizations.


 My point is that Trips has made direct ad hominem attacks to those he's disagreed with, and you jumped to his defense claiming that I was clumping in "his" insults which were generalizations vs the right as a whole, with personal attacks.  This is not the case, and I can prove it with many quotes and posts which I've copied so they can't be ninja edited.  He's as guilty, if not much more so, than anyone when it comes to both personal/ad hominem, and generalization attacks.  Both. He's as much as proclaimed it, saying it's deserved because of the negative attacks he's supposedly "endured" prior to the rule changes.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: CptTrips on December 30, 2020, 02:51:45 PM
Trips, please provide a link to an example to which you are referring to here, specifically "before" the rule change.

I'm not your secretary.

Just go look through DemonSlayers posts over the last year.

Toad flat out stated that Trumpers are allowed to call others "maxists", "socialists", "communist clowns", but no one should be allowed to call a Trumper a "Nazi".

Oh really?  How convenient. Uhhh nope.

I'm not saying I successfully bit my tongue in every occasion, but I bit it more than replied in kind.

For months now Eagler, Toad, DemonSlayer, RottingBaron calling everyone "maxists", "socialists", "communist clowns" has just been considered ok on this forum.


More specifically, anyone not supporting Trump is a communist, regardless of any other reasoning.
Anyone not supporting Trump is a Socialist, regardless of voting Republican since the second Reagan administration.




Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Spikes on December 30, 2020, 02:55:26 PM
For months now Eagler, Toad, DemonSlayer, RottingBaron calling everyone "maxists", "socialists", "communist clowns" has just been considered ok on this forum.

The fun part is most probably can't differentiate one term from the next without looking up Webster's.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 02:57:36 PM
I understand all of that.  My point is that Trips has made direct ad hominem attacks to those he's disagreed with, and you jumped to his defense claiming that I was clumping in "his" insults which were generalizations vs the right as a whole, with personal attacks.  This is not the case, and I can prove it with many quotes and posts which I've copied so they can't be ninja edited.  He's as guilty, if not much more so, than anyone when it comes to both personal/ad hominem, and generalization attacks.  Both.

I asked a question. Some on the forum take generalization very personal then respond with personal jabs. A rule that prohibits both is useful in such cases. That would mean that anyone posting ' liberals are a danger to our way of life' is as guilty as anyone posting 'Trump worshippers are a danger to society.' Anyone posting 'Fred is a commie traitor pig' would be as bad as anyone posting ' George is a nazi swine.' The former examples are rule 14 violations, the latter rule 4 violations. They have become hopelessly intertwined here.

So, Are we clumping together generalization and pointed insult? Or are we acknowledging that one seems to inevitably lead to the other?

Regarding tip-toeing around political bait. I, too, practiced such diligently before the rule relaxation. Sadly, there is a bit of bias regarding who got away with what .... or even what was what.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Slade on December 30, 2020, 03:01:54 PM
Politics have evolved into a topic that divide people.  That says enough.

Thanks.  :salute
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Gman on December 30, 2020, 03:08:07 PM
I asked a question. Some on the forum take generalization very personal then respond with personal jabs. A rule that prohibits both is useful in such cases. That would mean that anyone posting ' liberals are a danger to our way of life' is as guilty as anyone posting 'Trump worshippers are a danger to society.' Anyone posting 'Fred is a commie traitor pig' would be as bad as anyone posting ' George is a nazi swine.' The former examples are rule 14 violations, the latter rule 4 violations. They have become hopelessly intertwined here.

So, Are we clumping together generalization and pointed insult? Or are we acknowledging that one seems to inevitably lead to the other?

Regarding tip-toeing around political bait. I, too, practiced such diligently before the rule relaxation. Sadly, there is a bit of bias regarding who got away with what .... or even what was what.

I agree that one inevitably leads to another.  If you weren't referring specifically to Trips (easy to misconstrue here, as you posted instantly after I did on the subject), but to the entire bbs in general, again, I agree.

There was bias for years the other way under Skuzzy if you'll recall - and yes many complained and left over it.

You can have discussion and even argument without resorting to personal attacks, regardless of one feels the other side "deserves it" for whatever reason.  I've not made personal attacks, I haven't seen you do so either Arlo.  IMO if there is going to be any rule, that's an easier one to enforce (easier, to easy), as I think general attacks more easily lead to personal ones, while vice versa, personal leading to general, isn't really a concern. 
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 03:13:24 PM
There was bias for years the other way under Skuzzy if you'll recall - and yes many complained and left over it.

I saw no evidence of such. He diligently enforced forum rules.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Gman on December 30, 2020, 03:25:26 PM
I saw no evidence of such. He diligently enforced forum rules.

Hundreds, if not thousands would disagree - I could name 100 right now just off the top of my head who left both the BBS and the game for no other reason, than due to feelings of bias based on Skuzzy's mod decisions.  As you just said, MANY bbs members felt "there is a bit of bias regarding who got away with what .... or even what was what", regarding being suspended/modded/etc by Skuzzy over the years.  You may feel that way about HT right now - I'm pointing out that many, many players felt the same about Skuzzy.  I can provide thousands of posts/links if necessary, but I shouldn't have to, this has been a well known point of contention on this forum for all the years Skuzzy was mod. 
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: CptTrips on December 30, 2020, 03:27:38 PM
I saw no evidence of such. He diligently enforced forum rules.

The real question is why were the two rules suspended?

I have a sneaking suspicion that some were just DYING  to spew a bunch of Breitbart, OANN, Fux Newz, NeewzMax, Epoch Times horse sht propaganda about "stolen" elections. 

I guess Rule 4 has to be suspended so you can call anyone a communist who try and tell you that actually IS horse sht.

The rules should have never been suspended, and they certainly should be applied evenly on both sides of the political spectrum.

Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 03:29:30 PM
Hundreds, if not thousands would disagree - I could name 100 right now who left both the BBS and the game due to feelings of bias due to Skuzzy's decisions.  As you just said, MANY bbs members felt "there is a bit of bias regarding who got away with what .... or even what was what", regarding being suspended/modded/etc by Skuzzy over the years.

That first sentence seems rather exaggerated. I've seen the FB groups. The loudest complainers gritched about not being allowed to politically bait because 'first amendment' and such. I believe their 'point' has just been proven pointless, recently, on this forum.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 03:30:20 PM
The rules should have never been suspended, and they certainly should be applied evenly on both sides of the political spectrum.

Well, yes.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Gman on December 30, 2020, 03:37:12 PM
That first sentence seems rather exaggerated. I've seen the FB groups. The loudest complainers gritched about not being allowed to politically bait because 'first amendment' and such. I believe their 'point' has just been proven pointless, recently, on this forum.

Disagree.  I've never used the FB groups, but I can get 100+ FW members, today, to post here (well, there, as many are PNGd here, or just refuse to return), agreeing with exactly what I said.   There are 1000+ members there that given time would also agree.  Think of all the other PNGd/angry players (who never went over the FW) that left over the years due to BBS moderation.  If you think it's exaggerated, why not ask HT what the company estimate is.  I remember it wasn't long ago he lamented about if he acted on a certain issue, it would end up in an  angry email, angry phone call, and yet another subscriber lost.  I don't think he would have said so if it wasn't a major issue, and based on everything I saw on the BBS since 1999, I know it was.  I understand the company policy regarding mod/Skuzzy, but if you think it didn't come with a cost re subscribers, a significant one, you're wrong IMO.

I realize that's all o/t, but again, many, many, many players felt the same way about Skuzzy's moderation as you do about HT's right now.  Exactly the same.  And again, I can link in hundreds and hundreds of posts here showing precisely that.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 03:39:28 PM
Disagree.  I've never used the FB groups, but I can get 100+ FW members, today, to post here (well, there, as many are PNGd here, or just refuse to return), agreeing with exactly what I said.   There are 1000+ members there that given time would also agree.  Think of all the other PNGd/angry players (who never went over the FW) that left over the years due to BBS moderation.  If you think it's exaggerated, why not ask HT what the company estimate is.  I remember it wasn't long ago he lamented about if he acted on a certain issue, it would end up in an  angry email, angry phone call, and yet another subscriber lost.  I don't think he would have said so if it wasn't a major issue, and based on everything I saw on the BBS since 1999, I know it was.

Email him about it.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Gman on December 30, 2020, 03:43:43 PM
Email him about it.

He'll see this thread, if wants to respond, he will.  Again, my point isn't about the number of subs lost so much as it is that tons of players/bbs members feel exactly the way about Skuzzy as you do about HT.  Hell, my own squad, KN, had hundreds of instances of massive disagreement with Skuzzy's moderation and perceived bias, hundreds.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Shuffler on December 30, 2020, 03:44:37 PM
Bring back both.  There are no discussions.


This..........  the kids are unable.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 03:52:03 PM

This..........  the kids are unable.

Agreed, Shuf.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: The Fugitive on December 30, 2020, 04:07:32 PM
Personally I say reinstate both rules and enforce them with either the PNG, or a long vacation. Shouldnt take more than a week to crush to posters that are an issue.

I think if these guys want to "talk" politics they can go to a message board setup for just that. I dont think this board ever had a place for it, there is no need. This board should be for game topics, play, lessons, tactics and such, WWII/history topics and WWII equipment thats it.

But hey, its your world Hitech, it has ALWAYS been your world. If you let it continue I will just keep the same 6-10 people muted and continue as I have been.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Eagler on December 30, 2020, 04:18:45 PM
For the record I have concern about the corruption today than if the country swings more left with creepy sleepy corrupt joe and co

If the corruption is not stopped and those guilty sent to prison the country is toast regardless what is in the WH

It starts with election fraud and corrupt joes sons laptop

Hopefully gets to the durham report but not holding my breath for any of them

Eagler
Eagler
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: CptTrips on December 30, 2020, 04:23:41 PM
If the corruption is not stopped and those guilty sent to prison the country is toast regardless what is in the WH

Would that extend to the corruption perpetuated by sleazy corrupt Trump and his grifter family?

Or does that not bother you?
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 04:24:50 PM
Personally I say reinstate both rules and enforce them with either the PNG, or a long vacation. Shouldnt take more than a week to crush to posters that are an issue.

I think if these guys want to "talk" politics they can go to a message board setup for just that. I dont think this board ever had a place for it, there is no need. This board should be for game topics, play, lessons, tactics and such, WWII/history topics and WWII equipment thats it.

But hey, its your world Hitech, it has ALWAYS been your world. If you let it continue I will just keep the same 6-10 people muted and continue as I have been.

 :aok
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: CptTrips on December 30, 2020, 04:25:04 PM
Oh, the Durham Report....lol

You shouldn't watch so much RT.. :rofl

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/durham-investigation-insiders-say-no-evidence-to-support-obamagate-has-been-found-in-18-months/ (https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/durham-investigation-insiders-say-no-evidence-to-support-obamagate-has-been-found-in-18-months/)
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 04:27:09 PM
my point isn't about the number of subs lost so much as it is that tons of players/bbs members feel exactly the way about Skuzzy as you do about HT. 

You have nary an inkling how I feel about HT.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Shuffler on December 30, 2020, 04:33:06 PM
Personally I say reinstate both rules and enforce them with either the PNG, or a long vacation. Shouldnt take more than a week to crush to posters that are an issue.

I think if these guys want to "talk" politics they can go to a message board setup for just that. I dont think this board ever had a place for it, there is no need. This board should be for game topics, play, lessons, tactics and such, WWII/history topics and WWII equipment thats it.

But hey, its your world Hitech, it has ALWAYS been your world. If you let it continue I will just keep the same 6-10 people muted and continue as I have been.

 :aok
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: MORAY37 on December 30, 2020, 04:35:24 PM
Hitech,

It's your business. You do whatever you think will least affect your bottom line.

If it was me, and it was my business, I wouldn't have an O' Club, to be honest.  When you walk into a CVS, do you bring in your life size made in China Trump Cardboard cutout?  Normal people will answer "No, I go there for XYZ, not political points".  The same should apply here.  You come to this BBS in order to talk about planes and tanks and the applicability of the head on pass in whatever ride the other guy HO'd you with.... not to affirm your own political biases with other degenerates.  The same should apply to your product here.

Screw the BS that can and will affect the number of dollar bills rolling in your bank account.  The O'Club can and will hit your bottom line, as it currently sits with suspended rules.  It is obvious that people can't be adults 24/7.  You don't need to play babysitter or placate a viewpoint to a customer.  Just shut the crap down, say deal with it and work on the actual game that actually pays you.   This O'club does not pay your bills, and is only a headache.  So I'd get rid of it, or make the banhammer real big.

Of course you could have a different opinion, and say that traffic on your site means everything..... I'd disagree, but that's up to you.  As it stands, I've stopped coming here as much due to the insanity; basically I check this once a week now.  And yes, it has affected how I view other players I see on the actual game....which I suspect, isn't unusual.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 30, 2020, 04:36:14 PM
I'm not your secretary.

Just go look through DemonSlayers posts over the last year.

Toad flat out stated that Trumpers are allowed to call others "maxists", "socialists", "communist clowns", but no one should be allowed to call a Trumper a "Nazi".

Oh really?  How convenient. Uhhh nope.

I'm not saying I successfully bit my tongue in every occasion, but I bit it more than replied in kind.

For months now Eagler, Toad, DemonSlayer, RottingBaron calling everyone "maxists", "socialists", "communist clowns" has just been considered ok on this forum.


More specifically, anyone not supporting Trump is a communist, regardless of any other reasoning.
Anyone not supporting Trump is a Socialist, regardless of voting Republican since the second Reagan administration.

Yes go read my post. I only attack those who attack me first. I am not weak and know how to deal with bullies. I will not allow them to disrespect me without me getting a jab back at them. Only the weak allow people to name call them without doing the same back.

The only thing I am trying to do is wake people up to the real corruption of UN global communism/fascism and that its actually not a "conspiracy theory". From there I get ridiculed and named called. That leads me to believe you are either disinformation shills, or compromised in someway, no one here has even given any positives to the UN WEF IMF WHO take over of the world thru the great reset. They are too afraid to talk about the true agenda. So I am forcing them to acknowledge it. Instead of talking about this agenda which is clearly written, they attack Trump and people who support a strong America. This is the only arguments you ever get from these people, while they act stupid when you say, so what is agenda 21 and agenda 30 then? No liberal ive ever met can talk to me about their actual agenda. That's why I believe they are brainwashed or compromised or are Marxist who wants to the whole world to live the same crappy pitiful life they live.

Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 04:39:02 PM
HahahahahahahahahahahahaHahah ahahahahahahahahahaHahahahaha hahahahahahahaHahahahahahahah ahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaha hahaHahahahahahahahahahahahaH ahahahahahahahahahahahaHahaha hahahahahahahahahaHahahahahah ahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaha hahahahaHahahahahahahahahahah ahaHahahahahahahahahahahahaHa hahahahahahahahahahahaHahahah ahahahahahahahahaHahahahahaha hahahahahahaHahahahahahahahah ahahahaHahahahahahahahahahaha haHahahahahahahahahahahahaHah ahahahahahahahahahahaHahahaha hahahahahahahahaHahahahahahah ahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaha hahahaHahahahahahahahahahahah aHahahahahahahahahahahahaHaha hahahahahahahahahahaHahahahah ahahahahahahahaHahahahahahaha hahahahaha
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: CptTrips on December 30, 2020, 04:39:42 PM
Yes go read my post. I only attack those who attack me first. I am not weak and know how to deal with bullies. I will not allow them to disrespect me without me getting a jab back at them. Only the weak allow people to name call them without doing the same back.

The only thing I am trying to do is wake people up to the real corruption of UN global communism/fascism and that its actually not a "conspiracy theory". From there I get ridiculed and named called. That leads me to believe you are either disinformation shills, or compromised in someway, no one here has even given any positives to the UN WEF IMF WHO take over of the world thru the great reset. They are too afraid to talk about the true agenda. So I am forcing them to acknowledge it. Instead of talking about this agenda which is clearly written, they attack Trump and people who support a strong America. This is the only arguments you ever get from these people, while they act stupid when you say, so what is agenda 21 and agenda 30 then? No liberal ive ever met can talk to me about their actual agenda. That's why I believe they are brainwashed or compromised or are Marxist who wants to the whole world to live the same crappy pitiful life they live.


(https://previews.123rf.com/images/toonerman/toonerman1505/toonerman150500001/39564657-a-cartoon-cuckoo-clock.jpg)
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: AKKuya on December 30, 2020, 04:47:32 PM
Just from the players very active in this discussion, HT might have a select list of possible forum moderators.  If I win the lotto and buy the game from Dale, then I know who to depend on for forum moderation.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: RotBaron on December 30, 2020, 04:49:15 PM

For months now Eagler, Toad, DemonSlayer, RottingBaron calling everyone "maxists", "socialists", "communist clowns" has just been considered ok on this forum.

Months? For me, you may want to check on that...

“RottingBaron”  I’ve not called you names, specifically insulted you either.

I have called you out doing it to others however.

And calling everyone marxists and socialists  :rofl    I’ve probably used those term combined less than a dozen times.

However, I have used the term “leftists” a fair amount.

You criticize our posts/behavior here, but do not account for your own.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 30, 2020, 05:19:35 PM
I honestly think that if Hitech were to get rid of rule14, and allow pro Americans to speak their mind against the globalist here, the #s would actually pick up overall. I see that probably many people left after the initial ban or conversations about politics in the past. If they see that maybe this place has releaved itself of the censorship, perhaps those players will come back. I'm willing to bet about 90% of the ww2 enthusiasts are conservatives who were put off by being censored in the past.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 05:20:37 PM
I honestly think that if Hitech were to get rid of rule14, and allow pro Americans to speak their mind against the globalist here, the #s would actually pick up overall. I see that probably many people left after the initial ban or conversations about politics in the past. If they see that maybe this place has releaved itself of the censorship, perhaps those players will come back. I'm willing to bet about 90% of the ww2 enthusiasts are conservatives.

Just a thought.

Not a good one, however.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: JimmyD3 on December 30, 2020, 05:27:23 PM
Just add the following to the word filter:

Nazi
Commie
Liberal/librul
Socialist
Socialism
Fascism
Trump
Biden
Bush
Clinton
Proud Boys
BLM
Antifa
Militia
constitution
constitutional
agenda
88
pickle (just 'cause)
China
virus
Covid

 ;)

You forgot several;
Schummer
Pelosi
Kamala
democrat

I could go on............ :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 05:33:37 PM
You forgot several;
Schummer
Pelosi
Kamala
democrat

I could go on............ :rolleyes:

Please do ....

And..

McConnell
Cruz
Graham
Republican

Where there's an actual will, there's an actual way.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: JimmyD3 on December 30, 2020, 05:36:09 PM
Please do ....

And..

McConnell
Cruz
Graham
Republican

Where there's an actual will, there's an actual way.

Yeah I didn't add those so you would have an appropriate response.  :x
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 05:38:10 PM
Yeah I didn't add those so you would have an appropriate response.  :x

I almost always have an appropriate response.  :old:
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: JimmyD3 on December 30, 2020, 05:51:46 PM
I almost always have an appropriate response.  :old:

I would suggest, you always have a response, it being appropriate is subjective IMHO.  :devil
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 05:53:56 PM
I would suggest, you always have a response, it being appropriate is subjective IMHO.  :devil

Generally 'subjective' to heightened over-reactivity. ;)
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: JimmyD3 on December 30, 2020, 06:00:32 PM
Generally 'subjective' to heightened over-reactivity. ;)

How about this, "you always have an appropriate progressive response."  :D
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 06:02:41 PM
How about this, "you always have an appropriate progressive response."  :D

Actually, there are times I refuse to respond.  :cool:
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: JimmyD3 on December 30, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
Actually, there are times I refuse to respond.  :cool:

That also is  an an "appropriate progressive response".  :D
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Arlo on December 30, 2020, 06:09:03 PM
That also is  an an "appropriate progressive response".  :D

A lack of response has no political bias in and of itself.  What it generally indicates is nothing worthy of response or even just not having noticed the attempt to earn my attention. But I like you. :)
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: 100Coogn on December 30, 2020, 06:22:35 PM
What do you think the end result would be if I reinstated rule 4 but not rule 14?

HiTech

Please create/designate a new section of the AH-BBS to "Political Talk", so this entire cesspool can find eachother and hopefully gather there.

Coogan
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: The Fugitive on December 30, 2020, 06:40:41 PM
For the record I have concern about the corruption today than if the country swings more left with creepy sleepy corrupt joe and co

If the corruption is not stopped and those guilty sent to prison the country is toast regardless what is in the WH

It starts with election fraud and corrupt joes sons laptop

Hopefully gets to the durham report but not holding my breath for any of them

Eagler
Eagler


but airing that beef here is going to help who? thats what i mean, that this is not the place. A dozen of you guys argue back and forth convincing noone any different than what they believe already. The only thing any of you accomplish is wearing out another keyboard.

Write a congressmen, a senator, a news media outlet to try and get your point across. It may gain traction and you'll be helping the world. Here all you guys do is make most other people who read the boards just avoid it all.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Rocco on December 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Please reinstate both rules. The o club the last few weeks has not been a good look.

If you all want to discuss politics I would suggest creating a new forum for it and hiding the contents, so it's something that you need to opt in to see.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Eagler on December 31, 2020, 06:52:46 AM

but airing that beef here is going to help who? thats what i mean, that this is not the place. A dozen of you guys argue back and forth convincing noone any different than what they believe already. The only thing any of you accomplish is wearing out another keyboard.

Write a congressmen, a senator, a news media outlet to try and get your point across. It may gain traction and you'll be helping the world. Here all you guys do is make most other people who read the boards just avoid it all.

You are correct Fugi

<S>

Eagler
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Gman on December 31, 2020, 10:26:30 PM
You have nary an inkling how I feel about HT.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  It's plainly obvious I was describing what IMO you feel about HT's rules/moding, and not HT himself.  I based that directly upon things you've said in threads in the last 4 days I've been reading them.  You've made several, more than several, posts/quips about bias from HT.

Quote
You have favorites and I'm not one of them, it seems. I suspect you'll see political nefariousness in my posts no matter how carefully I tip-toe minefields now.

Or I won't but you might 'find' one, anyway. Nobody has supported the community, game and you more than I. Do divisive politics mean more to you than that?

Regarding tip-toeing around political bait. I, too, practiced such diligently before the rule relaxation. Sadly, there is a bit of bias regarding who got away with what .... or even what was what.


I can quote in others if you like.  I only know how you feel about HT with regards to current and future moderation/rules, specifically from what you've posted.

Also, again, so far as Skuzzy "diligently applying the rules", you do realize that many members here who were modded felt that YOU specifically had the same bias from Skuzzy that you're saying others have from HT right now.  I find it a bit amusing now that the shoe is on the other foot for you, that you're saying some of the same things about HT others said about Skuzzy for years.
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: RotBaron on December 31, 2020, 10:34:39 PM


Also, again, so far as Skuzzy "diligently applying the rules", you do realize that many members here who were modded felt that YOU specifically had the same bias from Skuzzy that you're saying others have from HT right now.  I find it a bit amusing now that the shoe is on the other foot for you, that you're saying some of the same things about HT others said about Skuzzy for years.

Yup!

I know you meant this for Arlo, but Skuzzy muted me for 2 weeks when I posted a link about Obama canceling the Thunderbirds air shows...
Title: Re: Rule change question.
Post by: Gman on December 31, 2020, 10:42:14 PM
Yup!

I know you meant this for Arlo, but Skuzzy muted me for 2 weeks when I posted a link about Obama canceling the Thunderbirds air shows...

You're not the only one either, just among players I've flown with in the last 3 squads, and lots of friends at the "other" board, there are many instances of similar times we've all had a post modded/delted/etc. I already gave my strangest example, and to be fair when I pm'd Skuzzy and asked him wth, he said it was a mistake and put it back.  Having done his job for a short while on an even larger sim forum, I was never envious of his job, and completely understood how difficult it was, and impossible to not make what others would feel were mistakes.  It's a lose/lose deal.

Again, Arlo, I'm not trying to be a dick, I just find it amusing, as I myself have said almost verbatim the same things about Skuzzy as you are about HT in recent days (in terms of moderation).  Even when you brought it HTs attention a few posts back that nobody had been a more ardent supporter of his, I HAVE said the same thing to HT when discussing what I felt was bias from Skuzzy/etc.