SG Broadband Community

CableDude wrote:I would like a health forum.

I want a tortoise forum !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gixxer wrote:funny, multiple years, i think, equals multiple memberships....even in d1ck world.

it's still just once ....per year. I think it's cute that want to intellectualize....

Izzo wrote:it's still just once ....per year. I think it's cute that want to intellectualize....

good thing there is more than one year left ... cannot understand the 2nd part

Izzo and Gixxer.

Knock it off.

Gixxer wrote:good thing there is more than one year left ... cannot understand the 2nd part

As usual I don't expect you to get it but continue if you like....it's good yuks.

downhill wrote:Izzo and Gixxer.

Knock it off.

You first.

Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote:This is because the mods allow it to happen. Warnings do absolutely nothing to some members. It's like a slap on the wrist to a child.

I understand your point. The track record indicates that SG is willing to give multiple chances to those who transgress. It might be an idea to permit one day bans to mods for spot control.

David wrote:I understand your point. The track record indicates that SG is willing to give multiple chances to those who transgress. It might be an idea to permit one day bans to mods for spot control.

Pick me, pick me!

David wrote:I understand your point. The track record indicates that SG is willing to give multiple chances to those who transgress. It might be an idea to permit one day bans to mods for spot control.

Personally I think that one day bans are worthless.

We do have a member or two that after the second or third chance on a perm ban, are good members, but we also have a couple that banning hasn't changed one thing about being obnoxious and overbearing.

if this new forum is formed,maybe entrance to it would have to be approved and a temp or perm ban could be enforced just in that forum ?

I belong to a fishing forum that has a semi private sub forum for setting up meetings and other stuff,works fine that way.

of course it's a very friendly place.

downhill wrote: but we also have a couple that banning hasn't changed one thing about being obnoxious and overbearing.

yes we have a few of those !

Dan wrote:yes we have a few of those !

But, they might be that way in the context of the discussion. Currently in the gen forum, the tone of political discussion is less permissive than it would hopefully be in the new forum.

The overbearing and obnoxious few are overbearing and obnoxious during political/religious discussions.

Other forums/communities have rid themselves of political discussion...look at the [H] for example....and look at how successful they are. Others like ARS have contained it and kept it private.

The subject matter is begging to be segregated from the rest of the benign gen forum topics.

UOD wrote:But, they might be that way in the context of the discussion. Currently in the gen forum, the tone of political discussion is less permissive than it would hopefully be in the new forum.

The overbearing and obnoxious few are overbearing and obnoxious during political/religious discussions.

While what you say has a grain of truth, in actuality, said people extend those qualities where ever they might select to interject their opinions.

At this point I think it's safe to say the forum is divided on the need for this.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Roody wrote:At this point I think it's safe to say the forum is divided on the need for this.

it's Lefty's fault

Dan wrote:it's Lefty's fault

Biatch, make some BBQ!

Lefty wrote:Biatch, make some BBQ!

just don't bring any of that funky beer

Roody wrote:At this point I think it's safe to say the forum is divided on the need for this.

Probably close to 50/50, would it be so difficult to try out?

YARDofSTUF wrote:Probably close to 50/50, would it be so difficult to try out?

That's not my call ultimately. Not to pass the buck, but that decision rests with Philip.

I think its leaning more towards a yes we need it...and again whats it going to hurt to try? Takes only a few mins to create a sub-forum.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo

Lefty wrote:Nooooooooooooooooooooooo

Same here. Especially religion. Politics is all over a bunch of lies and empty promises anyways, only to turn around, bend over, slab on the vaseline, wrap some barbed wire around their arms..and fist away.

But religion is too personal...too likely to come out swinging to those who try to claim facts and thump theirs over ones personal choice. No need for that here.."Live and let live" I say.

YeOldeStonecat wrote:."Live and let live" I say.

I have a hunch, just an opinion, that the people that are against this are afraid that they won't be able to view the circus with their free ticket. People love to watch a trainwreck.....bambulance chasers lol.

There is safety in numbers as well.

People get away with much much more when it's in the gen forum because they often have the support of like minded and often ignorant people.

But throw them in with the maximum security risks and they lose that protection of being in general population.


I think forcing people to post political threads in such an area will give them pause...force them to think that this might not be such a good idea because they know that they will be under heavy scrutiny.

that is the point of having the forum. You won't get away with posting BS lies and untruths and falsehoods.....and it will save the gen forum.

I say this because I rarely ever see someone like Lefty ever participate in heated political discussion but yet he's adamant in keeping the discussion in the gen forum.

Do you like to watch the carnage Lefty?

What is everyone afraid of, that the beloved gen forum will slow down and become the forum less traveled?

Maybe my hunch is way off base....but I have a feeling that there is truth in my assessment.

So with that, Lefty, why keep things the same?

There are a few considerations/thoughts that I have regarding this:

1. The rules for the forums/civility should be uniform, unless it's a private VIP section not publicly accessible (that can be difficult to moderate and discussions would be limited to a much smaller member base, a handful of people actually). There are benefits from a public discussion that would be lost with this version.

2. The general forum is not very active lately (less than one page of threads daily), so dividing it furhter is not really justified.

3. Political discussion is bound to decrease after the ellections.

4. People do not easily change, simply because of the forum they're in.

With those points in mind, I'm leaning towards leaving it as it is for now, I don't see much benefit or difference, and people seem to have a different idea of what it would be anyway.

Philip wrote:There are a few considerations/thoughts that I have regarding this:

1. The rules for the forums/civility should be uniform, unless it's a private VIP section not publicly accessible (that can be difficult to moderate and discussions would be limited to a much smaller member base, a handful of people actually). There are benefits from a public discussion that would be lost with this version.

2. The general forum is not very active lately (less than one page of threads daily), so dividing it furhter is not really justified.

3. Political discussion is bound to decrease after the ellections.

4. People do not easily change, simply because of the forum they're in.

With those points in mind, I'm leaning towards leaving it as it is for now, I don't see much benefit or difference, and people seem to have a different idea of what it would be anyway.

I strongly disagree because the public discussions have lead to almost ALL of the bannings on this site. I would venture to say that almost ALL of the warnings are the result of wayward political/religious discourse.

Do you have out of control discussions in the programming section?? LOL

Why would it be hard to moderate? I think it would be less because it's an enter at your own risk forum.

Also, if the gen forum is already not very active AND by your own estimation that the political threads will lessen after the elections....then isn't that in itself suggesting that political threads are the lifeblood of the gen forum? And since political threads account for the most contempt amongst the membership....isn't that in itself a requirement for change?

Most warnings are because people aren't mature enough to carry on discussions without insults in all honesty.

TonyT wrote: Realize that there are spurts of religious and political posts. The spurts parrellel current events in the news. It's election time now and thats what's on people's minds. The spurts fade away and come back when some AP journalist releases his mandatory anti-religion or anti-politico news story, and somone here then posts a link to it, afterwhich the mis-emotions fly because some folks just lack manners or they are bent on harming others.

Well said.

Roody wrote:Most warnings are because people aren't mature enough to carry on discussions without insults in all honesty.

I think that goes for everyone. Do the mods get warnings?

The General section is hurting cause people see the fighting going on from all parties being carried over from political and religious threads to the others thus chasing them away. I mean we had a few sign ups and frequent visits when I had that secret sound thread going..those members haven't been back since, either cause the contest was over or they just didn't like the way the forum was going.

I don't see the harm in making it for testing... if it doesn't work it isn't like it can't be deleted and we move on.

Roody wrote:Most warnings are because people aren't mature enough to carry on discussions without insults in all honesty.

Shinobi wrote:Well said.

I disagree because the proof is in the pudding. Prime example....Ghosthunter.

It wasn't a matter of maturity...it was a matter of mental acumen. He didn't have it.

So it's not a matter of insults, or timing of the elections...it is very much a matter of people unwilling to listen. And if they listen, will they accept?

Ghosthunter could not accept and that is why he is history.

Let me ask you guys this: If John McCain were to come to SG and post a message saying that Obama was a terrorist...would you ban him for it? Hell no you wouldn't.

Sava700 wrote:The General section is hurting cause people see the fighting going on from all parties being carried over from political and religious threads to the others thus chasing them away..

What evidence do you have of this?

Sava700 wrote:The General section is hurting cause people see the fighting going on from all parties being carried over from political and religious threads to the others thus chasing them away. I mean we had a few sign ups and frequent visits when I had that secret sound thread going..those members haven't been back since, either cause the contest was over or they just didn't like the way the forum was going.

I don't see the harm in making it for testing... if it doesn't work it isn't like it can't be deleted and we move on.

IMO, I think they are afraid that the gen forum will dry up and everyone will be sitting in the political forum with their popcorn, tinfoil hats, and flamethrowers at the ready.

The rest of the membership that isn't posting in this thread...they all secretly want to watch imo.

JC wrote:I think that goes for everyone. Do the mods get warnings?

Can you quote an example where any of them have been nearly as rash as some of the membership?

Izzo wrote:What evidence do you have of this?

there are old members that have left text evidence stating as much. Poke around some of the recent carnage and look at certain members profiles. Profiles are the new e-rep battleground.

JC wrote:I think that goes for everyone. Do the mods get warnings?

If one of us does something that is out of line we discuss it.

UOD wrote:I disagree because the proof is in the pudding. Prime example....Ghosthunter.

It wasn't a matter of maturity...it was a matter of mental acumen. He didn't have it.

So it's not a matter of insults, or timing of the elections...it is very much a matter of people unwilling to listen. And if they listen, will they accept?

Ghosthunter could not accept and that is why he is history.

Let me ask you guys this: If John McCain were to come to SG and post a message saying that Obama was a terrorist...would you ban him for it? Hell no you wouldn't.

We would ban him if he was a consistent rule breaker.

downhill wrote:Can you quote an example where any of them have been nearly as rash as some of the membership?

John, you are a great mentor to me...and Sava (Frank) is also a good friend of mine which I game with on a regular basis. Frank is bullheaded and he knows that...I've told him so many times lol. You have also called Frank's arguments "silly".

Bouncer used to say that to me as well and it drove me bonkers lol. It's one of the reasons why I changed and began to really look inward. Other mods have said plenty in the heat of battle...it goes with the territory.

I do not hold it against you and I don't hold it against Frank for being a stubborn SOB.

My original intent was to get a forum where feelings aren't spared and where thick skin is required. It's the nature of the beast.

Roody wrote:We would ban him if he was a consistent rule breaker.

Do we hold him to the same set of values in real life? In a way, we do by not voting for him. But really, what kind of backlash does he deserve for such comments?


One of the big problems I have with banning folks is that it's silencing free speech. If the person is that bad....can't we just IGNORE him/her?


You will be silenced because we don't like how you say things to us. Very odd for champions of freedom to hold such a belief.