What's up with this CuC?

[sweaty]

You have once again arbitrarily suspended nascarules. I've yet to see ANY repub poster suspended, not sdif, dolan, etc.
How can you go on and on telling us how fair you are when nascarules only refutes your arguments, badart, and others do the same and get shut down time after time.
Is it the "I'll take my ball and go home' thing? Do you get so frustrated that you can't derail the truth that your only resort is suspension?
Fair, Ha. Honest, Ha.
Reved, you need to suspend CuC. He has become blinded.He needs a vaction.


Bet this gets me one too.

[gyrfalcon]

Has NR been banned? I would like to know what his infraction was. It would be helpful to know what standards are being applied. Given that 2006 promises to be even more fractious than 2005 was. Some guidance would be appreciated.

If the board had to be closed post Katrina I can only imagine what might happen if this comes to impreachment.

GF

[SoDak_IndyFan]

If the board had to be closed post Katrina I can only imagine what might happen if this comes to impreachment.

GF

The board was closed post-Katrina

[SportscarBruce]

If it was due to a gross violation of board decorum or policy then my sympathies but rules are the rules. Whatever the case hopefully he can join us again...soon.

[cleanupcrew]

I let the gratuitous "President Bush is a drunk" comment slide - he kept at it and kept mouthing off after he was answered twice

the "drunk" remark should have earned a vacation in itself

as a side note - I also used "Report to Mod" on myself - on the suspension of Nrules - that means that all the admins and supermods get an email - asking that each review the suspension for appropriateness - specifically told them they should over rule and reinstate if they felt my action was incorrect

post reasonably, rationally and intelligently - avoid the too common of late gratuitous partisan attacks - act with at least a minimum of civility - support your position with facts or at least well reasoned, well thought opinion

the unsupported partisan rhetoric and the incessant partisan attack is over the line - by a long way

if your post has an intelligent topic and ytou actually post it with the intent to discuss it you'll have no problem

if your post, and your actions and response in it, are nothing more than partisan attack - don't bother

the question is asked why more on the "right" aren't suspended - the answer is that in large part they make an effort - how many topic do we see that the topic is a direct attack on the "left" or the Democrats - when was the last time one of them posted "[insert name here] is a liar" - now compare to how many topic are started for the clear purpose of partisan attack from the "left" leaning group here

here's the bottom line - this is not a democracy - it is a private forum with a benevalent dictator - we moderate as we see fit and will continue to do so

if you dislike the moderation or the forum you are more than welcome to see your self to the door - and if you continue to disrespect and/or abuse the forum and its members, if your primary purpose is to promote a political agenda - whether by intent or deed - then we will help show you to the door

any member can post just about any topic - within reason - and we will support and protect that right, even if it is unpopular - that is provided the post follows the rules and that it is clear the intent is to participate, to discuss, as opposed to force your ideals on others

we're tired of the whining - and also the incessant partisan attack of some

everyone here knows the rules - it is completely disingenuous, especially in light of the PM's and emails we often receive after some of the suspensions, to claim a lack of understanding of them

I'll repeat - so everyone is clear - this forum is for intelligent, reasoned and rational discussion and debate - it is not a place to incessant promote partisan rhetoric through attacks, accusation and taunts

if you don't like it the don't post - simple as that

[cleanupcrew]

You have once again arbitrarily suspended nascarules. I've yet to see ANY repub poster suspended, not sdif, dolan, etc.
How can you go on and on telling us how fair you are when nascarules only refutes your arguments, badart, and others do the same and get shut down time after time.
Is it the "I'll take my ball and go home' thing? Do you get so frustrated that you can't derail the truth that your only resort is suspension?
Fair, Ha. Honest, Ha.
Reved, you need to suspend CuC. He has become blinded.He needs a vaction.


Bet this gets me one too.

that sweaty he's just a stupid drunk ....

[Sybil D. Sobydianz]

When you include a taunt or dig or insult with every post, it gets old quick. When you do it to a moderator, especially after being warned, it's over.

Well, in this case, at least for two weeks.

Wake up, folks. You don't "win" by slipping in derogatory remarks every chance you get. You know that - it happens on both "sides". Make your point without giving in to the desire to be a jerk and you can post here indefinitely. I think there are plenty of examples of this (in politics and the racing forums) to support this contention.

[cleanupcrew]

that sweaty he's a stupid drunk .....

no I don't believe it - it isn't true - I think sweaty is an OK guy even if I do disagree with him

but sweaty - wouldn't you agree my accusation toward you was way over the line?

we try to give a lot of latitude - and chances - the majority of our members have little problem expressing their opinions without being offensive or violating the rules - some are unwilling or just plain unable to control themselves - there is a limit and these people knowingly andpurposely violate it - and we then take the approriate action ....

[MicroRacer]

Partisan politics on a political board, what's the world coming to. When the left was allowed to be called anti-Semitic (a racist slang), it told me just where the moderator of this board stands and just how far he allows the right to go and just how tight a leash he keeps the left on.

To put things in perspective, I'd rather be called a drunk any day of the week than to be called anti-Semitic.

[gyrfalcon]

Cleanup,
I guess I need one clarification, well maybe two.

First, it is unclear to me what you (and maybe the other mods) define as partisan rhetoric. For example in the thread on Clinton and the CIA there is this response from TD as a followup to SDIF's question why Clinton failed to breakup Al Quaeda.

]Clinton was busy with other objectives in the oval office.

to which you responded.

he got an "A" in oral arguments .....

I thought it was funny, but it was partisan, it was off topic, and it was not a reasoned argument backed up by facts, etc. In fact this whole thread was started simply by a link to a Newsmax story with not a single comment by the original poster (Mr. Dolan). I had been told in the past, that this was a no-no that one had to make their views or position known.

Here's another example in the thread on the ACLU the second post is from TD again where he says:

Quote:
He lied to the American people and broke the law.

W was acting in the defense of the American public.

Clinton was trying to pop a nut on an intern.

Surely you can see the difference?

First off, the quote that TD quoted is Richard Nixon, TD appears to be implying that it is by the poster of the thread. Secondly, Clinton has nothing to do with the thread. This is simply partisan rhetoric. When this was pointed out to TD he replied with:

I wonder why he was left out...

More partisan rhetoric in my book. What is it in yours?

This is followed by a post from Mr. Dolan consisting solely of:

NYT...ACLU...wow...

Strikes me again as partisan rhetoric, but if you don't think so, it certainly fails your reasoned argument backed up with facts.

These are just two examples of recent partisan rhetoric that were considered within the guidelines. Finding much more in the same vein would be a trivial task as the response of several posters around here is typically to respond to any issue that casts Bush in a bad light with partisan rhetoric.

Would I want these folks to be told to stop posting partisan rhetoric? Nope. As you have said before, and I agree with it, if one posts jingoistic partisan rhetoric than your argument will not be persuasive. We know what to expect from TD, or Mr. Dolan, or SDIF, of WestMcclarenF-1. Rarely do they post anything of content, but mostly partisan jabs. That seems to go with the territory.

So I find it hard to believe that the issue is really the posting of partisan rhetoric, but the posting of partisan rhetoric that the mods don't like.

That said, as you pointed out, this is a dictatorship (the benevelant part is a matter of debate ) and ultimately whatever you and the other mods decide is what we live with.

The leftnuts know that when Bush is really in trouble that pointing out his missteps are likely to result in suspension under the guise of "not backing your argument up with facts", or "partisan rhetoric". At this moment, Bush is in deep trouble. He has admitted that he authorised spying that violates FISA. There is and will be a long debate over the legality of what he has done. SDIF thinks that all that will come out of this is that a democrat will be convicted of leaking classified info and spend jail time (partisan rhetoric is there ever was an example, given that not a single word has been spoken about who might have leaked the inof about the NSA spying), and I think that this is likely to lead to impeachment (partisan rhetoric in the mods book, but actually a reasonable prediction given the impeachment of Clinton). Both have been allowed to stand, and that strikes me as appropriate. I think that we are adults here and can cope with partisan rhetoric. Unless there is a bandwidth issue that we don't know about, what is the problem?

I think it reasonable that when someone makes a claim that they be asked to link it to some source (as was done in the ACLU thread when CARTer made the child rape charge. I asked for it to be linked or removed and CARTer provided a link. Though the whole thing that followed was off topic I learned a lot from the posts that followed and thought the discussion useful in describing people's positions on civil liberties. It was even done without too much personal attack.)

What I would appreciate, is if the mods would simply mark some of the offending posts with a "PA" for partisan attack, or a "BIU" for back it up, or a "OT" for off topic. No need to delete, but just give us some feedback for what your standards actually are. Those of us in the middle might not get the impression that there is much more latitude for political views more in line with the mods than there is for dissenting opinion.

One last point, which I think bears comment. Cleanup has taken the brunt of this since he is the most outspoken of the mods and engage others here in lively debate. The one thing that CuC does is that he tries (and often succeeds) to provide documentation for his positions in opposition to posts he disagrees with. We often disagree with the interpretation of what he posts, but I am impressed that he makes a real effort to bring substance to his objections. I have learned from those posts and I respect it when he says that one needs to back up what they say. I only wish that he would accept my sources as readily .

The bottom line for me is that what is posted here really doesn't amount to anything very important in the grand scheme of things. We post here because we enjoy the intellectual challenge of arguing with someone who disagrees with us. We are often seeing whether it is possible to make an argument that causes them to stop and think. We rarely let each other know when they succeed, but I have changed my views on things as a result of discussion here and I have given consideration to points of view that I would not have except for a discussion on this forum. Some here who have referred to my 'friends at Dailykos" may be surprised that I almost never read the comments to posts there and never ever comment myself. Why? What's the point of talking about something to people who basically agree with you, or are even more partisan than one regards themselves. We actually need each other for this to be an interesting place. When a few of the leftnuts took a self-imposed vacation, the posts fell of dramatically, and quite frankly, the place become boring. There is only so much self-congratulation that anyone can stand. Those of you on the right argue forcefully for the same reason that those of us in the middle argue forcefully and we wouldn't come back here if there wasn't something that we each get from the other. Maybe we could keep that in mind when things get heated.

This is going to be tough year.

GF

[Sybil D. Sobydianz]

For me, it's not a question of partisan rhetoric. I just look for members who habitually insult, taunt, and antagonize other members. Some people don't seem to be able to complete a post without getting that "dig" in, and for some, the "dig" seems to be the main reason for the post. It doesn't matter to me if it's a right or left dig.

I'm not about to start using a coding system, because I really don't think the problem is one of precision, but rather of generalities. Make your posts, take your chances, and don't whine when you get clipped. I really don't think we have wrongly banned the innocent here, ever. Certainly not very often

[Truth Detector]

Wow.

[badart]

Wow.

wow, there is a prime example of reasonable discourse.

[Truth Detector]

wow, there is a prime example of reasonable discourse.

Its a waste of time to have reasonable discourse with an unreasonable person.

[badart]

Its a waste of time to have reasonable discourse with an unreasonable person.

ha