Community Chat

[skuggles]

One thing I don't miss were those days when a very noisy group/s decided that specific posters were the designated "cogent" argument makers and everyone else's contributions no matter how astute were either totally overlooked or relegated to the inferior lot. And this was a very strong demarction with two opposing very fractious groups going at each other daily  even on the jewelry forum. I've noticed that a lot of the self designated peacemakers or dubbed "voices of reason" have dropped off presumably because there is no need for them anymore, and they no longer have a way to stand out in that way.

But of course the equalizing effects of arbitrary moderation that loosely follows the standards has left us all out in the sanitized Q limbo of a forum. 

[NYC Susan]

---

@software wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

---

@sunshine45 wrote:

just copy and paste the article or part of the article.

you can then include a link that is NOT live, but can be copied and pasted by those interested. the other option is just to put part of the article in, then say, for example, via the washington post and include the name of the article.

---

Yes, that is probably the only way to post unless you want the post removed.

I liked to give links....  because  those times I did not  give a link previously,  certain posters would comment :

"YOU NEED LINKS  to verify the  information.... and it not being considered plagiarism. "

 can not win for losing....

---

I don't click on links and you don't need to post links to verify information, I don't care what  posters say.   You can quote the location of your source for reference.   

---

I agree.  I rarely click on links, and I don't automatically find someone not to be credible because they don't include a link.  If some posters feel that way, that's their problem.  It's easy enough to simply say where information came from. 

[maximillian]

What is definitely allowed: praise/gush posts of hosts.  Any negative thought on said hosts: not so much.

[shoekitty]

I agree, everything now is deemed controversial or political.  

[Isobel Archer]

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

@SeaMaiden  Your link had political sidebars.  That is why the mod shut down your thread.

It would be better to be more vigilant with your links; sidebars fluctuate, I understand that-but perhaps it would have been better to post a portion of the story without the link.

And honestly-not that this matters-but sometimes all we see around here are tragic stories and gossip from magazines about people we don't know and who don't care about us.

We've had good discussions about serious topics.

There is plenty to discuss although I cringe at topics such as how does one use a public bathroom.  Gah.

---

@Cakers3   but these are the threads that stay..... threads that are boring and just Gah.

---

@SeaMaiden  Sometimes but we've had recent long-standing discussions about topics such as the lastest high school shooting.

All topics eventually become stale or go off topic or become posts that start in with personal issues.

The only thing that really ticks me off is when posts are removed for being "argumentative" when the post is just offering an opposing VP without the snark and attack.

Or it's off-topic but the posts discussing cookies in a thread about global warming remain yet ONE post that really isn't off-topic gets the boot.

Such is life around here.

---

Yes!  Opposing viewpoints are frequently labeled  as argumentative - while the posts which call others "ignorant" "unable to read and comprehend" etc., are apparently just fine - and such posters are then commended by others who also disagree with the opposing view.  And if you object to such namecalling (without reporting it but simply by responding), then you get poofed or attacked further.

Also quoting something without providing  a link then causes the namecallers to insist that you made it up - even if you provide the name of the site where you got it. 

[reiki604]

Along with very uneven moderation, lthe thing that gets to me is when two people engage in a one upsmanship where each person is determined to get in the last word in an argument that has disrupted  the flow of conversation and highjacked the the thread and the mods do nothing to shut down the fight from the beginning.

[Jacie]

The PC thing has risen to a new level, one can barely say a word and another becomes offended. Someone is always in a bundle about something, it's hard to voice any opinion!

[Yardlie]

In some ways, they are fairly lenient on this board.There are boards (like City-Data) that allow you to discuss any subject, but they tolerate no disrespect or arguing. There are a few people on this board who would have been suspended or banned on that board long ago. When I see someone listed as a top-level contributor on here, I think of someone who is courteous, respectful of others (even if they disagree), offers top solutions and support, likeable, and admirable. Instead, in a couple cases, they bully people who disagree with them or come out with hurtful comments and call people childish if they don't see things the way they do. People need to learn to "agree to disagree" or just bypass a post or thread instead of attacking. On this bulletin board, you can become a top-level contributor just because of your number of posts. That's not the way it is everywhere.

[giraffe77]

@SeaMaiden

You've got me curious .... what pooping moose (I missed that somewhere, was it on QVC2 that I never watch)?  

[Lipstickdiva]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but if I felt so stifled by a message board, I would skedaddle.

---

And I think a lot of people have.  Not sure what the reason but these board for the most part are a shell of what they used to be.  I notice a lot of missing posters or posters who are barely here anymore.