Political discussions are not allowed here

[Lance K]

Originally Posted by Elmer Hurlstone

Polls, in the context of a forum, are to gather opinions on subjects of interest to the pollster. In some cases they are very useful.

As they are completely voluntary they're not particularly scientific or, in many cases, valid.

In the case of this forum, which is not in any sense of the word a democracy, but rather a benevolent dictatorship, a poll to measure the "feelings" of some of the membership regarding political expression would serve no valid purpose.

The only probable responders would be those with fairly strong opinions on the matter. They would represent only the extremes of opinion.

Paul stated upthread that he ran the OP by Allen before posting. It's evident by the fact of the post that political discussion is not now and is unlikely to be permitted in the future.

Yo Elmer, did you miss the behind my poll comment? I wasn't serious.

Originally Posted by Elmer Hurlstone

It's actually rather refreshing to be in a "politics free zone."

I couldn't agree more.

[scrofford]

Originally Posted by Kevin Riley

I think that all of us who wear blue paper hats should band against those wearing green paper hats, for they are obviously misguided.

But I'm wearing an orange paper hat and I disagree!

[Kevin Riley]

Originally Posted by scrofford

But I'm wearing an orange paper hat and I disagree!

Look, we discounted you wacko orange hats a long time ago. Just go sit at that little table in the corner with the purple hats. We'll send you over a Shirley Temple.

[Elmer Hurlstone]

Originally Posted by Lance K

Yo Elmer, did you miss the behind my poll comment? I wasn't serious.

I couldn't agree more.

Lance,

I could say I did notice the sarcastic grin and that I did know you were not serious.

Also I could mention that although I knew you were not seriously proposing a poll I wasn't certain if others would understand.

The fact is, I didn't notice it.

So, I won't lie and pretend I knew it all along.

Now I'm going to check my shoelaces and fly for correct fastening...

Elmer

[Lance K]

Originally Posted by Elmer Hurlstone

Lance,

I could say I did notice the sarcastic grin and that I did know you were not serious.

Also I could mention that although I knew you were not seriously proposing a poll I wasn't certain if others would understand.

The fact is, I didn't notice it.

So, I won't lie and pretend I knew it all along.

Now I'm going to check my shoelaces and fly for correct fastening...

Elmer

I just didn't want you to think that I was one of the tin foil hat clan.

[George Wright]

Actually individual posts can be moderated. All it takes is the "magic" number of others to hit the report button on any one post and it's gone. If this was done before the entire thread goes political the thread probably wouldn't be nuked.

George Wright

Originally Posted by Bruce Wedding

One day I hope the concept of moderation posts instead of threads would take hold here. Paul, you're lamenting how useful information was deleted. Hmmmm, if only there was some way in the world we could prevent that. Think, man... think!

[jasonmorgan]

I LIKE IKE!

and yes, this thread has gone completely off topic

[milan]

Originally Posted by NathanFalkner

Ultimately, however, it could be that a broader and
much more important lesson is being taught to the
members of the Warrior Forum: use your time wisely...

That's a really good thing to remember! This is why it's very important to set your goals and measure your work (or "work") time.
I remember very well the days when I had internet through slow dial-up only. When it actually 'hurts' you to communicate on the internet you tend to be smarter

[Bev Clement]

Does that mean there are no Yankee's games in NYC when I arrive there tomorrow? If so, I can breathe a sigh of relief. I agree with Kevin about baseball being a cure for insomniacs.

Beige is boring, why not become Chinese where you wear all colours especially the ones that clash. Wear odd shoes, one purple and one pink, or one green and one blue, you get the picture.

[TimGross]

If anyone's up for some self-evaluation, the irony is that the marketers and would-be marketers who are unable to step outside of themselves and understand where "the other side" is coming from are displaying the exact traits that self-limit their own success.

Q: What's one of the most important skills you need to be able to sell to someone?

A: To be able to put yourself in their shoes.

Here's how politics (and every other us/them scenario) works:

1) Your side does something bad:
"Sometimes good people make mistakes or bad decisions"

2) Their side does something bad:
"Those people are evil morons"

...It's not hard to understand. And it's why nasty criticism offends people even if those criticisms objectively are right. (And of course that's a big "if", since politics is so subjective.)

Since I'd say the majority of active posters here market products to other Warriors at some point, that's incredibly stupid. And if you do that and you're also struggling to succeed with your sales process, you may need to learn how to put yourself in your prospects' shoes.

Sure, you have the choice of offending your target market any time you wish, but if you don't even understand when you're doing it, life is probably a lot harder for you than it needs to be.

[Bruce Wedding]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Yeah. And then listen to the fights and argue with people who don't know how to behave and want to run the place without putting in the effort.

Been there, done that. Not wasting my time with it, Bruce. Or anyone else's.


Paul

Forgive me for being obtuse but how would deleting posts instead of entire threads result in what you describe any more than deleting entire threads?

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wedding

Forgive me for being obtuse but how would deleting posts instead of entire threads result in what you describe any more than deleting entire threads?

I can't speak for Paul, but what I found was that deleting single posts led to a flood of "why did you delete my post and not this one" tantrums. Delete the entire thread, and you avoid those little **** fits.

Edit: My experience was on another forum. I've never been more than a member-moderator here at WF.

[Frank Donovan]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wedding

Forgive me for being obtuse but how would deleting posts instead of entire threads result in what you describe any more than deleting entire threads?

Bruce, I've seen threads where individual posts have been deleted. Most of the time, the thread justs descends into an argument about the validity of such deletions.

Not many folks seem willing to just accept the decision and while the thread remains active, they see it as an opportunity to further argue their case.


Frank

EDIT: John just beat me to it with the same point.

[jamesnicholson]

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

I agree Paul, but the problem is that business (money) and politics are fairly wired together, so at some point there's crossover.

This is a site about business, so politics will enter in at times (like the currency discussions).

If we all could just discuss the issues without acting like pre-schoolers over it, gosh... what a concept.

Totally agree. There will always be overlapping areas. Let's not get too pedantic about 'rules' and just address the core of the problem

[Bruce Wedding]

I'm aware that some people are so hell-bent on being heard that they'll gripe about their posts being deleted.

I don't think that justifies throwing the baby out with the bath water, as is often done here. Priceless advice is casually deleted all the time.

[Rod Cortez]

Definitely a thread I can say "amen!" to. I come here to learn about making money and giving back to the forum, not to talk about politics. I do that at the local british pub in my neighborhood where I routinely get my arse kicked by cheeky fellows named Brutus and Benny. Damn, I love that place.

[Frank Donovan]

Originally Posted by NathanFalkner

Can we agree that locking a thread might be a
reasonable compromise? This avoids having the
entire thread descend into an argument about
the validity of individual post deletions... of course,
a disgruntled thread participant might decide to
start a new thread critiquing the locking of the
"other" thread -- but really, this is something so
extreme that I suspect the member would have
to sit in the penalty box for a while.

Nathan, I agree that locking a thread can be a reasonable compromise and I've seen one or two instances of that tactic used to good effect recently.

However, without being party to all the behind-the-scenes info the mods may have, I'm prepared to leave that call up to them.


Frank

[jacktackett]

Originally Posted by Lance K

I just didn't want you to think that I was one of the tin foil hat clan.

Lance - I am completely offended by that remark sir.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by NathanFalkner

Can we agree that locking a thread might be a
reasonable compromise? This avoids having the
entire thread descend into an argument about
the validity of individual post deletions... of course,
a disgruntled thread participant might decide to
start a new thread critiquing the locking of the
"other" thread -- but really, this is something so
extreme that I suspect the member would have
to sit in the penalty box for a while.

Nathan, I'm only taking a guess here because I'm not a mod and don't know
for certain, but some threads may get deleted instead of locked because
there is so much venom spewed in the thread itself that the mods don't
want to leave it behind and taking the time to delete all the nasty posts
would take too long. Thus, the whole thread gets nuked.

Imagine a thread that hits 7 pages and the last 3 pages are nothing
but venom.

You're going to delete 3 pages of posts?

It's just too time consuming and thus, the thread goes.

I moderate at another forum and what I do is as soon as the first blow
is thrown I either lock the thread right there or kill it. If you wait too
long you only get more complaining and bitching that a great thread
was killed.

This way, I avoid problems before they start.

Fortunately, at this other forum, for whatever reason, the arguments
are few and far between. The only real problem we have over there is
spam. But the members are really all very well behaved.

It helps that I keep my mouth shut as much as possible.

[Paul Myers]

Bruce,

I'm aware that some people are so hell-bent on being heard that they'll gripe about their posts being deleted.

I don't think that justifies throwing the baby out with the bath water, as is often done here. Priceless advice is casually deleted all the time.

"Priceless?" Hardly. "All the time." Not even close. Make those "useful" and "occasionally" and you've got a statement that has some bearing on reality.

The overwhelming majority of direct moderator intervention (as separate from member moderation) is in the form of individual post deletion. ALL member moderation is single-post based.

If the single post in question is a thread starter that violates the rules, it does take out the thread. That is not a problem, as I see it.

Entire threads usually get taken out for a few reasons. The biggest, outside of forbidden topics, is a subject that has a high probability of generating a lot of heat and very little light, or that degenerate into such discussions.

The rest are mostly trolling, pointless griping, meaningless and completely offtopic conversations, and other discussions that would generally be considered "noise."

Yes, some folks do make a point of griping about deletions. The ones who do it on their own, and in a straight forward way, are not as big a deal as some of the other stuff that goes on. They're a PITA, but they're easily handled.

There are quite a few little groups here (some consisting of a single person with multiple accounts, and some being groups of surprisingly senior members) who view any direct action that can be interpreted as individually targeted as a basis for a mini-revolution. Others will, as individuals, spend a great deal of time and energy nursing their grudges and dragging them out every chance they get.

Each moderator has a different way of dealing with these situations, all of them valid in their own right. Some warn first. Some are quick to ban. Some will tend to confront people directly.

When you're talking about large groups, a certain amount of friction will inevitably occur, even without any kind of sneakiness or bad intentions. When it's that kind of thing, and the ensuing arguments would be matters of ego, rather than substance, the excuse (the thread) is removed. Why create a running fight and bad feelings over something that is simply not worth the aggravation to anyone?

The informational content of any given thread is always secondary to the overall well-being of the group.

These are all judgment calls. Necessary parts of the process of moderating. And, given the volume of information in question, seeking perfection is not only counter-productive, it is not possible.

Arguing for the impossible is one of the reasons that threads bashing moderation efforts are usually just deleted. Anyone who doesn't want to accept that you can't please everyone is usually not going to listen to any answer other than, "Sure. We'll do it your way."

You've been around this and other forums long enough that you know all of this, Bruce. There's nothing in this thread that's new to you. Which makes me wonder what your desired result is in perpetuating this part of the conversation.


Paul