cybercoma Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 There's only one conclusion to draw from all of this: Charles Anthony is bush_cheney2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 There's only one conclusion to draw from all of this: Charles Anthony is bush_cheney2004. Preserved for posterity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 There's only one conclusion to draw from all of this: Charles Anthony is bush_cheney2004. yup... that seemed to be a prevailing thought in some of the back-channel discussions... something that started out as a University of Lethbridge poli-sci study Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 There's only one conclusion to draw from all of this: Charles Anthony is bush_cheney2004. I thought he was Batman..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 There's only one conclusion to draw from all of this: Charles Anthony is bush_cheney2004. Actually, their politics couldn't be further apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 I was being facetious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 Actually, their politics couldn't be further apart. I'm not sure how you can say that with such certainty. Not that I disagree, but I feel that both individuals are very difficult to characterize in that regard. And even then, this board has been around long enough, that people with different politics can "get along" better than people in the same camp sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure how you can say that with such certainty. Not that I disagree, but I feel that both individuals are very difficult to characterize in that regard. And even then, this board has been around long enough, that people with different politics can "get along" better than people in the same camp sometimes. BC's politics, at least as expressed here, and as truthfully as you can take them, are Republican. Charles was very much NDP in his outlook last time he posted as himself. The only difference seems to be that now when he finds my comments 'outrageous'' he gets to suspend me. Edited April 16, 2014 by Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 ...The only difference seems to be that now when he finds my comments 'outrageous'' he gets to suspend me. But that would be very "Republican". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 BC's politics, at least as expressed here, and as truthfully as you can take them, are Republican. Charles was very much NDP in his outlook last time he posted as himself. The only difference seems to be that now when he finds my comments 'outrageous'' he gets to suspend me. Your suppositions surprise me, frankly. BC at least can self-declare, and we can choose to believe him or not. Charles is on the holy mountain, so the mortals can only wonder about the affairs of the gods. There's an implication that his politics drives suspension decisions, though, and I am sure that that's incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 Your suppositions surprise me, frankly. BC at least can self-declare, and we can choose to believe him or not. Charles is on the holy mountain, so the mortals can only wonder about the affairs of the gods. But he used to be a regular poster here and I was around back then. He was not a fan of mine, to say the least, and I've seen no indication he's any less politically correct than he was back then. All my suspensions are based on not being respectful towards this group or that, be they Afghanis, gays, natives or Quebecers. So he clearly hasn't changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 But I've been suspended as well, and it wasn't exactly for my conservative politics, to my understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 Ok then, Charles Anthony decided to lock out another thread! The Rob Anders one. He does this when the posters start drifting way off topic and insulting each other. What gets me about this tactic, is that to me, I feel he is not considering the position of the other posters who aren't involved in the pettiness. I was looking forward to further debating as to what will happen/has happened with Anders and his past/future in politics! True, I didn't like it when the thread started shifting about other stuff unrelated to the nomination vote in Calgary, but it wasn't my fault! I don't know who to be angry at, CA for locking it or the posters who degraded the debate/discussion? This has happened before with other good threads and I feel there's got to be a better way to deal with this! Perhaps temporarily suspending delinquent posters from the thread in question for 24 hours till they cool off? Let them contribute to other stuff in the meantime. WWWTT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) Well, the thread is only temporarily locked...so maybe that is indeed a better solution than suspending posters from the thread....especially where it's not always easy to see who is precisely or mostly responsible in every case. Edited April 16, 2014 by bleeding heart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) Problem with that approach is that you penalize those who are not abusing the thread! I suspect that the moderators can't stop members from contributing to specific threads. Either an all out suspension. Or locking the thread. If members are becoming abusive/carried away/making inappropriate comments/wildly drifting in a specific thread, I believe it would be appropriate to suspend those individuals from contributing to it for 24 hrs. Apparently this site will be going through an upgrade soon, and I believe this idea has merit and should be considered as a sound option! WWWTT Edited April 16, 2014 by WWWTT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 yes - as Charles indicated, a temporary lock... with advise on how members should proceed once he chooses to open the thread again. in the improvement thread, I put forward the suggestion for per member/per thread suspension. It's a practice followed on another board I infrequently visit... although that board runs on vbulletin software. I assume MLW's IP.Board software offers the same functionality... an assumption based on the fact the companies try to offer comparable software/features from a competitive aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 in the improvement thread, I put forward the suggestion for per member/per thread suspension. It's a practice followed on another board I infrequently visit... although that board runs on vbulletin software. I assume MLW's IP.Board software offers the same functionality... an assumption based on the fact the companies try to offer comparable software/features from a competitive aspect. Thanks for previously suggesting the idea. Hopefully the moderation can put the idea into practice and use it in their moderation of this site. WWWTT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 Ok then, Charles Anthony decided to lock out another thread! The Rob Anders one. He does this when the posters start drifting way off topic and insulting each other. What gets me about this tactic, is that to me, I feel he is not considering the position of the other posters who aren't involved in the pettiness. I was looking forward to further debating as to what will happen/has happened with Anders and his past/future in politics! True, I didn't like it when the thread started shifting about other stuff unrelated to the nomination vote in Calgary, but it wasn't my fault! I don't know who to be angry at, CA for locking it or the posters who degraded the debate/discussion? This has happened before with other good threads and I feel there's got to be a better way to deal with this! Perhaps temporarily suspending delinquent posters from the thread in question for 24 hours till they cool off? Let them contribute to other stuff in the meantime. WWWTT Better yet, stop being so anal about thread drift. It's an organic conversation, things can and will go off topic from time to time. In the Anders thread, when I joined in, the topic has already very naturally transitioned to comparing the NDP and CPC nomination processes. The communism angle was already in progress as well -- I only replied to posts that were already there. Only a complete asshole would even consider suspending someone for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Ok then, Charles Anthony decided to lock out another thread! The Rob Anders one. He does this when the posters start drifting way off topic and insulting each other. What gets me about this tactic, is that to me, I feel he is not considering the position of the other posters who aren't involved in the pettiness. I was looking forward to further debating as to what will happen/has happened with Anders and his past/future in politics! True, I didn't like it when the thread started shifting about other stuff unrelated to the nomination vote in Calgary, but it wasn't my fault! I don't know who to be angry at, CA for locking it or the posters who degraded the debate/discussion? This has happened before with other good threads and I feel there's got to be a better way to deal with this! Perhaps temporarily suspending delinquent posters from the thread in question for 24 hours till they cool off? Let them contribute to other stuff in the meantime. WWWTT this type of moderating implies we need to take it into our own hands when posters get into petty arguments that drift threads, yet saying anything about it only contributes to the drift. So I guess it's a Catch-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Better yet, stop being so anal about thread drift. It's an organic conversation, things can and will go off topic from time to time. In the Anders thread, when I joined in, the topic has already very naturally transitioned to comparing the NDP and CPC nomination processes. The communism angle was already in progress as well -- I only replied to posts that were already there. Only a complete asshole would even consider suspending someone for that. No, what happened was CA closed the thread for a short period because he probably felt that the dialogue was going to get nastier. I wasn't getting carried away and kept my eye on the ball! Don't like my style of debate? Oh well, not my problem. But I still think that waldo and I have a good suggestion that should be considered. WWWTT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 this type of moderating implies we need to take it into our own hands when posters get into petty arguments that drift threads, yet saying anything about it only contributes to the drift. So I guess it's a Catch-22. Maybe, maybe not? I try to be tactful about it and make sure that there is a little something in my comment that is obvious about the thread. But I'm sure I'm guilty of drift too. A little drift is ok I guess. If you go back and look at the comments, it's just not about drifting/petty bickering. There was also a nasty tone starting to snowball. It was escalating further to no freekin end?!? CA, in my opinion had to use the limited tools at his disposal to referee and called a time out. Fortunately he re instated the thread quickly. But that wasn't always the case in the past. Perhaps a pause for several hours will work? We'll see I guess. I still like the idea of temporarily pushing out some posters from a thread till they get the idea. WWWTT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 I'm not really certain why people get suspended for "making conversations personal" (as if that's even possible on an anonymous board) or going off topic and yet you can make a prominent status update mocking the stabbing deaths of five young people in Calgary without repercussions. I don't see how trying to make people debate like robots improves the quality of the board, but forcing them to treat sensitive issues with respect makes sense to me. I guess the consensus is one banning would solve everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 this type of moderating implies we need to take it into our own hands when posters get into petty arguments that drift threads, yet saying anything about it only contributes to the drift. So I guess it's a Catch-22. You could just dleete all the off-topic back and forth nonsense. Presto. Clean thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 You could just dleete all the off-topic back and forth nonsense. Presto. Clean thread. I'm a member of a forum that does exactly that... they don't allow politics, religion or personal attacks. Posts simply get deleted and people get warnings and/or bannings. Very few people have actually been banned though. They seem to clean up their act because they have an interest in the topic that is supposed to be discussed and rules are clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 I guess the consensus is one banning would solve everything. Indeed, I am certain that if bush_chiney were banned, the quality of this forum would go way, way up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts