[New Englander]

Originally Posted by billethkid

It could be easy to control.
Make it opt in...easy for those those who dislike political discussion....do not opt in!
Use same ID as in regular TOTV.
Enable ignore feature.
Give behavior violators 3 strikes and your out. The moderator would warn them up to three times....not just in one thread but overall.
Upon getting the third strike remove them from TOTV......maybe 30 days first time....60 days second time, etc.

Since the violators are a small minority count, it would not be long before they are weeded/struck out.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by karostay

Moderators rules are the Moderators rules...Abide or face the consequences

[Aloha1]

If you want a "political forum", I suggest you go over to "the on line paper which must not be named" and see how long you can stomach it.

[Topspinmo]

Nobody twisting you’re arms to open up the politicial forum and post are they.

[Jdmiata]

No , no , no. Let the political people argue somewhere else.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Jdmiata

No , no , no. Let the political people argue somewhere else.

This is a slippery slope. Often here on this forum, I see questioned posed as innocent inquiries about this or that topic - but they, and everyone else, knows that the answer to the question involves politics that aren't allowed on the forum.

So they bounce around the topic, edging close to that line between "allowed" and "verbotten" and it serves to irritate pretty much everyone, because they know they can't REALLY answer the question.

Members do this on purpose. To see who will cross that line. Maybe hoping to get someone banned, maybe just so they can call that person out in the future as "one of THOSE people who believe [insert belief here]."

If we can't talk about politics, then all discussions about anything political should be not allowed. That would include announcements of political figures coming to visit. They can find that information out on the Daily Sun, the Vi11age-News, the Ocala rag, the Leesburg weekly, and everywhere else that has local political news.

Complaining about the traffic caused by a [insert candidate] 2020 club golf cart parade, or a [insert candidate]2020 picket party, is just a poor disguise for a post daring and double-daring people to post political responses.

So we either stop it ALL - or we provide a place for it and enforce it. You want to talk about the condition of the Sharon, when you went to see you know who? Then put it in the political forum. Otherwise, leave who you saw out of the post. His existence had nothing to do with the condition of the Sharon.

That is an example I made up to demonstrate what I mean by disguising political talk with seemingly innocent posts. You don't care about the condition of the sharon. You just want to make sure everyone knows you went to see you-know-who.

[JimJohnson]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

This is a slippery slope. Often here on this forum, I see questioned posed as innocent inquiries about this or that topic - but they, and everyone else, knows that the answer to the question involves politics that aren't allowed on the forum.

So they bounce around the topic, edging close to that line between "allowed" and "verbotten" and it serves to irritate pretty much everyone, because they know they can't REALLY answer the question.

Members do this on purpose. To see who will cross that line. Maybe hoping to get someone banned, maybe just so they can call that person out in the future as "one of THOSE people who believe [insert belief here]."

If we can't talk about politics, then all discussions about anything political should be not allowed. That would include announcements of political figures coming to visit. They can find that information out on the Daily Sun, the Vi11age-News, the Ocala rag, the Leesburg weekly, and everywhere else that has local political news.

Complaining about the traffic caused by a [insert candidate] 2020 club golf cart parade, or a [insert candidate]2020 picket party, is just a poor disguise for a post daring and double-daring people to post political responses.

So we either stop it ALL - or we provide a place for it and enforce it. You want to talk about the condition of the Sharon, when you went to see you know who? Then put it in the political forum. Otherwise, leave who you saw out of the post. His existence had nothing to do with the condition of the Sharon.

That is an example I made up to demonstrate what I mean by disguising political talk with seemingly innocent posts. You don't care about the condition of the sharon. You just want to make sure everyone knows you went to see you-know-who.

If you could go back several years, there was a small group of posters that dominated the “P” forum that seemed to be dedicated to only allow a very narrow opinion as to what was acceptable. Please, don’t reopen that wound.

[billethkid]

Once upon a time when life was more simple....when one heard or observed something not to their liking...they just ignored it.

Now in the age of the keyboard and social anonymity every mole hill can be presented as a mountain...and as all encompassing even when an isolated incident/instance...whether true or not...real or not...et al.

Freedom of speech and expression constantly being challenged.

Our lives are constantly bombarded all day and every day in the news, the movies, almost all sports etc, etc.

I still find the old way to be most effective. It is just too easy to ignore that which I have no interest in. And as for going in places where I know the content is not to my liking...simple again...JUST DON'T GO IN.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

This is a slippery slope. Often here on this forum, I see questioned posed as innocent inquiries about this or that topic - but they, and everyone else, knows that the answer to the question involves politics that aren't allowed on the forum.

So they bounce around the topic, edging close to that line between "allowed" and "verbotten" and it serves to irritate pretty much everyone, because they know they can't REALLY answer the question.

Members do this on purpose. To see who will cross that line. Maybe hoping to get someone banned, maybe just so they can call that person out in the future as "one of THOSE people who believe [insert belief here]."

If we can't talk about politics, then all discussions about anything political should be not allowed. That would include announcements of political figures coming to visit. They can find that information out on the Daily Sun, the Vi11age-News, the Ocala rag, the Leesburg weekly, and everywhere else that has local political news.

Complaining about the traffic caused by a [insert candidate] 2020 club golf cart parade, or a [insert candidate]2020 picket party, is just a poor disguise for a post daring and double-daring people to post political responses.

So we either stop it ALL - or we provide a place for it and enforce it. You want to talk about the condition of the Sharon, when you went to see you know who? Then put it in the political forum. Otherwise, leave who you saw out of the post. His existence had nothing to do with the condition of the Sharon.

That is an example I made up to demonstrate what I mean by disguising political talk with seemingly innocent posts. You don't care about the condition of the sharon. You just want to make sure everyone knows you went to see you-know-who.

I'm guessing this would be up to the folks that run TOTV. Not the we that use this site.

[jebartle]

Maybe I'm a dreamer, BUT I'd really like it not be a red or blue debate BUT a legitimate news versus fake news. ALL news media have NEWS and OPINIONS, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. We need to acknowledge where the TRUTH lies, it's important that we have discourse AND treat each other with respect more importantly, I know we can do this, I really do!

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by jebartle

Maybe I'm a dreamer, BUT I'd really like it not be a red or blue debate BUT a legitimate news versus fake news. ALL news media have NEWS and OPINIONS, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. We need to acknowledge where the TRUTH lies, it's important that we have discourse AND treat each other with respect more importantly, I know we can do this, I really do!

Without a doubt...incorporating the weeding out of those FEW bent on disruption....

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by jebartle

Snip...>Maybe I'm a dreamer, BUT I'd really like it not be a red or blue debate BUT a legitimate news versus fake news<...Snip

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

In spite of proof from legitimate sources showing otherwise, there will always be those who not only refuse to do their own research to get to the truth...but try to denigrate those who do.

Whether from an ineptness in the basic technical ability to provide legitimate links, or simply a refusal to believe them ('confirmation bias') there is a significant faction who choose to go by their gut feelings...instead of actual facts.

There is however a recent glimmer, albeit a dim one, that those who promulgate the most outrageous, putrid and vicious false conspiracy theories...may be held accountable for such.

Sandy Hook Really DID Happen. (poke here)

Sandy Hook father to receive $450,000 from conspiracy theorist, jury says.

Retired professor James Fetzer, co-author of the book "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook," was found guilty in June of defaming Leonard Pozner.

I also find it telling that some folks think a debate, based on actual facts, can't be enlightening/legitimate...if there's a majority that feel a certain way.

It's as if, they believe that..."might=right."

THAT, in itself...explains a lot.

Oh yeah, as far as a forum for discussing politics, the ONLY way it could ever work is if it was constantly & fairly moderated...which is beyond reasonable (regarding the "constantly," not the "fairly" part) by the volunteer moderators.

Recognizing, of course, that even if someone is proved to be dead wrong on an issue, they won't change their opinion anyway...they'll just try to change the subject.

[EdFNJ]

That forum overall was vile and disgusting. Yes, it was NOT everyone but it was a lot. Funny part everyone thought they were anonymous but if you used Tapatalk app your regular username appeared. That forum came close to us not moving here because people were writing what they actually believed since they THOUGHT they were anonymous and if so many of them believed what they were writing it was quite frightening. I still see some people here who now look like Clark Kent but were then a bit unnerving behind the wall of assumed anonymity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Nucky]

There are several posts that really seem reasonable to a modest person like me. They actually got me to start thinking that it may not be that bad to have the thread back in action and then suddenly The Crux Of The Problem really reignited my Orignal Thought. Fuhgeddaboudit.

The Powers That Be Don't want TOTV'S to go backward. Onward and Upward. Kumbaya! I still respect both points of view. If I owned the joint it would be a no go. Time to Wrap It Up And Shut It Down!

[Aloha1]

There can be no winners in this debate. Move on.