Kenny

I second that.

@stevenkesslar, a number of people worked with you to help Jeffrey and Rentboy, including me. And I am ready and willing to help in any other gay- related causes you support. The Palm Springs weekend is not very important to me because I live on the east coast. I would be much more interested if the weekend events took place in or near Los Angeles
 
However, It would greatly matter to me if the political forum was closed. It is a place to share opinions and strategize with others, including wonderful people like @FreshFluff and @quoththeraven and many smart, funny and caring gay men.

Wow.
 
Are you suggesting that a political forum should actually mirror the way politics works in the US?
 
You mean it should not be organized like a little girls' tea party with cookies and little donuts and pink ribbons and Mommy and Daddy making sure that everyone smiles and only says nice things?
 
Wow. What a weird idea.
 
Of course, in relative terms, politics in the US is quite docile. In much of the world if you are a journalist and you write something that Putin or some narco-trafficker doesn't like, you just end up with a bullet in your head. Probably we should not try that here.

Wow.
 
Are you suggesting that a political forum should actually mirror the way politics works in the US?
 
You mean it should not be organized like a little girls' tea party with cookies and little donuts and pink ribbons and Mommy and Daddy making sure that everyone smiles and only says nice things?
 
Wow. What a weird idea.
 
Of course, in relative terms, politics in the US is quite docile. In much of the world if you are a journalist and you write something that Putin or some narco-trafficker doesn't like, you just end up with a bullet in your head. Probably we should not try that here.

Looks like things have fallen apart in my absence. Same thing will happen when ah leave the boss at the end of the year

That's pretty much how it was..........Sparta !

Tulsi Gabbard would be timed out; she called Trump "Saudi Arabia's Bitch" yesterday.

I agree with your disagreement of my overarching suggestion. I guess we're all just grasping for solutions here to fix a problem which was suppressed ignored for too long and then was presented to us as if we were the last cigarette smoked before the Surgeon General finally put warnings on the side of the packs of Marlboro's.

On a side note: I vote @Lookin as a alternate or backup moderator...If one is needed. On more than one occasion, his consistent sense of fairness and even temperament has brought calm to an otherwise contentious pile up.

A Modest Proposal.....
 
The events which led to the shutdown of the politics forum were almost entirely the result of the compulsive and incessant posting behavior of one member and the reactions to it by others, which included a combination of attempts at friendly persuasion, harsh criticism which sometimes crossed over into personal attacks, ignoring said member, or departing the forums altogether. None of these responses had any effect whatsoever on this person. As others have pointed out, the problem was not confined to the politics forum, but extended to every forum where this member participated.
 
In the time I have been posting here there have been a number of instances of behavior which resulted in timeouts but none rose to the level of the current crisis. We all can probably think of a few posters with whom we sharply disagree and whose behavior we find to be annoying. I think the difference this time was the sheer volume of posts, mostly trivial, diversionary, and/or attention-seeking, which this member made.
 
My suggestion is to place a limit on the number of posts each member can make each day. I can tolerate annoying and/or disagreeable posts from anyone as long as they do not take over the entire forum. If there were a limit of, say 25 posts per member per day, that would force each of us to more carefully consider if what we are about to post contributes any real value or is just diversionary or repetitive. Whenever any discussion becomes dominated by one or a small group of posters it discourages others from participating and often devolves into behavior which devalues the forum for everyone.

There is one possible consideration I don’t believe has been raised. Let the PRW forum remain with the caveat that it is a free-for-all and only adults are allowed in the room. Can’t take the heat? Too damn bad, stay away.
 
The overarching rule would be; absolutely NO bleeding / overflow into other forums. Hurt feelings, bad personalities, Ill-will towards another based on PRW interaction ENDS THE MOMENT ONE CLICKS TO ANOTHER FORUM.
 
Honestly I see no way of conditioning behavior. Buttons, warnings, likes, dislikes...people are going to be who they are, do what they do when it comes to devisive issues.
 
Yes I like the PRW forum despite the heat and I wonder if it disappears many might express their energetic personalities in the other forums.

I am not one of the big posters in PR&W but I did contribute with my quote of name calling. My apologies, I try to control myself but often fail. From my not so involved point of view, @Cooper 's approach just seems to bring common sense to the situation. Perhaps there is no need to revamp and restructure the whole forum, but just a strong reminder if the rules and the resources we have (the Ignore and the Report tools) to contribute to our enjoying the environment.
 
That about the clashes that happen around differences of opinions that deviate in uncivil name calling.
 
However, it seems that the current crisis was not actually triggered exclusively by clashing points of views, but by compulsive behaviors that are not really contemplated in the Terms and Rules (I think). This irritating, compulsive, self centered and self serving behavior is a challenge to moderate, and I think it was the condiment that made the differences in PR&W too spicy for @Guy Fawkes . I solved it very easily with the Ignore function, but other friends seem not satisfied with that solution.
 
Most of the brainstormed fixes in this thread are addressing issues that, as pointed by @Cooper , are already contemplated in the Terms and Rules, we just need to do a better job at respecting and enforcing them.
 
But how do you deal with compulsive posters that take over the forum without actually breaking any written rules, which is actually a problem now beyond PR&W? Sometimes Admin has to make tough decisions.

Some very nice people turn ruthless when politics is discussed. In PMs, Kenny is terrific, supportive, and displays a first-class sense of humor.
 
And K does not always "get away with it," he has been on time out far more than just once.

I pretty much agree with Cooper on this. I certainly think a big red warning sign is important but don't like the "by invitation only" or "dislike people out" approaches. I don't enjoy forums where everyone agrees on everything. Even intelligent posters with information to offer get tossed out and then it becomes a dogfight as to who's the most "pure" on the party line. Cheerleader tryouts.
 
Forums are moderated with the "report" button and it's the mod's decision as to what is personal attacks and what is just unliked opinions or information. Personally I don't really pay much attention to trolls who are looking for a fight or to lonely people looking for friends. Both usually have simple posts and little new information. But the ones who come just to make personal insults against posters are too much to deal with. They spread poison that really makes a forum reek. And they should probably not be spending a lot of time online, they should be learning how to deal with other people. You can't act like that in real life; only behind a keyboard.
 
But the worst offenders for personal insults are the most liked !!! Who can throw the worst insults not only against the other tribe but against members of "our" tribe who intelligently voice any non-conformity. "A" is lonely and brings up simple things to start conversations. I disagree with virtually 100% of his politics. But he's polite and I politely ignore him. But "K...y", who I probably agree with on 90% of stuff, sometimes has useful information but his main purpose on the board is to hurl the most vile personal insults ad hominem directly at other people every day. I've never seen a board that tolerates repeated blasts of "pig", "moron", "stupid", "shut-up!", etc the way he gets away with every day. And it's probably because none of us hit the "report" button to get a mod to review those vile insults. Not only that but "K...y" has one of the highest number of "likes" on the board. Posters want a bloodly fight.
 
One of the things that made America great is our pragmatism. Free speech and democracy helped us try different things to see what worked. We didn't only tolerate one ideology. If an idea is bad it's going to fail when tried. But free speech is critical to come up with new ideas to try.

Data on Messages, Likes, and Warnings points:
 
Marylander - 62,624 messages, 113,693 likes, 0 warning points
William M - 28,414 messages, 59, 530 likes, o warning points
JJ Kirkwood - 22,544 messages, 24,486 likes, 10 warning points
Stevenkesslar - 8338 messages, 9413 likes, o warning points
Kenny - 8,278 messages, 13,102 likes, o warning points
Avalon - 8520 messages, 3818 likes, 0 warning points
Mike Carey - 7,607 likes, 10,535 likes, 0 warning points
Lookin - 4034 messages, 5519 likes, o warnings points
Corporate Shill - 1323 messages, 1207 likes, 0 warning points
BnaC - 495 messages, 445 likes, 0 warning points
Augustus - 253 messages, 118 likes, 0 warning points
 
This is a companion data set to my recommendations above. I thought it would be interesting to compare how different "types" of members rank in terms of how often they post, and how many other members like the content of their posting.
 
I chose certain members to reinforce certain points.
 
One way to look at this list is that everybody offers some content that somebody likes to read. For the conservatives, their "like" rate is about 50 % of the number of messages they post. Members who post a lot of photos like Marylander and William of course get way, way more likes. But it does not surprise me at all that members like Mike Carey and Lookin get relatively high "like" rates - like 50 % above the number of messages they post. They are thoughtful diplomats and peacemakers, and it is no surprise that most members welcome and like them.
 
Kenny's like rate is interesting. Arguably, he can be bitchy and mean - as can I when I choose to be. But his like rate is more than 50 % of his number of posts. People who agree with him obviously like bitchy and pithy and terse. By comparison, I know before I hit the "post" button on some of my long-winded diatribes that most people won't bother to read or "like" it.
 
If this were a reality tv show where we all voted people off the island, you don't have to guess how Kenny and Avalon would fare in a duel. They have about the same number of posts, but Kenny has over triple the number of likes. Sorry, Avalon. In a reality tv concept, you'd be gone by now.
 
Having said that, I'm not sure what the argument is for saying that someone with 3,818 likes has no value to add. Clearly, somebody enjoys what Avalon writes, even if he doesn't measure up to Kenny.
 
All of this is why I mostly feel nobody should be banned, and we should attempt some form of "community policing." And if that doesn't work, we should then ask Guy or Deej to just get rid of the troublemaker.
 
These numbers also confirm my point that we are mostly a like-minded group. The people who post the most and are liked the most are all Gay and liberal to moderate individuals. I think we have the right to be the kind of group we want to be. And I think that it's fair to expect the conservative members at the bottom of the list to try to act like they actually want to be liked and respected.
 
The only person with warning points is JJ Kirkwood, and my guess is that's based on pictures he posted that fell outside the group rules. I don't know that anybody would really give a shit about how many warning points they or others have. But they would give a shit if it meant being timed out for a month.
 
I think the whole concept of "reporting" or "fouling" other members could end up inviting a whole new bunch of nonsense. It would be easy enough to just hit some button because you disagree with someone and you don't want them around. So in order to work, that function would still require as much or more moderation as we have currently. The main advantage I see is that it would allow the group to express it's prevailing sentiment if somebody really annoys them. Maybe that's the tyranny of the majority. But if we don't want to have to constantly be quarreling with people who we have very little in common with, something and somebody is going to have to give.

I hope you are on the payroll.

You're more than welcome! I like this site, and appreciate all the work that you and the moderators do. If I can't help financially, hopefully I can contribute in other ways.
 
If the coding for the "automated bans" is onerous, perhaps just a "disruptive post" button and counter - similar to the "like" system and perhaps copying that existing code - would work just as well. As long as posters know when they're being disruptive, and as long as management knows who's cocking up the site - so to speak - most of the benefits would still be there. You could look at the counter and decide who to boot, and when.
 
I like the idea of rating posts, rather than posters. My hope is that, by letting posters know when they're being a pain in the ass, they'll be able to clean up their act. On the other hand, if their intention really is to disrupt the site, then it's better that they disappear instead of sending everyone else to the hills.
 
Thanks again for all your efforts to keep such a valuable Forum going! http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.png

Usually when I check in on this site in the morning, there are at least five pages of new posts to scroll through. Today there are only two pages. That was enlightening.

Strawman:
 


One goal of the forum to sustain an environment in which frank exchanges of opposing opinion can occur without attacks to the character or motives of another member. Any post can be considered a “foul” by any other member if they consider it to be of an ad-hominem, personally-aggressive nature.
 

I love Lookin's optimism and I liked his idea, but I'm more skeptical, and I see the problem a little more simply. I don't think the problem was about being conservative or liberal, or our tolerance for either, but it was about trolling. Two members clearly came on to troll the board. I don't give two fucks about Avalon's political views, he's entitled to them and entitled to express them. I never put him on ignore, but I did choose not to respond to him. If others who were so bothered by his seemingly endless threads and apparent racist views, then they should have stopped posting on every single thread that he started. If you can't exhibit some self control, and your not aware enough to realize that your being trolled, and that you are not going to change the views of posters like Avalon, then don't be surprised when your participation encourages more trolling behavior, and certainly don't complain about their participation here.
 
I think Admin made this about liberal and conservative, but I saw it as someone who logged on with the sole purpose to disrupt, and I think admin was divisive, intolerant of posters who were complaining, and took far too long to address the issue. Some posters have left for the other site, which is a joke and seriously not a solution, some posters left permanently, and some have clearly stuck it out, but damage has been done, that is a fact. Perhaps this is merely a bump in the road, certainly admin has had to banish disruptive posters before, so time will tell, and maybe thoughtful and prolific posters like Moondance will reconsider their decision to leave.
 
My Two Cents...

That's certainly my take on it. But I wasn't born being civil. It took many years of socialization to learn that there were some things I could do that would get me included in the groups I wanted to belong to, and some things that would get me excluded. I was lucky to have parents and other mentors in my life who helped me learn those lessons.
 
My suggestion wasn't meant to cure all of society's ills, or to hasten Armageddon, but rather to put a form of modest rewards and penalties in place to help those few adult posters who have not yet learned what it means to be part of a healthy social group. And for those very few who are unable or unwilling to learn, we would be able to carry on without their disruptive participation and without the need for time-consuming and heavy-handed moderation.
 
The "ignore" button, while useful for some, doesn't really encourage a disruptive poster to modify his behavior. While being sidelined for a period of time just might. And it puts the responsibility for change squarely on the shoulders of those who need to change, and not on the shoulders of those who wish they would.
 
I'm not here to beat a dead horse. I've participated in many groups over the years and one thing that's always proved useful for me is to offer a solution or two, sit back while others find all the things that are wrong with it, and eventually see suggestions and improvements emerge.
 
In his original post, @Guy Fawkes challenged us to find a solution to a problem that has troubled him and many others for years. Maybe we can find such a solution, and maybe we can't. But I'm planning to stick it out through the process of finding all the things that are impossible and hope that my fellow posters and I can get to some things that are possible.
 
I have little doubt that better ideas will soon begin to flow.
 

So can you think of a way to harness the wisdom of our forefathers to prevent the loss of the Politics Forum?
 
I'm by no means married to the idea I put out there. My hope is that you and others can make it better.
 
Just sitting around and losing such a valuable Forum asset doesn't feel right. As I mentioned earlier, there are those who would like to see conformity, passivity and obedience become the norm.
 
I'm definitely not there yet.

OK, I'll bite.
 
I'll start by saying that, like @Stormy and many others, I find the Politics Forum to be a great source of ideas and insights. It's unlike most other political forums in that participants are drawn in as members of a non-political affinity group, with a wide range of political beliefs and understanding. There's information and points of view presented every day that would be hard for me to track down on my own.
 
I'll add that, with the number of people in this country who would like nothing better than to shut down opposing views, it doesn't make sense to help them do it. In some cases, we're fighting for lives and I'm damned if I'm going to surrender without a fight.
 
And, finally, I understand that @Guy Fawkes and other moderators don't want to spend their days dealing with antisocial behavior on a message board that matters a great deal to them and, hopefully, contributes to making a living.
 
So I'll throw out a suggestion that may cover some of the bases, and it begins with a software feature that would allow signed in users to hit a "disruptive" button much as we're able to hit a "like" button. As with "likes", there's a running count for each poster and, when a threshold is reached, a poster is prevented from making further posts for a period of time. I'd start with three disruptive posts locks me out for a day, five locks me out for a week, ten locks me out for a month, and twenty-five locks me out for a year. You don't have to explain why you found a post disruptive, just that you did. The system would rely on "the wisdom of the crowd".
 
Once the software is modified, site management can sit back and let it do its job.
 
Just like IBM's Watson computer learned how to win at Jeopardy by making mistakes and learning from them, posters who want to keep posting would figure out what they did wrong and make sure they don't do it again. It's not much different from how most kids learn social norms on the playground. If they want somebody to play with, they'll learn how to get along and handle disagreements.
 
Just as we do with "likes", I'd suggest showing the name of the user who flags a post as "disruptive" so we'll know if someone is abusing the feature and should likewise be timed out for a week or so.
 
Anyhoo, that's one idea. I don't think we should give up the Politics Forum. We need it now more than ever. But it's also not fair to make management act in loco parentis.
 
I'm sure there are better ideas and I think it's worth finding them. Thanks for the opportunity to chime in and help solve the problem. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.png

Let me take this opportunity to give a shout out to Boomer, who, whenever a newbie (or other) asks for escort/masseur feedback without offering a link, goes the extra mile and furnishes one. Thank you, Boomer!

Let me take this opportunity to give a shout out to Boomer, who, whenever a newbie (or other) asks for escort/masseur feedback without offering a link, goes the extra mile and furnishes one. Thank you, Boomer!

Yes, it does. But their decision (if that is what it is; hard to say from just one example) is not about you. It is about them.