Is this what it takes for a thread to get hot?

Probably not, but only good things happen with even a little effort to allow fresh starts.

 

To respond to a now deleted post by hkmb; the disruption of the harmony of the microcosm is like throwing a rock into a still pond. In order to be effective one must be familiar with their rock.

 

You are not alone but it is also a question of tactics and choosing one's battles. Southern, you can't hardly swing a cat without hitting a bigot. But we have lives to live and some things are best left at the door or in Fred's House of Politics.

I had left the "Zimmerman" trial alone since I'm not on the jury and I noticed it was started by our local 'FOX-reposter.' But when I saw one Aussi standing up to our local "ditto head," well it was time to lend a hand. But that is a risk we run in Fred's House of Pancakes . . . hijacking a thread.

In contrast, you might have noticed the Boston bombing thread didn't get moved even though it was posting-bombed. The "ignore" user option made it easy to turn-off their nonsense and keep the thread on topic. All I can do is recommend folks not be afraid to use this powerful tool. Everyone has a right to free speech but there is no obligation to listen.

So Fred's House of Politics is the right place for our Internet 'pillow fights.' A place where those who copy-and-paste from the bubble can have a ball and enjoy the counter-posts . . . all five or six of us.

Bob Wilson

 

Your post contradicts itself. If, inside the small world of the forum the "right to free speech" existed in the context you are using it there would be no need for a "members only" subforum to banish threads that do not agree with the status quo of the forum. By eliminating access to all threads by all members of the forum you are in effect eliminating "free speech" in the context you are using it. By moving and/or eliminating threads you are eliminating a users "right to free speech". If the right did exist in the context you say, the "ignore" button would be sufficient.

 

Free speech is not at issue here. The owners of the forum pay the piper, go get to call the tune. Banishing threads to FhoPol is thier way to attempt to keep the dialogue civil in the rest of the the forum.

As I said before, my wish is if one proves one self incapable of being civil over and over again they would be exiled permanently.

I moderate a number of forums and we don't have the kind of nastiness on our threads, even though we hve spirited discussions on many topics. The difference is we don't allow the kind of behavior that is rampant in some circles here. Those that don't take the hint after a couple of violations, thier butts get kicked to the curb. Never has there been a complaint from the regular forum members.


It seems that a certain class of member here has forgotten that you catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar. If these people could actually communicate effectively perhaps, people might listen to thier POV and indeed they might actually change the world. As it is, all they do is debase the process, make it impossible for anyone else to communicate and that I guess is the point...to "terminate with extreme rhetoric". 'Nuff said"!

Icarus

 

^^^
Obviously, every board is quite different. Over on TiVoCommunity, the Happy Hour section is the area for off-topic chatter and it's VERY active. It's WAY more active than any talk about TiVo now. It's WAY more active than FHOP. Political discussion is strictly prohibited, except in some paid members area. I've never bothered w/paying.

Sometimes, some heated discussion happens, but there isn't anyone who posts pictures all the time as a part of a reply...

 

There is no "changing the world" in a webforum. Quite the opposite; people flock to the warm microcosm of the webforum to escape into a world where their opinions match that of others and thus their egos can get gratifyingly stroked. Your post also contradicts itself. If indeed members of any webforum were so keen on "changing the world" there would be no need for sub forums (which exist on all forums, not just here) as a place to banish threads that do not share the opinion of the status quo. Change the world, as long as everyone agrees with you, right?

 

It is a fair tactic.

Although I nominally agree, we live with the system we have. Individually, we can turn-off the noise machines and that significantly improves the signal-to-noise ratio. For example, I wanted to read-up on the Plug-in Prius (PiP) but found a gadfly was noise-posting the threads. One application of "ignore" and the whole forum instantly became readable.

Bob Wilson

 

I will let others be the judge as to who are the morons, and the trolls!

I come to a forum for information, both to learn and to share, in this case about my Prius. When was the last time you actually made a post relevant to the Prius?

The digression that is FHoP and FHoPol can be an interesting diversion, and can have a diversity of opinon. Too bad some people just can't play nicely!

Carry on with your madness!

Icarus

PS. and most forums that I participate DON'T have such sub forums as MP suggests. It is only because the Mods/owners in this case chose to have a forum with more opportunity for those that are interested to post on a broader range of topics. (a mistake IMHO, since clearly some folks cannot be civil and therefore diminish the entire experience). I have to say, when people exhibit such uncivilized behavior in the unmoderated portions, it diminishes any credibility that may have had on the subject of Prius' for example. The entire purpose of the troll like behavior exhibited by a few members in FhoPol is to shout loud enough, often enough, to drive those with opposing views away from the conversation, with the misguided notion that somehow they have won by this tactic. I know of dozens of reasonable people who have simply stopped conversing because of this behavior. The point is not to further discourse and understanding, but to simply "bad behaviour" the opposition into leaving. In this case, they have done a fine job..."tossing bombs" and "terminating with extreme rhetoric". (they don't even hide the fact that this is wht they intend. One simply needs to read thier signatures and avatars, and indeed thier screen names to realize what thier real intentions are.

 

Quite the contrary. That's the exact opposite of my experience, and of most others I've discussed this subject with. The depth and variety of conversation here is far more than I can get at the local pub. The internet has expanded communication and exposure to ideas in ways that are impossible in a small geographical area, or within any given group of peers or coworkers.

As with any tool, it's all in how you use it. You can choose to be angry and insular, or you can choose to expand your mind, learn, and contribute.