Feature request: SZ uses different colors

There was no mystery at all. I got tired of the hatefulness and spite by only a few.
 
smigaldi said:
Yes Ken, we all know they were a mystery to you.
Click to expand...
They weren't a mystery to me: those of us on one end of the spectrum were fresh meat for the dogpile; the other end got a free pass.

Two of the worst for piling on are the only two entries in my ignore list. They're there only because I've never seen either one say a thing about aviation.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I, for one, am glad they left the Pirate thread in place... yes, I had to glance over a few politically charged posts and the sharks on the beach, but quite honestly it was one of the most interesting and educational threads I'd read in a long time. Non-aviation? Yes, it sure was! But between the posts by Henning and Adam particularly, as well as others, I got a good education on some maritime and international "law" topics. I think for the most part the thread discussed the topic of piracy -- and people's thoughts on what can/should be done about it -- in an objective fashion, not in a politically charged fashion.
Click to expand...
Troy I agree ti was interesting. A lot of what happen in the SZ can be interesting too. But the test for somethign to be in the SZ or not is if it is non-aviation political. That thread turned into a political discussion on maritime law and policy early on in the thread. It should have been stopped or moved before there was a page two of posts.

Just a few weeks ago the MC was moving posts to the SZ if you said that the 'media was biased'. This week you can talk about defense of flagged vessels and US policy on dealing with pirates and that is ok. Mind bottling*







* Go watch Blades of Glory to know what that phrase means.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
How will coloring material based on subject gonna help? How will the board detect such mistakenly posted material and why not just move the stuff into SZ where it belongs in the first place or removing it?
Click to expand...

It won't be coloring based on subject, it will be coloring based on forum. If the poster replies to a political post that is green/red/whatever, they'll know they're replying to a post in SZ and it's OK to keep spewing political stuff. If they're replying to a post that's still blue, though, that would indicate that they're still outside the SZ and need to cool it.

I brought up the idea because some people were posting SZ stuff in the pirate thread and then, when called out on it, saying that they weren't aware that they weren't in the spin zone. This idea is an attempt to solve that problem.

The MC does that now when it is brought to their attention.
Click to expand...

Occasionally. I'm not sure WHAT is going on lately, there's been the pirate thread and a couple of others that have gone quickly into SZ territory and they have not been moved, closed, or had the offending posts deleted. And I've BP'ed a couple of them so I know the MC is aware, but they're not doing anything about it (including telling me to f off, which would be better than nothing) and I don't know why.

A bigger problem is that there are people who are not SZ member who constantly rail about the SZ but then post SZ material outside of the SZ in HT.
Click to expand...

That too.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I brought up the idea because some people were posting SZ stuff in the pirate thread and then, when called out on it, saying that they weren't aware that they weren't in the spin zone. This idea is an attempt to solve that problem.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason I keep the SZ segregated for myself is to avoid that situation. Hence another reason I brought up how to remove, on a per person basis, SZ from the New Posts.

I think your observation shows that the pirate thread had jumped the shark on being political and should have been moved.
 
jmaynard said:
They weren't a mystery to me: those of us on one end of the spectrum were fresh meat for the dogpile; the other end got a free pass.

Two of the worst for piling on are the only two entries in my ignore list. They're there only because I've never seen either one say a thing about aviation.
Click to expand...
Jay you were not in the SZ long enough to see. But I can tell you that when someone comes in an post partisan garbage they get jumped on regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.
 
smigaldi said:
Jay you were not in the SZ long enough to see. But I can tell you that when someone comes in an post partisan garbage they get jumped on regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.
Click to expand...
Of course, the definition of "partisan garbage" varies with the political orientation of the viewer... I'd say more, including a prime example from the national stage, but that's SZ material.
 
smigaldi said:
Jay you were not in the SZ long enough to see. But I can tell you that when someone comes in an post partisan garbage they get jumped on regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.
Click to expand...

This is exactly it... We're actually in the middle of a long conversation about this very topic in the SZ. But, as I've mentioned here before, I think people new to the SZ fall into two general categories:

  1. Those who want to have an interesting, fact-based, level-headed conversation with people who are quite well-informed and
  2. Those who think the SZ is someplace they can waltz into and spew bilious, hyper-partisan vitriol and inflammatory propaganda -- thereby flushing otherwise interesting discussions down the toilet -- and get away with it.
It's usually pretty clear who's who -- though some people have clearly been in the latter camp, then gotten the feel for things, adjusted their approach, and wound up meaningfully contributing to the dialogue. Anyway, I think those in the former group would be very pleasantly surprised at what the SZ is. But there have been plenty of people -- of all partisan affiliations -- who stayed in the latter category, and demonstrated no desire (capacity?) whatsoever to engage in healthy, intelligent dialogue. They wound up shamed and embarrassed, and frankly, I've no sympathy for them, and it certainly has precisely zero to do with where they fall on the political spectrum. :dunno:

Anyway, for my part, I'm with Kent: I think that a clear way of denoting whether or not a thread is SZ is a good idea... At worst, it's something that some folks will ignore; at best it'll help others know what's what (and will leave those who couldn't hack it in the SZ and keep trying to politicize posts outside it with no excuse for their antics). So I vote yea, for whatever my vote's worth.
 
I saw what the SZ was when I first came to PoA in 2006. It was great then. Now, it's anything but level-headed. As I said, I left due to the hateful and spiteful remarks so often used toward anyone who disagrees. I can get that at Democratic Underground. I don't need it here.
 
KennyFlys said:
I saw what the SZ was when I first came to PoA in 2006. It was great then. Now, it's anything but level-headed. As I said, I left due to the hateful and spiteful remarks so often used toward anyone who disagrees. I can get that at Democratic Underground. I don't need it here.
Click to expand...

(em. added)

If that were actually the case, Ken, I'd agree with you. But it's simply not, and I'm pretty sure that by this point, most everybody can see that.
 
The MC is close to a decision on this. We had to figure out first if it could be done and then how to do it. Now we need to finish deciding whether we will. Please stand by.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Without a doubt - And I still don't know why it hasn't. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Ehh, I dunno... With the exception of a few obviously over-the-line posts, I think the vast majority of it is pretty good stuff; a largely apolitical conversation of a current event and its possible ramifications. I dunno, though... My threshold might be somewhat higher than others when it comes to that kind of thing. :dunno:
 
Thanks for the update Ron! I have to say I like the "full disclosure" of where we are that you posted here and in Jason's thread!
 
Ron Levy said:
So far, not enough MC'ers in favor. Vote is currently one yea, two abstains.
Click to expand...

Wow, we need to send you guys to Chicago for voting lessons. ;) ;)

How many have yet to vote, and why does it take this long? Am I really that impatient? :dunno:

FWIW, abstentions should only be used when there is a conflict of interest. Abstain ≠ "I don't care." :no:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
FWIW, abstentions should only be used when there is a conflict of interest. Abstain ≠ "I don't care." :no:
Click to expand...
Sorry, Kent, but I have to put my parliamentarian hat on here.

The right to have an opinion carries with it the right not to have an opinion. Similarly, the right to vote carries with it the right not to vote. If someone does not wish to affect the outcome of a vote, for any reason at all, he has the right - and some would say the duty - to abstain.
 
jmaynard said:
Sorry, Kent, but I have to put my parliamentarian hat on here.

The right to have an opinion carries with it the right not to have an opinion. Similarly, the right to vote carries with it the right not to vote. If someone does not wish to affect the outcome of a vote, for any reason at all, he has the right - and some would say the duty - to abstain.
Click to expand...

In theory, you are correct. However, in my book, if you abstain, it means you don't care, and if you don't care, you should find somewhere else to serve and let someone who does care take your place.

If you simply can't make up your mind (ie due to good parts and bad parts of the issue at hand) then further discussion is needed to fix what you consider to be the bad parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top