Political Crossfire Forums

[AmericaFirst]

A few weeks back I conducted a poll as to how old the users of this forum were. I was a little surprised to see the majority of posters were around 20 or so. Not necessarily a bad thing as everyone has a right to their opinion and to express their views. Younger folks might have a different outlook on things than a 40-year old geezer like me. I would, however, like to point out that us "Senior Citizens" (at least here :wink: ) have been around the block a few more times and have seen a bit more. I'm not saying I am always right - far from it. One of the reasons I like these forums is that I feel like I learn from all sorts of people and I know that I can learn from all ages too.

My problem is this: yesterday I start a thread discussing a Senator from Georgia who assaulted a Capitol Police Officer because he tried to stop her from entering the building because she skirted the metal detectors and was not wearing the proper ID. Granted, I did bring up a sensitive race issue but it was merely because I felt it very well might have played an integral part of the story.

So, then I get accused of 'trolling' - a term still somewhat new to me because I have never been a hard-core user of these sites - I do it to get a break at work (I never take a lunch and work 10-11 hrs days anyway) and am doing it now because I have been up since 4:30 with our newborn son and can't get back to sleep - despite the fact that I have to return to the office next week and should rest all I can while I can :slp:
Then the thread gets 'locked' by an Admin who somehow has deemed my thread inflamatory - funny, I thought it was an opinion....

Call me what you will but I do not think I am a troll or a racist or a ethnophobe or a "neocon" or anything else - I am simply someone with an opinion based on my life experiences, trying to learn some new things and perhaps better myself while I am at it. Is that wrong?

[Ozzone]

Hello AmericaFirst,

First of all, I know where you are coming from and probably more so. I'm 49, about to turn 50, and it does feel like you are in a room with a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears political debaters. Some are very good and debate maturely, and many aren't. It takes a thick skin to be here and not just want to quit or constantly argue with immature posters. Sometimes it feels like you are arguing with a woman on PMS because no matter how logical and mature your post is, they come back with something ridiculous and you just want to stick your hand through the monitor and chicken choke them. Wouldn't that be nice?

The post you are referring to is this one.

Let me explain why your post got locked. I'm not a mod (*cough* slackers) but I've been on here long enough to know.

First of all the title. "Do You KNOW Who I Am?!?!?!?" While the title itself doesn't warrant a lock at all, it is way too ambiguous for other posters to know what the thread is about. Make a title more specific to the topic of the thread so that, just by looking at it, we know what it is about.

That would be like having a title, "Surf's Up" describing the tsunami damage in the Indian Ocean last year, or "Shake, Rattle and Roll" to talk about the earthquake that happened last night in Iran. While the titles seem appropriate, they aren't specific enough. Of course many posters on here put out bogus titles (which are reading the thread, the title exaggerates or distorts the topic), and they usually get criticized for it.

This is my opinion, but I tend to post a little more maturely than the average on here and will often think about the title when I start a thread, and not just make something cute up. Your title isn't funny, but way too vague.

Again, that isn't why it got locked.

Probably the main reason it got locked was because you provided no source (or link) and it's baiting for a flame thread. One of the principle goals here is to start a topic that opens up for solid debate. Not flaming, not trolling - debate. Comments like, "Yeah, the Republicans are arrogant snobs " opens the door wide open to be labelled a troll thread.

Another thing, as Thrilla the moderator pointed out is that it's a duplicate thread. Before you start a thread, look around in P & G for another thread on the same topic. You might have to go to page 2 or 3 also because threads get pushed down fast.

Unless your topic is unique, or different enough from any other similar topic, don't create a new thread. That's part of the problem is that too many new threads are started and a good thread can end up on page 2 or 3 in only a day or two. How many people actually go past page 1 to read threads? Probably very few.

So based on a title, and an original post without a source, and a baiting comment, immediately posters are going to call you a troll, especially since you are new here (kinda). While it may sound immature to you, the term "troll" is a very common term used on blogs and forums to denote a poster or post meant to create discord and immature discussion.

Of course, don't pay too much mind to Saracen. He calls everyone a troll that doesn't agree with him. J/K Saracen, we wub you.

I know you're new, but with a little time on here, you'll become a seasoned pro very quickly.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Age is irrelivent.

[AmericaFirst]

Ozzone - I appreciate the help, from one old guy to another but I do have a couple of comments.

First - the title. It was meant to be funny and IMHO, it is because of the number of Democrats that seem to pop up in the news for using this phrase - especially here in the vast liberal wasteland of Massachusetts.It was also meant to be a bit provocative - to get people to read it. Didn't know that was wrong. Granted Ms. McKinney didn't use the phrase but her actions certainly implied it in my book.

Second, as of this moment, I am a card carrying Republican - literally, so the comment was more tongue-in-cheek. If you weren't so bent on telling me my titled s*cked you might have noticed that. I am WAY too tired at the moment to have a fellow Republican (or at least anti-Clintonite) mock me for a simple title...

Third - I have been on forums before and never had to provide a link to every single post relating something that happened in the news. I thought it was common knowledge - after all, it was on page 2 of yesterdays Boston Herald so someone else besides me thinks it is newsworthy.

Lastly, as far as being a duplicate thread, BIG DEAL! Jeez, people ought to really lighten up about that. Some of us don't have all day to go through threads to be sure we aren't being redundant. I didn't realize it was such a heinous offense :roll:

If that is the case, I will probably never make it to "seasoned pro" here. There are FAR too many other things in life MUCH more important to get my undies in a bunch about than duplicate posting or someone not getting a bad attempt at a joke....

[Nico]

Duplicates in one section: If you have to go back more than 2 pages to find a relevant thread it's not a problem to start something new. the big issue is, as Ozzone pointed out, cluttering on the first page.

Links: These are required when citing quotes and other critical information. It allows the others to verify the statements and question the line of information. References to journals or readily available information is also acceptable but hyperlinks are less work for the posters to verify. If you are asking a hypothetical question there is obviously no requirement.

Opinion: Has to be given. Without it one is just posting readily available information and the respondents don't have a debating point to work from.


Trolling: Is any instance where the respondents are being set up for a fall by the thread starter [or other posters]. ie, setting traps and baiting the respondents. It makes for a difficult debate that usually ends with no one learning anything and insults going back and forth.


Once a member becomes well known, it's a lot easier for staff and posters to gauge if a person is being provocative or funny. We usually er on the side of caution if a thread goes south.

[AmericaFirst]

Nico wrote: Duplicates in one section: If you have to go back more than 2 pages to find a relevant thread it's not a problem to start something new. the big issue is, as Ozzone pointed out, cluttering on the first page.

Links: These are required when citing quotes and other critical information. It allows the others to verify the statements and question the line of information. References to journals or readily available information is also acceptable but hyperlinks are less work for the posters to verify. If you are asking a hypothetical question there is obviously no requirement.

Opinion: Has to be given. Without it one is just posting readily available information and the respondents don't have a debating point to work from.


Trolling: Is any instance where the respondents are being set up for a fall by the thread starter [or other posters]. ie, setting traps and baiting the respondents. It makes for a difficult debate that usually ends with no one learning anything and insults going back and forth.


Once a member becomes well known, it's a lot easier for staff and posters to gauge if a person is being provocative or funny. We usually er on the side of caution if a thread goes south.

Thanks Nico - makes sense now that you put it that way. I will try and keep it all in mind. I am not trying to be a pain in the butt here, just participating. Have a good one. :bana:

[poweRob]

AmericaFirst wrote: Nico wrote: Duplicates in one section: If you have to go back more than 2 pages to find a relevant thread it's not a problem to start something new. the big issue is, as Ozzone pointed out, cluttering on the first page.

Links: These are required when citing quotes and other critical information. It allows the others to verify the statements and question the line of information. References to journals or readily available information is also acceptable but hyperlinks are less work for the posters to verify. If you are asking a hypothetical question there is obviously no requirement.

Opinion: Has to be given. Without it one is just posting readily available information and the respondents don't have a debating point to work from.


Trolling: Is any instance where the respondents are being set up for a fall by the thread starter [or other posters]. ie, setting traps and baiting the respondents. It makes for a difficult debate that usually ends with no one learning anything and insults going back and forth.


Once a member becomes well known, it's a lot easier for staff and posters to gauge if a person is being provocative or funny. We usually er on the side of caution if a thread goes south.

Thanks Nico - makes sense now that you put it that way. I will try and keep it all in mind. I am not trying to be a pain in the butt here, just participating. Have a good one. :bana:


HEY!

Who let the pain in the butt new guy in here? j/k

Welcome AmericaFirst!

[beachbum bob]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Age is irrelivent.


right...funny how most 20yr olds think their parents are idoits...and then by the time they are 30yrs old...their parents have gotten so much wiser....

whats that saying about ignorance and youth??

[spearsy23]

beachbum bob wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Age is irrelivent.


right...funny how most 20yr olds think their parents are idoits...and then by the time they are 30yrs old...their parents have gotten so much wiser....

whats that saying about ignorance and youth??


I believe you're thinking of the one that goes:

"As soon as you grow out of your youth, you become ignorant" :-D

[Rankor and Pissing]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Age is irrelivent.

Only if you think you know it all...

[NeedsREALfreedom]

You is radical(left or right), but it doesn't mean they're any less informed. You say I'm "wet behind the ears", lacking wisdom. I say you are cynical and stuck in your ways, afraid of personal growth, tuning out what you don't like. Now either we're both right or both wrong. I prefer to think were both wrong, at least, for the most part.

Whenever I find out the age group that many of our PC community belong to I'm shocked; many of our most polite, thoughtful and mature debtors are young and many of the most childish debtors are middle-aged.

I've seen all PC demographics cross the line. To lets all try to avoid the whole glass-house syndrome.

[Nico]

Closed, rather than locked.