Ban Political Trolls?
Poll
 | 16 votes (50%) | ||
| | 16 votes (50%) |
32 members have voted
www.pollster.com
www.redstate.com
www.fivethirtyeight.com
www.realclearpolitics.com
www.dailykos.com
Or at least the current expansion of gambling into states that haven't had it before, and the effect that is having on the jurisdictions, and politics in areas where gambling has been around.
It's one thing to discuss the practical applications of politics to gambling; it is entirely another to pontificate, bloviate, and troll.
I think a lot of site owners and administrators want to keep debate and discussion of all topics open, and it is important to talk about more than just gambling; people are social animals, after all, and we want to know about each other. However, a completely open format is very difficult to achieve. As Clay Shirky wrote, A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. In my opinion, a hierarchy of importance of topics should be observed; since the forum is about Las Vegas and gambling, then Las Vegas and gambling have to be the most important topics. Although other topics are OK, none of those should be more important than the main topics.
WHENEVER politics or religion are discussed, they WILL ALWAYS be more important to some people than any other topics. In order to maintain the original purpose of the forum, it might be in the best interest to remind those who wish to pontificate, bloviate, and troll politics, that sites where that is accepted are only a mouse click away. Click here to talk gambling, click there to talk politics. It isn't that hard, and in my opinion it isn't restrictive at all to ask forum members to respect that.
One man's troll is another man's goblin.
Or something.
Quote: MoscaFirst of all, I want Wizard and JB to know that I understand that it is presumptuous of me to think that I should have any say in this at all; I have nothing invested here. No time, no money. I'm a user. That being said, here are my thoughts, and they are only given with the aim to further what I perceive to be your intent here, not to bend the site to what I think it should be. If your intent is different, then disregard my thoughts; I have no problem being wrong. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again.
It's one thing to discuss the practical applications of politics to gambling; it is entirely another to pontificate, bloviate, and troll.
I think a lot of site owners and administrators want to keep debate and discussion of all topics open, and it is important to talk about more than just gambling; people are social animals, after all, and we want to know about each other. However, a completely open format is very difficult to achieve. As Clay Shirky wrote, A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. In my opinion, a hierarchy of importance of topics should be observed; since the forum is about Las Vegas and gambling, then Las Vegas and gambling have to be the most important topics. Although other topics are OK, none of those should be more important than the main topics.
WHENEVER politics or religion are discussed, they WILL ALWAYS be more important to some people than any other topics. In order to maintain the original purpose of the forum, it might be in the best interest to remind those who wish to pontificate, bloviate, and troll politics, that sites where that is accepted are only a mouse click away. Click here to talk gambling, click there to talk politics. It isn't that hard, and in my opinion it isn't restrictive at all to ask forum members to respect that.
I wish WOV had a "like" button...*LIKE!*
Quote: AZDuffmanThe Free Speech zone is where it belongs. Like a tolerated red light district it gives the ability to say "take that where it belongs" instead of just get lost. Politics does play a role in gambling (wasn't Harry Reid a big part of Frank Rosenthal getting the boot?)and we are all adults.
Does it seem like threads are being hijacked? I've noticed the occasional political discussion, but it usually starts out as a political discussion and none have overpowered the boards. Never saw it as a problem.
Just because Mr. Logan is disappointed at Obama and brings it up as a complete non-sequitor talking point doesn't mean that the statement should be banned.
Quote: boymimbohow Nareed hates soccer,
I hate a great deal more than just sucker :P
For instance The Lord of The Rings, and the whole fantazzzzzzzzzzzzzy genre.
Also: Soccer sucks and Democrats hate America.
Quote: boymimbo
Just because Mr. Logan is disappointed at Obama and brings it up as a complete non-sequitor talking point doesn't mean that the statement should be banned.
Maybe you're right that the statement shouldn't be banned. But it also shouldn't be used to hijack an otherwise valid line of discussion outside of the "free speech zone."
I posted this poll in the free speech zone because it's both off-topic and potentially inflammatory. This is where it belongs. I just don't like seeing non-sequitor tangential political crap cluttering up the dialogue in the other areas of this forum. (This from a guy with a BA in Poli Sci and a Masters of Public Policy...)
I frequent the sites that I listed in the first post in this thread, and I view WOV as a nice break from that world. Political talk here just messes with my world! :-P
And, for the record, RDW4POTUS is my initials 4 President of the United States. It's a reference to my own make-believe candidacy for President, and not a statement of approval of Obama. I've used this name as my online handle since the Clinton administration.
Quote: boymimboYou read it anyway!
No, I didn't.
His tactic is to abuse his victim into submission. He is an abuser, nothing more and nothing less. He hates everybody, and it doesn't matter whether they agree with him or not; and through his hate he is able to draw attention to himself and therefore try to raise his own low level of self-esteem.
Should he be banned? It is not for me to say. This is not my site. But the Wizard should understand--this is not a question of free speech, it is about abuse. And should such abuse continue?
In one thread Mr Logan stated that since, in his opinion, enough had been said about tipping, he was changing the subject. So I have to ask, whose site is this? Mr Logan's?
The analogy that occurs to me is one where the audience in a theater is watching and enjoying a show or movie and all of a sudden someone starts shouting loudly for no reason. He is not shouting fire in a crowded theater, he is shouting insults. What should management do; let him keep disrupting the show or lead him to the door? If he is left alone to continue his ranting, the audience will eventually leave the theater; the actors will leave the stage; and Mr Logan will be alone-- but it is now Mr Logan's theater.
Quote: cclub79Does it seem like threads are being hijacked? I've noticed the occasional political discussion, but it usually starts out as a political discussion and none have overpowered the boards. Never saw it as a problem.
We seem to mostly act like adults here and adults should have the ability to have an even heated discussion but when it is over it is over. And if you cannot stand to that an adult just doesn't join the discussion. Once a supervisor asked me why I walked away when a customer brought up the then Hillary-Lazio contest. I told him shwe as a customer and nothing I woukld say would help cuwstomer relations. In dealer class a student brought up war funding on day 2 as a complaint and was soon sorry he did. Guess what? That guy and I got along great after that-never once discussed politics.
I look at as mental exercise. Find someone who disagrees and be forced to prove your point well. Like a boxer sparring.
OTOH, some people just want to use foul language and call names. Those folks need to take it to DailyKos. I have not seen much of this later here.
Quote: AZDuffman
I look at as mental exercise. Find someone who disagrees and be forced to prove your point well. Like a boxer sparring.
I do too, but unfortunately there are people who take it seriously to the point that they can not get along with you if they find out your politics. While you can say, "That's fine, I don't want to be friends with those people anyway," sometimes it is in a setting where you can't avoid the person. That being said, it's their problem, not ours. Life's too short to be pissed at everyone you meet.
Alas, with forums this is inevitable. The only answer is community memebers ignore the troll until they slink away and find some other community to bother with their obnoxious personality.
Quote: matildaThis discussion is silly. It is not about whether a troll who makes political statements should be tolerated or banned. This is about Jerry Logan. Mr Logan does not attack a person's politics, He attacks persons. To do so he attributes to his victim political positions that he disagrees with, with no knowledge of what that person believes. I was the object of his first outburst on this board. He also insults people for no reason. Mr Teddybear was recently his target.
His tactic is to abuse his victim into submission. He is an abuser, nothing more and nothing less. He hates everybody, and it doesn't matter whether they agree with him or not; and through his hate he is able to draw attention to himself and therefore try to raise his own low level of self-esteem.
Should he be banned? It is not for me to say. This is not my site. But the Wizard should understand--this is not a question of free speech, it is about abuse. And should such abuse continue?
In one thread Mr Logan stated that since, in his opinion, enough had been said about tipping, he was changing the subject. So I have to ask, whose site is this? Mr Logan's?
The analogy that occurs to me is one where the audience in a theater is watching and enjoying a show or movie and all of a sudden someone starts shouting loudly for no reason. He is not shouting fire in a crowded theater, he is shouting insults. What should management do; let him keep disrupting the show or lead him to the door? If he is left alone to continue his ranting, the audience will eventually leave the theater; the actors will leave the stage; and Mr Logan will be alone-- but it is now Mr Logan's theater.
You are referring to a troll as "he". It should properly be assigned the pronoun "it".
Quote: MoscaYou are referring to a troll as "he". It should properly be assigned the pronoun "it".
He has many characteristics of an abusive male.
BTW Mosca, Have you heard anything from Mr Volpone lately?
Quote: matildaHe has many characteristics of an abusive male.
BTW Mosca, Have you heard anything from Mr Volpone lately?
Last I saw of him, it was 3AM on a Tuesday morning, and he was at the Borgata betting the rest of Corvaccio's money on the Big 6 wheel...
Quote: cclub79I do too, but unfortunately there are people who take it seriously to the point that they can not get along with you if they find out your politics. While you can say, "That's fine, I don't want to be friends with those people anyway," sometimes it is in a setting where you can't avoid the person. That being said, it's their problem, not ours. Life's too short to be pissed at everyone you meet.
This is only semi-related, but a POed customer today called me a "Raqging Obama Supporter" on the phone. He was upset because I told him he needed a survey for his refinance and he called me that. People I know found it funnier than I even did.
It's also sad that it was slung as if were the lowest possible insult. On some level, we should all support presidents because nobody wants the country as a whole to fail. I didn't vote for Bush but I wanted him to catch Bin Laden, succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and help people in New Orleans.
This guy must have been as dumb as a sack full of hammers if his brain drew a straight line from "Sir, we need a survey" to "must be an Obama supporter."
Quote: nyuhoosierThat IS pretty funny, based on your comments.
It's also sad that it was slung as if were the lowest possible insult. On some level, we should all support presidents because nobody wants the country as a whole to fail. I didn't vote for Bush but I wanted him to catch Bin Laden, succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and help people in New Orleans.
This guy must have been as dumb as a sack full of hammers if his brain drew a straight line from "Sir, we need a survey" to "must be an Obama supporter."
Hard to say, I've seen some pretty smart hammers :-)
He also kept asking "How do you sleep with yourself?" Normally you would ask how you sleep at night or how you live with yourself? He was so silly I didn't even realize why that was wrong until today.
While I don't want Obama to pass virtually any of his policies (yes, I think they are all that bad) the insult seems about the level of a 3rd grade schoolyard. At least be clever. One think I did like about Bill Clinton is when he made a crack it was clever.
"It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."Quote: AZDuffmanOne think I did like about Bill Clinton is when he made a crack it was clever.
Hope I didn't misquote that too badly, but I always considered that comment a prime example of how much of a weasel a politician can be. Not that Bill was much worse than the typical.
Quote: Doc"It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Hope I didn't misquote that too badly, but I always considered that comment a prime example of how much of a weasel a politician can be. Not that Bill was much worse than the typical.
You got the quote exactly right. This always killed me. I'm not a big Clinton fan (though I do think he's the best of the 3 last Presidents), but I always admired his speaking ability. And here, when it mattered the most and his back was up against the wall, he utterly failed at eloquence. His point, which really was a fairly good (if weasely) one, is that there is a difference between "is" "was" and "will be" and the definition would change his answer as to the nature of his affair (which had long since ended, but the question was asked in the present tense).
And, to me, the more laughable point was that in Clinton's world blowjobs do not meet the strict definition of "sexual relations." To the extent that only vaginal intercourse met that definition, Billy left open a whole range of things that were apparently fair game. I'm guessing that Hillary probably disagrees on this point...
Quote: rdw4potusYou got the quote exactly right. This always killed me. I'm not a big Clinton fan (though I do think he's the best of the 3 last Presidents), but I always admired his speaking ability. And here, when it mattered the most and his back was up against the wall, he utterly failed at eloquence. His point, which really was a fairly good (if weasely) one, is that there is a difference between "is" "was" and "will be" and the definition would change his answer as to the nature of his affair (which had long since ended, but the question was asked in the present tense).
And, to me, the more laughable point was that in Clinton's world blowjobs do not meet the strict definition of "sexual relations." To the extent that only vaginal intercourse met that definition, Billy left open a whole range of things that were apparently fair game. I'm guessing that Hillary probably disagrees on this point...
Haha..I'm pretty damn sure Hillary doesn't give a damn. I don't think she's been near that area for a few decades now.
Quote: nyuhoosierThat IS pretty funny, based on your comments.
It's also sad that it was slung as if were the lowest possible insult. On some level, we should all support presidents because nobody wants the country as a whole to fail. I didn't vote for Bush but I wanted him to catch Bin Laden, succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and help people in New Orleans.
This guy must have been as dumb as a sack full of hammers if his brain drew a straight line from "Sir, we need a survey" to "must be an Obama supporter."
I'm never been one to think that W was "dumb". I've worked with some actually dumb people, and there is big difference between dumb and average. I think that W was just that....average. He'd be kind of like a lot of people on a board like this would be if they were made POTUS. The difference is he'd obviously never have been President if not for his birthright. I don't think I'm "dumb", but in a live press conference I don't have a lot of confidence that I'd come off sounding brilliant. For POTUS we usually end up with someone who is really good for the camera. After Clinton, people decided they didn't want a smooth talker anymore, they wanted someone "real" so they went with W. I'm quite certain he was only re-elected because of 9/11 and the subsequent wars. I met and spoke with MANY people who would say "I don't think he's that great, but lets let him finish what he started."
Quote: matildaBack to the topic.
http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html
That is an excellent article.
Quote: timberjimQuote: matildaBack to the topic.
http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html
That is an excellent article.
That stuff has been rampant in recent years. The liberal loons couldn't stand how well-educated, religious, and successful in beating down two totally hypocritical & egotistical candidates in successive presidential elections GWB was, so they constantly attacked him with name-calling and then went after his family on various occasions. His response? He always took the high road and ignored every bit of it, severely agitating his opponents even more. Now with Obama you see the exact opposite. This guy is a phony through & through, he's 100% minority-sympathetic, he hates success in business, and he's a true-to-life racist. Oh, and did I mention he also cannot handle criticism to any extent?
Change we can believe in.
Quote: JerryLoganQuote: timberjimQuote: matildaBack to the topic.
http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html
That is an excellent article.
That stuff has been rampant in recent years. The liberal loons couldn't stand how well-educated, religious, and successful in beating down two totally hypocritical & egotistical candidates in successive presidential elections GWB was, so they constantly attacked him with name-calling and then went after his family on various occasions. His response? He always took the high road and ignored every bit of it, severely agitating his opponents even more. Now with Obama you see the exact opposite. This guy is a phony through & through, he's 100% minority-sympathetic, he hates success in business, and he's a true-to-life racist. Oh, and did I mention he also cannot handle criticism to any extent?
Change we can believe in.
Wow, do you really not understand that the article was in reference to you..?????? Really??
And your response so perfectly fit the profile. Come on, you have to just be messing with us here, right? Please? Someone? Bueller????
That article was in reference to anyone who wins an argument, and celebrated the pain and sufferring of those who don't.
Quote: JerryLogan"Wow, do you really not understand that the article was in reference to you..?????? Really??'And your response so perfectly fit the profile. Come on, you have to just be messing with us here, right? Please? Someone? Bueller????"
That article was in reference to anyone who wins an argument, and celebrated the pain and sufferring of those who don't.
No, the article was about the topic of the thread. And the thread was most certainly about you. It might as well been titled "Ban JerryLogan?"
Quote: ruascottNo, the article was about the topic of the thread. And the thread was most certainly about you. It might as well been titled "Ban JerryLogan?"
Sounds like that would be directly in-line with how & why the White House would love to ban Fox News from ever broadcasting, unless, of course, they said exactly what they were told to say like that idiot Robert Gibbs.
Instead I say we give him money to buy a clue. I pledge two cents.
Quote: JerryLoganQuote: timberjimQuote: matildaBack to the topic.
http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html
That is an excellent article.
That stuff has been rampant in recent years. The liberal loons couldn't stand how well-educated, religious, and successful in beating down two totally hypocritical & egotistical candidates in successive presidential elections GWB was, so they constantly attacked him with name-calling and then went after his family on various occasions. His response? He always took the high road and ignored every bit of it, severely agitating his opponents even more. Now with Obama you see the exact opposite. This guy is a phony through & through, he's 100% minority-sympathetic, he hates success in business, and he's a true-to-life racist. Oh, and did I mention he also cannot handle criticism to any extent?
Change we can believe in.
Hamlet III iv 207
Quote: NareedI was going to suggest we pay Logan to go away, but that's absurd.
Instead I say we give him money to buy a clue. I pledge two cents.
Hate speech never cuts it.
Quote: JerryLoganQuote: timberjimQuote: matildaBack to the topic.
http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html
That is an excellent article.
That stuff has been rampant in recent years. The liberal loons couldn't stand how well-educated, religious, and successful in beating down two totally hypocritical & egotistical candidates in successive presidential elections GWB was, so they constantly attacked him with name-calling and then went after his family on various occasions. His response? He always took the high road and ignored every bit of it, severely agitating his opponents even more. Now with Obama you see the exact opposite. This guy is a phony through & through, he's 100% minority-sympathetic, he hates success in business, and he's a true-to-life racist. Oh, and did I mention he also cannot handle criticism to any extent?
It is even worse that that--Obama seems unable to function unless he has a bunch of people fawning over him. You have to admit it takes a big ego to write and publish your autobiography at age 40 when all you have accomplished is getting elected to a few posts.
How he will handle a potential but likely loss of control of Congress will be interesting. He has never had to deal with being a minority party. He also has shown from the primary to health care that he needs every possible advantage to eke out a small victory; as if the 1972 Dolphins played the (2008?) winless Detroit Lions and won by a last second field goal.
Quote: AZDuffmanHe also has shown from the primary to health care that he needs every possible advantage to eke out a small victory
LOL, you foam at the mouth like it's the end of the world every time and then refer to them as "small victories".
Quote: ChuckLOL, you foam at the mouth like it's the end of the world every time and then refer to them as "small victories".
Lets see, he only won 53% of the vote despite a huge bias on the part of the press along with an unpopu;ar party in power and horrible campaign on the part of his opponent. He took forever to put the primary away. He only passed health care with parlimentary tactics and even with 79 or so more votes in the House won it by what, 3 votes was it?
I'll say it again, Obama has proven he needs a major advantage to win by a small margin. Unless you want to use some kind of numbers to prove otherwise.
Quote: ChuckJust another sore loser. Love you equating Republicans with the Detroit Lions though, can I use that?
McCain had about as much desire to win as the Lions did. Ask anyone who has conservative political beliefs and if they don't say, "McCain wanted to run, he didn't want to win," they will at least agree with it. To this day I have no idea what he was trying to accomplish. At least he introduced Sarah to the nation. You can bet her reaction to how to solve an oil spill would not be to send lawyers to see who's ass to kick.
Quote: AZDuffmanMcCain had about as much desire to win as the Lions did. Ask anyone who has conservative political beliefs and if they don't say, "McCain wanted to run, he didn't want to win," they will at least agree with it.
I'm sure they'd all say it. One would expect 20 months after the election is enough time to get everybody on the same page.
Quote:At least he introduced Sarah to the nation. You can bet her reaction to how to solve an oil spill would not be to send lawyers to see who's ass to kick.
Yeah, she would have sent in the Dutch. "The Dutch and the Norwegian. They are known for dikes and for cleaning up water and for dealing with spills." That's some real mastery of world affairs right there, that is.
WAIT A MINUTE...! Was she saying foreigners are better than Americans?
