Thread Rating:

Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4421
February 12th, 2011 at 6:04:01 AM permalink
Strange, but I see a lot of value in Flea's post. To be clear, the harming of an innocent mother and slaughter of born or un-born babies is repulsive; being a relatively new father, I had a very adverse reaction to that part. However, I think the fury which he convey's speaks to the level of the problem that illegal immigration has become. If this had been the first time I had heard something of this nature uttered, yeah, maybe we could write him off as a morbid psychopath. But, it seems as though more and more people are spouting the same hyper-violent ideas. I think any subject that garners this much of this type of reaction deserves immediate attention, as I feel we're nearing ever closer to that line where saying becomes doing. I don't mean to imply that Flea's going to be on the News anytime soon, but damn, someone almost surely will be. I wonder why it seems the government is dragging it's feet on the matter. If it is indeed such a tremendous drain on resources, could it really be that hard / expensive to say "OK, that whole born here = citizenship thing? Yeah, that's gone now". Seems a lot cheeper than building a country long fence, and a whole lot cleaner than shooting people out of hand.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 219
  • Posts: 11213
February 12th, 2011 at 7:17:42 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I am strongly thinking about a set of new rules and policies to take effect at the end of the month. Here are the changes I'm thinking of:

1. Higher expectations will be set for gentlemanly conduct. There will be fewer warnings and stronger punishments for violations.
2. I will appoint more administrators specifically tasked with busting offensive posts.
3. I will do away with the Free Speech Zone.
4. Extreme political rants will not be allowed. Granted, one person's extremist is another person's centrist. I pretty much draw the line at wishing harm upon somebody who has done no intentional harm to others.
5. There will be a nuclear option where I can invoke my right as a dictator whenever I feel like.

Discussion of topics not relating to gambling and Vegas will still be allowed. This is supposed to be a community, and none of us are defined by gambling and Vegas alone.




I have a few thoughts on it all. First, I wish this post had been somehow elevated to an "announcement" as I only saw the whole thing as an issue via another post. But anyways....

1. Yes, higher standard might help. The "gentlemanly conduct" statement is the key. Maybe use an ivy-league "gentlemen's club" as a sort of model. (no offense intneded to any ladies on this board.) Maybe a motto of "anyone is free to enter but a privlege to stay," or along that line of thinking.

2. Yes, there are too many threads here for anyone to follow. How much "power" you give them will be important. We would not want the site to be run by people with an "HOA Menatality" busting for the sake of busting.

3. No, keep the FSZ. Like every town needs a red-light district because vice will pop up every site needs this kind of section. But I would tighten up the rules in it a little.

4. This hard territory, what is "extreme?" Wanting harm inflicted would fit the bill, but I'd say all politics, exception of gaming related, must go in FSZ.

5. You already have this option.


Being a Vegas Board I would say some western-style law enforcement is needed. 80/20 rule in that 80% of problems are caused by 20% of population. Identify that 20%, let them know what behavior is a problem, then enforce to correct that behavior.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 177
  • Posts: 10082
February 12th, 2011 at 8:21:41 AM permalink
I've said it before, even in this thread.

The problem with the Free Speech Zone is the lack of identification in the Recent Threads page - a page many of us use as our entry point / bookmark.


I just thought of a solution that doesn't require JB to make programming changes.


All threads in the Free Speech Zone should have FSZ in the beginning of the thread title. Any thread that doesn't can be easily fixed by a moderator.

Possibly do the same for the GLBT Forum.


Just my 2¢. Keep the change...
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁 Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. 🤗
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 103
  • Posts: 6142
February 12th, 2011 at 8:56:50 AM permalink
I would surmise that Fleastiff has a basic understanding of the laws of our nation and must know that deadly force would not be deemed acceptable for a non citizen woman in labor on our side of the border. Given that, I took his original post as just being an inflammatory way to express his frustrations with the practice of illegal border crossing for the purpose of gaining citizenship for the soon to be born. Thus I would say, given that there is a 'free speech zone' here, I would not want any action taken against fleastiff, and would want his post to remain. I think the back and forth it has generated has been interesting.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
February 12th, 2011 at 5:46:09 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear




All threads in the Free Speech Zone should have FSZ in the beginning of the thread title. Any thread that doesn't can be easily fixed by a moderator.

Possibly do the same for the GLBT Forum.


If the title is clear and descriptive enough, and you find it interesting, why do you care which subforum it is in. If you don't find it interesting, then still why do you care.
If it is not clear or descriptive, then ... well, I guess, then "it can easily be fixed by moderator" :)
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
February 12th, 2011 at 7:10:14 PM permalink
Quote: Face

Strange, but I see a lot of value in Flea's post. To be clear, the harming of an innocent mother and slaughter of born or un-born babies is repulsive; being a relatively new father, I had a very adverse reaction to that part. However, I think the fury which he convey's speaks to the level of the problem that illegal immigration has become.



I put non-gaming threads on this site, because generally I get much more intelligent responses then I do on sites that specifically have categories on this subject. I expect a controversial subject to inspire some ranting. Just not the advocacy of shooting mothers and letting their bodies rot in the desert.

I think if you did a poll, you would find that the majority of people believe that birth on the soil of America in and of itself should not be a guarantee of right of citizenship. But they know that the idea of a constitutional amendment is very unlikely, or alternatively that the supreme court is going to change their interpretation of the amendment without some prompting. I have some sympathy with Arizonians who say they are bearing the brunt of this policy. Some just want to pass the law, and have it shot down in federal court simply because they do not know any other way to draw attention to the issue.

But the idea that you can say "OK, that whole born here = citizenship thing? Yeah, that's gone now" is not going to work. We don't change the constitution lightly.

===============
Deviating from the legal issue for a minute, I would like to urge people to think about where they are focusing their anger. This immigration in search of economic opportunity is a global phenomena. Granted it is probably the biggest in the USA. There are 4th generation Japanese living in Brazil whose ancestors were farmers and were looking for opportunity.

Think about whole generations of families growing up in small Mexican village where all the men of working age are gone. Off to other countries seeking work. How hard is that on families? The southern border of Mexico is a horrible mess of murder, gang violence,lawlessness and mass prostitution as hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans who are younger and poorer than Mexicans sneak across the border in search of more opportunity. They cannot bring in the corn crop in Mexico because so many men are in the USA working the fields.

Water does not choose where it should run. People are governed by economic necessity. When the capital of the USA makes jobs in Mexico you will have illegal immigration. If you are an ambitious young man in Veracruz, there has to be some opportunity in your home state so that you don't have to go to California to make a living.

From 1955 to 1965 the population growth rate was 6.7% in Britain,17.2% in the USA, and 37.1% in Mexico. When they changed the laws governing immigration into the USA in 1966 the government did it deliberately to assure that the USA would have a growing workforce. The writing was clearly etched on the wall as far back as 1966. Illegal immigration was going on from the 1950's. The US government clearly knew that what they were doing would radically change the demography of the USA. It was also obvious that you couldn't change the demographics that much and not have illegal immigration follow legal immigration.

People are trying for opportunity. If they break immigration law then you have to deport them. It is a crime, but it doesn't deserve violence.
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4421
February 13th, 2011 at 5:35:10 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

But the idea that you can say "OK, that whole born here = citizenship thing? Yeah, that's gone now" is not going to work. We don't change the constitution lightly.



Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it would be so simple. I'm just trying to keep my posts shorter ;)

Of course amending the Constitution would take effort, but it's not unprecidented. Wasn't prohibition enacted due to the fear of alcohol harming our people and our societies? Only with immigration, we have a hurt being inflicted upon us, rather than inflicted as a result of our own behavior. It seems that since we are being 'attacked', for lack of a better word, it would be that much more likely that an amendment would be considered. Of course, no amendment has ever occurred in my relatively short life time so I can not speak accurately on the effort it would take, but I would have to think it would be cheaper, easier, and faster than any of the proposed plans, of which I can only remember some uber fence and the 'minute men'.

I also don't think it'd be a panacea, but I do think it'd be a good start. Probably the biggest issue is not them taking the bottom of the barrel labor jobs, but bleeding us of the resources (health care) we're already quite low on. Sure there are other problems caused by illegals, but to make an analogy - If you are 'attacked', you don't worry about infection, or stitches, or scars...hell you don't even try to stop the bleeding. The first thing you do is stop the guy next to you from stabbing you.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
PaulEWog
PaulEWog
Joined: Jan 2, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 110
February 13th, 2011 at 11:50:41 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I am strongly thinking about a set of new rules and policies to take effect at the end of the month. Here are the changes I'm thinking of:

1. Higher expectations will be set for gentlemanly conduct. There will be fewer warnings and stronger punishments for violations.



I think this is a fine idea. I frequent forums to learn a little, contribute as I can, and hopefully have a little fun in the process but seeing the same garbage over and over again in multiple posts and threads can get old pretty fast.

Quote:


2. I will appoint more administrators specifically tasked with busting offensive posts.


Everybody has a different definition of what is offensive which may make it difficult for others to figure out just what should get the boot. Some forums have what essentially amounts to a "quarantine" area that isn't visible to the public. Moderators can move a post to that area to quickly remove it from sight but if you believe that was overly aggressive you can reinstate it at will. If this forum doesn't have such a feature and it isn't too difficult to implement it might be something you find useful.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard 
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1261
  • Posts: 20774
February 13th, 2011 at 11:55:39 AM permalink
After giving this more thought, the FSZ will remain. What I think would be a good idea would be to have separate areas for gambling and non-gambling topics. Almost like two separate sites. So the "recent threads" would have only those of that category. However, this would take a lot of recoding, and JB has his hands full with behind the scenes stuff on the Odds site.

That is a good idea of at least putting FSZ in the title of FSZ threads. However, I don't have the ability to change thread titles. For now, making that a request is the best I can do.

The rule about "extreme political expression" I agree is vague. There was another gambling forum with a liberal policy on free speech, and it turned into a gathering place for Neo Nazis. That is not something I will allow, but I think I'll postpone dealing with that until and if it happens. For now, say what whatever you wish in the FSZ, subject to existing rules.

A bit off topic, but I've read several complaints in other threads about the GLT topic area, and why there isn't one for other groups, like one for Christianity. If I felt there were a large base of any religion on this forum I would not oppose making a place of their own for them. Would anybody care to formally request something like a Christianity Corner, and make an effort to make topic-related posts there?
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
February 13th, 2011 at 12:14:11 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Would anybody care to formally request something like a Christianity Corner, and make an effort to make topic-related posts there?



Only if there's also an Atheists'/Skeptics' Corner.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

  • Jump to: