patrick.net

anon_d57f7 says

anon_0e631 says

Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?

Nope. Fuck this anti free speech forum. You can shit all over it but for god sake don't insult anybody. Them's the new rules!

Then lobby for revoking moderation and going back to the old format. It was fine.

If you can't pull users from behind their duck blinds of anonymity, physically stalk them, and threaten them and their relatives with weapons and bodily harm, then freedom has no meaning.

Ad Hom is so lame ass compared to flaming poo on the porch and bullet holes in the windows.

mell says

anon_d57f7 says

anon_0e631 says

Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?

Nope. Fuck this anti free speech forum. You can shit all over it but for god sake don't insult anybody. Them's the new rules!

Then lobby for revoking moderation and going back to the old format. It was fine.

Ad homs are the biggest reason why this site started to and continued to struggle. We need civilization to civilize the kindergarten. No one wants this site to end up like a show on KSFO, nobody!

Ok, then there is a hole in the "ignore" system.
You are still seeing ironmans posts when they are referenced in another users post.
Fix is to search post contents to detect this reference, and treat the post as if it was from the 'ignored' if any of the text contains the 'Ignored' userID.

errc says

I put Ironman on ignore, he logged off to read my posts, quoted them, harassed me about them, and then had one of his buddies quote him so it shows up in the thread

mell says

YesYNot says

In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.

If you look at the current threads, mostly politics, they are relatively balanced on both sides. Certainly enough Trump bashing on there, and then some neutral stuff as well. Here's an alternative explanation. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on, accepted Trump and even embraced at least a few of his stances or simply got turned o...

@mell , name them by name.

Who are you referring to?

anon_0e631 says

Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?

It's not a lack of threads that's a problem. Thread starting is easy. It's a lack of good and novel ideas, particularly in response to others. I don't really have an interest in trying to take up the mantle of all of those who have left. I'm perfectly happy to contribute if there are other posts that I find interesting and agreeable, but I'm finding less and less of those. That will reach critical mass if it has not already. That's just how I see things at this point.

Regarding uneven moderation, this is why I think it's a problem: I know that there will be snide and marginally insulting posts coming my way. To a point, that's fine as long as I am able to respond in kind. However, if I expect to be hit with harsher moderation than the people who are insulting me, that's going to be more frustrating than fun. If the moderator is more concerned with what constitutes an insult than what constitutes an intelligent and relevant idea, then that's another problem. I've seen both of those problems so far.

anon_d57f7 says

anon_313db says

Ad homs are the biggest reason why this site started to and continued to struggle.

No that's never true. 4chan exists and grows even when the entire purpose is to ad hominem each other to death. If you want a reason for the decline it's because Patrick simply doesn't give a shit. He stabbed the most loyal users in the back and handed control over the place to the liars and trolls.

Personally, I did not find ad homers of either side valuable, they were discussion destroyers pure and simple, whether it's left winger like el professor Roberto or right winger like CIC. Do you really believe they had anything productive to contribute when at least 70% of their posts were outright ad hom?

errc says

mell says

YesYNot says

In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.

If you look at the current threads, mostly politics, they are relatively balanced on both sides. Certainly enough Trump bashing on there, and then some neutral stuff as well. Here's an alternative explanation. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on, ac...

I see topics started by Hey You certainly on the left of things, Roidy as well, tovarichpeter, sometimes yesYnot and timaurora and rew, then neutral ones like tvgnus, heraclitus, curious2, bob doesn't start many but certainly replies to many (also more on the left though somewhat centrist). The rest I'd put on the right side of the spectrum. Here's to all of those staying on.

YesYNot says

It's not a lack of threads that's a problem. Thread starting is easy.

Agreed.

YesYNot says

Regarding uneven moderation, this is why I think it's a problem: I know that there will be snide and marginally insulting posts coming my way. To a point, that's fine as long as I am able to respond in kind. However, if I expect to be hit with harsher moderation than the people who are insulting me, that's going to be more frustrating than fun. If the moderator is more concerned with what constitutes an insult than what constitutes an intelligent and relevant idea, then that's another problem. I've seen both of those problems so far.

That's why I think that the previous model where you could moderate your own threads but not beyond was fine.

anon_d57f7 says

Nope. Fuck this anti free speech forum. You can shit all over it but for god sake don't insult anybody. Them's the new rules!

Freedom of speech.
Free to debate ideas.
Free to try to change minds about issues.
Free to bring forward evidence so that others can weigh that evidence and show you why it is lacking.
Free to show your algorithms and let others detect errors in your logic.
Free to bring your opinion and debate or ignore the opinion of others.

Patrick is an intelligent, thoughtful, person who has spent a lot of resources to provide a place for civil discussion of ideas, politics, current events and humour.

Patrick.net Patrick rules.

jazz_music says

Blue Sardine has never been a serious contributor because s/he's concerned with winning over substance. Most of the users remaining have shown miserable integrity.

I think he/she is funny though and has made comments on both sides of the political spectrum. Why be bothered by a civil tongue-in-cheek comment?

@mell

I should have quoted the part I was questioning

. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on,

anon_d57f7 says

If you are honest you don't care what someone calls you. If you are lying steaming piece of shit you care extremely much what someone calls you and you get to be a moderator. Welcome to hell.

I don't think that honest people like to be ad-homed either.....unless they are extremely zealous in their views. At any rate, I am sure that Patrick decided that ad-homs were deleterious influences, that's why he conceded that pure free speech has limitations and needs to be reigned in. Stanford Prison experiment with Zambardo has concluded, thanks be to god. Basically, people have options where to spend their time and if they are not happy here they will go somewhere else. Patrick is acutely aware of this and he is trying to remedy the situation. The sooner the ad-homers are neutralized, the sooner this site can recover.

YesYNot says

anon_0e631 says

Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?

It's not a lack of threads that's a problem. Thread starting is easy. It's a lack of good and novel ideas, particularly in response to others. I don't really have an interest in trying to take up the mantle of all of those who have left. I'm perfectly happy to contribute if there are other posts that I find interesting and agreeable, but I'm finding less and less of those. That will reach critical mass if it has not already. That's just how I see things at this point.

Regarding uneven moderation, this is why I think it's a problem: I know that there will be snide and marginally insulting posts coming my way. To a point, that's fine as long as I am able to respond in kind. However, if I expect to be hit with harsher moderation than the people who are insulting me, that's going to be more ...

@Patrick, are you listening to your customer base?

@the rest of you bitching about how terribly biased a moderator that Goran is, Patrick already told you the solution. Sometimes you have to listen to what others are saying, and Patrick clearly said if Goran posts anything uncivil, mark it as uncivil. Problem solved

if you don't equate Libertarians with mainstream Republicans.

———————

Teach me how to differentiate between the two, and I’ll give it my best.

You’ve always been reasonable, I appreciate the replies

Anon says
anon_08dee says

Patrick is killing his own site.

anon_08dee says

The right wing cesspool this site has become is something that Patrick can't see,

anon_d57f7 says

There is literally zero chance that if this place survives another 5 years

anon_d57f7 says

The site has been destroyed.

anon_d57f7 says

Patrick gives so little of a shit about this issue that he hasn't even bothered to defend his choice of Goron or his lying or his trollism. It's obvious that pigshit cic has more influence over what goes on here then the people who helped build the place over 10 years. Let It Burn.

You guys could find some other place ?
@patrick that winehorror user name scheme would be more fun. Anonymous is annoying.

anon_d57f7 says

It's a logical fallacy that people insert into an argument that appears to be a logical response but instead is a dishonest non sequitur

Nope, ad hom is making an argument about a person rather addressing the points that an opponent made. Ex: you support universal healthcare, you are a communist, move to north korea, you SOB. Or, you believe that minimum wage should be abolished, you a cretin who supports that people starve to death. That's what ad hom is. Now, think how many comments that were made last few years. fit in this category.

errc says

if you don't equate Libertarians with mainstream Republicans.

———————

Teach me how to differentiate between the two, and I’ll give it my best.

You’ve always been reasonable, I appreciate the replies

Thanks. I'd say Libertarians are truly small government supporters, most Republicans are not. Esp. if laws - even with good intent - can lead to more harm than good. Legalizing drugs, prostitution, ending civil asset forfeiture, habeas corpus, fewer wars and a more isolationist foreign policy, fewer and lesser taxes, small welfare system, no subsidies (neither big corn/agriculture nor walmart nor tesla) are all Libertarian principles. They are also about stronger rights/freedoms for smaller collectives, such as states rights. So while most do not care about sexual preferences or who does drugs and who doesn't they may think that states can make their own laws wrt to these issues and you're free to move if you don't like your state, similar to let's say drastic anti-gun or anti-smoking laws where some communities (not just bars or apartments) have outlawed smoking. Of course it gets difficult where state regulations clash with constitutional rights, but usually Libertarian states have less regulations.

That was funny up to the day Napa burnt to the ground...

Onvacation says

@patrick that winehorror user name scheme would be more fun. Anonymous is annoying.

errc says

So you think Trump made yet another bad appointment with Sessions, and you want him fired.

Not because he is literally waging war with our citizens, not because he perjured himself under oath, not because of his UnAmerican, anti-Constitutional stance on civil asset forfeiture. None of that. Nope. Never even a mention.

But simply because he doesn’t know what you and Alex Jones know wrt locking up Hillary

At least you have your priorities straight, if nothing else

I have made my priorities known regarding civil forfeitures and the stupid war on drugs. Hillary spent 9 million dollars on teh Russian dossier and then smashed phones and destroyed evidence that was under subpeona from congress. She needs a special prosecutor.

Obozo the clown who admitted to drug use did nto take one step towards drug legalization. Instead he gave us Heritage foundation care.

Obozo the clown who admitted to drug use did nto take one step towards drug legalization. Instead he gave us Heritage foundation care.

——————

Actually, he did exactly what Right Wingers claim to desire: he left the States to decide for themselves and told his Federal Government to stand down and respect the choice of The People at the local level.

Your response is Trump, who lied about his stance to get elected, then did a 180 and fucked the country and constitution straight to hell by appointing Sessions

errc says

Your response is Trump, who lied about his stance to get elected, then did a 180 and fucked the country and constitution straight to hell by appointing Sessions

I'm not sure where the hate comes from for Sessions, he's pretty much recused himself from every major incident during Trump's administration so far.

errc says

Obozo the clown who admitted to drug use did nto take one step towards drug legalization. Instead he gave us Heritage foundation care.

——————

Actually, he did exactly what Right Wingers claim to desire: he left the States to decide for themselves and told his Federal Government to stand down and respect the choice of The People at the local level.

Your response is Trump, who lied about his stance to get elected, then did a 180 and fucked the country and constitution straight to hell by appointing Sessions

Wrt to Obama and drugs he did raid many dispensaries operating on the state level as well as raw dairy farmers. Bush was the one who left them alone. In the end though they restricted asset forfeiture for which he deserves credit.

errc says

Actually, he did exactly what Right Wingers claim to desire: he left the States to decide for themselves and told his Federal Government to stand down and respect the choice of The People at the local level.

Huh link.
Here is what he did on marijuana
http://time.com/4448202/obama-drug-war/

He talked the big talk on trade, war on drugs and ended up being meh.

Trump did say he was strong on war on drugs , police etc-so no suprise there.
As I have said before, if I had a dem candidate strong on anti globalism, america first trade policies and ending war on drugs and mass incarceration-he would have my vote.
.

No patnetters should moderate.
Because they are PATNETTERS!
We need someone with a clear mind to take control.

jazz_music says

anon_d57f7 says

Yet he was still able to remain civil with all the people on the left. Speaks volumes doesn't it.

This indicates that winning was not his priority, nor should it have been.

Winning is the priority for the self-absorbed. Instead of vanquishing opposition, we can instead possibly learn something worth while from each other. I refer to ideas that are not sourced in propaganda.

Ideally men pride themselves on the worth of what they do not the value of what they can consume, which betrays a female mindset. Also management is a feminine art. The subject of "wining mindset" could take several threads. Also the subject of manliness, honor, integrity versus this age of nationwide propaganda that always makes strong appeals to maleness.

Back on topic: Goran, for one example, should have his tactics reigned in, in the interest of exchanging important thought, his history h...

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

"should have his tactics reigned in" is not a fact, nor is it a specific that can be addressed.

jazz_music says

Fucking White Male says

tactics reigned in" is not a fact, nor is it a specific that can be addressed.

Bald faced lying is the first one that come to mind, but that is just one of the many tactics used to insist on victory a meme that is typically straight out of Fox News' daily coordinated lies budget. Many tactics revolve around changing the subject. Other people, in this case a family, have listed and categorized common tactics on a web site here:
http://vandruff.com/art_converse.html
This was an eye-opener about 20 years ago.

I still don’t understand what you are trying to say.

Yeah no kidding. And anon or not, your posting STILL makes no sense.

Bullshit.
Winning is the priority for those countries who've had their national wealth negotiated away via unbalanced trade deals by those who have no love of country...

jazz_music says

Winning is the priority for the self-absorbed.