Support NeoGAF

[Mandark]

Posted this at the last version of the forum, and was getting the sense that a lot of people forgot about Dre.

1) Conservative/Republican posters supporting George W. Bush for president may not post the results of any nation-wide opinion polls unless the results show John Kerry leading by more than the margin of error.

2) Liberal/Democrat posters supporting John Kerry for president may not post the results of any nation-wide opinion polls unless the results show George W. Bush leading by more than the margin of error.

3) Unbiased, moderate voters who own all the game systems may post any poll in which Ralph Nader has acheived a majority or plurality.

4) Progressive or reactionary posters supporting a third party candidate may post any poll in which Lyndon LaRouche has acheived a plurality or majority.

5) Statewide polls are right out.

6) Violating these rules will result in a ban until after the general election in November.

7) Yes, this is serious.

8) Don't get cutesy and try to figure out how to skirt the rules, it won't keep you from getting banned. And it's probably best not to complain about this rule in this thread, or iapetus will make you write the TOS over and over on a chalkboard.

 

[MIMIC]

This means I can post the latest Bush polls

....wait a minute.....(??!!)

Anyways, I have a question: does this mean that we can't start a THREAD, or that we aren't allowed to post them at ALL?

 

[Mandark]

At all.

Feel free to PM each other back and forth, though.

 

[iapetus]

With your fingernails, damn it.

Collusion among poll-fans of the left and right will be noticed.

 

[Alcibiades]

"2) Liberal/Democrat posters supporting John Kerry for president may not post the results of any nation-wide opinion polls unless the results show George W. Bush leading by more than the margin of error."

there was an incident just now, and I thought Izzy was a Kerry supporter based on the fact that he put up that poll, but then I saw it locked and was like, probably a Bush supporter, but then I checked, and he seems to be more of a Kerry guy...

http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?p=247337#post247337

-Izzy (never really noticied him till his ban just now) posts evidence that Bush is basically supported by Jews in Israel (and NOT in the US), which supports the notion that he is a puppet for Zionists and his extremist religious views control decision-making in his Presidency.



http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?p=204673#post204673

I love that RATM video where they perform on the street, in the quiz, and spew anti-capitialistic propaganda......while being the Sony slaves they really were. Quite ironic.....those fools.

-Izzy loves that a video that spews "anti-capilalistic propaganda". If he likes the spewing of something that's anti-capitalistic (propaganda or not), we'll, there's that, probably not a Bush guy



http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?p=203486#post203486

Daily Mail's always been shit. Blaming violence on Manhunt is ridiculous. I reckon their right wing coverage of Iraqi conflict is more to blame.

-Izzy thinks there is a chance that "right wing" (which Bush supporters might disagree is their view fair reporting of Iraq) Iraqi coverage has more to do with violence than Manhunt. Blaming either is silly IMO, but I don't think a Bush supporter would think that way.



http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?p=125201#post125201

Nonsense. I'd rather take up philosophy than drown in laughable religious bullshit.

-Izzy, in response to someone saying religion is substituted by "embarrasing" spiritual habit and that people that denounce religion realize they aren't smarter than those that are religious.





OK, I'm not saying that thread creation was entirely appropriate, all I'm saying is that the assertion that Izzy is NOT a Kerry supporter is ambigous at best. His posts seem to indicate an attitude that not many Bush supporters would take, especially whole "religious bullshit" reference. His posts sounds like things a Kerry supporter would say. That said, I don't remember Izzy from previous board, so don't know what his poltical leanings overall in a great number of posts is.

Not defending his behavior, just saying marking him down politically he's probably not a "Bush fan".

 

[Kettch]

So, wait, does #4 include not being able to post any other polls? Not that I'd be likely to anyway, I'm just curious.

 

[iapetus]

efralope: You're reaching. And you've missed the point of his comment on the RATM video. I checked through his post history carefully, and he's clearly an unbiased, moderate voter at worst, with the result that the woeful result of Ralph Nader in the poll sealed his fate.

 

[Mandark]

Kettch: Yeah.

To people in general: Moderation in political topics might wind up being stricter than in others. Trolling and insults towards people who disagree with you won't be welcome. Keep it polite and keep it informed.

 

[Dilbert]

A good way to summarize the poll policy: In almost all cases, you don't want to be posting polls.

 

[Minotauro]

This is fucking ridiculous. I mean, who made these decisions and how do they have any authority over anyone else? I say we do a poll to determine whether poll results should be allowed or not.

 

[AntoneM]

This is fucking ridiculous. I mean, who made these decisions and how do they have any authority over anyone else? I say we do a poll to determine whether poll results should be allowed or not.

damnit , I was just about to make that same exact post, sure mine would have been superior in every concievable way but the gist of it would have been the same.

 

[Matlock]

This is fucking ridiculous. I mean, who made these decisions and how do they have any authority over anyone else? I say we do a poll to determine whether poll results should be allowed or not.

Yes, but that would be a political poll about a political poll without any political backing, making the idea of the poster who is able to post it vague at best.

Chicken! Egg!

 

[Mandark]

This is fucking ridiculous.

Yeah, pretty much.

I mean, who made these decisions

Me! Subject to the approval of the other mods/admins.

and how do they have any authority over anyone else?

We can ban people. It's awesome!

I say we do a poll to determine whether poll results should be allowed or not.

I dunno, that kind of thing has gotten me in trouble in the past...

 

[Hitokage]

Arguing over the latest poll-of-the-day, in the long run, is even more pointless than arguing over sales data... and I think we all know about that situation.

Of course, it could be handled intelligently... but... hahaha... not here.

 

[Triumph]

Getting people to argue intelligently over whether the latest "poll data" is relevant is less likely to serve a purpose than a drunk thread that I start.

I happen to support the moderation team wholeheartedly on this issue. That should say something!

 

[Alcibiades]

Arguing over the latest poll-of-the-day, in the long run, is even more pointless than arguing over sales data... and I think we all know about that situation.

Of course, it could be handled intelligently... but... hahaha...

pointless!?!?!

you obviously don't appreciate the work/analysis of Mr. Dick Morris, the guy who got Clinton re-elected, got Vicente Fox (PAN party) into the Mexican presidency after 70 years of rule by the same party (PRI, of which my grandmother swears her life by), and just recently helped the Independence Party in Britain stun analysts as they rode to almost 20% of the vote.

He knows what's going on behind the scenes, how to feel the pulse of American's feelings, etc. He's got the ultimate track record in politics, and polls are behind everything that's going on. Sure polls can change, but will you know why the polls are the way they are, and what the candidates can do to change them.

That said, I mostly stay away from most poll discussion cause it seems the losing person's supporters would just dismiss them as inaccurate and unscientific, instead of talking about how certain polls are always within the margin of error, and it's only when there is a large undecided vote that results in the actual election will can be super-volatile. I won't say what Zogby poll is showing right now, but back in 2000, he was ON THE MARK, even within the margin of error, showing Al Gore would win by 1%, which is exactly what happened. All the other polls showed a dead heat within the margin of error, or with Bush slightly ahead.

How about a compromise for the politicos here?

For example, making ONE ultimate thread and anything and everything about polls could be discussed in there (for example, Dick Morris columns in the New York Post or The Hill newspapers). If anyone posts polls and/or things having to do with polls outside of that thread (even other political threads), then that would not be allowed. That way, if it's chaotic and a complete mess, it would be contained in one thread and everyone who cares to stay away from all that would find it easy not to come across it (even in othere political threads, where it wouldn't be allowed), but those who want to discuss it would find it more coherent than a flurry and web of PM's and re:'s to those PM's, etc...?

Please?!

 

[Triumph]

Efralope is a tard.

 

[Matlock]

Alternately, you could just say that efralope is from GameFAQ's. Not to say that every poster from there has been blatantly stupid, but it's more the rule than the exception when it happens.

On one hand, this is so wildly reactionary and dumb...but on the other, so are the poll threads.

 

[Triumph]

And I'm drunk!

But yeah, Efralope is still slapped by ignorance.

 

[Matlock]

Triumph and Matlock: Ultimate GAF Tag Team

 

[firex]

Can you do similar rules for sales data and video card benchmarks on the gaming forum, please?

 

[Sirpopopop]

Mandark - This is a brilliant move. Get this man a scholarship to Harvard.

 

[Minotauro]

Yeah, pretty much.Me! Subject to the approval of the other mods/admins.We can ban people. It's awesome!I dunno, that kind of thing has gotten me in trouble in the past...

I guess I'm just against restriction of speech in general when it comes to message boards. In my opinion, the moderators should be like referees in that the best ones are the ones you don't even notice. I think that any time you place some arbitrary rule on how people should be allowed to express themselves it's probably a bad idea. Plus, this is the internet...a place that is supposed to be free of all the censorship and restriction that applies to television and other tools of communication.

 

[Triumph]

I guess I'm just against restriction of speech in general when it comes to message boards. In my opinion, the moderators should be like referees in that the best ones are the ones you don't even notice. I think that any time you place some arbitrary rule on how people should be allowed to express themselves it's probably a bad idea. Plus, this is the internet...a place that is supposed to be free of all the censorship and restriction that applies to television and other tools of communication.

In theory, your statement is good and sensible. But here is why the poll rule is a good one: in the long run, it's going to prevent bannings.

Poll threads WILL turn into simple, base verbal pissing contests. There's no way around it. You'll get people who are so riled up about something that eventually they're gonna blow a fuse and start lashing out at other posters in an unacceptable manner. It happens all the time in the sales threads in the gaming forum, and I can guarantee you that it would happen in a poll thread. The policy is a sound one.

 

[MIMIC]

Sales data - Presidential political polling

It makes sense.

 

[belgurdo]

The drama that will likely unfold in this thread over the next two months will be far more interesting than any Kerry/Bush pissing contest

 

[Minotauro]

In theory, your statement is good and sensible. But here is why the poll rule is a good one: in the long run, it's going to prevent bannings.

Well, in general, I'm against bannings as well. I think, unless someone is blatantly spamming or flooding the board, no bans should take place. For one, the rules that have been put in place are entirely too subjective. Furthermore, they're only enforced selectively at best and unfairly at worst. I'm by no means a conservative but posters who are get away with a lot less than people who subscribe to a liberal point of view.

You say that, without rules against poll usage and whatnot, threads will quickly devolve into name-calling. I say, so what? If such a thing happens, it only makes the people who resort to such tactics look bad. In fact, it will make it easier to completely disregard that person's opinion the future.

I guess I feel that, in general, the standards and conduct of the forum should be dictated by those who visit it...not those who are arbitrarily given the ability to close threads and ban users whom they disagree with.

 

[GG-Duo]

these rules all seem to be quite reasonable. People need to be more aware of what "margin of error" means. sheesh.

 

[Willco]

How cute can we get when skirting the rules? Because I'm goddamn adorable.

 

[EviLore]

Well, in general, I'm against bannings as well. I think, unless someone is blatantly spamming or flooding the board, no bans should take place. For one, the rules that have been put in place are entirely too subjective. Furthermore, they're only enforced selectively at best and unfairly at worst. I'm by no means a conservative but posters who are get away with a lot less than people who subscribe to a liberal point of view.

You say that, without rules against poll usage and whatnot, threads will quickly devolve into name-calling. I say, so what? If such a thing happens, it only makes the people who resort to such tactics look bad. In fact, it will make it easier to completely disregard that person's opinion the future.

I guess I feel that, in general, the standards and conduct of the forum should be dictated by those who visit it...not those who are arbitrarily given the ability to close threads and ban users whom they disagree with.

Arbitrarily? I didn't realize that you hosted and maintained the forum. Wow, thanks.

 

[maharg]

I say, so what?

So, people who DON'T resort to such tactics feel less and less like tuning in and the thread, while remaining the focal point of discussion on the subject, becomes less and less reasonable.

It also encourages people to formulate their own opinions and discuss those instead. Polls are at best hearsay. No one's saying "don't be a conservative" or "don't be a liberal," only that discussion should take place on a more personal and subjective level, where it's not "this poll said" or "that poll said." We can go to CNN for polls.

 

[Minotauro]

Arbitrarily? I didn't realize that you hosted and maintained the forum. Wow, thanks.

The only way the assignments wouldn't be arbitrary is if I was a mod.

Is that the only disagreement you had with my post? So, you do agree that the rules are entirely too subjective and a lot of the mods are unfair and only selectively enforce said rules?

 

[Minotauro]

So, people who DON'T resort to such tactics feel less and less like tuning in and the thread, while remaining the focal point of discussion on the subject, becomes less and less reasonable.

Well, when this happens, anyone who wants to can simply avoid the thread or start their own. It's the same way with all forms of communication. People will find the appropriate channels to express their opinions. For instance, people who want to voice their opinion unfettered can call into C-SPAN where they're able to talk without fear of reproach. At the same time, if someone wants to get into a shouting match with a host is free to call into Sean Hannity's radio program.

It also encourages people to formulate their own opinions and discuss those instead. Polls are at best hearsay. No one's saying "don't be a conservative" or "don't be a liberal," only that discussion should take place on a more personal and subjective level, where it's not "this poll said" or "that poll said." We can go to CNN for polls.

Sorry but, this is the way arguments go whether they're on the internet, on television, at political conventions, or wherever else. To me, trying to prevent this seems futile at best and unfair at worst.

 

[maharg]

Well, when this happens, anyone who wants to can simply avoid the thread or start their own. It's the same way with all forms of communication. People will find the appropriate channels to express their opinions. For instance, people who want to voice their opinion unfettered can call into C-SPAN where they're able to talk without fear of reproach. At the same time, if someone wants to get into a shouting match with a host is free to call into Sean Hannity's radio program.



Sorry but, this is the way arguments go whether they're on the internet, on television, at political conventions, or wherever else. To me, trying to prevent this seems futile at best and unfair at worst.

This conflicts with the idea of having one thread for one topic. Which is ideal, because it allows people to easily find the subject they want to talk about, as well as know what's already been said. It prevents the random rehashing of the same conversations over and over again just because some jackass couldn't keep their mouth shut, and some other jackass couldn't resist the bait.

Also important is that Gaming Age has never advertised itself as a bastion of free speech. There are spinoff forums that cater to this desire, and I think the results generally speak for themselves, and you're free to go there to get your dose of free speech. This is a moderated forum and has never pretended otherwise.

 

[Mandark]

Minotauro: Your complaints all boil down to "You guys aren't running a forum the way I think a forum should be run." This is not our problem; it is yours.

Willco: Greater than or equal to a button, but less than "all get out."

firex/MIMIC: The sales thread mania definitely weighed in on this. It's too late to close the barn door on that one (some of you may remember another mod trying), so the plan was to nip this in the bud before everyone got addicted.

Geez, that's an awfully tangled metaphor there.

 

[Doth Togo]

So, what if someone wants to make a random post in a thread that puns a celebrity or political appointee? Is this under TOS or does this get caught up too?

 

[EviLore]

Is that the only disagreement you had with my post? So, you do agree that the rules are entirely too subjective and a lot of the mods are unfair and only selectively enforce said rules?

No, it's not the only disagreement I had. I had actually typed out a couple paragraphs on much of what maharg has already elaborated upon, but I made the assumption that you'd come off self-important and make even more obvious that you really don't have any valid points (as Mandy observed), leading me to the ol' ctrl+a ctrl+x.

 

[Minotauro]

Minotauro: Your complaints all boil down to "You guys aren't running a forum the way I think a forum should be run." This is not our problem; it is yours.

Citizen: Your complaints all boil down to "You guys aren't running a government the way I think a government should be run." This is not our problem; it is yours.

Nice job completely evading my arguments. So, you're saying that GAF is a dictatorship? The people who visit the board have no say in how it's run? That's interesting.

No, it's not the only disagreement I had. I had actually typed out a couple paragraphs on much of what maharg has already elaborated upon, but I made the assumption that you'd come off self-important and make even more obvious that you really don't have any valid points (as Mandy observed), leading me to the ol' ctrl+a ctrl+x.

I don't have any valid points? It isn't true that the rules are only enforced selectively? Do you really need me to find examples where a conservative poster was banned for something a liberal poster would've gotten away with? How about instances where XBox fanboys were banned in cases when Sony fanboys wouldn't have been?

The only point I'm trying to make is that the rules that you have enacted are subjective enough that the mods only exercise them when they disagree with the particular opinion that is being expressed. In my opinion, the only way to make it fair would be to limit all these rules regarding polls and insults and trolling and whatever.

Why was this thread un-stickied by the way? Have you thrown out this preposterous idea about disallowing people from using polls that support their viewpoints?

 

[Alcibiades]

shouldn't this stay stickied so that new members know?

also, I guess the whole "one thread with all polls" idea wasn't well received.

It would solve the problem of "getting out of hand", and people could avoid that if they want to.

 

[EviLore]

I don't have any valid points? It isn't true that the rules are only enforced selectively? Do you really need me to find examples where a conservative poster was banned for something a liberal poster would've gotten away with? How about instances where XBox fanboys were banned in cases when Sony fanboys wouldn't have been?

Moderation is inherently subjective. The only remedy to that subjectivity is the nonexistence of moderation, where many examples can be provided showing that it Does. Not. Work. Hence it's not a valid point. Try your best to follow.

The only point I'm trying to make is that the rules that you have enacted are subjective enough that the mods only exercise them when they disagree with the particular opinion that is being expressed. In my opinion, the only way to make it fair would be to limit all these rules regarding polls and insults and trolling and whatever.

So, you're telling us that you believe, in your of course entirely subjective opinion, that the moderation is too subjective for the good of the forum. Do you have any evidence to support this? I have evidence to contradict it. For example, I can list the Opa-Age forums (in all its shapes) as examples of why varying levels of "hands off" moderation doesn't work. I can also cite that GAF's moderation policy has been active to its current degree for at least 5 years, and during that period the forum has continuously grown in popularity (because, I mean, we're worse than Dural at DCTP ever was!). I can also provide credibility to myself in that I have been a poster on GAF since 1999, an administrator for much of that time, and that I am the owner and contributing system administrator of the humble server that we're residing on. Your turn.

Why was this thread un-stickied by the way? Have you thrown out this preposterous idea about disallowing people from using polls that support their viewpoints?

This thread was stickied in the first place to highlight an informal sort of rule that was in effect on the previous board and after some discussion is still considered to be in effect now, but which many of the posters here might not be aware of. Since, presumably, any members who give a damn would have read the stickied notice by now, someone unstickied it. We're not at a matter of honor and deference to keep the thread stickied for as long as you're arguing baselessly with the higher powers; generally this sort of topic (debate of moderation policy) is taken directly to email/irc. Yeah, it probably should've stayed a sticky for a bit longer so that everyone could have a chance to see it, *shrug*.

 

[Mandark]

This should be obvious.

Citizen: Your complaints all boil down to "You guys aren't running a government the way I think a government should be run." This is not our problem; it is yours.

A government can take your money away, give you other people's money, change what that money's worth (or whether it's worth anything), arrest and imprison you, execute you, enforce standards of pollution for the air you breathe, give or take away a license to practice your profession, zone your property, take that property away, make sure your kids go to school and not work, keep you from driving your car, determine which drugs are okay for you, draft you and send you halfway across the world to shoot at people and be shot at by them, shut down your business, tell you who you can marry (if anyone), and lots of other important things.

An internet forum can stop you from posting messages at one website.

Most people are born into citizenship. Changing countries, even among liberal democracies, involves very large financial, time, and especially personal costs. It is impossible in the practical sense to found a new country.

Every member of GA signed up voluntarily. Changing forums involves typing a different URL in the address bar. Starting a new forum is easy.

So, you're saying that GAF is a dictatorship?

Are you just figuring that out now? Weren't you meant to read the TOS when you joined?

Moderation of the GA Forum is not by committee. All decisions with regards to thread closure and movement, permanent and temporary bans, and membership issues are made by the GA Forum administration and are final.

 

[MIMIC]

Does this also include Internet opinion polls of the debates?

 

[Dilbert]

It ought to. Let this serve as a reminder...no bans getting handed out tonight (at least not by me), but polls should stay out of the debate thread.

 

[Diablos]

jinx, mandark: I simply wanted to mention a Gallop poll JUST TAKEN with 600+ people that phoned in, and not praise it because it shows that Kerry is ahead by 16 points... I want to question it's validity with other posters. Why? Because more and more increasingly I find that polls are not accurate. Like the ABCNews poll, I feel that this latest gallop poll showing a Kerry lead is inaccurate because it does not represent the entire nation, rather a chunk of people that gallop decided to poll. That's all I want to do; question it's validity with other posters. I don't want to be like "this poll shows that my favorite candidate kicks the other one's ass, he sucks, so do you blah blah blah".

What's wrong with posting a poll if it is simply meant to be discussed and not meant to cause anger and frustration among many posters - for example, "CANDIDATE A AHEAD 5 POINTS, CANDIDATE B OWNED." That's not what I want.

While I agree these results are not 100% accurate I still believe they mean something. I want intelligent discussion of freaking poll results. If someone gets too hostile, ban 'em.

 

[Triumph]

All I know is that I will vote for Ralph Nader in November, and that I own all the consoles. I will never be allowed to post poll results around here.

 

[Dilbert]

Because more and more increasingly I find that polls are not accurate. Like the ABCNews poll, I feel that this latest gallop poll showing a Kerry lead is inaccurate because it does not represent the entire nation, rather a chunk of people that gallop decided to poll.

I can't speak for Mandark, but my opinion is that ALL of the polls are flawed...so I don't know what there is to discuss. By definition, the act of sampling a population introduces a possible source of error...and when you try to create an "unbiased sample" by deliberately including people from different demographics, you introduce yet ANOTHER source of bias.

Of course, poll results are always stated with their associated margin of error, but people seem to conveniently leave them out when discussing the results. "MY candidate is ahead by TWO WHOLE PERCENTAGE POINTS! Woooooo..." etc.

 

[Mandark]

You think discussion of polling techniques will not lead to partisan discussions of poll results? You think I forgot about "Famitsu doesn't count the convenience stores where Nintendo sells most of its games in Japan?" You think I forgot about Dre?

Also, I would trust intelligent, civil discussion of political topics with you like I would trust my 14 year old cousin with Son of Godzilla. Just sayin' is all.

MIMIC: Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Internet pollshone surveys::AlteredBeast's Best Buy Sales:TRSTS

 

[Loki]

You think discussion of polling techniques will not lead to partisan discussions of poll results? You think I forgot about "Famitsu doesn't count the convenience stores where Nintendo sells most of its games in Japan?" You think I forgot about Dre?

:lol

I had just opened this topic and read it from the beginning, thinking it was a repost of your poll topic from a few weeks ago; I saw the "forgot about Dre" in the initial post and chuckled. Then I looked at the date and realized that it was the same topic I had already read. Now I just read this post above, and your second reference to Dre nearly made me spit up my drink lol. Funny stuff.

Also, I would trust intelligent, civil discussion of political topics with you like I would trust my 14 year old cousin with Son of Godzilla. Just sayin' is all.

:lol

 

[Hitokage]

Diablos: http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=15100

 

[Diablos]

Also, I would trust intelligent, civil discussion of political topics with you like I would trust my 14 year old cousin with Son of Godzilla. Just sayin' is all.

:lol Please. I'm offended that you mention myself and SoG in the same sentence. You and every other admin/mod have your eyes on my posts constantly. I'm not going to act like a jerk when polls show someone ahead. Perhaps I forgot - was there a time where I really rubbed it into someone's face that Kerry is winning something? If so I apologize, I wouldn't do that anymore. But discussion of polls are banned regardless, so whatever. What's so bad about someone saying "My candidate is ahead X% wooooo!" As long as someone isn't like "Fundamentalists can shove it, Kerry is leading," what's the big deal?

Hito, thanks - I'll read that over.