Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
If someone wants to start a thread about raising/cutting taxes it is reasonable to expect that the thread won't be overun with people that want to talk the government being immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If you pose an open question to the forum, how are you not expecting anyone to answer who has an opinion unless you specify otherwise? This is like saying that if someone in SMP started a thread on "what is the nature of God" that atheists couldn't respond with their beliefs. They have an opinion on what the nature of God is as well, but because their opinion is in such strong disagreement with the religious crowd, it gets to be censored? That's, frankly, BS.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's politics, discussions should be allowed to go wherever they are going.



[/ QUOTE ]

New regime, new rules. You can disabuse yourself of this idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Discussions can go wherever they are going provided the place that they are going isn't:

-State Bad!
-State Good!
-State Bad!
-State Good!

Or:

Dems Bad!
Repubs Bad!
Dems Bad!
Repubs Bad!

Or:
-9/11 conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 conspiracy!

etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what discussion is. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Hi
 

this forum is on its way to be officialy ruined. btw I will come back in 2 weeks and see how many " great politics poster" finnaly post here because the forum is "cleaned".

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but to put the burden on one part of the political spectrum to police their responses, to squelch their own political views and not have this apply to others feels quite unfair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is being asked to squelch their political views. People are being asked to respect one another. If someone wants to start a thread about raising/cutting taxes it is reasonable to expect that the thread won't be overun with people that want to talk the government being immoral. When your posts contribute nothing to the topic at hand and serve only to cause others to leave they are no longer welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

RR-

If this is the case, I think it would make more sense if you and [censored] said that you were going to simply enforce that posts stay on topic, in the spirit of the OP. That's a good rule, no complaints there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's basically what they're saying. If I read the new policy right, ACists can still mention specifically relevant AC ideas in any thread but not introduce the general state/no-state topic itself where it is not already being discussed.

Re: Hi
 

What really bothers me is that they seem to be implying that ACists are the ones hijacking threads when that's rarely the case. Usually ACists respond completely on topic and then someone attacks them, hijacking the thread. You might say it takes two to hijack, and maybe such posts should simply be reported rather than responded to, but it's pretty hard to not defend your views when someone's attacking you.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but to put the burden on one part of the political spectrum to police their responses, to squelch their own political views and not have this apply to others feels quite unfair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is being asked to squelch their political views. People are being asked to respect one another. If someone wants to start a thread about raising/cutting taxes it is reasonable to expect that the thread won't be overun with people that want to talk the government being immoral. When your posts contribute nothing to the topic at hand and serve only to cause others to leave they are no longer welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the old "AC Troll Mafia Hijack Alert" strawman. For those of you just joining us, it has been shown that the vast majority of the "AC Hijacks" that supposedly plague this forum and make it "borderline unreadable" are in fact undertaken by statists. Generally the way it goes is something like this:

Statist #1: Policy XYZ should be enacted.
ACer: But that policy will have effect ABC.
Statist #2: So who is going to do XYZ when there's NO GOVERNMENT? Huh? Huh????

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly this is a case of someone trying to push some buttons and thus an AC vs State debate should be fair game here.

[/ QUOTE ]

When someone is trying to push buttons like this I would suggest leaving it alone. They don't have an actual question, so why debate someone that is just looking for a fight?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what do you think the purpose of this forum is?

I have recently been asked to provide management services to a boxing gym. I am bringing new rules with me. The first is one that I learned in Kindergarden - respect other people. And since punching people is not respectful, I have decided to ban all sparring in the gym.

Re: Hi
 

All,

remember that some awesome posters will now start posting because we have more mods and BGC was banned. There isnt an exact date of when will these awesome posters will start arriving though.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
What really bothers me is that they seem to be implying that ACists are the ones hijacking threads when that's rarely the case. Usually ACists respond completely on topic and then someone attacks them, hijacking the thread. You might say it takes two to hijack, and maybe such posts should simply be reported rather than responded to, but it's pretty hard to not defend your views when someone's attacking you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think threads veering OT occurs in several ways. Some of it is unavoidable to an extent, while at other times it is avoidable. By the way, I sometimes veer off-topic, too, but that is usually (I hope! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] in response to someone else bringing up an debatable point in their own efforts to make a point.

I think where it is clearly out-of-place is in an example such as the following:

Poster A: "Should immigration be increased, decreased or stay the same?" (presents his thoughts and reasons)

Poster B, who is the second or third respondent: "If the state didn't exist, what reason would there be for immigration? Immigration is just another example of the uselessness of the state."

Well, that's going too far afield at that point, in my opinion. The OP wants to discuss immigration levels - and maybe even no restrictions on immigration, which could be considered a "level" of sorts - not whether immigration would exist without the state.

If however the discussion slowly veered in that direction due to back-and-forth debate on points leading up to that, it might not be out-of-place at all.

I know I sometimes stray, perhaps through carelessness, and at other times it seems unavoidable. But I think the general idea here is, let's not start out by immediately straying from the OP point under discussion. If the thread evolves into several branched paths then that may be different. But if the OP is about Global Warming we don't need to jump to belief in Creationism right away.

Just my take...God, please help me not to stray [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not retreating from the criticism at all. But everytime someone asks something about AC the debate would just be...

"How will this work in AC-land?"
"Free market, next topic."

We can't say exactly HOW the free market will solve certain things and we never claim utopia where everything has a happy solution.


[/ QUOTE ]

When they ask this sort of question one of two things is true. Either they are trolling for a state vs. AC debate or they want to know how the free market will deal with this. It is ok to not know the answer when someone asks a question. If you don't know the how they are asking about it might be time to examine your own position rather than counting on the market to work through it.
I believe markets are very powerful, but I reached that conclusion through study not blind faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is a very interesting position. So you know how the free market will deal with things? Because if this is true, you can probably get a nobel prize.

Please start a new thread with your ideas on this subject, I am very anxious to hear them. Also, I'd love to see your list of "services that the government is quite good at providing." I can think of a few, but I suspect they are quite different than the ones you have in mind.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think threads veering OT occurs in several ways. Some of it is unavoidable to an extent, while at other times it is avoidable. By the way, I sometimes veer off-topic, too, but that is usually (I hope! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] in response to someone else bringing up an debatable point in their own efforts to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is it's unavoidable in politics, because so much of people's beliefs are based on other beliefs which are based on other beliefs. I've often found that many times an "on-topic" discussion between a statist and an ACist is completely pointless because both of their beliefs are entirely true if you accept their underlying beliefs of taxation being theft or taxation being okay as true. So the discussion should morph into that taxation discussion as it's the only place it can logically go. Of course, often this should be done in a new thread. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

On the other hand, very often hijacks are a result of a throwaway comment about someone's beliefs. Like say a discussion on the topic of how the Sun affects global warming and someone says "well, since as the Sun revolves around the Earth..." and then makes their on-topic point, but with that statement of their (in this case obviously wrong to anyone) underlying belief, it's clear that that's what really needs to be being talked about.

Hmm... I think I may have said pretty much the same thing twice, hehe.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
All,

remember that some awesome posters will now start posting because we have more mods and BGC was banned. There isnt an exact date of when will these awesome posters will start arriving though.

[/ QUOTE ]

3/14/07. Approximately 10:45 A.M. (EST)

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
All,

remember that some awesome posters will now start posting because we have more mods and BGC was banned. There isnt an exact date of when will these awesome posters will start arriving though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm holding my breath, just waiting for tons of insightful people to come out of the woodwork and solve all our political problems now that "trolls" and "AC hijacks" are under control...

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
Statist #1: Policy XYZ should be enacted.
ACer: But that policy will have effect ABC.
Statist #2: So who is going to do XYZ when there's NO GOVERNMENT? Huh? Huh????

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a hijack that is not allowed (and not on the part of the ACer).

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
Usually ACists respond completely on topic and then someone attacks them, hijacking the thread. You might say it takes two to hijack, and maybe such posts should simply be reported rather than responded to, but it's pretty hard to not defend your views when someone's attacking you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very valid point. I don't know if it takes two to hijack, but it does take 2 to have a discussion. I am not saying "if an ACist does this..."

Re: Hi
 

I think you guys should use my organized debate idea. So many threads come down to two people anyway. I'd tune it for that, depending on the topic and participants.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you guys should use my organized debate idea. So many threads come down to two people anyway. I'd tune it for that, depending on the topic and participants.

[/ QUOTE ]

i like this idea.

i read here from time to time, but most of the discusions get 'all over the map' and turn me off.

get some decent topics, organize debates and i'd get some popcorn to watch as well...

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not retreating from the criticism at all. But everytime someone asks something about AC the debate would just be...

"How will this work in AC-land?"
"Free market, next topic."

We can't say exactly HOW the free market will solve certain things and we never claim utopia where everything has a happy solution.


[/ QUOTE ]

When they ask this sort of question one of two things is true. Either they are trolling for a state vs. AC debate or they want to know how the free market will deal with this. It is ok to not know the answer when someone asks a question. If you don't know the how they are asking about it might be time to examine your own position rather than counting on the market to work through it.
I believe markets are very powerful, but I reached that conclusion through study not blind faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is a very interesting position. So you know how the free market will deal with things? Because if this is true, you can probably get a nobel prize.

Please start a new thread with your ideas on this subject, I am very anxious to hear them. Also, I'd love to see your list of "services that the government is quite good at providing." I can think of a few, but I suspect they are quite different than the ones you have in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I don't know how the free market will take care of these things. As far as the government being good at providing services most (or all) of them could be privatized, but natural monopolies do exist.

If an someone asks an ACist how the market will deal with something and they have no idea it is ok to not know. That is not an admission of defeat, it just means there is more research needed in that area. Someone who is not ACist isn't likely to have an idea of what ACist believe.

Re: Hi
 

For those of you interested in how a heads up debate would work, BluffTHIS and Elliot Richardson did this once regarding copyright law.

Link

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not retreating from the criticism at all. But everytime someone asks something about AC the debate would just be...

"How will this work in AC-land?"
"Free market, next topic."

We can't say exactly HOW the free market will solve certain things and we never claim utopia where everything has a happy solution.


[/ QUOTE ]

When they ask this sort of question one of two things is true. Either they are trolling for a state vs. AC debate or they want to know how the free market will deal with this. It is ok to not know the answer when someone asks a question. If you don't know the how they are asking about it might be time to examine your own position rather than counting on the market to work through it.
I believe markets are very powerful, but I reached that conclusion through study not blind faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is a very interesting position. So you know how the free market will deal with things? Because if this is true, you can probably get a nobel prize.

Please start a new thread with your ideas on this subject, I am very anxious to hear them. Also, I'd love to see your list of "services that the government is quite good at providing." I can think of a few, but I suspect they are quite different than the ones you have in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I don't know how the free market will take care of these things. As far as the government being good at providing services most (or all) of them could be privatized, but natural monopolies do exist.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're "all over the map". I asked you to start a new thread and you're continuing to post off-topic in this thread! I'm pushing the notify moderator button right now.

Honestly, I don't think this "off-topic crackdown" is a good idea. You've just shown how easy it is to get off topic, and how much inertia will discourage you from actually starting a new one (most of the time these off-topic tangents will not have enough "meat" to warrant their own OP, and people will start complaining about low-content threads). Eat your own dogfood, practice what you preach, please.

Also, when you get around to making your thread, I'd love to see a list of these "natural" monopolies.

[ QUOTE ]
If an someone asks an ACist how the market will deal with something and they have no idea it is ok to not know. That is not an admission of defeat,

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks dad. That's what ACists have been doing.

[ QUOTE ]
it just means there is more research needed in that area.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. It means it's impossible to know until it happens.

If I ask you what species we can expect to see evolve in the next, say, million years, how much research would you need to come up with the answer?

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, when you get around to making your thread, I'd love to see a list of these "natural" monopolies.

[/ QUOTE ] I won't be starting a thread because this isn't of that much interest to me, but a natural monopoly is an industry where the average costs per unit continue to decrease as the size of the firm grows.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks dad. That's what ACists have been doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am yet to see an ACist do this.

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. It means it's impossible to know until it happens.

[/ QUOTE ] Some things are impossible to know, but it is an awefully big assumption to assume that because you don't know, it will continue to be unknown until it happens. Declaring things that are unknown to you as unknowable to society at large is probably not the best way to proceed.

Re: Hi
 

The question that appeared here has been asked and answered. I think I have been very clear on my view of repetitive material.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some things are impossible to know, but it is an aweful big assumption to assume that because you don't know, it will continue to be unknown until it happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that big an assumption, didn't you see his evolution example?

[ QUOTE ]
Declaring things that are unknown to you as unknowable to society at large is probably not the best way to proceed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it's true?

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you guys should use my organized debate idea. So many threads come down to two people anyway. I'd tune it for that, depending on the topic and participants.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think setting up a weekly one on one debate could be interesting. We would probably need to do nominations for topics and debaters.

Re: Hi *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by RR

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, when you get around to making your thread, I'd love to see a list of these "natural" monopolies.

[/ QUOTE ] I won't be starting a thread because this isn't of that much interest to me, but a natural monopoly is an industry where the average costs per unit continue to decrease as the size of the firm grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is great. I'm actually on-topic since I'm getting you to give us a demonstration of why "off topic threads are verboten" is a doomed policy. And you're off-topic and in violation of the new regime's rules.

I know *what* a natural monopoly is. I asked you for a list of actual examples. An industry where consumers were actively harmed by the introduction of competition would satisfy this request. Should be pretty easy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks dad. That's what ACists have been doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am yet to see an ACist do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must not be looking very hard. In fact, this is the essence of AC. If one could determine the solution that would emerge from a market, one could use central planning to impose that solution. If your conjecture were true, it would be a slam-dunk argument *against* free markets.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. It means it's impossible to know until it happens.

[/ QUOTE ] Some things are impossible to know, but it is an awefully big assumption to assume that because you don't know, it will continue to be unknown until it happens. Declaring things that are unknown to you as unknowable to society at large is probably not the best way to proceed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, great seer, how is a totally free market going to deal with copyright, national defense, health care and education? How much research will be needed to provide these answers?

To the other mods: how long will you allow this person to derail the OP? This forum is borderline unreadable.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn,
There is no forum-wide policy that ALL "off-topic" comments in ALL threads are verbotem. It will be a subjective standard. Censored merely made a specific request regarding, specifically, statist versus AC debates, that is all.

Regards,
--jman220

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
It will be a subjective standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I long to play poker under subjective rules.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It will be a subjective standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I long to play poker under subjective rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called the Will to Power, my friend.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It will be a subjective standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I long to play poker under subjective rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably already do.

http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter2.php

[ QUOTE ]
8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Hi
 

This is what we get for bringing the B&M mod in. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Hi *DELETED*
 

[ QUOTE ]
Post deleted by RR

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I are scurred.

Re: Hi *DELETED*
 

All,

didnt get through the entire thread but a few points

1) obviously there is going to lots of differing opinions on how best to moderate this forum. I am all for getting feedback from everyone and Im thankful for the PMs and posts I've gotten so far. you are also welcome to disagree but if I see posts in here trolling the other moderators or being inflammatory I will ban you without much thought. if you have an idea on how something can be done differently great but if you are just going to complain and agrue please reconsider

2) as for my AC request I will try and clarify and this will extend to other discussions as well. I think sometimes a poster will feel so strongly about a particular belief that they will want to create multiple threads expressing the same idea just stated differently. This is the type of thing I would like to see combined for to one thread per week or something. I am hoping that everyone here is honest enough to know when they are doing the above and or when they are truly bringing something different to the forum

one example from the past was when snowball started multiple threads in the same 24hour period all showing different instances of what he believed were illegal/immoral actions on the part of isreal. while each thread contained a different article the points were the same and all fit into one general arguement he was making

Re: Political Beliefs
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like labels, I'm a unique butterfly. I guess I'd be closest to a Joe Lieberman type of democrat.

[/ QUOTE ]
<Sigh> I'm screwed. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
At least Joe is good on Iraq. Perhaps my Iraq posts won't get me banned...

Re: Political Beliefs
 

I *THINK* we have:
1 conservative mod
1 libertarian mod
1 liberal mod
1 blue-dog Dem mod

My chances of surviving are better than Rush Limbaugh getting acquited by a DC jury....

Re: Political Beliefs
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think we hav:
1 conservative mod
1 libertarian mod
1 liberal mod
1 blue-dog Dem mod

My chances of surviving are better than Rush Limbaugh getting acquited by a DC jury....

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, iron was once the one and only mod of this forum in the past, and he was a liberal - and you're still here. Ditto andyfox during his tenure.

Re: Political Beliefs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, iron was once the one and only mod of this forum in the past, and he was a liberal - and you're still here.

[/ QUOTE ]
BGC is not here.... He was a motivated partisan conservative.
There are motivated partisan liberals on this forum that to my knowledge are bullet proof...

Andy Fox....is a good man.
He is mature enough to separate political differences from the person.

Iron has general, been fair with me.

Re: Political Beliefs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, iron was once the one and only mod of this forum in the past, and he was a liberal - and you're still here.

[/ QUOTE ]
BGC is not here.... He was a motivated partisan conservative.
There are motivated partisan liberals on this forum that to my knowledge are bullet proof...

Andy Fox....is a good man.
He is mature enough to separate political differences from the person.

Iron has general, been fair with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I fail to see how the ideological makeup of the new mod team threatens you; you agree the one liberal in the group, who we might expect would target you unfairly for partisan reasons (if anyone would) has generally been fair with you. I think iron has generally been fair with everyone, and the new mod team has been on the job for all of 48 hours, so I think it's a little early to start writing anyone's postmortem, including your own.

Re: Political Beliefs
 

So I guess Im the first poster that has been banned in this new system( 6 hours). Anyway since all Ive done is bash the new mods, Im going to say something positive, I like the one on one debates idea.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
:( *sigh* 3 more mods....nothing personal, I just didn't want to see any.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, this must be the most moderated forum of all 2p2. Well, I was going in my way out of this forum anyway, good luck.

A spectre haunts 2+2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3 more mods.... nothing personal, I just didn't want to see any.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, this must be the most moderated forum of all 2p2.

[/ QUOTE ]What are they afraid of? An insurrection starting from 2+2?