SD Forum suggestions and questions

[KYli]

I have to disagree on the facts. I have been in this forum for a number of years and topics that are of public interest which also may involve a degree of politics had been allowed. When discussions became too emotional they were locked to allow members to cool off. Such intermittent attempts at moderation in my view serves a vital purpose of circuit breaking while allowing some degree of discourse due to the nature of public interest.

I think you need to sustain your argument that such attempts are not sustainable. If it is an issue of moderation resource then that would be part of the consideration in allowing or disallowing the thread and that includes for how long that remains locked. It is a moderation decision.

I have been here from the beginning when there is only discussion board not forum. In the early days, there are more attempts to warn and ban members. It is only after the fact that moderators couldn't handle the endless flame wars that they decided to lock threads up and banned members. More recent years, locking threads have become more common tactics. Understandably, they preferred locking threads because of resource consideration.

I am aware of your position because you have stated it more than once before. I disagree from the standpoint from personal observation on members and what they tend to post. There are a handful of members who are primarily more interested in advancing certain political views rather than on military related topics. You know because they are very active in political related threads and less so in military topics.

The question is what is meant by "for the benefit of SDF"? Is it a traffic driven site or is it a site for military related matters? What you are advocating is to change the core of SDF's constitution to include political matters as a norm rather than as an exception.

When we are involved in military discussion, you are not even here yet. Many of us have discussed so much about Chinese military that there isn't much to contribute anymore. Chinese military forum and China Defense Forum used to have many military experts that debate about Chinese military and development and war scenarios and hardware comparison. Most topics have been covered many times already. When SDF came along, it focused more on hardware and technical specifications. After some flame wars, SDF banned military comparisons discussion, india and Pakistan discussions, and then military scenarios discussions etc. For most observers and amateurs, there are not much to contribute after SDF banned many types of discussions.

As for why SDF allowed some political discussions, it isn't my concern. I just felt it is irritated that moderators can't take the heat by locking threads without much leeway.

 

[solarz]

The coronavirus thread is extremely important, it provides a reliable source of information on the progress of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Can I find the same information elsewhere? Sure I can, but I'd have to wade through pages of misinformation in order to find anything reliable. With the coronavirus thread, I can find the latest update and be assured that any misinformation will be promptly called out.

 

[Brumby]

I have been here from the beginning when there is only discussion board not forum. In the early days, there are more attempts to warn and ban members. It is only after the fact that moderators couldn't handle the endless flame wars that they decided to lock threads up and banned members. More recent years, locking threads have become more common tactics. Understandably, they preferred locking threads because of resource consideration.

In essence as you have noticed over the years, the efforts directed had been from warning, banning to locking of threads. We know it has happened before and history will just repeat. What is your point though?

My position is very simple. It is a military forum and not a political forum. I also understand that exceptions are granted but they are conditional and subject to lock down. This is the compromise that we have today and generally been the case for a number of years. I don't agree that moving away from status quo is a sound move as it will just add more friction between members requiring further moderation..

When we are involved in military discussion, you are not even here yet. Many of us have discussed so much about Chinese military that there isn't much to contribute anymore. Chinese military forum and China Defense Forum used to have many military experts that debate about Chinese military and development and war scenarios and hardware comparison. Most topics have been covered many times already. When SDF came along, it focused more on hardware and technical specifications. After some flame wars, SDF banned military comparisons discussion, india and Pakistan discussions, and then military scenarios discussions etc. For most observers and amateurs, there are not much to contribute after SDF banned many types of discussions.

As for why SDF allowed some political discussions, it isn't my concern. I just felt it is irritated that moderators can't take the heat by locking threads without much leeway.

Once the rules are set, moderators are just there to enforce compliance. Locking threads is one of the expected outcome when topics become toxic and abrasive. Self discipline is a virtue and not a right. Just follow the rules. Is it that difficult?

 

[zgx09t]

Not sure the same rules applied to South China Sea thread. There were pages and pages of non-stop political warfare by rule-abiding people.

 

[Dolcevita]

Not sure the same rules applied to South China Sea thread. There were pages and pages of non-stop political warfare by rule-abiding people.

That is different because < put your own creative democratic excuse here>,

 

[KYli]

In essence as you have noticed over the years, the efforts directed had been from warning, banning to locking of threads. We know it has happened before and history will just repeat. What is your point though?

My position is very simple. It is a military forum and not a political forum. I also understand that exceptions are granted but they are conditional and subject to lock down. This is the compromise that we have today and generally been the case for a number of years. I don't agree that moving away from status quo is a sound move as it will just add more friction between members requiring further moderation..

My point is SDF used to attract younger demographic. That is not the case anymore. If they are willing to allow some exceptions, then they should give more leeway.

There are plenty of friction with or without political discussions. More moderation or less moderation is a choice not a must. Furthermore, there is no rules that said we need to like each other. We just need to be civilized.

Once the rules are set, moderators are just there to enforce compliance. Locking threads is one of the expected outcome when topics become toxic and abrasive. Self discipline is a virtue and not a right. Just follow the rules. Is it that difficult?

You often don't comply with the rules and moderators didn't ban you for that. They give you leeway. How hard is that for you to understand? If moderators enforced the rules strictly, then most of us should be banned.

In addition, coronavirus discussion isn't even a political topic. It has evolved over time and become somewhat political. The discussion of coronavirus was not a problem when the focus is on China and when people were criticized China and Chinese government. It has become a problem because the focus is not on China anymore but on other countries.

 

[Brumby]

My point is SDF used to attract younger demographic. That is not the case anymore.

How do you know what the demographics are? Please give me some facts not opinion.

If they are willing to allow some exceptions, then they should give more leeway.

Aren't exceptions provided? What leeway are you referring to? All postings need to comply with general rules of behavior.

There are plenty of friction with or without political discussions. More moderation or less moderation is a choice not a must.

Where do you think the word "moderator" comes from? Their role is to moderate when discussions go put of line.

Furthermore, there is no rules that said we need to like each other. We just need to be civilized.

That is entirely the point. Moderators step in when there is lack of civility

You often don't comply with the rules and moderators didn't ban you for that.

The only reason I am leaving this aside is because this will derail the conversation. You need to learn to engage in a conversation about a subject without resorting to making it a personal attack.

They give you leeway. How hard is that for you to understand? If moderators enforced the rules strictly, then most of us should be banned.

Do you actually understand you are making a self conflicting statement?

In addition, coronavirus discussion isn't even a political topic. It has evolved over time and become somewhat political. The discussion of coronavirus was not a problem when the focus is on China and when people were criticized China and Chinese government. It has become a problem because the focus is not on China anymore but on other countries.

We should stick to the facts. Moderation should be rule based. This question is best answered by the moderators.

 

[zgx09t]

Oh jeese, here we go again

 

[KYli]

How do you know what the demographics are? Please give me some facts not opinion.

When this forum was found, many members are just teenagers. They have introduced themselves as such. I am pretty sure that isn't the case anymore. Nowadays, many members have talked about their jobs and investment so not teenagers anymore.

Aren't exceptions provided? What leeway are you referring to? All postings need to comply with general rules of behavior.
Where do you think the word "moderator" comes from? Their role is to moderate when discussions go put of line.
That is entirely the point. Moderators step in when there is lack of civility
The only reason I am leaving this aside is because this will derail the conversation. You need to learn to engage in a conversation about a subject without resorting to making it a personal attack.
Do you actually understand you are making a self conflicting statement?
We should stick to the facts. Moderation should be rule based. This question is best answered by the moderators.

It is pretty clear that you make no effort to understand what I am saying. Or interested in constructive discussion. Not interested in pissing contest. So putting you on my ignore list.

 

[Deino]

Yesterday I was astonished by a deletion of my post containing

• some FoxNews link, and
• a polite request to Webmaster to reopen the COVID-19 thread;

I think people interested in military matters should not 'put head in sand',

and I think COVID-19 is far the most important current world event (though it's tough, as hundreds of people die daily),

so if Mods can't handle a related thread,

they should step down (or of course ban me now)

WebMaster please address this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Exactly, since you mis-used another thread to continue with that stuff! ... therefore it was off-topic, against a rules and it was deleted.

Honestly. I'm only eager to step down since that would free me from again and again reading complaints from always the same members, who cannot hold back their own horses, who constantly must spread their agenda, regardless how often we ask to stick to the topic.

My biggest problem however besides this nasty behavior is, that some still seem to think we moderators read each and every post and complain, why we act so lately. Just a kind reminder: I cannot read all posts and I'm not interested in all posts! I only react to a report in threads I'm not active. Period.

Would some of you simply report a certain post your rate inappropriate and then shut up and wait until a moderator decides, it would be fine. Instead one reply after another continues to fuel the already explosive situation and only then after sometimes pages full of BS we get aware of that mess and decide, what then again is not correct again since either much too late, biased, too strict, deleted without a warning or an explanation.

Are you crazy guys! I have a regular job to fulfill in this most difficult situation and if you cannot stick to the rules it simply leads to such decisions like closing a thread!

In fact the situation is the same as with COVID: severe actions are required and some still cannot or don't want to obey, their own "but I want" is still rated higher than the general common good.

Best, take care and stay healthy.

Deino