davidmarver wrote:It looks really weird to only see two guidelines to live by. Are politics free game on the light side?
I think there's no need for a guideline because political conversations on the internet take care of themselves. Getting into a internet politics discussion is like competing in the special Olympics.
davidmarver wrote:It looks really weird to only see two guidelines to live by. Are politics free game on the light side?
I think there's no need for a guideline because political conversations on the internet take care of themselves. Getting into a internet politics discussion is like competing in the special Olympics.
Haha, I see where you stand on that issue. What I meant was that if an article was posted on the 'general talk' forum that was, lets say, politically involved, it's fair game? We get nice discussions going on the dark side even with a limitation on what content we can discuss. Anyway, I was just asking.
defianthart wrote:political discussions are generally frowned upon over here, i know because i usually get involved in them and get yelled at.
Yeah, they quickly turn into spitting in one way or another...the only reason the Baseball Cafe added that was because they actually had a forum for it that the moderators despised about a week after it was created because of all the animosity it created. They were glad to shut the forum down at that point, and that's why they added "no politics" to their phrase.
So basically...I wouldn't do it. The Saddam stuff was OK because it wasn't actual debate on a political issue. Once it turns into talk of any political figure and your like/dislike, it normally gets stopped.
The One, the Only, the Incomparable Mercer Boy. My My YouTube.
defianthart wrote:political discussions are generally frowned upon over here, i know because i usually get involved in them and get yelled at.
Yeah, they quickly turn into spitting in one way or another...the only reason the Baseball Cafe added that was because they actually had a forum for it that the moderators despised about a week after it was created because of all the animosity it created. They were glad to shut the forum down at that point, and that's why they added "no politics" to their phrase.
So basically...I wouldn't do it. The Saddam stuff was OK because it wasn't actual debate on a political issue. Once it turns into talk of any political figure and your like/dislike, it normally gets stopped.
Simply put; this is a fantasy football forum. Not a politics forum.
16-team PPR Keeper League QB: T. Romo, V. Young RB: M. Turner, B. Wells, T. Hightower WR: A. Johnson, J. Ford, N. Burleson, A. Roberts, J. Simpson TE: D. Clark, J. Cook K: R. Gould D/ST: Cardinals
defianthart wrote:political discussions are generally frowned upon over here, i know because i usually get involved in them and get yelled at.
Yeah, they quickly turn into spitting in one way or another...the only reason the Baseball Cafe added that was because they actually had a forum for it that the moderators despised about a week after it was created because of all the animosity it created. They were glad to shut the forum down at that point, and that's why they added "no politics" to their phrase.
So basically...I wouldn't do it. The Saddam stuff was OK because it wasn't actual debate on a political issue. Once it turns into talk of any political figure and your like/dislike, it normally gets stopped.
Simply put; this is a fantasy football forum. Not a politics forum.
well technically nothing in the general talk forum has anything to do with fantasy football, in fact the description says "If you feel like discussing anything else, post it here." i would say politics fall into the category of "anything else" but i can appreciate where the mods are comin from.
and long ago i realized its useless to argue politics, especially online, but i just cant help myself when it comes to a good ole political debate, especially when its a topic i feel strongly about. i try to stay away from discussions that turn into a red/blue battle though.
To me, General Talk should be pretty open when it comes to various topics. Sure, checkin' out some weird or funny story is nice, and talkin' about movies is fine... but it does get a 'lil tiresome if there isn't some actual discussion around too. Politics? Sounds good. Religion? I'm interested. NSWF-linkage? Doesn't fit into the "serious discussion" stuff I was gettin' at, but as long as there's a warning, I don't see the problem there either. Yeah - there could be some heated conversations... but that's interesting stuff. Arguments don't always have to be a bad thing.
But I'm not a mod here... so it doesn't really matter. There's other forums (even other football forums) that I venture into that feature some of the things I'd like to see here - but if that doesn't happen, I know there's alternatives out there and I won't bother postin' any of that "non-Cafe-friendly" stuff here.
Um... and the Cafe r0x0rz s0x0rz.
'CUNA-MANIA IS RUNNING WILD! "You will be a king here, instead of a peasant at the Cafe."
Canacuna wrote:To me, General Talk should be pretty open when it comes to various topics. Sure, checkin' out some weird or funny story is nice, and talkin' about movies is fine... but it does get a 'lil tiresome if there isn't some actual discussion around too. Politics? Sounds good. Religion? I'm interested. NSWF-linkage? Doesn't fit into the "serious discussion" stuff I was gettin' at, but as long as there's a warning, I don't see the problem there either. Yeah - there could be some heated conversations... but that's interesting stuff. Arguments don't always have to be a bad thing.
But I'm not a mod here... so it doesn't really matter. There's other forums (even other football forums) that I venture into that feature some of the things I'd like to see here - but if that doesn't happen, I know there's alternatives out there and I won't bother postin' any of that "non-Cafe-friendly" stuff here.