Originally Posted by stomachmonkey (Post 11512517)

I think regular PARF participation should be a disqualification for a mod in any sub forum that is not purely technical in nature.

I would include myself as unqualified even though i bowed out of that cesspool 6 or so years ago.

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey (Post 11512524)

Yeah ok, like when your wife says “Fine, do whatever you want” she’s not giving you permission.

Originally Posted by cabmando (Post 11512525)

I see no reason why a person should be disqualified just because they go to a forum you or others don't like. I had a great conversation with Supe and others in a thread I posted in PARF related to Medicare negotiating drug prices. There's another conversation I think is extremely interesting that really belonged here in OT about innovation. There are a lot of good, thought provoking threads that get posted there but there's a lot of garbage too. Such is life.

Originally Posted by recycled sixtie (Post 11512541)

Too much arguing going on. I don't get it. I respond once and then leave it alone. Many beat it to death.:(

Originally Posted by john walker's workshop (Post 11512581)

Pretty much, right?

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey (Post 11512530)

Whatever occasional positive content may appear in PARF is completely eclipsed by the other 99% of garbage that exists there.

If you felt those couple of threads stayed focused and did not go off the rails you could have started a new one in OT.

Or now that you are a mod, move them here.

Originally Posted by kach22i (Post 11512602)

I don't have the computing skills to figure out actual numbers on recent "so-called Liberal posts", but on my computer just over 30 posts are shown per PARF index page.

Out of the 30-34 threads, one thread is started by a center or left of center person, the other +30 are right and right of center folks (based on reputation and name familiarity).

An echo chamber of like minds with no one to taunt.

I only checked the first two pages, but had a similar observation about a month ago with similar results. Been this way for about seven or eight months now from my recollection.

Threads started are often a reflection of posts made, at least that's my observation based on poking in and out of several PARF threads today.

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey (Post 11512092)

I'm looking for clarity here.

Rules say to keep politics in PARF and that sig breaks that rule.

We also have rules about profanity and bypassing the filters in place to sneak it in.

That sig breaks those rule everywhere on the Pelican Forums where that member posts outside of PPOT.

I'd like a proper explanation other than we ignore sigs because if that is the official position I'd like to know.

I question your ability to be impartial here when you posted this not two days ago.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/11509520-post3.html

To be clear, the responsibility of being a mod does not give you carte blanche to disregard the rules you are meant to enforce because you agree with the content in question.

Yes?

No?

Originally Posted by otto_kretschmer (Post 11512324)

I like pelican because this place has mostly a hands off view of expression. Not all formums are this free. On another forum I started a thread about buying an adventure motorcycle and another member suggested a Benelli. I was suspicious about the Benelli and its low price and I figured that it was made in China and I looked it up and I was correct. I posted that I'm avoiding goods made in China if I can and I got a little political. We're all dealing with this virus mess because someone, or a few someones, over in that country were irresponsible and they let this bug get out. That post got deleted. Maybe they have a zero tolerance rule about politics. I didn't bother asking.

Other forums like Democratic Underground I would be banned withing a couple posts. DU is an echo chamber of leftist cheerleaders.

Censorship is alive and well on many sites like FB and YT. If you want to keep free speach free you have to let people speak their mind.

Originally Posted by Z-man (Post 11512669)

Ok - so here's my take on siggys:
1. Should not be offensive.
2. If something is politically offensive, like "Trump won, you muther *****ers" then it should be removed.
3. If something may have political or religious connotations, but isn't blaringly offensive or rude, I have no issues with it being in the signature. Most often, signatures are a whitty quote, a list of cars, and sometimes a timely phrase, such as "Let's go Brandon." Yeah -Brandon. Yeah, I am aware of the meaning behind that phrase: it is a substitute, just like crap, heck, freakin' and my favorite, poopy-head, are substitutes for more vulgar words. Do we ban every substitution word? I don't think that is an answer. Brandon will eventually be replaced by something else - so it is best to let it go. If it still bothers you, let me know.
4. Years ago, Wayne, the then founder and owner of Pelican Parts, stated "Anything above PG-13 is not acceptable." So if your signature is more than PG-13, it should be removed & altered.

As for the rest of the PPOT rules: They have been in place since 2004 with some amendments over the years. They work. There is no need for a complete revamp of them. Could they be added to again? We should always be open to that.

However, what I think is at play here is that we have some new mods that are coming up to speed on this whole moderation thing. Their enforcement of the rules will have their own personal interpretation of the forum rules and guidelines. They will need some time to get a handle on this whole new perspective on forum interaction. Given them some grace. They are both willing to help out, and both of them want to focus on keeping the political posts where they belong: in PARF.

That said, this is my stance on PARF posts in PPOT, which I've already shared with our new moderators:
- If there's a post that has political undertones in a thread in PPOT, I take note of the thread. If the thread continues to go PARF, it is moved to PARF. However, if the thread evolves to be more of a PPOTish thread, it is kept in PPOT.
- Sometimes folks mistakenly post a PARF thread in PPOT. No need to get your panties in a bunch , we will move that thread over to PARF.
- Sometimes folks post a PARFish pic in the random pics thread. Depending on how PARFish the pic is, it is either completely removed, or simply left there.
- We don't typically move single posts over to PARF. If you have a PARF post, post it in the correct section, or it may be deleted.

Finally - just because someone is a moderator, that doesn't mean they are no longer allowed to express their views and opinions. No moderator is exempt to the forum rules and regulations.

Ok - carry on folks - and thanks again cabmando and Seahawk, for your willingness to help out here. I fully support your efforts here!

Originally Posted by Z-man (Post 11512669)

Ok - so here's my take on siggys:
1. Should not be offensive.
2. If something is politically offensive, like "Trump won, you muther *****ers" then it should be removed.
3. If something may have political or religious connotations, but isn't blaringly offensive or rude, I have no issues with it being in the signature. Most often, signatures are a whitty quote, a list of cars, and sometimes a timely phrase, such as "Let's go Brandon." Yeah -Brandon. Yeah, I am aware of the meaning behind that phrase: it is a substitute, just like crap, heck, freakin' and my favorite, poopy-head, are substitutes for more vulgar words. Do we ban every substitution word? I don't think that is an answer. Brandon will eventually be replaced by something else - so it is best to let it go. If it still bothers you, let me know.
4. Years ago, Wayne, the then founder and owner of Pelican Parts, stated "Anything above PG-13 is not acceptable." So if your signature is more than PG-13, it should be removed & altered.

As for the rest of the PPOT rules: They have been in place since 2004 with some amendments over the years. They work. There is no need for a complete revamp of them. Could they be added to again? We should always be open to that.

However, what I think is at play here is that we have some new mods that are coming up to speed on this whole moderation thing. Their enforcement of the rules will have their own personal interpretation of the forum rules and guidelines. They will need some time to get a handle on this whole new perspective on forum interaction. Given them some grace. They are both willing to help out, and both of them want to focus on keeping the political posts where they belong: in PARF.

That said, this is my stance on PARF posts in PPOT, which I've already shared with our new moderators:
- If there's a post that has political undertones in a thread in PPOT, I take note of the thread. If the thread continues to go PARF, it is moved to PARF. However, if the thread evolves to be more of a PARFish thread, it is moved over to PARF.
- Sometimes folks mistakenly post a PARF thread in PPOT. No need to get your panties in a bunch , we will move that thread over to PARF.
- Sometimes folks post a PARFish pic in the random pics thread. Depending on how PARFish the pic is, it is either completely removed, or simply left there.
- We don't typically move single posts over to PARF. If you have a PARF post, post it in the correct section, or it may be deleted.

Finally - just because someone is a moderator, that doesn't mean they are no longer allowed to express their views and opinions. No moderator is exempt to the forum rules and regulations.

Ok - carry on folks - and thanks again cabmando and Seahawk, for your willingness to help out here. I fully support your efforts here!

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey (Post 11512705)

And that's the answer I wanted to hear.

I was not satisfied with the initial response that sigs get ignored.

There just seemed to be no logic to only one part of a post is subject to forum guidelines or that any part of a post was immune.

And I agree, being a mod does not preclude one from having their opinions, but the optics, unclear answer, timing of this instance in particular did not sit right with me.

I freely admit I've pushed the boundaries on more than one occasion but for the most part the majority here will behave and not stray too far over the line if it's a clear and consistent line.

Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by cabmando (Post 11512645)

Reiver posts some good, thought provoking threads. If someone isn't fond of the conspiracy theory stuff they can just skip them.

Part of what you and others have mentioned, the bleed over, is why Paul and I volunteered.

Originally Posted by pavulon (Post 11512753)

He wasn't talking about one person. It's about 10-15(ish) there and a few less here and it's the same people over and over again running the same inflammatory plays for the very reasons kach22i described.

Originally Posted by VINMAN (Post 11512422)

That's the problem here lately. Seems like even the simplest of topics, no matter what it is. seems to turn political, which then turns to personal.

.

Originally Posted by KC911 (Post 11512453)

My last post on this thread .... or mebbe not ;).

I won't disagree with ya Nick, but the PARFy spillover has affected us all imo. Remember your exchanges with Fint recently.... and Fint likes to "push peoples button"... but I don't mean to single him out... I "like" everyone here, but it gets tiresome.
...