Watercooler v political forum

[ColinEssex]

Now, now, gang... Col complained about a specific - and factually correct - situation that probably COULD use a little more attention. As hard a time as we give him, we still should recognize that when he's right, he's right.

I didn't complain, I brought to attention what I thought was an anomaly. Why have a forum dedicated to political and current affairs when the watercooler is cluttered with political posts.
If some here don't agree that's their perogative.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, I don't care whether you call it a complaint or registering an anomaly. Your observation was correct. I am taking action (and Jon was in favor of action) but I can only do so many at a time - so don't hold your breath.

 

[ColinEssex]

Col, I don't care whether you call it a complaint or registering an anomaly. Your observation was correct. I am taking action (and Jon was in favor of action) but I can only do so many at a time - so don't hold your breath.

No rush. Appreciate your time.
Col

 

[Jon]

I think part of the issue is that to post in The Watercooler, you don't have to scroll while you do for the Politics forum. Perhaps the closest analogy we have here is that there is a General section and a Forms section. If someone posts specifically about a Form in the General section, does it get moved or stay where it is? I don't actually know because I am not involved in the day to day moderation of the Access related sections. But what if nearly all the posts in the General section were about Forms? Would there be an inclination then to move them? Just some food for thought.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Instead, perhaps it is just a leaning one way or the other. Like voting Left or Right. See what I did there?

 

[Pat Hartman]

It would be interesting to keep a score of the percentage of helpful posts in the technical forums vs the number of political and water cooler posts. It should highlight the trolls that lurk here causing mischief.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Right or wrong, I'm currently avoiding technical threads that got hijacked. Which is why it is slow going. However, if you go for the "New Posts" list, the original sub-forum doesn't matter. It is the date, not the topic-forum, that determines order in that case. I hardly EVER browse the tech forums. I just look for what's new to answer, and in that usage I get to see how many posts are already in the thread, how recent that last post was, and who posted it. That's enough filtration for me.

 

[ColinEssex]

It would be interesting to keep a score of the percentage of helpful posts in the technical forums vs the number of political and water cooler posts. It should highlight the trolls that lurk here causing mischief.

I know this is aimed at me, thank you. To save you time, I never post in the technical forums, and to be honest, I've been retired for so long, I probably couldn't write a database now, and rapidly approaching 80 years old I wouldn't want to.
During the early 2000's I did post alot to help people in the technical area. Given that I only post now in the watercooler, if you feel the need to ban me because of my non posts in the technical then so be it.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

You are not the only troll we have to put up with. Don't think you are so important as to be singled out.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Maybe make a 100 posts minimum in the technical forums to be eligible to post in the watercooler.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

For the record, I've moved another bunch of posts. My criteria for moving out of the Watercooler are (a) posts were purely political or (b) posts were started based on current events with political overtones.

I review each candidate thread, at least spot-checking it. A couple of threads were, I thought, borderline so I erred on the side of caution and left them as-is. I'll also suggest that if the thread is older than a year or two it probably isn't worth moving.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

You are not the only troll we have to put up with. Don't think you are so important as to be singled out.

Yes I agree Pat, we have at least one, much better Troll than Colin, and he's an American!

The End of Free Speech

What with the Canadian government attacking Jordan Peterson's right to speak freely, and now the Irish government bringing in a law, basically an open ended "hate speech law" in which the government can just state that what you said was hate speech and lock you up! Have a listen to this...

www.access-programmers.co.uk

 

[Isaac]

It would be interesting to keep a score of the percentage of helpful posts in the technical forums vs the number of political and water cooler posts. It should highlight the trolls that lurk here causing mischief.

Oh dear, if you did that Pat I'm afraid I would be labeled as your troll. I rarely answer technical questions anymore I'm just on here for the social media aspect of it.
But is there something wrong with that?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Based on my reading of Jon's stated preferences as noted in the moderator discussions, I would have to say that lurkers and folks who don't post technically are still welcome. The main rule remains that we must consider how carefully or poorly you treat others. I.e. even for non-religious folks like me, the Golden Rule does have significance.

But then, I have always known that interpersonal relationships are reflections. What's that old Biblical phrase? You reap what you sow.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I'm just on here for the social media aspect of it.
But is there something wrong with that?

No. You come to engage. That isn't trolling. The trolls are all about the "gotcha" moments and negativity. They don't engage. They throw stones hoping they'll rile someone up.

No one is suggesting banning trolls.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

No one is suggesting banning trolls.

Can't we ban one though? Just one? You know only one. Just one little banning would make me so happy!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Uncle G., you know you ARE a moderator, don't you? If you really want to ban someone for a day or two, just to get it off your chest, you have that level of authority. Of course, it may not be for the best reason, but you know Jon's policy on the subject of bans.

 

[Pat Hartman]

but you know Jon's policy on the subject of bans.

You really didn't need to go into lecture mode. I'm hoping that you could see that Uncle was teasing one of our trolls unless you've caught the liberal's disease of being unable to see irony or humor.

 

[DickyP]

If I had my way it would be like an old fashioned Gentleman's Club and politics and religion would be totally banned!

What me? Old fashioned?

 

[Jon]

If I had my way it would be like an old fashioned Gentleman's Club and politics and religion would be totally banned!

What me? Old fashioned?

That sounds like a good name for a forum section: The Gentleman's Club. And of course, one for women too.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I maybe wrong but I suspect the analytics for this site are pretty favorable even with the dreaded politics.