Banned threads, WHY!!!!

[Brumby]

Sound advise , especially if you are trying to have a debate with someone who thinks the sunshine out of the backside on one side, where as on the other side, they are all devils in disguise!

A sure sign of desperation is having to resort to ad hominem because the emperor has no clothes.

Those advocating for political discussions - don't for a moment even think that it is a platform that you can freely propagate your views onto others without facing any pushback. Politics cross different worldviews and there are others who would passionately defend their worldviews. It is a two way street. If emotionally you can't handle the subject don't start it.

This forum is not the extension of the CCP where opposing political views can be suppressed or censored. Even worst, men in black coats knocking on doors.

Rules are meant to protect all members. If you wish to have a free hand to engage in political discussions there are other forums.

 

[Blitzo]

A sure sign of desperation is having to resort to ad hominem because the emperor has no clothes.

Those advocating for political discussions - don't for a moment even think that it is a platform that you can freely propagate your views onto others without facing any pushback. Politics cross different worldviews and there are others who would passionately defend their worldviews. It is a two way street. If emotionally you can't handle the subject don't start it.

This forum is not the extension of the CCP where opposing political views can be suppressed or censored. Even worst, men in black coats knocking on doors.

Rules are meant to protect all members. If you wish to have a free hand to engage in political discussions there are other forums.

The present rules are certainly meant to protect all members and to allow pushback from all domains.

But I think it may be worth exploring whether the forum may benefit from undergoing a revision in that regard. Ultimately it comes down to what we think the primary role of this forum is meant to be.

In theory I am open to all civil political discussion from numerous backgrounds. But the reason why SDF is so unique is because it is one of a handful of English language forums where leading edge PLA watching can be done. More often than not the contributors that are the most valuable for that role are of a pro-Chinese inclination, and I believe the forum should exist to retain those users as much as possible.

 

[Air Force Brat]

The present rules are certainly meant to protect all members and to allow pushback from all domains.

But I think it may be worth exploring whether the forum may benefit from undergoing a revision in that regard. Ultimately it comes down to what we think the primary role of this forum is meant to be.

In theory I am open to all civil political discussion from numerous backgrounds. But the reason why SDF is so unique is because it is one of a handful of English language forums where leading edge PLA watching can be done. More often than not the contributors that are the most valuable for that role are of a pro-Chinese inclination, and I believe the forum should exist to retain those users as much as possible.

Blitzo, honestly Bub, as one who has expressed a desire to be a moderator for a very long time? your role should be to be honest, fair, and objective, there are many Chinese posters who fit into the category of "valued member of SDF", who are objective and honest. To make a highly prejudicial statement that pro-Chinese posters are more valuable to SDF is rather offensive, and to suggest we ought to change the rules and apply them in a manner that favors Chinese posters is expressing a lack of "judicial temperament".

Have a look at Deino, Jeff Head, BDPopeye, Terran Empire, Mr.Jura, Mr. Brumby, Obi Wan, Asif Iqbal, our new friend Anzha, and I could go on, I really think you ought to re-think your statement, more importantly your thinking, could be one reason Webby has "put off" making those assignments. The reason SDF has become the "high water mark" for Chinese military forums is reasoned judgement and good will on the part of our moderators..

Much better a few honest, fair mods, than too many who are biased and prejudicial...

Now lets be honest, each SDF poster has our own bias and most of us favor our own countries and their policies, but our outstanding mods have "put on their moderator's robes, lifted their shield, and strive mightily to be fair arbiters of sound judgement....

I like you Brother, respect you a great deal, and no doubt you are one of SDF's "bright lights", and while I think you would make a great mod, I would ask that you try to look at things in a fair and judicial manner if you are indeed accorded that "great honor"....

What continues to make SDF greater than the sum of its parts, is the spirit of openness, even brotherhood among its members, even when we may passionately disagree, we can do that without being hateful or disagreeable....

I want to commend Webby for allowing us to be somewhat "self moderating" of necessity, I think it works rather well, but it depends on you and I "self moderating" and hopefully conducting ourselves as gentlemen..

not trying to "force my views on you", just asking you to consider the full weight of responsibility that comes with desiring to "moderate" a military forum, with members from all across the spectrum.

 

[Blitzo]

Blitzo, honestly Bub, as one who has expressed a desire to be a moderator for a very long time? your role should be to be honest, fair, and objective, there are many Chinese posters who fit into the category of "valued member of SDF", who are objective and honest. To make a highly prejudicial statement that pro-Chinese posters are more valuable to SDF is rather offensive, and to suggest we ought to change the rules and apply them in a manner that favors Chinese posters is expressing a lack of "judicial temperament".

Have a look at Deino, Jeff Head, BDPopeye, Terran Empire, Mr.Jura, Mr. Brumby, Obi Wan, Asif Iqbal, our new friend Anzha, and I could go on, I really think you ought to re-think your statement, more importantly your thinking, could be one reason Webby has "put off" making those assignments. The reason SDF has become the "high water mark" for Chinese military forums is reasoned judgement and good will on the part of our moderators..

Much better a few honest, fair mods, than too many who are biased and prejudicial...

Now lets be honest, each SDF poster has our own bias and most of us favor our own countries and their policies, but our outstanding mods have "put on their moderator's robes, lifted their shield, and strive mightily to be fair arbiters of sound judgement....

I like you Brother, respect you a great deal, and no doubt you are one of SDF's "bright lights", and while I think you would make a great mod, I would ask that you try to look at things in a fair and judicial manner if you are indeed accorded that "great honor"....

What continues to make SDF greater than the sum of its parts, is the spirit of openness, even brotherhood among its members, even when we may passionately disagree, we can do that without being hateful or disagreeable....

I want to commend Webby for allowing us to be somewhat "self moderating" of necessity, I think it works rather well, but it depends on you and I "self moderating" and hopefully conducting ourselves as gentlemen..

not trying to "force my views on you", just asking you to consider the full weight of responsibility that comes with desiring to "moderate" a military forum, with members from all across the spectrum.

I've been offered the role of moderator before, multiple times, and on the most recent of those I've accepted an offer. Whether it ends up being carried out is another matter and not up to me.

But being a moderator not something that I've wanted to "aspire" to nor is it something that I particularly "desire". It's something instead that others have asked me and suggested for me.


Let me be clear -- what I suggested in the previous comment would obviously be something that would be decided by the webmaster and likely the senior moderating team. It would be a significant overhaul in the way this forum conducts its discussions and would entail an overhaul of the rules as well.
The current rules exist for a reason and the moderating team does their best job to uphold it. If I were to become a moderator I would of course uphold the same current rules as well.
However I would also continue to believe that it may be useful to change the rules so as to make this forum better tailored for why I believe this forum is useful.


For me, the reason why SDF is so useful is because there are certain users of certain backgrounds that provide the most useful information for the purposes of PLA watching.
Not all users on this forum are equal considering the purposes of being useful for the goal of PLA watching, and I believe retaining certain users of certain backgrounds is more useful for that goal than seeking to retain users of other backgrounds.
Therefore, changing the rules to create an environment to retain users of some backgrounds vs others I think may be beneficial for the purpose of PLA watching.


However I will gladly repeat myself in saying that I believe the individuals who contribute the most to SDF for PLA watching tend to be individuals with a more pro-China bias. They are the ones who tend to provide new rumours, new pictures, new articles, and new analysis.

There's nothing wrong with users of other worldviews and interests who do not contribute significantly to PLA watching -- there's nothing wrong with observing and chipping in occasionally when the discussion happens to get close to an area that they have some knowledge in, and there's nothing wrong with primarily participating in other subsections like the "world military" subsection. But I think it is worth it for the forum to consider accommodating and retaining the individuals who provide more valuable contributions vs those others whose contributions are not related to the main PLA watching threads.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Blitzo would make a better choice for moderator than most who I've seen who have been suggested. Yes of course anti-China members would make the best moderators... not surprised. So don't go putting shade on Blitzo for not being a moderator because one thinks they know the reasons why when they haven't been chosen as moderator either.

I find it laughable that the people who think they know better can't win a discussion with their own arguments. If you know better, you would be able to last through the gauntlet and defend your arguments easily but instead people want to stop members from reading anything that's unfavorable to the US. Remember when the same notorious suspects wanted to ban RT? Is anyone here someone important? Do any of us have influence over governments? No. It just shows how much some don't want nobodies to think anything they don't like. Who's the one not for freedom when they want to police thoughts of every single human being in the world. You can't do that without taking over the world and oppressing people. No belief in freedom and democracy there. Yes anyone can claim the space in a ten by ten cage where they can move around is freedom.

 

[Blitzo]

Leaving aside the issue of who should be a mod or who shouldn't, and leaving aside larger issues of freedom and speech and so on, I think going forwards the key questions for the senior moderating team and the webmaster to consider (when his attention returns...) is to consider what kind of userbase and role they want for SDF, and any rule change or lack of rule change should reflect it.

My views about SDF have been expressed above, and it ultimately comes down to what I think SDF offers that most other English language defense forums do not -- i.e.: that SDF is one among a rather small number of English language defense forums that tends to be at the leading edge of tracking new PLA developments, and that ability is a reflection of the valuable users it attracts and manages to retain.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...

I want to commend Webby for allowing us to be somewhat "self moderating" of necessity, ...

LOL, as in 'make a virtue of necessity'?

Brother, do you know if that Webmaster is even alive??

 

[Jura The idiot]

Actually I don't know ... I'm not 100% sure anymore but we already agreed more than a year ago who could and would help us and we got the promise they would be installed or promoted soon. Nothing happened since then

Leaving aside the issue of who should be a mod or who shouldn't, and leaving aside larger issues of freedom and speech and so on, I think going forwards the key questions for the senior moderating team and the webmaster to consider (when his attention returns...) is to consider what kind of userbase and role they want for SDF, and any rule change or lack of rule change should reflect it.

My views about SDF have been expressed above, and it ultimately comes down to what I think SDF offers that most other English language defense forums do not -- i.e.: that SDF is one among a rather small number of English language defense forums that tends to be at the leading edge of tracking new PLA developments, and that ability is a reflection of the valuable users it attracts and manages to retain.

was now briefly thinking about the situation:

the easiest would be to establish like Hyde Park Section and let it be, BUT move there (or outright remove) any fishy posts Mods noticed elsewhere;

such section would of course cover controversial topic like the SCS; bans on Chinese companies; Chinese rare-earth elements threat; and so on and so forth

 

[Brumby]

In theory I am open to all civil political discussion from numerous backgrounds. But the reason why SDF is so unique is because it is one of a handful of English language forums where leading edge PLA watching can be done. More often than not the contributors that are the most valuable for that role are of a pro-Chinese inclination, and I believe the forum should exist to retain those users as much as possible.

Like you I am receptive to political discussions if they remain civil with focus on policies. Unfortunately such discussions seldom remain civil. You can find plenty evidence of it with recent disguised threads and their discussions.

Your central emphasis if I understand it correctly is by opening up the scope, the landscape will be more attractive as a retention mechanism for China watchers. However it is my view inherent in your premise such an expansion will overall be a positive experience. I think such a premise carries equal risk of negative experience because politics seldom result in positive experience and consequently may be counter productive to your intention.
The present rules are meant to protect all members.

 

[Blitzo]

Like you I am receptive to political discussions if they remain civil with focus on policies. Unfortunately such discussions seldom remain civil. You can find plenty evidence of it with recent disguised threads and their discussions.

Your central emphasis if I understand it correctly is by opening up the scope, the landscape will be more attractive as a retention mechanism for China watchers. However it is my view inherent in your premise such an expansion will overall be a positive experience. I think such a premise carries equal risk of negative experience because politics seldom result in positive experience and consequently may be counter productive to your intention.
The present rules are meant to protect all members.

I believe that if there are negative experiences with the rule changes I describe, they will likely be experienced for individuals who I do not consider as valuable for the purposes of PLA watching.

For those individuals, they have no need to participate in the proposed political subsection of the forum in the first place.
And if they feel the environment in the political subsection is hostile and choose to leave the forum, the impact on the primary purpose of PLA watching is not likely to be adversely effected.

I would also seek to correct that I'm seeking an environment to retain valuelable PLA watchers, not China watchers.
I've been here a while now and I think I've tracked enough new developments over the last decade or more, to recognize the individuals and backgrounds who tend to contribute more higher value inputs for tracking and analysing PLA developments, and my suggestions are of course derived from my own perception over this time.