[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Its not discussing seperate politicians. Its the constant turning threads into a singular topic. Like..lets say a member started bring every single politics thread (and some threads that arent to do with politics) round to Rees Mogg. This would be an issue. Where, mentioning Rees Mogg in a thread would not. It would become an even bigger issue if suddenly a couple+ of posters started doing this, and quoting all of each others posts in the derailed threads to keep the derailment going each time. Which would often end up in an argument that is offtopic, samey, and could have been stopped before it even started.

The huge problem we have to sort out now is, that there are now so many members who are bringing all threads round to Corbyn...that any mention of Corbyn turns entire threads into bickering about Corbyn. I ****ing hate the word Corbyn recently, not just for himself, but because I have typed it, and read it way too many times.

Can any of you think of a solution here, as I actually am struggling, a lot...to think of solutions beyond deleting posts when they start taking threads offtopic. Given removing the regular offtopic posts (that usually are just sniping...and turn into full blown arguments half the time) is apparently the wrong thing to do I do welcome all suggestions here. Feels a bit..rock and a hard place.

Well I feel I should probably say here that that whole thread appeared starting with him not being an angel and going straight to scum almost straight after I had previously posted a thread about him being jostled at a university. Which was in fact news and was a subject of concern because of how sinister it all looked. I've seen uni protesters before but you don't often see them masked up like that. You could say that very thread was a Reese Mogg jibe, right after the news one.

However, if you don't allow people to express their view that is censorship. But allowing them to express their view is also allowing mentions of the opposition in threads where MPs are called names if you letting the name calling go on. You could try having a politics section away from debates. You could try some specific rules but then people should be told if rules changes because they aren't mind readers.

The most important thing is the same rules for everyone. If we aren't allowed to even mention Corbyn's name then others shouldn't be allowed to call MPs scum etc. There has to be some balance surely?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Vicky, with great respect... You must have seem some of the stuff posted about the Tories. Not just May, but any Tory who's in the news that day. Have you had a lot of complaints about that? Because it's looking pretty one-sided at the moment. Like I said, Corbyn is the leader of one of the main parties in the UK. And he is a controversial figure. Discussions about politics always get heated... but it looks like Corbyn is being singled out for special attention? I've seen some pretty crappy stuff posted about the Tories... but you know, that's politics. And if we, as adults, are going to discuss politics, some feelings are going to get hurt. It's the way it is. I don't support Corbyn, but I don't support May either. And I feel like as a 37 year old professional woman I shouldn't be told that" you were only making that comment to upset [insert name of Corbyn supporter] when it is not true. At the moment it looks like Admin is taking sides and not being impartial... otherwise you're going to have to police every mention, of every politician, from every party in case someone feels like their being baited.

Its not about crappy things or whatever being said, honestly its not. People can be as crappy as they like about him (without death threats and such, the usual rules) and yes politics topics do get heated. Of course.

But this is specifically about every thread seemingly coming back to Corbyn bickering. I wouldn't say its about baiting either tbh. Its just the general derailing of so many threads in this section. That Rees Mogg thread right..I didn't see it while it was all going on so can only go on what was deleted and when, but within 4 comments..there was a Corbyn post. Nothing at all about the OP, just a random Corbyn post. Within a few minutes of that, another, and another, then quotes of these Corbyn posts. None of these were actually referencing Mogg, or what the thread was about, or even saying anything at all really besides basically 'Corbyn is bad', then that post quoted 'yes, he is', then some random comment about him killing babies or something. Do you not see how this is quite..childish? And certainly not any kind of debate. I would argue that many of the replies in the thread were childish, and that the actual OP could have done with some writing in it to set the debate...but this is not just about that thread. This has been going on for a while now. In so many threads.

No we have not had complaints (recently) about Tories. However that would change if, as I said, all of a sudden each and every politics thread (and some other threads) suddenly started being brought round to whichever Tory.

If you start to notice someone (or someones) regularly bringing threads offtopic by mentioning May, or random Tories, or even Trump or some other person do let us know. It will be treat exactly the same. Its the consistent one liners that are nothing to do with the thread and all about a singular topic that are the problem here, not the person.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

What about moving all off-topic discussions of Corbyn (or other issues that derail threads) into specific big threads that have already been created for that purpose? A bit like that thread TS was posting in the other week that he suggested was recreated, if a discussion about x turns into a discussion like 'yeah x is x but CORBYN IS Y', then rather than the posts being removed which seems to be frustrating people, they're moved to a Jeremy Corbyn thread (I think one was created recently, and certainly arista had the original when he first became leader and updated it for about 18 months), where the members involved can then discuss his relation to the original topic to their hearts content, while everyone else continues the original discussion back in the main thread.

I don't feel this would satisfy people either, but it is an interesting suggestion and may be better than deleting posts. An issue here would be, many of the posts won't actually be a discussion though. Like, if all the offtopic things were moved there the thread would read

Corbyn is a bad man

People who support Corbyn are idiots

But Corbyn is just as bad

You support Corbyn so shut up

Actual well thought out post mentioning Corbyns name but being mainly on original topic..I felt would be fair to put in here but honestly, such a post would not be moved in the first place

A few offtopic posts is fine. Hell even whole threads taken offtopic are fine if the discussion naturally goes that way. But when you have a 'but corbyn' post a few minutes into a thread about something else, and then the same thing happening to the next created thread and so on..well its..I don't know the word to actualy put here.

But TLDR; I think that would annoy people much more. And would not stop them feeling 'censored'.

[Crimson Dynamo]

recent baiting thread on Jacob Rees MOgg


page one comments:

Originally Posted by Dezzy

He's scum.

Originally Posted by Underscore

100% agree.

Originally Posted by Withano

Hes a dickhead, I doubt many people like him.

Originally Posted by ethanjames

what a knob

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

That's the problem, people do like him. He's a cultural Icon in Eton, Cambridge and Oxford and he's the cute Harry Potter for a lot of people who read right wing propaganda.

He's a vile saboteur and an enemy of the people. He's UKIP on steroids and the scariest man in parliament.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

recent baiting thread on Jacob Rees MOgg

page one comments:

The thread is about Rees Mogg though. Can you find any examples of anyone else being brought up over and over again randomly in different topics? (except Trump, if you are going back a while. As we did have issues with that at one stage too, luckily thats died out now...but those members who were continually on about trump kicked off that their posts were removed too, thinking about it)

IF that was a thread about something Corbyn/other random person had done or something, and those posts were in it, all about Rees Mogg with no other substance and nothing at all to do with the actual topic, then they would also be deleted. Even moreso if they were all being quoted and the thread was filling up with more Mogg crap.

I don't know why I am arguing about that Rees Mogg thread as I have already acknowedged that I probably would have handled it differently in the first place. But this does not negate the loads of threads that descend into Corbyn bickering (both supporters and detractors end up on this, obviously)

This is not about whos on the recieving end of whichever negative/positive comments. Its about the continual bringing round of many threads that are nothing to do with Corbyn, to Corbyn.

I don't really know what else to say on this as I feel I am still just reeating myself over and over so Carry on.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

recent baiting thread on Jacob Rees MOgg


page one comments:

Exactly LT. Some really can't handle hearing opposing opinions - it's like kids sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming. Some people need to grow up.

[jet]

Thank you mods for your replies. I'm still not clear though.

Taking the above post by LT as rather a good example because all mentions of Corbyn were deleted, you are saying that from now on in threads about another politician or party Corbyn is not allowed to be mentioned and the people baiting and calling the politician names with the odd relevant post about the actual OP, can all just talk away to each other. Those whose interest lies in comparing him to Corbyn, another possible future PM, or mentioning Corbyn at all will not be allowed to do so and are certainly not allowed to counter the baiting.

So from now on, no Corbyn mentions unless the thread is specifically about him and Labour....but all other politicians and parties can be mentioned elsewhere in other threads, baiting included, like in the above example, but never Corbyn.
That is what is being said, right? Sounds like a death knoll for the political side of SD to me if free discussion is being censored because some don't like a controversial and very current figure's name being brought up so often.

They need their 'safe place' eh?














[/QUOTE]

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You aren't the only person who has a Corbyn avatar and it's a fair question. If someones face is there it makes you think of them. If we aren't supposed to mention him then it's going to be harder if, as well as being the leader of the opposition, we have to keep seeing his face. I can't speak for others but I am personally influenced by visuals.

Interestingly talking of mudslinging, I don't think I've seen Corbyn called scum on a thread in recent history.

Who's the other member? I've just checked Kizzy's and hers is a Theresa May avatar. I don't recall seeing any other Corbyn avatars over the last six weeks or so to be honest.

But sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling. If I'm rarely posting in the Serious Debates section, are you honestly trying to suggest that you seeing mine (and other's) posts in different sections is making you want to talk about Jeremy Corbyn in threads that bear very little relation to him? With all due respect, you're a grown woman - it is your responsibility to determine how you respond to threads - making out that 'the nasty Corbyn avatars put him into my head I couldn't help it ' is just silly. Basically you're just trying to pass the buck because you're unhappy that the mods are asking for threads not to be derailed.

I don't understand people's opposition to the word 'scum' either, I really couldn't care less if people called Corbyn that or not...he and his supporters have been insulted in far worse terms on this forum.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't feel this would satisfy people either, but it is an interesting suggestion and may be better than deleting posts. An issue here would be, many of the posts won't actually be a discussion though. Like, if all the offtopic things were moved there the thread would read







A few offtopic posts is fine. Hell even whole threads taken offtopic are fine if the discussion naturally goes that way. But when you have a 'but corbyn' post a few minutes into a thread about something else, and then the same thing happening to the next created thread and so on..well its..I don't know the word to actualy put here.

But TLDR; I think that would annoy people much more. And would not stop them feeling 'censored'.

That's a fair point actually. But then often it's those pointless posts which descend into a side-debate/argument which then derail the whole thread, as is what happened a couple of weeks ago with the thread Toy Soldier, Kizzy and Livia were involved in (sorry I cba to go and find it). He was brought up, the bickering began, TS suggested the thread be recreated so both the Corbyn and original debate could continue and even Kizzy - the Corbyn supporter - disagreed!

You know me, I have very little issue with people discussing whatever they like, but I do agree that when almost every thread in this section is taken off-topic it's annoying as hell. So I just think it'd be better that if the bickering and mudslinging begins, it's moved to a big thread where they can all continue until they're blue in the face, while everyone else can get back to the topic at hand.

You wouldn't be censoring them, they could still continue their discussion about how and why Corbyn is somehow related to the original topic, but it wouldn't be derailing the debate in the original thread itself.

[Crimson Dynamo]

and Jack, at least take the santa hat off

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and Jack, at least take the santa hat off

There's definitely a joke in there about snowflakes

[smudgie]

Simple answer.
Ban Corbyn and ALL mention of him from TIBB.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Who's the other member? I've just checked Kizzy's and hers is a Theresa May avatar. I don't recall seeing any other Corbyn avatars over the last six weeks or so to be honest.

But sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling. If I'm rarely posting in the Serious Debates section, are you honestly trying to suggest that you seeing mine (and other's) posts in different sections is making you want to talk about Jeremy Corbyn in threads that bear very little relation to him? With all due respect, you're a grown woman - it is your responsibility to determine how you respond to threads - making out that 'the nasty Corbyn avatars put him into my head I couldn't help it ' is just silly. Basically you're just trying to pass the buck because you're unhappy that the mods are asking for threads not to be derailed.

I've explained the point without calling you silly etc. I have nothing further to say about it. It's not 'about you.'

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Simple answer.
Ban Corbyn and ALL mention of him from TIBB.

and all his supporters

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I've explained the point without calling you silly etc. I have nothing further to say about it. It's not 'about you.'

I didn't call you silly, I said the implication you were making was silly. Because it was, hence why you can't defend it.

If it's not about me, then you shouldn't have made an indirect comment about my avatar should you?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I didn't call you silly, I said the implication you were making was silly. Because it was, hence why you can't defend it.

If it's not about me, then you shouldn't have made an indirect comment about my avatar should you?

I understand Jaxie's point. Looking at Corbyn's face makes me feel sick. I'm really not being flippant here, I'm serious.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

There's definitely a joke in there about snowflakes

LMAOOOOOOooooooooo...


As jet mentioned, thanks to the mods for their replies here. It's good to know it's being looked at and not just put down to "you're baiting a Corbyn fan". Much appreciated.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Livia

LMAOOOOOOooooooooo...


As jet mentioned, thanks to the mods for their replies here. It's good to know it's being looked at and not just put down to "you're baiting a Corbyn fan". Much appreciated.

Yes, it is...and I hope definite rules about when we can mention Corbyn are posted because at the moment they are still confusing and seem unfair.
This is as important for the mods too as what one mod does another may not. It's too open to interpretation and bias, although I've always found Niamh and Vicky in particular to be very fair.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jack_

What about moving all off-topic discussions of Corbyn (or other issues that derail threads) into specific big threads that have already been created for that purpose? A bit like that thread TS was posting in the other week that he suggested was recreated, if a discussion about x turns into a discussion like 'yeah x is x but CORBYN IS Y', then rather than the posts being removed which seems to be frustrating people, they're moved to a Jeremy Corbyn thread (I think one was created recently, and certainly arista had the original when he first became leader and updated it for about 18 months), where the members involved can then discuss his relation to the original topic to their hearts content, while everyone else continues the original discussion back in the main thread.

Voice of reason for me you are Jack_

I agree with your idea myself and your point as to arista's thread re Corbyn, is a very strong and valid one.

[Tom4784]

On the issue of the scum thing.

Does anybody that has taken issue with me calling a politician scum take issue with the fact that there's members accusing another politcian of being a terrorist sympathiser?

Would these people take issue if the thread was about Jeremy Corbyn and I called him scum? They wouldn't, they'd probably agree with me.

Lastly, it's been said that calling a politician scum is inflammatory but has anyone that's tried to come for me ever pulled up say, Brillo on her frequent uses of terms such as lefties, snowflakes and Remoaners? Why is what I said unacceptable yet you are all silent when one of your own uses apparently 'inflammatory language'?

I'll tell you why, because it's me, that's what the difference is here and it's completely hypocritical and until you can resolve those hypocrisies then I completely reject what you've said on the issue of me calling a politcian scum (and then explaining why afterwards, something that has been conveniently forgotten about in this thread).

[jet]

Originally Posted by Jack_

You might want to see a doctor about that, if you don't have to wait three weeks for an appointment that is.

Unfortunately a doctor can't do much to erase the sight of bomb victims from my mind, murdered by the IRA, and supported by Corbyn. Every time I see Corbyn's face, I am reminded of the carnage.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by jet

Unfortunately a doctor can't do much to erase the sight of bomb victims from my mind, murdered by the IRA, and supported by Corbyn. Every time I see Corbyn's face, I am reminded of the carnage.

You can turn avatars off in your control panel, just letting you know.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

On the issue of the scum thing.

Does anybody that has taken issue with me calling a politician scum take issue with the fact that there's members accusing another politcian of being a terrorist sympathiser?

Would these people take issue if the thread was about Jeremy Corbyn and I called him scum? They wouldn't, they'd probably agree with me.

Lastly, it's been said that calling a politician scum is inflammatory but has anyone that's tried to come for me ever pulled up say, Brillo on her frequent uses of terms such as lefties, snowflakes and Remoaners? Why is what I said unacceptable yet you are all silent when one of your own uses apparently 'inflammatory language'?

I'll tell you why, because it's me, that's what the difference is here and it's completely hypocritical and until you can resolve those hypocrisies then I completely reject what you've said on the issue of me calling a politcian scum (and then explaining why afterwards, something that has been conveniently forgotten about in this thread).

That is stating a FACT, not an inflammatory opinion.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

On the issue of the scum thing.

Does anybody that has taken issue with me calling a politician scum take issue with the fact that there's members accusing another politcian of being a terrorist sympathiser?

Would these people take issue if the thread was about Jeremy Corbyn and I called him scum? They wouldn't, they'd probably agree with me.

Lastly, it's been said that calling a politician scum is inflammatory but has anyone that's tried to come for me ever pulled up say, Brillo on her frequent uses of terms such as lefties, snowflakes and Remoaners? Why is what I said unacceptable yet you are all silent when one of your own uses apparently 'inflammatory language'?

I'll tell you why, because it's me, that's what the difference is here and it's completely hypocritical and until you can resolve those hypocrisies then I completely reject what you've said on the issue of me calling a politcian scum (and then explaining why afterwards, something that has been conveniently forgotten about in this thread).

Can you back up the accusation of scum with a news report? Or is it just an idle insult because you don't like the person? News reports including those with historic photographs have been posted that call into question Corbyn's sympathies. It's a subject that bears discussion about someone who could be prime minister of this country. Not an insult to your favourite.

This isn't about Brillo, or any issue you might or might not have with her. I don't even remember if she was part of that thread until after all the deletions. I see mention of the far right and calling some us far right as much as Brillo says leftie. You can always find someone who might have said something on both sides of a disagreement but that doesn't mean you, as someone who is supposed to be a moderator and therefore, we hope, impartial should say it. I don't know what else to say to you Dezzy, if you can't see it for yourself.

Personally I've never called Corbyn scum and I wouldn't be that impressed with those doing so in the same way that I wasn't impressed by the Reese Mogg thread. I can only speak for myself but I can tell you that when you ask you are projecting and thinking for people by assuming that is what we would do. Take issue with it when we've said it, not before we've thought of it. I might have said remoaner once or twice back in the early days around the referendum after being called stupid so many times I lost count but once people made a fuss about how they found it offensive I didn't use it anymore.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Jack_

You can turn avatars off in your control panel, just letting you know.

Thanks. I didn't know that.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jet

That is stating a FACT, not an inflammatory opinion.

Werent you asked about 20 times in one thread to provide evidence about a fortnight ago.. and it sort of boiled down to 'well its a fact for me, from my perspective'. Did you ever find evidence for it in the end or are we still stuck there? Genuinely curious.