Jump to content
270soft Forum

Poll On The Actions And Influence Of admin_270 On This Forum


The Blood
 Share

Poll On The Actions And Influence Of admin_270 On This Forum  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Do You Believe admin_270 Spends An Unjustified Amount Of Time Arguing With Forum Members And Inflaming Conversations Found On This Site?

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      7
  2. 2. Do You Believe admin_270 Is Responsible For Belittling Forum Members, Feigning Superior Knowledge On Certain Subjects, And Outright Insulting Those He Disagrees With?

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      7
  3. 3. Do You Believe That admin_270 Often Engages In Bad-Faith Arguments And Refuses To Properly Engage Arguments Contradicting His Own?

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      7
  4. 4. Do You Believe That admin_270 Has Played A Role In Furthering The Toxic, Argument-Filled, And Oftentimes Unbearable Environment Of This Forum?

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      9
  5. 5. Do You Have Confidence In Him As The Admin Of This Forum?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      8

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 09/28/2020 at 05:16 AM

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

You can say what you want about admin.

But calling this forum "Toxic, argument filled, and unbearable" is a fallacy, and is unnecessary. Just because the same couple people argue on this forum all the time doesn't mean you should make it a blanket statement. @The Blood

^^^^^

We're all good people who get along 95% of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

You can say what you want about admin.

But calling this forum "Toxic, argument filled, and unbearable" is a fallacy, and is unnecessary. Just because the same couple people argue on this forum all the time doesn't mean you should make it a blanket statement. @The Blood

Of course. I deeply enjoy this forum and many of the people on it. Despite this, I haven't been very active in the political discussion here for a reason, and it's because many of the posts here have been invaded with constant arguing. However, this problem does not characterize the entire forum, and many of the individuals on here are fun, intelligent, and great people.

 

I am sorry for making such a blanket statement, and I should have worded the question in a far better way. It goes without saying that this forum is not an toxic site, though I stand by my belief that there is a problem with kindness and the general discourse here.

I apologize.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck it.

 

I wanted this poll to be a reflection on the way we treat each other on this forum. I have seen so many vitriolic debates, arguments, and personal attacks that I wanted to have us and Admin look at the ways we collectively guide the conversation here. I can criticize Admin's actions on this site until my last breath, but this poll is appearing to have been the wrong way to do it. Instead of awakening a collective discussion around this forum, all this poll has done is create more division and confusion. I did not intend to attack the very character of this forum. There are many problems here, but in the end many of you are amazing people. I did not intend to attack Admin personally. I will criticize his actions here all day, but in the end I will never attack him as a person. I did not intend to increase the division found here. I would never look to divide this forum or to create more tension. I wanted this poll to do the opposite. I never intended to make the final question seem like an active attack on Admin's role. It was a very stupid and rushed question. I shouldn't have made it, and as much as I criticize Admin, I don't want to make it seem like I want to depose him. This is his forum, he is the admin. If he wants to step down as admin,  I will support him, but I have no real say in such a matter. 

 

This was a rushed poll made in the wake of months of constant tension and arguments on here, and in the wake of seeing someone I hold in high regard, @Hestia11, attacked and belittled by Admin.

 

I am sorry to @admin_270, and I am sorry to anyone who saw this poll as one of division or of insult to the forum or to Admin.

 

 

vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75 @Mark_W

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@admin_270, @The Blood both made professional, courteous, apologies where they didn't blame anyone for what they said or did. I'm glad this was the conclusion to this. Hopefully everyone involved has learned something for this, I know I have.

Everyone on this forum is a wonderful person who contributes to the unique culture we have here in their own way. I usually despise talking about politics with people, but with you guys I can do it all day. From @vcczar's leadership, insight, polls, and all-around contribution to @Patine's wittiness, excessive usage of adjectives, and his intelligence, @Reagan04's deep and broad knowledge of elections, government, policy, charisma and humor, and @Actinguy and @Conservative Elector 2's level-headedness, reasonableness, and informativeness, and so many more, this forum wouldn't be complete without y'all. This is why I come back here everyday. We're at our best when we're having insightful discussion, and not at each other's throats (though thankfully, we're good most of the time). I know i'm not the only one who thinks this.

But damnit I got work in 4 hours and I need to sleep so I'll see y'all tomorrow.

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cenzonico said:

Germany 1933

Actually, the great majority of contested elections in the world are MMP, PR, or STV - only a minority are actually FPTP, and only ones in Australia and it's component States and Territories are Second Preference. The demand and potential is just immense - and is withering on the vine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SilentLiberty said:

Most members on this forum have went after others. I've been belittled and asked if I was drunk before. The things people will say will hurt. I think this poll is bad faith in and of it self though.

You have my permission to go after me when drunk. Traditionally on the internet those are the best post!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Actually, the great majority of contested elections in the world are MMP, PR, or STV - only a minority are actually FPTP, and only ones in Australia and it's component States and Territories are Second Preference. The demand and potential is just immense - and is withering on the vine.

Yeah, I understand. I was simply referring to the possibility if more electoral systems were added or Chancellor Infinity was released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cenzonico said:

Yeah, I understand. I was simply referring to the possibility if more electoral systems were added or Chancellor Infinity was released.

I was actually just greatly broadening the possibilities from your one suggestion. So all is well. We're on the same page. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Look guys, if people are going to be making posts attacking Trump, polls attacking Trump, and so on, they can't cry 'not fair' when someone pushes back. Especially when it's, say, 5-1 against, which is the typical ratio here. And especially when they consistently lose the factual arguments.

I was with you until “factual arguments.”

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Look guys, if people are going to be making posts attacking Trump, polls attacking Trump, and so on, they can't cry 'not fair' when someone pushes back. Especially when it's, say, 5-1 against, which is the typical ratio here. And especially when they consistently lose the factual arguments.

Fair points on most of this. Two corrections though.

I think it's more like 10-1 against.

I'd have to see a factual argument for your claim to factual argumentative superiority. I don't really see you being any more gifted at wielding facts than the best of us on here.

One thing I do notice that you are good at is taking a question, restating it or avoiding the question to ask a question that you can then defend better than the original question and dodgy tactics like that. Ted Cruz does that a lot in debates. He can't make his case on their ground so he resets himself on defensible ground of his own choosing. This could arguably be the doesn't "properly engage in arguments contradicting your own" comment from the poll.  Your claim to be the victor on factual arguments ("singlehandedly defeating 5 anti-Trumpers in my own forum in one blow!") might align with Blood's comment "feigning superior knowledge on certain subjects."

For the most part, while you are argumentative, and the debate is enjoyable, you aren't necessarily convincing, especially to the more fact-based people on this forum, in many of your attempts. At times you are but not enough to claim to be a consistent victor.  I have not seen anyone on this forum (myself included) consistently win arguments, factual or otherwise, on this forum enough to claim superiority in this area.

To claim that you hold some sort of superiority over your "fan base"/ "consumers" is rather insulting to the entire forum.  It might be that this comment of yours is just an angry pushback on the poll @The Blood made. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

Fair points on most of this. Two corrections though.

I think it's more like 10-1 against.

I'd have to see a factual argument for your claim to factual argumentative superiority. I don't really see you being any more gifted at wielding facts than the best of us on here.

One thing I do notice that you are good at is taking a question, restating it or avoiding the question to ask a question that you can then defend better than the original question and dodgy tactics like that. Ted Cruz does that a lot in debates. He can't make his case on their ground so he resets himself on defensible ground of his own choosing. This could arguably be the doesn't "properly engage in arguments contradicting your own" comment from the poll.  Your claim to be the victor on factual arguments ("singlehandedly defeating 5 anti-Trumpers in my own forum in one blow!") might align with Blood's comment "feigning superior knowledge on certain subjects."

For the most part, while you are argumentative, and the debate is enjoyable, you aren't necessarily convincing, especially to the more fact-based people on this forum, in many of your attempts. At times you are but not enough to claim to be a consistent victor.  I have not seen anyone on this forum (myself included) consistently win arguments, factual or otherwise, on this forum enough to claim superiority in this area.

To claim that you hold some sort of superiority over your "fan base"/ "consumers" is rather insulting to the entire forum.  It might be that this comment of yours is just an angry pushback on the poll @The Blood made. 

 

No, not intending that to be derogatory. Do you think you consistently are more factually correct than not when discussing Trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

No, not intending that to be derogatory. Do you think you consistently are more factually correct than not when discussing Trump?

When the discussion is not opinion-based and is fact-based, then I think I generally am more correct than not. I think most people tend not to get in fact-based arguments unless they have facts that support what they are saying. 

There's also assumptions on facts that are not yet fully revealed, which leads the fact-argument to become more opinion-based. Those are hybrid arguments, which I think compose most discussion on this board. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Would you at least agree that having disagreeing voices on these things tends to help correct for confirmation bias and group think?

I absolutely agree but equally important is when one accepts the validity of the other point of view. I try to do this in most areas, but I admit I'm rather intolerant of intolerance (the mighty paradox), especially in regards to social conservatism. 

I've said many times before in this forum that I'm generally able to compromise on things from say center-left to far-left. Another analogy I've made is what I call the Marco Rubio line. Rubio and anyone less conservative than him is within my cone of tolerance for a politicians. Anyone right of Rubio is outside my cone of tolerance. This means anyone to the right of Rubio is likely going to have to put more of an effort to make a point or be convincing, ideally by explaining themselves to a left-wing audience (the forum for the most part) rather than just explaining their opinions to themselves (speaking as if their audience is them). 

In regards to group think, we have a mix of people here, but between Liberals, Progressives, and anti-Trump Conservatives mostly (and 1 member of Patinism). In regards to confirmation bias, that does exist here, but a lot of the evidence (polls for instance) confirm these biases. 

In order to combat Confirmation Bias, I do try to be impartial when doing by "State of the Race" or "Election 2020 state" reports. One sign of this is 1) FL has been Red on my map despite Biden consistently leading in FL. 2) Until recently, the same in NC. 3) I keep GA and TX Red even when Biden is polling a lead.  In fact, there is not one instance in which a flip a state for Biden and Trump is leading or tied in a poll. Despite this I do sometimes fall pray to wishful thinking, the tax situation perhaps. There's no proof  (yet)Trump has done anything illegal; yet, I jumped to the conclusion that what he has done is worthy of punishment, primarily because of the oddity of a billionaire not paying taxes 10 of 15 years and owing less money than most Americans and paying more taxes to other countries than his own (strange for an America first president). It's definitely an ethical issue and speaks ill of our tax code, probably more than it does on Trump. However, I don't think we have all the facts on Trump's taxes. I hope this will force him to release the full information.

Would you admit that you are also susceptible to confirmation biases?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

In order to combat Confirmation Bias, I do try to be impartial when doing by "State of the Race" or "Election 2020 state" reports. One sign of this is 1) FL has been Red on my map despite Biden consistently leading in FL. 2) Until recently, the same in NC. 3) I keep GA and TX Red even when Biden is polling a lead.

Yes, I think you're doing a fair job on this. Based on what you're going off of (polls), if anything you are perhaps being generous to Trump.

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Would you admit that you are also susceptible to confirmation biases?

Of course - that's one of the reasons I wade into these conversations. I'm looking to see where my weak points are, obvious things I've missed, considerations I haven't heard, and so on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Would you at least agree that having disagreeing voices on these things tends to help correct for confirmation bias and group think?

Ah, so now you are Winston Smith against the cronies of Big Brother? Well, given, if that's the case (or narrative), my often unpopular views of calling both major American political parties and the dinosaur of an electoral system and the plutocratic donors that make them collectively unchallengeable, de facto, and the crimes, betrayals, and lies both parties constantly get away would have already made me Emmanuel Goldstein. :P

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edouard said:

This forum needs a Patriot Act.

You have called for high treason! Snowden was the Patriot, not the traitors Bush, Obama, and the lawmakers who supported the (un)Patriot and committed high treason against their nation, people, and Constitution! It must not be repeated here!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Patine said:

You have called for high treason! Snowden was the Patriot, not the traitors Bush, Obama, and the lawmakers who supported the (un)Patriot and committed high treason against their nation, people, and Constitution! It must not be repeated here!

You know I was trolling my dear friend !

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...