LOMS and Dewiz status spat

BIGREDIOWAN

BIGREDIOWAN

Mods
I've issued warnings to LOMS and Dewiz for a status update spat that they've gotten into reference politics and all the crap going on across the nation. We've had discussions in the past about reigning the political talk in and keeping that in the politics and religion part of the board. I believe it's time to do that as it's only gonna get worse if we don't take care of it now. This isn't "Politicsboard" afterall, it's "Huskerboard" and I personally get sick of opening the board and seeing 3 or 4 status updates about this stuff. If I'm getting sick of it how much traffic is that pushing away from the site with some members? Here are the quotes:

LOMS: (trolling Dewiz)

Since Dewiz cowardly locks his status updates, here's the difference between some of these groups:
Click to expand...
LOMS: (trolling the board)

If you believe #BLM is a hate group, no offense, but you're a stupid f-ing idiot
Click to expand...
Dewiz: (personal attack on LOMS)

triggered Micah Johnson to gun down 5 officers that Obama never condemned. Not to mention the chaos and destruction they caused in numerous cities in the US.
ANTIFA, Nazis, white supremacist and BLM are all domestic terrorist that need to be disposed of.
You f'ing tool
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good work, BRI. Landlord was clearly spoiling for a fight which he should have taken to the 'Shed, or at least to P&R.

I stepped on your toes here a little bit and I apologize for that. I'm too slow on the draw these days, and was contemplating what to do after reading that "You f'ing tool line" for quite a while. By the time I logged the warning you were somewhere either in between the two of yours, or completed with both of them -- I guess efficient policing comes with experience! :D

 
Agreed on all accounts. Up until a few weeks or even months ago, I was hesitant to have people reprimanded for sharing political content on other parts of the board. Now, I think this is the right call, especially where Dewiz is concerned. He has spent months posting status updates he knows are going to get a reaction from parts of the board and he continued to do it.

 
Now that Dewiz is back, it may be a good time to discuss his status moving forward and what his participation should or shouldn't look like. At the very least, I think we should open it up for discussion and all opinions.

He has eight warnings as a member here. Eight. Before zoogs left the leadership team, he put a comment in Dewiz' suspension note that (in zoogs' opinion) this was his last warning. They all vary in some form of personal attack or trolling. In my opinion, he's on a razor thin edge moving forward. Another clear cut example of trolling or a personal attack should be (at the very least) a long term suspension. A permanent ban isn't out of the question for me, either. I wouldn't say that if he had just a few warnings, but he has a well-documented and tumultuous history, and he has more warnings than any active member I can think of off the top of my head.

 
A couple quick thoughts:

First - Disclaimer: I rarely go into the P&R forum.  So basically anything that goes on in there I have no idea about.  And I realize a lot of his posts/updates involve politics.

Second - Not that it's a great defense but only three of his Warnings have been in the last six years (all this year).  So to some extent he has been better for quite awhile than he was when he was new here.

But I have seen a lot of complaints about him.  However, I really don't remember much for people filing a Report on him.  Not that it necessarily means anything - there are a lot of things that don't get reported.  But people tend to get pretty fired-up about political stuff and the possibility exists for them to think a certain post/update is worse than it is (Board Rules-wise) if it's something they strongly disagree with or have an "how can anyone have that attitude?" thought about.

For as much as I like zoogs, I do think he let his political views skew his judgement on certain posters.  There are some instances where he spoke pretty critically of someone who he disagreed with politically while thinking very similar behavior from the opposite side of the aisle was just a "strong political statement."

So I guess what it comes down to for me is I'd like to see some more in-depth investigation of what is the perceived problem.  Either being reported by another user or something one of us see that can be noted here and investigated a little further.

I'm fine with a short leash.  But I just want to make sure it's a fair one.

 
My opinion on Dewiz is more about his posting habits rather than his posting content. Dewiz stopped going into P&R for months and elected to instead post troll-like status updates because they had a wider audience.

To be clear, my perception of him isn't based his political views, and most of his non-political contributions stray within the boundaries of fairness. My opinion is instead based on his presentation. He spent months effectively trolling the board while being relatively unabated. It would seem disingenuous to let that type of behavior continue should he choose to go down that path once again.

I guess I should also explain my opinion of "short leash," too. I think another clear example of trolling or a personal attack (regardless of the topic) would be pretty egregious. I don't put much weight on the timing associated with a warning versus the other. He know the rules and has been here long enough to know them. I would have a really hard time looking at his profile, seeing nine warnings, and then trying to rationalize why he's still a board member.

Fairness and due process is 100% necessary. I agree. I just believe he's done enough during his membership here to whittle his margin of error quite low.

 
Enhance said:
My opinion on Dewiz is more about his posting habits rather than his posting content. Dewiz stopped going into P&R for months and elected to instead post troll-like status updates because they had a wider audience.

To be clear, my perception of him isn't based his political views, and most of his non-political contributions stray within the boundaries of fairness. My opinion is instead based on his presentation. He spent months effectively trolling the board while being relatively unabated. It would seem disingenuous to let that type of behavior continue should he choose to go down that path once again.

I guess I should also explain my opinion of "short leash," too. I think another clear example of trolling or a personal attack (regardless of the topic) would be pretty egregious. I don't put much weight on the timing associated with a warning versus the other. He know the rules and has been here long enough to know them. I would have a really hard time looking at his profile, seeing nine warnings, and then trying to rationalize why he's still a board member.

Fairness and due process is 100% necessary. I agree. I just believe he's done enough during his membership here to whittle his margin of error quite low.
Click to expand...


And I wouldn't necessarily argue any of that.  I just haven't seen a lot of it - which doesn't mean it didn't happen.  

But I've also seen some of his status updates that people refer to as trolling that I don't really think are trolling.  They're more of a "there's no way someone can actually believe that so he must be trolling" type of attitude.  Or at least are the same types of posts that others make from the other side of the aisle bur for whatever reason his seem to attract more attention.  Perhaps that's because he has been in fact trolling other times that I haven't seen.  That's entirely possible.

But I think over the last year or so there's been a tendency by quite a few posters to try to label a post that they strongly disagree with as trolling.  Especially in the political context, I think that's a pretty slippery slope.  

I was simply trying to point out that I'm not sure there's been a whole lot brought up through the Reporting function or discussed here.  I personally would like to see a bit more of what people are complaining about but it wouldn't necessarily have to be that way.

For example, LOMS has a lot more of a warning history in the last six years than Dewiz has (Dewiz has more overall).  He's gotten a seven-day suspension, a three-day suspension and a 14-day suspension.  So is he on the same short leash?  

Again, I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, Enhance.  Just want to make sure everyone is getting a fair deal.

 
^^^ This. We have to be careful to differentiate between stupid opinions, and people blatantly trolling/breaking the rules.

I've been towing this line for months, but if we were to curb the politics/religion talk and keep it in that forum, it would alleviate the vast majority of the drama that stems from the status updates.

 
All valid points. Appreciate the perspective you guys.

To saunders' point, from my POV, Dewiz has poor opinions he openly shares because of the reaction he knows they'll get. That is trolling to me even if it doesn't appear blatant, but I think one would have to be familiar with the strategy he employed in P&R in order to pick up on it.

As for the point on Landlord, he can be as disagreeable as they come, but I don't see the routine level of what I perceive to be trolling from him as I do from someone like Dewiz. To your statement though, Mav, it may happen and I just don't see it as often.

I'm still on the fence of limiting political/religious opinions in the status updates. An outright ban seems incredibly hefty and like there'd be a lot of gray area. A loose policy makes us the bearers of the political narrative. For example, I think most people on this board find Sheriff Arpaio deplorable, but there are several here that might agree with his tactics. People would hound Dewiz if he posted an update like "Great on Trump for pardoning Arpaio," but knapplc or someone posting "Trump is disgusting for pardoning Arpaio" would get a lot of agreement.

My strategy is if I see an update (particularly political in nature) that's starting to draw ire, I'll close it and tell people to take it to P&R. But some political commentary is relatively harmless and not worthy (in my opinion) of being shunted into P&R.

 
Yeah, he has seemed to be one to push the envelope, and alot of it does seem to be reactionary. He's definitely toeing a line.

I agree with an outright ban being hefty, but the reality is, we've seen a huge uptick in political stuff spilling over into the rest of the board the last year. When half a dozen of the front page updates are about Trump, it gets to be overkill. This board is first and foremost about Nebraska athletics, and that is it's primary purpose. The political stuff has been brought up as an annoyance by posters, and we need to remember that people use the board as sports entertainment. It's also true that most of the drama we have right now on this board is due to politics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapp has two status updates on the main page right now that are both political. Again, I think it needs to stop since it's such a passionate topic and needs to stay in the politics/religion area.

 
I don't present this as a challenge to any one here but merely a point for debate: where would we draw the line with what counts as politics/religion talk in status updates?

On one hand, we have several posters with a liberal lean (or clear dislike for Trump) that routinely post status updates digging at Trump. Lance is one of them. These seem to get by with relative obscurity and a majority of agreement from those responding, but the second Dewiz or a more conservative poster shows favor to Trump, it's a more heated problem.

Conversely, would saying 'Thank God' or 'Thank Allah' warrant removal from the status updates? Would someone potentially venting about how they can't afford to do something because their premiums from the ACA are too high warrant removal? Several things could fall under the umbrella and I think there could be a lot of gray areas. Plus, we'd also have to develop a strategy/talking points for defending the decision since some posters (I think we know who they are) would be frustrated and vocally against this decision.

That's why, if I'm honest, I've leaned towards allowing at least some political discussion in the status updates. Most of the posts tend to be relatively harmless. I think the crucial element to all of it is fairness in application and judgement. 

To reiterate, I think I see both sides of the debate and completely understand the opinion of those who wish it wasn't readily available in the updates.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
On one hand, we have several posters with a liberal lean (or clear dislike for Trump) that routinely post status updates digging at Trump. Lance is one of them. These seem to get by with relative obscurity and a majority of agreement from those responding, but the second Dewiz or a more conservative poster shows favor to Trump, it's a more heated problem.
Click to expand...
These are what I have in mind. Get rid of the daily "trump did this" or "liberals/conservatives are trash" type posts. Thank God/Allah is fine if it's a genuine thing that's not being used mockingly, as long it's not about discussing the merits of religion.

As for complaining, here's my thoughts:

There's about 6-8 posters who routinely post political stuff in the status updates, and I have a good idea who will complain. They'll attack the decision by saying "oh, well you allow food/other sports/whatever else in the updates, so why not politics?" It's quite simple. Politics is insanely divisive right now, and that the integrity of Huskerboard as a place for people to come to discuss Nebraska Athletics is paramount. It is why this site exists in the first place. None of those other things cause as many fights as politics, nor do they serve as a turn off to new visitors. Since we don't have the ability to reduce front page updates to 1 per person, it's even more obnoxious when you get a spate of political stuff in the updates by 2-3 people.

And I'm not holding this opinion because I disagree with what people are posting. I'm just saying that it gets old, and I know other people feel the same way. Hell, I get to the point where I have to cull my twitter timeline at times because I want to unplug and read about sports.

Now, it's not something we're gonna do overnight, but I said a few months ago that we're gonna tighten up a few things once the season starts, and people start coming back, or checking us out for the first time.

Maybe I'm completely wrong in my thinking, but I'd like to hear some feedback from everyone on this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top