# Politics



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Shouldn't politics be in the Politics forums and not in general chat ???


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The management has stated that politics can be in GC or other forums. Th caveat being that it needs to adhere to the rules of that forum.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

You'd think it. I imagine it has something to do with page views and ad rates, since people have to be a member to access the dark side.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Clem said:


> You'd think it. I imagine it has something to do with page views and ad rates, since people have to be a member to access the dark side.


all they have to do is request to be a member . Its not that difficult.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

M5farm said:


> all they have to do is request to be a member . Its not that difficult.


No that is not all. They have the discretion to not allow people in that forum.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Rather than be passive aggressive, why don't you just use the button to report threads? It's just more honest.





painterswife said:


> No that is not all. They have the discretion to not allow people in that forum.


So your saying a person that is not allowed in a political forum for some reason is allowed to muddy the water in other forums. That's just brilliant.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

M5farm said:


> So your saying a person that is not allowed in a political forum for some reason is allowed to muddy the water in other forums. That's just brilliant.


I am allowed in the dark forum. I choose to post in GC because a different way of posting is allowed. That means posters that don't wish to participate in the dark rooms type of posting can also discuss politics without going into that forum.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Passive aggressive is a clearly defined and easily understood term, not restricted to psychiatrists or psychiatry.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

painterswife said:


> I am allowed in the dark forum. I choose to post in GC because a different way of posting is allowed. That means posters that don't wish to participate in the dark rooms type of posting can also discuss politics without going into that forum.


that's fair I guess , personally If I want politics I would go to place that has it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

M5farm said:


> that's fair I guess , personally If I want politics I would go to place that has it.


Well GC has it. So everyone gets to go where they want.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> I am allowed in the dark forum. I choose to post in GC because a different way of posting is allowed. That means posters that don't wish to participate in the dark rooms type of posting can also discuss politics without going into that forum.


There is slightly less name calling, and most posts are better (more carefully) worded because everyone can see what is said. Allowing the public to see the quality and content of posts is a good thing.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Well GC has it. So everyone gets to go where they want.


I was curious , It just seemed like the GC has turned into DR lite.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

M5farm said:


> I was curious , It just seemed like the GC has turned into DR lite.


Yet here it is. Any disagreement with the subject matter of GC threads should be taken up with management, if there is an actual question.


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

Doesn't matter where one posts...someone always wants to start an argument...what has happened to everyone these days? No wonder real politics is so messed up...it starts at the ground level, like here...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Clem said:


> You'd think it. I imagine it has something to do with page views and ad rates, since people have to be a member to access the dark side.


Never let it be said I won't admit to when you are right.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Clem said:


> Passive aggressive is a clearly defined and easily understood term, not restricted to psychiatrists or psychiatry.


Would you consider its use directed at a person a passive or an aggressive attack?

And thank you for your input. I look forward to your reply.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Your second paragraph.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

anniew said:


> Doesn't matter where one posts...someone always wants to start an argument...what has happened to everyone these days? No wonder real politics is so messed up...it starts at the ground level, like here...


So true. Sad, very sad. If you don't agree with someone they harangue you endlessly.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Yet he seemingly doesn't understand the term "passive aggressive" 

What a hoot!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

HDRider said:


> So true. Sad, very sad. If you don't agree with someone they harangue you endlessly.


You ain’t lying buddy!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I am fine. Thanks for asking. I do appreciate your concern.


I'm sure you do, and you are very welcome.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The dark room isn’t so much subject driven as behavior driven. 
The subjects listed in its heading are not limits but a idea of where controversial ideas are. 
Some people can debate politely while others feel a need for a different style. 
So feel free to discuss anything in either place and bring your best manners to general chat and your fireproof undies to the dark room.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Do you consider getting professional medical help an insult?


Not directed to me, but suggesting someone needs psychiatric help would be insulting. You are insinuating their thinking is not right.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

keenataz said:


> Not directed to me, but suggesting someone needs psychiatric help would be insulting. You are ininuating their thinking is not right.


Most people would think it's insulting...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I don't see what the big deal is. Having politics in GC allows those who don't want to deal with the wild and wooly 'dark room' to express their opinions. If you don't like political discussions its easy enough to skip them.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

And this is working out so well .


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> And this is working out so well .


I think your tag line is SO timely.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

There's some misinformation in this thread. GC adheres strictly to HT rules and discussion is to remain civil and family appropriate and mods are not prepared to bend the rules so that GC can become the Dark Room 2.0. 

The discussion mentioned regarding politics in GC had more to do with the concept that politics plays a certain role in many areas and mods were not interested in deleting individual posts reported for the mere mention of politics and government policies but it was not intened that GC and the Dark Room serve the same purpose. 

The problem I'm having is that people seem to be forgetting they aren't in the Dark Room and responses are beyond unsuitable. This thread is a perfect example, it's rife with personal attacks and insults and while cleaning up threads is part of being a mod, it's also not our full time job and adults should be able to discuss subjects civilly without hurling insults. 

As always, threads will get cleaned up once and if the tone remains the same, it will simply get deleted or moved.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> There's some misinformation in this thread. GC adheres strictly to HT rules and discussion is to remain civil and family appropriate and mods are not prepared to bend the rules so that GC can become the Dark Room 2.0.
> 
> The discussion mentioned regarding politics in GC had more to do with the concept that politics plays a certain role in many areas and mods were not interested in deleting individual posts reported for the mere mention of politics and government policies but it was not intened that GC and the Dark Room serve the same purpose.
> 
> ...


Is there a distinction if it's one group (or an individual) that is making the personal attacks and insults to get the thread locked or moved?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is there a distinction if it's one group (or an individual) that is making the personal attacks and insults to get the thread locked or moved?


Mods don't deal in terms of groups, we deal in rules and as of right now, it looks like everybody seems to feel that the rules are for somebody else.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> Mods don't deal in terms of groups, we deal in rules and as of right now, it looks like everybody seems to feel that the rules are for somebody else.


That's understandable, if one individual continually personally attacks/insults will that get the thread locked or moved? Or will the individual posts be removed?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's understandable, if one individual continually personally attacks/insults will that get the thread locked or moved? Or will the individual posts be removed?


That depends on how much of the thread can be salvaged.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> That depends on how much of the thread can be salvaged.


Thank you for responding, it is appreciated.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Let me second Irish Pixie in our thanks for explaining that detail and thanking you for what you do.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Well. 

Spank me with a Forbes magazine.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Clem said:


> Well.
> 
> Spank me with a Forbes magazine.


S&M ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Clem said:


> Well.
> 
> Spank me with a Forbes magazine.


That’s a pretty specific fetish.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

It's the phrase to become the new craze.
Yeah, it's as weird as a meat fruitcake.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Clem said:


> It's the phrase to become the new craze.
> Yeah, it's as weird as a meat fruitcake.


Good luck with that.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

A very specific Forbes magazine, too.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Clem said:


> A very specific Forbes magazine, too.


Dang!


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

One of the problems way I see it is if your going to allow politics in GC then you don't need the other section those of us do not want to see, read or other wise. So by allowing it to pe posted here we have to jump around to miss the crap.

Politics are always going to be politics, even those who lean toward a party can't agree with each other.

I don't think we who don't want to see read or other wise should be subject to sort thru threads to skip ther political ones and should be where they belong PER the rules no politics!!!!!!!!!

 Al


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Would you be fine with no religion being discussed anywhere but the dark rooms?


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

I've noticed that many internet boards have specific forums for religion, and if someone comes in saying stuff like you are stupid for believing (xyz) or being generally insulting, they are banned from that particular forum. 

It works.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

alleyyooper said:


> One of the problems way I see it is if your going to allow politics in GC then you don't need the other section those of us do not want to see, read or other wise. So by allowing it to pe posted here we have to jump around to miss the crap.
> 
> Politics are always going to be politics, even those who lean toward a party can't agree with each other.
> 
> ...


Al, I agree with your concern. Since, you're a moderator, why don't you discuss your concern with the other Mods in the Mod forum?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> I've noticed that many internet boards have specific forums for religion, and if someone comes in saying stuff like you are stupid for believing (xyz) or being generally insulting, they are banned from that particular forum.
> 
> It works.


I am not suggesting that. I am just pointing out that there are all kinds of subjects that some would not want to see.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I, for one, despise goats and never want to see another thread dealing with those vile beasts! Who’s with me?!?


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I've heard goat stories that would make your blood run cold.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Just what would you allow in general chat if not politics?
If I remember right GC used to be the place where you had to meet Certain standards to have access to. 
After a while some members complained they couldn’t argue effectively while meeting the standards of the forum. 
So the dark rooms (room) were created as a place for those who felt the need to behave outside the rules.
General chat was thrown open to all. 
I specifically asked for clarification at that time and was told any topic could continue to be discussed in general chat under the forum wide standards and any topic could be discussed in the dark rooms under a more wide open policy there.
Does anyone really feel the need for GC to have a political sub forum?


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

I started the thread because other forums have specific areas for such topics. I just see alot of threads started to start an argument and then the tribes all gang up just like in the dark room.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

I have no issues with politics being discussed in GC but when it's an obvious bait thread it should be moved.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I am not suggesting that.


I am.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> I am.


No problem. Just making sure I clarification my position.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I am not suggesting that. I am just pointing out that there are all kinds of subjects that some would not want to see.



Two topics in particular are universally known to cause strife and conversational breakdown: religion and politics.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

CajunSunshine said:


> Two topics in particular are universally known to cause strife and conversational breakdown: religion and politics.



ETA: That's why they deserve their own forums, and sites that allow these topics do just that to quarantine the mess.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

M5farm said:


> I have no issues with politics being discussed in GC but when it's an obvious bait thread it should be moved.


Then report threads you think do so.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cabin Fever said:


> Al, I agree with your concern. Since, you're a moderator, why don't you discuss your concern with the other Mods in the Mod forum?


It is being discussed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I, for one, despise goats and never want to see another thread dealing with those vile beasts! Who’s with me?!?


That's why they have their own dedicated section, like Politics is supposed to be.
It once was separated from GC for the same reasons.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

I am the bee forum mod and am not going to argue politics in any shape or form. But try it on the bee section and I'll delete it.

Also I am not argueing politics now just saying it should be where it was supposed to be.

 Al


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's why they have their own dedicated section, like Politics is supposed to be.
> It once was separated from GC for the same reasons.


But when I click on recent posts those posts may show up and I may be forced to scroll past them to other posts I want to see and, even worse, I may be tempted to click on them and be subjected to vile goat talk.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

What have you against the pure and innocent goat? I'm feeling triggered...


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Innocent? Innocent?? Even the little ones have that angry goat look in their eye and walk around saying "Maaad, maaad"


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Clem said:


> I've heard goat stories that would make your blood run cold.


You’ve done enough damage with you’re sullying of Forbes magazine.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)




----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

A long time ago, there were no separate forums (early Lusenet) and it was chaotic, but it was the 1990s and the only thing we knew. Over time we grew to have many, many forums, including one called general chat where you could whine about things that did not neatly fit in Countryside Families or other forums. Life was good until it wasn't, and politics was separated from GC and went dark (was that before or after Alicegate? I can't remember) it was truly ugly and everything short of murder was allowed, except mild cussing. The dark politics forum morphed into the dark rooms, and that's where we are today. 

To those that don't want to see anything political when you bring up recent posts- I'm going to assume that there are no physical symptoms of shock and horror, so why not just skip over them? I've been threatened into doing the same thing just recently, and while it's unpleasant to catch sight of the dreadfulness, it isn't painful.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> You’ve done enough damage with you’re sullying of Forbes magazine.


Which may or may not have had a special cover...


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I only sullied the Forbes magazine a little bit. It can be reused. I'd like that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There are members that would like to participate in politics threads but not in the dark forums.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

painterswife said:


> There are members that would like to participate in politics threads but not in the dark forums.


That's what I can't understand . There is a place for these discussions . instead of keeping it in a tight little box where it can be controlled lets just spew it everywhere.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> Two topics in particular are universally known to cause strife and conversational breakdown: religion and politics.


You forgot abortion and Trump.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

painterswife said:


> There are members that would like to participate in politics threads but not in the dark forums.



What's the difference, seriously ?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> What's the difference, seriously ?


There is a big difference. The be nice in the dark rooms is very different.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

painterswife said:


> There is a big difference. The be nice in the dark rooms is very different.



I haven't read anything in the DR in months but it seems like the same old stuff to me, I notice no difference.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> There is a big difference. The be nice in the dark rooms is very different.


The puerile name calling brings back the sounds and smells of grade school, it's rather disgusting in (mostly) older men. I may be snarky, but I'm never low brow.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Name calling usually gets deleted. It is the generalizations about entire groups of people in an effort to insult them that gets real old.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> The puerile name calling brings back the sounds and smells of grade school, it's rather disgusting in (mostly) older men. I may be snarky, *but I'm never low brow.*


Says you!


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Name calling usually gets deleted. It is the generalizations about entire groups of people in an effort to insult them that gets real old.


And the threads started by one group of people in general chat are nothing but attempts to bait.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

M5farm said:


> And the threads started by one group of people in general chat are nothing but attempts to bait.


I don't agree. Just because a topic triggers some does not mean that others don't wish to discuss it. Goats trigger some.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

M5farm said:


> And the threads started by one group of people in general chat are nothing but attempts to bait.


Don’t bite.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

M5farm said:


> And the threads started by one group of people in general chat are nothing but attempts to bait.


Your opinion, correct? The poster could find the information interesting and want to discuss it, yes? Are you saying, and let's be frank, that only conservative favorable posts can be started, or you consider it baiting?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Hard to overlook the car wreck when you're walking through the blood.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Hard to overlook the car wreck when you're walking through the blood.


The ignore button cleans up all the gore that upsets you. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Hard to overlook the car wreck when you're walking through the blood.


Keep walking. Don’t stop and gawk then complain that gore makes you queasy.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Your opinion, correct? The poster could find the information interesting and want to discuss it, yes? Are you saying, and let's be frank, that only conservative favorable posts can be started, or you consider it baiting?


Ok frank, I could post far more incriminating topics that would generate liberal implosion but GC is not the place for it . If I wanted to start something I would go to the darkroom . I am only saying that there is a distinct Bias on the threads you primarily start in CG . That's your prerogative and Its is best that I ignore them because I have a way of saying things that gets me infractions . I have a goal of going 2 weeks without getting one .


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Yet here you are.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Clem said:


> Yet here you are.


Yes here I am , I see you too.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

M5farm said:


> Ok frank, I could post far more incriminating topics that would generate liberal implosion but GC is not the place for it . If I wanted to start something I would go to the darkroom . I am only saying that there is a distinct Bias on the threads you primarily start in CG . That's your prerogative and Its is best that I ignore them because I have a way of saying things that gets me infractions . I have a goal of going 2 weeks without getting one .


It's important to have goals in life.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

M5farm said:


> Yes here I am , I see you too.


I don't claim to have a way of expressing myself that gets me infractions.
The very point of my post. To clarify, you say that you have a way of saying things that gets you infractions. Yet, here you are, in this forum where you are replying to the very person that you also say you should "ignore them".

If you don't see the disconnect there, I'm sorry.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Many of us here are long time members of HT. We don't ask as many questions as we used to for a variety of reasons. Not doing as much homesteading due to age or circumstances could be reasons. Homesteading and the skills it requires brought us here. Community keeps us here. Politics and other subjects are important to us and keep us engaged in the site. That means we are here to answer the questions in other areas with any knowledge we might have.

It would be a shame to drive people off because some don't want to read threads on politics or such.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Clem said:


> I don't claim to have a way of expressing myself that gets me infractions.
> The very point of my post. To clarify, you say that you have a way of saying things that gets you infractions. Yet, here you are, in this forum where you are replying to the very person that you also say you should "ignore them".
> 
> If you don't see the disconnect there, I'm sorry.


so you are saying I should have just started the thread asking a question and then excused myself and let the fireworks happen??? I have refrained from getting to the discussion on the current political topics because I know they are traps.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

painterswife said:


> It would be a shame to drive people off because some don't want to read threads on politics or such.


Seems like the simplest, painless solution is to make GC a private forum that requires admission, which would free the rest of the board for what it was originally designed: friendly homesteaders. If that happened, you can bet membership will begin to grow.

If not, then membership will continue to slide down the steep slope downhill that it is currently on.


.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Drive people off ? There's hardly anyone left and like you said, the ones that are, aren't discussing homesteading any longer


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> Seems like the simplest, painless solution is to make GC a private forum that requires admission, which would free the rest of the board for what it was originally designed: friendly homesteaders. If that happened, you can bet that membership will begin to grow.
> 
> If not, then membership will continue to slide down the steep slope downhill that it is currently on.


Why don't we just delete GC and the dark rooms all together. If you only want homesteading here then why bother with anything some don't want. Maybe Singletree as well. That's not homesteading.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Many of us here are long time members of HT. We don't ask as many questions as we used to for a variety of reasons. Not doing as much homesteading due to age or circumstances could be reasons. Homesteading and the skills it requires brought us here. Community keeps us here. Politics and other subjects are important to us and keep us engaged in the site. That means we are here to answer the questions in other areas with any knowledge we might have.
> 
> It would be a shame to drive people off because some don't want to read threads on politics or such.


I don't own the board and they make the rules. several have advocated having a special place for you, me and others to discuss politics. Ive only been here 4 yrs and that pales in comparison to 15 or 16 years some have but what do I know im just a newb,


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

oneraddad said:


> Drive people off ? There's hardly anyone left and like you said, the ones that are, aren't discussing homesteading any longer


in my short time here many have left due to the rhetoric. some because of management, some because of life and some because of members .


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Why don't we just delete GC and the dark rooms all together. If you only want homesteading here then why bother with anything some don't want. Maybe Singletree as well. That's not homesteading.


Countryside families isn't strictly homesteading either...


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Why don't we just delete GC and the dark rooms all together. If you only want homesteading here then why bother with anything some don't want. Maybe Singletree as well. That's not homesteading.



There is no need to delete any forums. Heck make Singletree private too!

Folks can have the option of signing in easily enough. No one would be deprived of anything. Not even a little bit.

The idea behind the suggestion of private forums is to stop running off potential members who are here for homesteady things, and who are likely put off by the incessant vitriol that is dominating threads in GC lately--and by extension, in the "Recent Posts/New Posts" feed.


.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Countryside families isn't strictly homesteading either...


No, but it is not spewing incessant vitriol.

.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> There is no need to delete any forums. Heck make Singletree private too!
> 
> Folks can have the option of signing in easily enough. No one would be deprived of anything. Not even a little bit.
> 
> ...


I think hiding the forums makes it easier for things to get out of hand. The dark rooms have proven that. I can easily not look at the threads I don't want to. Why should I be inconvenienced because others can't do the same?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

CajunSunshine said:


> No, but it is not spewing incessant vitriol.
> 
> .


It's still not strictly homesteading related, and "incessant vitriol" is highly subjective, and rather dramatic.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A tip for those that might not know.

You can watch the forums you want to and not see the others in your alerts. Just go to the forum. Hit the watch forum and set up how you want to be alerted to new threads. Then you can just hit your alerts buttons at the top and only see threads in the forums you want to.

I would also like to thank the Mods for adding the moderator list button in each forum. I don't think it was there before.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I think hiding the forums makes it easier for things to get out of hand. The dark rooms have proven that. *I can easily not look at the threads I don't want to.* Why should I be inconvenienced because others can't do the same?


That's what most of us do, me included. I don't have any problem with it. Regulars don't either. But when potential guests come into our home, and there is constant bickering and arguing in the hallway... what reason would they have to join? 

That is the whole ball of wax. Unless we grow our membership, this place will no longer exist. _*The kind of members we attract is driven by our threads. 


.*_


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> That's what most of us do, me included. I don't have any problem with it. Regulars don't either. But when potential guests come into our home, and there is constant bickering and arguing in the hallway... what reason would they have to join?
> 
> That is the whole ball of wax. Unless we grow our membership, this place will no longer exist. _*The kind of members we attract is driven by our threads.
> 
> ...


So are you saying that because some participate in Politics threads those that want to participate in goat threads won't sign up? Or are you saying that those of us participating in Politics threads are not wanted?


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's still not strictly homesteading related, and "incessant vitriol" is highly subjective, and rather *dramatic.*


Yes it is a quite a drama fest, and I think I am in plenty company in thinking that the vitriol is a problem, and maybe it needs to be quarantined because it is in potential new member's faces. All the time. 

We are having a serious membership problem as a homesteading board. _Have you noticed how few sign up and actually hang around to participate any more? Why do you think that is? _

Another solution: screw the friendly homesteady stuff, and just make the whole board a Current Events chat board. The whole thing can be all about that.


.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

CajunSunshine said:


> Yes it is a quite a drama fest, and I think I am in plenty company in thinking that the vitriol is a problem, and maybe it needs to be quarantined because it is in potential new member's faces. All the time.
> 
> We are having a serious membership problem as a homesteading board. _Have you noticed how few sign up and actually hang around to participate any more? Why do you think that is? _
> 
> Another solution: screw the friendly homesteady stuff, and just make the whole board a Current Events chat board. The whole thing can be all about that.


Your solution is all or nothing? This board, in one form or another, has been around since approximately 1998 and it's always had an area where general topics are discussed. Membership has waxed and waned, but the absolute largest exodus was because of Alicegate, not incessant vitriol.


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

how do I put some people on ignore???


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

anniew said:


> how do I put some people on ignore???


Click on the profile name and then click ignore.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

painterswife said:


> So are you saying that because some participate in Politics threads those that want to participate in goat threads won't sign up? Or are you saying that those of us participating in Politics threads are not wanted?


This is what I am saying: when guests come into our home, and there is ugly bickering and arguing in the hallway... what reason would they have to join? 

It isn't normal civilized debate anymore. Lately threads in GC have been constantly devolving into snarking contests, and it's out there in the hallway which is bound to be unimpressive to potential new members.

.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya you make many sections private and you REALLY would make this board a dying one for sure. Talk about a death blow, THAT will do it for sure.~!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> This is what I am saying: when guests come into our home, and there is ugly bickering and arguing in the hallway... what reason would they have to join?
> 
> It isn't normal civilized debate anymore. Lately threads in GC have been constantly devolving into snarking contests, and it's out there in the hallway which is bound to be unimpressive to potential new members.
> 
> .


 Ugly bickering should not be allowed any where in the forum. Report posts that do that. Hiding forums just lets it get worse. I was a new member once. There was lots of bickering then as well. There were no hidden forums until years later.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Your solution is all or nothing? This board, in one form or another, has been around since approximately 1998 and it's always had an area where general topics are discussed. Membership has waxed and waned, but the absolute largest exodus was because of Alicegate, not incessant vitriol.


I completely agree. And it is not about "my" solution being all or nothing. (See post #108) 

After being here for over a decade, I have seen the waxing and waning you speak of. Because of the Alicegate mess, we lost much of our membership. And now because we are a skeleton crew, we will attract and keep folks according to the topic and quality of our threads. 

I personally don't have a problem with GC, and it serves a useful purpose. But because of the way our new software is structured, guests who look into the Recent/New post feed, will click onto interesting sounding thread titles but will see folks snarking back and forth to a ridiculous degree. 


.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Ya you make many sections private and you REALLY would make this board a dying one for sure. Talk about a death blow, THAT will do it for sure.~!


The Dark Side does not count for much of anything, and GC is one board. not many.


.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

lets just park the car where it belongs , in the garage . Parking it in the living room creates a huge draft from the hole in the wall


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> I completely agree. And it is not about "my" solution being all or nothing. (See post #108)
> 
> After being here for over a decade, I have seen the waxing and waning you speak of. Because of the Alicegate mess, we lost much of our membership. And now because we are a skeleton crew, we will attract and keep folks according to the topic and quality of our threads.
> 
> ...


Then report those posts. Shutting it down for everyone is not really fair because a few don't want to see it. We are getting new members so I don't see the problem. Yes , they might not dive right in but I did not either. HT was and has always been very clicky and new members are more likely to leave because they don't get an answer at all.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Ugly bickering should not be allowed any where in the forum. Report posts that do that. Hiding forums just lets it get worse. I was a new member once. There was lots of bickering then as well. There were no hidden forums until years later.


What is going on lately is NOT normal bickering. Guests won't report Jack; newbies probably won't either, they'll just leave.

Me? I have only seen an actual need to report ONE post in over ten years. (It was one of FBB's, lol.) Most of the time I simply don't click onto anything that I know will devolve into a snarkfest. (Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.) <-- now it's like a vegan earworm stuck in my head, lol


.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> What is going on lately is NOT normal bickering. Guests won't report Jack; newbies probably won't either, they'll just leave.
> 
> Me? I have only seen the need to report ONE post in over ten years. (It was one of FBB's, lol.) Most of the time I simply don't click onto anything that I know will devolve into a snarkfest. (Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.) <-- now it's like a vegan earworm stuck in my head, lol


So you want the bickering to go away but you won't be part of the solution by reporting it?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Why don't we just delete GC and the dark rooms all together. If you only want homesteading here then why bother with anything some don't want. Maybe Singletree as well. That's not homesteading.


Ding! Ding! Ding!

We may have a winner! If the purpose of the place is to attract homesteading type folks,maybe the site doesn't even need a DS or GC side. They've got to be a PITA to moderate and much of the yah-yah in the Administration section now has its roots in those two subsections.

As for Singletree, it's always been geared towards the interests of the folks who post there, but even the people who routinely post there will say it has become somewhat infected with DS fallout.

Look at even the tribalism exhibited in this thread...We don't discuss things as friends as much as we discuss them as adversaries from different tribes. Look at the migration that has occurred recently vs. what GC was just a few months ago... Isn't it somewhat evident that some people who routinely posted in the Dark Forums have wearied of the wide open rules? Or maybe they just feel the need for a new place to argue?

Regardless, for the general health of the entire board and the type of people it seeks to draw in and retain, perhaps the answer is for us to take the battle royal elsewhere...


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

Haven't read through this diatribe... got about 1/2 way.... Seriously, you people need to take up Gardening, you'll be much happier, calmer and less reactionary to every little bit of drivel that flies past you.

Politics, Religion, Race, (apparently climate too unless discussing gardening times) are all TOXIC FORUM SUBJECTS. No wonder people are shifting to the other site where this crud doesn't fly. It's NOT associated with this site or company and I (we) can't say where / which because it serves is actual real intended purpose which is Cabineering & Homesteading + only.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I think this thread has been great. For the most part the discussion is without snark. Being adversaries is not a bad thing if we keep the discussion civil. 6 pages and the discussion and exchange of opinions is good.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

painterswife said:


> So you want the bickering to go away but you won't be part of the solution by reporting it?


Bickering does not bother me personally, but the levels we've seen is bound to discourage guests who are seeking "friendly homesteading advice."

But, it is what it is; what will be, will be. I tried to offer a suggestion and explain why it could help grow our membership. That's all.

Because I do appreciate this place and _every_ single member here, I am a bit saddened by the rate our membership is NOT growing. And, I won't be surprised if soon Carbon Media looks at this place as an Albatross on their books and ditches HomesteadingToday because it is a dying forum.


.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> Yes it is a quite a drama fest, and I think I am in plenty company in thinking that the vitriol is a problem, and maybe it needs to be quarantined because it is in potential new member's faces. All the time.
> 
> We are having a serious membership problem as a homesteading board. _Have you noticed how few sign up and actually hang around to participate any more? Why do you think that is? _
> 
> ...


I'll venture a few opinions...

1. I don't think homesteading is as trendy as it once was. I do see some stuff about millennials moving back out to the rural route and going into small scale farming,but much of that doesn't have a "homesteading" vibe. Look at many of us here...We, for the most part, are not in our twenties or thirties...Those guys are on Facebook, anyway. The younger ones that are into the homesteading concept, do Facebook.

2. YouTube. A lot of the younger folks just Google up a YouTube video on whatever facet of rural life they want to look at. No muss,no fuss, no snark, no personalities. Get your knowledge and go.

3. Competition. Both from individual blogs and websites, along with other homesteading boards on the web.

Just some opinions, YMMV.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

CajunSunshine said:


> Bickering does not bother me personally, but the levels we've seen is bound to discourage guests who are seeking "friendly homesteading advice."
> 
> But, it is what it is; what will be, will be. I tried to offer a suggestion and explain why it could help grow our membership. That's all.
> 
> Because I do appreciate this place and _every_ single member here, I am a bit saddened by the rate our membership is NOT growing. And, I won't be surprised if soon Carbon Media looks at this place as an Albatross on their books and ditches HomesteadingToday because it is a dying forum.


And they drove it into the abyss with the prior admin and Alicegate, in my opinion.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

CajunSunshine said:


> Bickering does not bother me personally, but the levels we've seen is bound to discourage guests who are seeking "friendly homesteading advice."
> 
> But, it is what it is; what will be, will be. I tried to offer a suggestion and explain why it could help grow our membership. That's all.
> 
> ...


I have recommended this site to several people, they lurked for a bit but declined to join. They like the site concept but question after reading how long it will be here and if there will be any growth. These are thirty somethings interested in multiple homesteading areas, also in singletree. 

For myself I will keep my political discussions in politics, same with religion.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Ya you make many sections private and you REALLY would make this board a dying one for sure. Talk about a death blow, THAT will do it for sure.~!



Who let you out, and what did you just say ?


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Jolly's post:

l venture a few opinions...

1. I don't think homesteading is as trendy as it once was. I do see some stuff about millennials moving back out to the rural route and going into small scale farming,but much of that doesn't have a "homesteading" vibe. Look at many of us here...We, for the most part, are not in our twenties or thirties...Those guys are on Facebook, anyway. The younger ones that are into the homesteading concept, do Facebook.

_If anything, it is more trendy than ever. The growing list of Homesteady-type print magazines that have hit the mainstream in the past few years is a strong indication of that. Sales of back-to-basics type books are quite brisk. Newbies to the homestead scene are seeking information and that kind of info is not on Facebutt. YouTube has many fine tutorials and demonstrations, but many are riddled with unvetted misinformation. _

_On the other hand, message boards filter out a lot of the misinformation, because it is quickly called out with B.S. flags being waved by old farts like us who have been there, done that. (But I don't think they will put up with too many grouchy old farts, lol.) _

2. YouTube. A lot of the younger folks just Google up a YouTube video on whatever facet of rural life they want to look at. No muss,no fuss, no snark, no personalities. Get your knowledge and go.

3. Competition. Both from individual blogs and websites, along with other homesteading boards on the web.

_While there are more than a few great blogs and websites Out There, too many blogs, websites and Pinterest crap are rife with misinformation just like some Youtubes. Some are downright cringe-worthy. It doesn't take long for new seekers to discover that you can't believe everything on the internet. (I suspect this may be part of the reason for the explosion of print magazines that are heralding the homesteading trend.) _

_Message boards like us provide many voices of experience, along with (hopefully friendly) input. A good group trumps silly blogs any day of the week._


Just some opinions, YMMV.







.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Totally agree CS! Younger group are also smart enough to differentiate between the crap on the various sites and are looking to the older generation, the been there done that group for info.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

no really said:


> Totally agree CS! Younger group are also smart enough to differentiate between the crap on the various sites and are looking to the older generation, the been there done that group for info.


What chaps my butt, is that many of the blogs, websites, Pinterest pages, and Youtubes are parroting information they read somewhere else. It's like each one is trying to outdo the other with their vast knowledge of (parroted) info. And pretty fonts, pictures and fluff.

I have seen some dangerous misinformation being repeated all over the internet, just reworded just a little differently. And the Cajun in me wants to come out and.... nope, not my monkeys--not my circus. I can't fix 'em all.

My precious monkeys at are HomesteadingToday and I am afraid of losing the circus that I have grown to value. I don't think our membership has been this low in many, many years. Ad revenue for Carbon Media must be sucking big time, compared to what it was when they bought (and broke) the place.


.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

CajunSunshine said:


> What chaps my butt, is that many of the blogs, websites, Pinterest pages, and Youtubes are parroting information they read somewhere else. It's like each one is trying to outdo the other with their vast knowledge of (parroted) info. And pretty fonts, pictures and fluff.
> 
> I have seen some dangerous misinformation being repeated all over the internet, just reworded just a little differently. And the Cajun in me wants to come out and.... nope, not my monkeys--not my circus. I can't fix 'em all.
> 
> ...


LOL, yep you can't fix stupid. But it sure can tick a person off. 

I am right there with ya, I value this forum and think I have made some good friends. Also learned a lot!!

Just a comment from some of those I invited to join, they were fascinated with FBB.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

LOL! He is definitely one-of-a-kind, and by that definition he is an asset to our corner of the internet. Bless his heart. I love him, warts and all.

.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CajunSunshine said:


> Bickering does not bother me personally, but the levels we've seen is bound to discourage guests who are seeking "friendly homesteading advice."
> 
> But, it is what it is; what will be, will be. I tried to offer a suggestion and explain why it could help grow our membership. That's all.
> 
> ...


Our membership is growing because I see the actual numbers of new members added daily but realistically, HT was established for those interested in Homesteading and there are only so many homesteaders out there.

My personal opinion is that I'd rather see steady growth of interested members than rapid growth of unsuitable members.

I would think that if CMG had plans to ditch HT, it would have happened after we were literally gutted and literally lost hundreds of members a day in the aftermath of Alicegate and I also believe that Alicegate still hangs over our heads. If one does even a little bit of research on HT, you'll find quite a bit of negative discussion about the action that was taken that lead to our downfall and how it was subesquetly handled. 

If they do tire of us, they would likely sell than close.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

M5farm said:


> lets just park the car where it belongs , in the garage . Parking it in the living room creates a huge draft from the hole in the wall


Lol Good point but what we have here is more like a machine shed. 
We park the tractor, get a few animals out of the weather, do some woodworking, and occasionally park the car there. 
But once in a while we clean everything out ,sweep the floor , hang up some decorations and have a party.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Wr's Post:

Our membership is growing because I see the actual numbers of new members added daily but realistically, HT was established for those interested in Homesteading and there are only so many homesteaders out there.

Growing membership numbers and active participation are two different things. Numbers do not grow a site; participation does. 

My personal opinion is that I'd rather see steady growth of interested members than rapid growth of unsuitable members.

^ This. 100%

I would think that if CMG had plans to ditch HT, it would have happened after we were literally gutted and literally lost hundreds of members a day in the aftermath of Alicegate and I also believe that Alicegate still hangs over our heads. If one does even a little bit of research on HT, you'll find quite a bit of negative discussion about the action that was taken that lead to our downfall and how it was subesquetly handled.

Yes, what happened here is still being talked about all over the internet, even on non-homesteady boards, and will for years to come.

I suspect that CMG didn't ditch us right away in hopes that we will recover, or else they will lose a chunk of change.

If they do tire of us, they would likely sell than close.


Ha ha, and given our widespread reputation and low participation count (regardless of member count), I seriously doubt anyone in their right mind will buy it. And, there's little chance that the few active members who survived the fallout will chip in to buy it, or consent to paying a monthly site fee usage. If it came to that, it'll look like rats fleeing a sinking ship.


.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol Good point but what we have here is more like a machine shed.
> We park the tractor, get a few animals out of the weather, do some woodworking, and occasionally park the car there.
> But once in a while we clean everything out ,sweep the floor , hang up some decorations and have a party.


if we are going the machine shed or barn approach , there should only be one forum , Call it FREE FOR ALL


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> Wr's Post:
> 
> Our membership is growing because I see the actual numbers of new members added daily but realistically, HT was established for those interested in Homesteading and there are only so many homesteaders out there.
> 
> ...


The name and the wealth of information here will always be an asset for someone. Someone would buy it. It could easily be turned around.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm fixing my post to add two words:



CajunSunshine said:


> I don't think our *active, participating* membership has been this low in many, many years. Ad revenue for Carbon Media must be sucking big time, compared to what it was when they bought (and broke) the place.
> 
> 
> .


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

painterswife said:


> The name and the wealth of information here will always be an asset for someone. Someone would buy it. *It could easily be turned around.*


Yes it could, and now is darned good time.

.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> Wr's Post:
> 
> Our membership is growing because I see the actual numbers of new members added daily but realistically, HT was established for those interested in Homesteading and there are only so many homesteaders out there.
> 
> ...


You notice that I do not support this forum monetarily? I was burnt bad, several years ago. A group of very talented people and a few nutjobs like me built a website into the premier destination in the world for the subject matter. The owner, after talking about what things cost, software upgrades, etc., asked us to help fund the site as supporters. We did. We were even supposed to get a coffee mug as an appreciation gift for helping fund the place.

Fast forward a few years...Most of the old guys left due to controversy, the knowledge base took a plunge, the people who helped build the website from 100 hits a day up to thousands of hits per day received no consideration whatsoever...Not even the promised coffee mug.

If I'm going to give you content for free (which is what we do), I ain't gonna give you money, too. Been there, done that, got the tshirt.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Jolly said:


> You notice that I do not support this forum monetarily? I was burnt bad, several years ago. A group of very talented people and a few nutjobs like me built a website into the premier destination in the world for the subject matter. The owner, after talking about what things cost, software upgrades, etc., asked us to help fund the site as supporters. We did. We were even supposed to get a coffee mug as an appreciation gift for helping fund the place.
> 
> Fast forward a few years...Most of the old guys left due to controversy, the knowledge base took a plunge, the people who helped build the website from 100 hits a day up to thousands of hits per day received no consideration whatsoever...Not even the promised coffee mug.
> 
> If I'm going to give you content for free (which is what we do), I ain't gonna give you money, too. Been there, done that, got the tshirt.


I have that tshirt too. Back in the day a forum I was a member of . had a guy that cried he was fixing to shut down the board because of expenses blah blah blah. He set up a special member fee and a supporter banner but it was more personal problems and he soon left .


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Put it on EBAY. auction with a "buy it now"


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> I have recommended this site to several people, they lurked for a bit but declined to join. They like the site concept but question after reading how long it will be here and if there will be any growth. These are thirty somethings interested in multiple homesteading areas, also in singletree.
> 
> For myself I will keep my political discussions in politics, same with religion.


I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone use those factors to decide weather to join a site.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Personally, I’d rather see political discussion stay in the politics/dark room.
When politics are off the main board it seems easier to find common ground with other posters here rather than division. But it seemed to wiggle its way back in first through Singletree and then back into GC.

Which isn’t to say I won’t get into it when it’s dangled in front of me. 
I liked the option of not having it dangle in front of me.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone use those factors to decide weather to join a site.


You need to run with a more discerning crowd LOL...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CajunSunshine said:


> Yes it could, and now is darned good time.
> 
> .


Fix it now is a great suggestion but how do you suggest we entice like minded people, when you also indicate that CMG has a bit of a PR problem.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

wr said:


> Fix it now is a great suggestion but how do you suggest we entice like minded people, when you also indicate that CMG has a bit of a PR problem.



She told you, just scroll up. Get GC off the recent post feature


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

oneraddad said:


> She told you, just scroll up. Get GC off the recent post feature


Many thanks but I don't feel that's all it's going to take to attract members and bring back those who left.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Give me a few minutes... I am up to my neck in alligators at the moment, lol

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CajunSunshine said:


> No, but it is not spewing incessant vitriol.
> 
> .


That's true, and neither are most of the other sections here. That nonsense is not supposed to happen anywhere on HT. for reasons best known to themselves there are a few members that seem to thrive on snark, mayhem and creating chaos in general. One would think adults could discuss the most controversial of issues without resorting to elementary school yard tactics.... But alas that seems to be too much to ask. Sad sad sad.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

wr said:


> Many thanks but I don't feel that's all it's going to take to attract members and bring back those who left.


In an effort to attract dormant members, I am often prompted to visit a forum that has fallen off my radar whenever I see the weekly email sent out by forums. The email resembles a newsletter with a list of the current threads. A carefully thought out list of current threads has the potential for broad appeal. A forum's email list of members (past and present) is pure gold.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

wr said:


> how do you suggest we entice like minded people, when you also indicate that CMG has a bit of a PR problem.



WR and anyone else who is interested, thank you for the chance to reformulate my suggestions that I splattered over two threads: the “Lurker” and “Politics” threads.

I have gone back to those threads and collected bits and pieces of my posts and clarified a thing or three with additional notes. Please bear with me, if you have seen some of it before.

Because of the Alicegate mess, we lost much of our membership. And now because we are a skeleton crew, *we will attract and keep folks according to the topic and quality of our visible threads. *

If I wasn't an "old timer" here, and was a newbie contemplating joining this board (or any board on the internet), I would probably decide NOT to hang my hat where I see at first glance, too many folks are snarking, growling, biting and crapping all over the board.

Not everyone will see all the nice and wonderful posts that Mr. or Ms. Grouch of the Day made yesterday or the day before that.

If we don't mind our manners, we may well lose potentially good new posters. On the flip side of that, we could attract more snarkiness. Here's hoping it does not come to that.

Many here would agree that for the past (too many) months, more than the usual amount of drama is spilling over and leaking onto normally peaceful forums.

Then again, another serious part of our problem could be a few chronically divisive and snarky members who need to knock it off.

Speaking of drama, unfortunately the threads in General Chat are visible in the "Recent Posts" and "New Posts" feed. Some members know better and don't click, but I suspect that many newbies and potential members click and...run.

To preserve the general health of this site and to help grow it in a positive direction, General Chat needs to be a private forum, meaning one needs to ask for permission to enter. *(As one poster commented, GC has become Dark Side Lite.) *


I've noticed that many internet boards have two specific private forums for two of the most divisive topics on the planet: religion and politics. If someone comes in repeatedly saying stuff like “you are stupid for believing (xyz)” or being generally insulting, or disrespectful, they are banned from that particular forum.

It works.

But maybe it works elsewhere because the inhabitants usually maintain a measure of respect and don’t repeatedly devolve into a insulting match, to see who can insult the highest. If someone thrives on chronic divisiveness and snark, they don't fit in with the rest of the group, and out you go.

Imagine this: If you have been invited as a dinner guest in someone’s home and soon after you arrive, you hear an ugly shouting match coming from the kitchen. How long would you stay? I don’t know about any of you, but I would high-tail it out of there as soon as I politely could. And be reluctant to come back. Ugh, no thank you, I have other plans. Y'know?

That is pretty much the same effect we are suffering now.

One board I belong to has a private subforum called The Woodshed, lol. If a peeing match on the main board gets to the point where they are being too disrespectful and overly snarky, the thread is moved to The Woodshed, out of sight of the regular membership (sorta like our Dark Side) and they can duke it out (within reason, of course) without inflicting their vitriol on the rest of the board.

Perhaps making GC a private forum that requires admission, would _free the rest of the board for what it was originally designed: friendly homesteaders._ If that happened, you can bet new membership participation will begin to grow.

If not, then membership will continue to slide down the steep slope downhill that it is currently on.

_*If*_ Singletree gets to be like GC is now, or DS Lite, then make that forum private as well.

Folks can have the option of signing in easily enough. No one would be deprived of anything. Not even a little bit.

GC serves a useful purpose. _But because of the way our new software is structured, guests who look into the Recent/New post feed, will see interesting sounding thread titles, then open it to see folks snarking back and forth to a ridiculous degree. _

When potential guests come into our home, and there is constant bickering and arguing in the hallway... what reason would they have to stay?

*That *is the whole ball of wax. Unless we grow our membership, this place will no longer exist. *T*_*he kind of members we attract is driven by our threads. *_


Last but not least:


Steve brought up a valid point: “Politics, Religion, Race, (apparently climate too unless discussing gardening times) are all TOXIC FORUM SUBJECTS. No wonder people are shifting to the other site where this crud doesn't fly...”


.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

wr said:


> Many thanks but I don't feel that's all it's going to take to attract members and bring back those who left.



OK, I was just letting you know she did provide a solution when you said she didn't.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Which forum has the Woodshed? Are you talking about Numb and Willows forum?


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

ETA: When I say membership, I mean active and participating members, not just the number of members. 


.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

These tactics may not bring back a large number of those we lost, but it WILL ensure that we grow our membership in a positive direction. It is how small forums thrive and grow to become a functioning community. 

.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Click on the profile name and then click ignore.


I always said I'd never put someone on ignore (there was one but it couldn't be done) but a seriously dimwitted blast from the past occurred and wow, just wow, the entire post is gone. This could be a good thing.

And another one's gone, and another's gone, and another one bites the dust. Hey, I'm gonna get you, too. Another one bites the dust. Props to Queen


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

no really said:


> LOL, yep you can't fix stupid. But it sure can tick a person off.
> 
> I am right there with ya, I value this forum and think I have made some good friends. Also learned a lot!!
> 
> Just a comment from some of those I invited to join, they were fascinated with FBB.



Fascinated, puzzled, amused............yeah I can see that, like the stuff people slow down and stare at on the freeway sometimes.
It's a gift some people have.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> Which forum has the Woodshed? Are you talking about Numb and Willows forum?



I was not referring to any forum that you or anyone here is a member of.

I have no idea what Numb and Willow's forum is? The only other forum I know of where some of our members went is Melissa's. But that was not it.


,


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CajunSunshine said:


> WR and anyone else who is interested, thank you for the chance to reformulate my suggestions that I splattered over two threads: the “Lurker” and “Politics” threads.
> 
> I have gone back to those threads and collected bits and pieces of my posts and clarified a thing or three with additional notes. Please bear with me, if you have seen some of it before.
> 
> ...


It's only recently that members have been making political posts in GC and yet you indicate that it's the root cause of what you feel is reduced membership so what do you feel was affecting membership in the years before the last couple months? I doubt if it's the new post feature because that has always been a feature. 

I don't believe that you've been involved in GC overly often in recent years but in the last few months, I've seen you contribute quite a bit more in this area. 

I'm going to side with Arabian Knight to a certain degree but your theory on blocking more and more forums from view, also reduces the chances of new members finding us. Using your SingleTree as another forum suggested become opt in, is perfect example. Countless times over the years, members have mentioned they searched searched gardening tips, found SingleTree and enjoyed the experience. 

On the surface, the suggestions you offer may seem like a perfect answer but don't take into account the long term downward spiral you cite.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

It's only recently that members have been making political posts in GC and yet you indicate that it's the root cause of what you feel is reduced membership so what do you feel was affecting membership in the years before the last couple months? I doubt if it's the new post feature because that has always been a feature.

Thanks for taking the time to hear my suggestions. Although it seems that a few others may be understanding what the main ideas were, I think you may be completely missing my point, but that is OK. I am sure things will work out for the best, somehow.


I don't believe that you've been involved in GC overly often in recent years but in the last few months, I've seen you contribute quite a bit more in this area. 

Yes, thankfully I have had a little more overall time lately, and have contributed more in many forums that I normally didn't have time to: the prep forum, health section, gardening, GC, etc. etc. Wait. The chicken forum too (I don't even have any) to post a video on an old funny thread that Chickenista started a gazillion years ago.etc. etc. 

I'm going to side with Arabian Knight to a certain degree but your theory on blocking more and more forums from view, also reduces the chances of new members finding us. Using your SingleTree as another forum suggested become opt in, is perfect example. Countless times over the years, members have mentioned they searched searched gardening tips, found SingleTree and enjoyed the experience. 

Yes, I hope ST does not ever become private for that reason, and more. I just threw that as an example to illustrate that if for some reason IF it ever became a detriment to the entire site.... nope, it never got that bad in there on a consistent basis, and probably never will. So it was not a good example.

On the surface, the suggestions you offer may seem like a perfect answer but don't take into account the long term downward spiral you cite.[/QUOTE]

If the snark stuff is allowed to continue to run rampant, it will. As Yvonne's Hubby mentioned in his post, it is sad..... but I am OK with that, too. 


.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I see three paths.

Don't allow snark in any forum.
Allow snark in any forum
Hide snark away

That said. Any subject can get snarky. How you feed your goat can get snarky. You either enforce the rules site wide or it gets into any section. Are we going to keep hiding sections when a topic gets snarky or will the rules be enforced. Do we enforce moving every instant of religion or goat feeding because it might turn snarky or do we enforce the rules about snarkiness?

Is this even a discussion that matters or are the owners or mods going to decide based on what is easiest for them? Right now the threads that are keeping this forum alive are GC type threads no matter what section they are in ( in my opinion) They can exist without snark. I personally don't care about snark. I think it is the personal and group attacks that are the problem. If you want to see other topics dominate the new posts then start and participate in them.

We each may have subjects we don't think should be here 
but unless it is not family friendly why does our personal preference dictate what othes get to discuss?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CajunSunshine said:


> It's only recently that members have been making political posts in GC and yet you indicate that it's the root cause of what you feel is reduced membership so what do you feel was affecting membership in the years before the last couple months? I doubt if it's the new post feature because that has always been a feature.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to hear my suggestions. Although it seems that a few others may be understanding what the main ideas were, I think you may be completely missing my point, but that is OK. I am sure things will work out for the best, somehow.
> 
> ...


If the snark stuff is allowed to continue to run rampant, it will. As Yvonne's Hubby mentioned in his post, it is sad..... but I am OK with that, too. 


.[/QUOTE]

I'm not here to surmise your point, which is why I asked direct questions although I think you're missing my point. You indicated that membership was down, although I see a different side than you but I can understand how you arrive at your opinion. 

The problem is that if I ask 45 people the same questions, I'll get 45 different answers on how to fix it and each one is as convinced as you that their suggestion is the right.

I don't feel the political threads in GC is the cause of our problem but it is a symptom. Your last election divided your own country and one of our members recently stated that the best way to win, is to demonize your enemy and that pretty well sums up the tone in your country and that is reflected here. 

Mods can't fix tone nor can HT afford to run 45 different directions in order to fix what was so badly damaged by others.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

You are right, it is not the political threads themselves. At all. And, as I said, GC is needed. 

What is not needed is the persistent over-the-top snarky fighting that newcomers see when they click onto certain threads in the feed. Usually, the fighting is in a GC thread. And that is the only reason I mentioned that forum, because that is where most of the fighting has been originating. It seems to have gotten worse in the past several months. It is demoralizing to to the general population, and it is obviously discouraging guests from signing up. Numbers don't lie: hundreds of guests and a small handful of members are actually participating. 

I have been wondering where my favorite posters are, and did I maybe overlook their posts? So I have been looking at profiles to see when they were last here. Many, _too many_ are dribbling away from here...long after Alicegate. Often newbies post a little, and get the heck out. Enough folks see why. 

It is what it is. 


.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

I sincerely appreciate that y'all heard me out, and please know that I am not directing any of this in a bad way against any poster, but in general.

If the forum was not declining so badly, I would just break out my popcorn and stay out of the way like I have always done. Now that I have had (more than) my say, I do believe I have whipped this poor ol' horse to death, lol. (Now that it is horseburger, I'll just stop.)

(a'ight, y'all in the back row, stop clapping!)


.


.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> You are right, it is not the political threads themselves. At all. And, as I said, GC is needed.
> 
> What is not needed is the persistent over-the-top snarky fighting that newcomers see when they click onto certain threads in the feed. Usually, the fighting is in a GC thread. And that is the only reason I mentioned that forum, because that is where most of the fighting has been originating. It seems to have gotten worse in the past several months. It is demoralizing to to the general population, and it is obviously discouraging guests from signing up. Numbers don't lie: hundreds of guests and a small handful of members are actually participating.
> 
> ...


Are you sure that is the problem or is it what you think the problem is? Do you really know why more new members don't participate? Maybe it is about lack of activity not content.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Are you sure that is the problem or is it what you think the problem is? Do you really know why more new members don't participate? Maybe it is about lack of activity not content.



Of course it is lack of activity. There are multiple reasons why members are leaving, and leaving, and leaving....and few new members are staying. We have been discussing only one huge problem that needs fixing. IF it can be fixed, then the place will have a friendlier atmosphere and be the kind of place most folks would be happy to stay.

I am not the only person in the world to see this concept. But it is starting to wear me down, now I need to be getting back to my horseburger, LOL. Pass the BBQ sauce!


.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

We don’t have a politics forum, we have a dark room. 
So simply put politics don’t belong in the politics forum, it belongs in general chat. 
But we do have a dark, a room for behavior that shouldn’t see the light of day.
It seems such a simple thing that if you feel the need for behavior not up to the general site standards to go to the darkroom.

The darkroom does not have any limits on what may be discussed. If you want to discuss Bee foot cleaning in a mean or foul mouth way that’s the place to do it.
I suppose a little more enforcement of the being nice principal and neighborly behavior might not hurt in the entire form but generally I think it has been OK in most of the forum.
I suspect that some people withdrawing from the darkroom have left it without sufficient players to be entertaining. So so players there have searched for new battlegrounds.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

If you really want to fix it, get someone with no political leanings to do a little reading, and pick out the handful of posters that consistently send a thread over the boundaries of civility. Send those posters a warning, and after that ban them for progressively longer periods of time. Everybody can either straighten up and act like grownups, or else sit quietly for a week, 2 weeks, a month, 2 months, a year...and so on.

It's just a few people who are doing the instigating, and more fall into the thread when it's nothing more than a free-for-all of name calling. The instigators are the ones who need a naptime. There could be a thread about the most disagreeable thing possible, and the participants could talk like adults. If they knew they'd be deleted if they didn't.

I do believe that the ugly tends to make for more posts, which makes for more views, which makes for higher ad revenues. Which would indicate that ownership approves.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I’ll once again beat my dead horse. Under the previous software when mods deleted a post the content of the post disappeared but the poster’s name remained and a reason for the removal of the content was given. It’s the public shaming that Austin disapproved of. It didn’t eliminate all the snark or petty bickering but at least others could openly see who was being censured and why and maybe learn from their behavior. I’ll posit that the lack of transparency in the current moderating has only exacerbated some of the issues being discussed and complained about.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Well I don’t know if it’s Austin‘s fault or not. 
But I agree I like seeing the emptied post bearing a reason for that post being removed. That way we can each learn what the real limits of the site are.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Well I don’t know if it’s Austin‘s fault or not.
> But I agree I like seeing the emptied post bearing a reason for that post being removed. That way we can each learn what the real limits of the site are.


Wasn’t trying to throw Austin under the bus but I had discussions with him, publicly and privately, on this matter and was told it wouldn’t happen because he disapproved of public shaming. The current administration has, as of yet, not said why such a policy return isn’t feasible.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

CajunSunshine said:


> I sincerely appreciate that y'all heard me out, and please know that I am not directing any of this in a bad way against any poster, but in general.
> 
> If the forum was not declining so badly, I would just break out my popcorn and stay out of the way like I have always done. Now that I have had (more than) my say, I do believe I have whipped this poor ol' horse to death, lol. (Now that it is horseburger, I'll just stop.)
> 
> ...


I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and think you've made very good points. All we can do as I see now is follow our preferences, mine is to stick to areas and subjects that are interesting. And by that I mean I totally lose interest when the personal stuff starts appearing in discussions. I will probably not discuss the hot button subjects in GC, prefer to just back away, hate the smell of dead horse.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

no really said:


> I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and think you've made very good points. All we can do as I see now is follow our preferences, mine is to stick to areas and subjects that are interesting. And by that I mean I totally lose interest when the personal stuff starts appearing in discussions. I will probably not discuss the hot button subjects in GC, prefer to just back away, hate the smell of dead horse.


When prepared properly dead horse can be quite delicious.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> I’ll once again beat my dead horse. Under the previous software when mods deleted a post the content of the post disappeared but the poster’s name remained and a reason for the removal of the content was given. It’s the public shaming that Austin disapproved of. It didn’t eliminate all the snark or petty bickering but at least others could openly see who was being censured and why and maybe learn from their behavior. I’ll posit that the lack of transparency in the current moderating has only exacerbated some of the issues being discussed and complained about.


That requires a mod to read every post in every thread. In pretty much real time, to maximize results.

We may have to double their pay.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> That requires a mod to read every post in every thread. In pretty much real time, to maximize results.
> 
> We may have to double their pay.


No, it requires them to read the reported posts and deal with them appropriately.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> That requires a mod to read every post in every thread. In pretty much real time, to maximize results.
> 
> We may have to double their pay.


No, it doesn’t any more than the current system does. Mods would only have to read and address reported posts just as they do now. The only difference is rather than the mod hitting a button and a post disappearing forever with no evidence it ever existed there would be a trail of deleted posts and reasons for those deletions to follow.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I think reporting posts is being a crybaby, I just don't like a tattle-tail. Plus, I don't like to ask for help unless I really need it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> When prepared properly dead horse can be quite delicious.


Well so far the prepares haven't been very skilled here. I've eaten horse meat many times, it can be delicious.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

There is a forum for discussion of politics, religion, and debate. Why not post political and religious threads there? I was opposed to the name "dark forums" but was told the name was chosen to distinguish that area from the ones that could be seen by anyone. I like General Chat being available to everyone as there are topics that don't readily fit the other sections. Just because some people want to be hateful and spew that hate in the politics section doesn't mean they have to. Those who post political threads could choose to play nicely.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Wake up this morning, check my mail, the weather, a couple news sites and then HT. 
LOL. 
Top 5 current/recent Homesteading Today topics-
"Politics"
"Simply Isn't Right"
"Government Shutdown"
"Uneducated"
"Mass Immigration"

If anyone is free or knowledgable, the poor guy in the "homesteading" subforum could use a little help with his well, and there is an interesting topic on giving cooking oil to your pigs in the livestock slot. Might help with breathing and perspective a little, just sayin...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> No, it doesn’t any more than the current system does. Mods would only have to read and address reported posts just as they do now. The only difference is rather than the mod hitting a button and a post disappearing forever with no evidence it ever existed there would be a trail of deleted posts and reasons for those deletions to follow.


I disagree.

If what one is seeking is a board of milder temperment, you can't wait for a reported post. Some people don't report posts, no matter how nasty they are (I used to do that), and things go downhill from there. Yes, it _eventually_ gets cleaned up, but after how many eyeballs look at it and go elsewhere?

OTOH, we have some who like to report a post for anything they deem offensive, whether it actually is,or not. Those take moderator time, too.

IMO, when it comes to general topics not related to the main function of the board, things work best three ways:

1. Anything not pertaining to the main function of the board is started or moved into a opt-in area, with pretty much no rules at all and may the Devil take the hindmost. Or...
2. There are no topics allowed not pertaining to the main function of the board. Or...
3. No DS, only GC, with a moderator given the powers of God and the ability to nuke any post at will and the power to place any member on hiatus at leisure. Multiple offenders are shown the door, _tout de suite_.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

If the company were to set a course of action, and by reporting posts, we could clean up the trainwreck, then I'd be all for it, even though my natural inclination would be same as oneraddad's


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> I disagree.
> 
> If what one is seeking is a board of milder temperment, you can't wait for a reported post. Some people don't report posts, no matter how nasty they are (I used to do that), and things go downhill from there. Yes, it _eventually_ gets cleaned up, but after how many eyeballs look at it and go elsewhere?
> 
> ...


Then you can’t wait for reported posts now, can you? So again, either mods are reading all posts now or they are only reacting to those reported posts now. Either way I’m not talking about that. I am talking about how they respond to the posts, whether reported or found because they are reading every post. 

You could also be part of the change in behavior you wish to see.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly is not a mod.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Jolly is not a mod.


I apologize for my mistake.

I’ve edited my post to correct the error.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No apology necessary.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

painterswife said:


> No apology necessary.


Yes, there was. Momma always said own up to your mistakes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I am curious how those who won't report posts expect them to get cleaned up? I am assuming you want this forum to have some basic rules and standards. Maybe you don't.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

CajunSunshine said:


> WR and anyone else who is interested, thank you for the chance to reformulate my suggestions that I splattered over two threads: the “Lurker” and “Politics” threads.
> 
> I have gone back to those threads and collected bits and pieces of my posts and clarified a thing or three with additional notes. Please bear with me, if you have seen some of it before.
> 
> ...



Interesting. That forum that had the woodshed in it didnt happen to be BT did it? Long shot but just curious.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> I’ll once again beat my dead horse. Under the previous software when mods deleted a post the content of the post disappeared but the poster’s name remained and a reason for the removal of the content was given. It’s the public shaming that Austin disapproved of. It didn’t eliminate all the snark or petty bickering but at least others could openly see who was being censured and why and maybe learn from their behavior. I’ll posit that the lack of transparency in the current moderating has only exacerbated some of the issues being discussed and complained about.


I don’t care for our new platform for many reasons and this is one at the top of a long list.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> I was not referring to any forum that you or anyone here is a member of.
> 
> I have no idea what Numb and Willow's forum is? The only other forum I know of where some of our members went is Melissa's. But that was not it.
> 
> ...


Cool.
Their forum, however also had a “woodshed”.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Lisa in WA said:


> Cool.
> Their forum, however also had a “woodshed”.


So it appears "woodshed" is fairly common for forums.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I am curious how those who won't report posts expect them to get cleaned up? I am assuming you want this forum to have some basic rules and standards. Maybe you don't.


This is not the only board on the planet. As I've said before, I stretch back to Usenet and the old rmmp'er room...The Wild, Wild West on steroids - say anything to anybody. I still frequent some boards like that...Duke it out, until somebody quits swinging. I also frequent some places where you don't have to report anything...Mods are always watching and will descend on you like the Wrath of God, so you better leave your crappy attitude at the door. Funny, the one most vigorously policed is a firearms forum.

As I said, I used to not report anything on this board, even some really (IMO) nasty stuff. Then the problem becomes when you start to fight fire with fire, the other person is banging the report button like Neil Peart on tour. Since it's only human nature for the squeaky wheel to get the grease, that creates an unequal balance of power.

AFAIK, take the report button away, and let the moderators moderate.

And while I'm preaching off of my hickory stump, can the like button. I assume it has its purposes, but for most its just a tribal mechanism and an echo chamber. Let your words stand by themselves.

Of course, all of the above is just opinion. Take all of it, add one dollar and it will buy you a cup of coffee at McDonald's.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I guess I just don’t get WHY people brought back political discussion to GC and Singletree when the dark room is accessible to members who want to see it and participate.

I made a reasoned decision to opt out so I wasn’t tempted to engage in it and could again see posters here for the other qualities they possess and not just for the more controversial facets of personalities like politics and religion.

If Singletree and GC are now going to be the next dark rooms, can we have those boards blocked if we desire? And maybe open a new section for chat outside of the other boards and the political stuff?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> I guess I just don’t get WHY people brought back political discussion to GC and Singletree when the dark room is accessible to members who want to see it and participate.
> 
> I made a reasoned decision to opt out so I wasn’t tempted to engage in it and could again see posters here for the other qualities they possess and not just for the more controversial facets of personalities like politics and religion.
> 
> If Singletree and GC are now going to be the next dark rooms, can we have those boards blocked if we desire? And maybe open a new section for chat outside of the other boards and the political stuff?


Simple because we like well mannered discussion with those that behave as adults.

That said there is a incorrect assumption in your question, No one ever " brought politics back to GC" Thats where it has always been. The dark room was created for a style of behaviour incompatable with the wider boards Friendly and neighborly goals.
It might seem that way though since it seems that more of the dark room style has been drifting into GC and even the rest of the board recently.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Simple because we like well mannered discussion with those that behave as adults.
> 
> That said there is a incorrect assumption in your question, No one ever " brought politics back to GC" Thats where it has always been. The dark room was created for a style of behaviour incompatable with the wider boards Friendly and neighborly goals.
> It might seem that way though since it seems that more of the dark room style has been drifting into GC and even the rest of the board recently.


I thought that the dark rooms were created for hot button topics, you know those that can cause disruptive discussions. Those were supposedly politics and religion. As it is right now there doesn't seem to be much difference in the level of "nice" between GC and the dark rooms.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> I thought that the dark rooms were created for hot button topics, you know those that can cause disruptive discussions. Those were supposedly politics and religion. As it is right now there doesn't seem to be much difference in the level of "nice" between GC and the dark rooms.


That’s what I thought too.
I’ve just put a number of posters on ignore. Not posters who have something intelligent to say in other areas but the ones who just come here to argue, tweak, taunt and lie. Maybe that will help.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> That’s what I thought too.
> I’ve just put a number of posters on ignore. Not posters who have something intelligent to say in other areas but the ones who just come here to argue, tweak, taunt and lie. Maybe that will help.


Good idea! I've never put anyone on ignore before, now maybe the time.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> I thought that the dark rooms were created for hot button topics, you know those that can cause disruptive discussions. Those were supposedly politics and religion. As it is right now there doesn't seem to be much difference in the level of "nice" between GC and the dark rooms.


I asked about that when it was created and was told That you are correct thats what its for be that it was a matter more of the behavior than the Topic and that any topic could still be brought up in GC.
There was some arguments at that time when I created Threads and was told I should know that they would become combattive. But I checked with the powers that be at the time and was told I could put them in either place and they would be cleaned up, moved or deleted at the Moderators discretion.
I also agree the level of nice seems to be deteriorating boardwide.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

mreynolds said:


> Interesting. That forum that had the woodshed in it didnt happen to be BT did it? Long shot but just curious.


No, and what is BT?

.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bullets today ? Bull Truckers ? Belly Time ? Brass TaTas ? Bakers trains ?


----------



## Dustin (Apr 20, 2011)

M5farm said:


> Shouldn't politics be in the Politics forums and not in general chat ???


From a previously avid reader of the forum, admittedly much more of an information sponge than provider, the entire forum has significantly declined in value to a “homesteader”. It’s a soap box.

If you’re like my great aunts of yesteryear and love sitting at the kitchen table drinking coffee and gossiping, this is the place for you. If you’re interested in permaculture, chicken coops, pastured pork, fence building, etc., etc. I strongly recommend looking elsewhere. Permies.com, Homesteading Families and YouTube would serve you much better.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

CajunSunshine said:


> No, and what is BT?
> 
> .


Breaktime. It is a forum for _Fine Homebuilding_ Magazine. It had a woodshed also. Just wondering if I had seen you there is all. Its mostly tradesmen but a few that just ask questions.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Bullets today ? Bull Truckers ? Belly Time ? Brass TaTas ? Bakers trains ?


Not sure I want to follow you around for a day.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Dustin said:


> If you’re interested in permaculture, chicken coops, pastured pork, fence building, etc., etc. I strongly recommend looking elsewhere. Permies.com, Homesteading Families and YouTube would serve you much better.


Don't fool yourself into thinking they are really a lot different.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> Bullets today ? Bull Truckers ? Belly Time ? Brass TaTas ? Bakers trains ?


Great! Just great. Now I cannot get the visuals out of my mind...I am ruined forever.

American Stand: packing a gun with bullets today, wearing brass TaTas, driving a truck fulla bulls, full speed ahead then crashing into a Baker's train while shouting Belly Time! at the top of his lungs...


.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

CajunSunshine said:


> Great! Just great. Now I cannot get the visuals out of my mind...I am ruined forever.
> 
> American Stand: packing a gun with bullets today, wearing brass TaTas, driving a truck fulla bulls, full speed ahead then crashing into a Baker's train while shouting Belly Time! at the top of his lungs...
> 
> ...


At least he didnt say wheat fed cows.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> Not sure I want to follow you around for a day.


 Hey come on CajunSunshine has a plan....



CajunSunshine said:


> Great! Just great. Now I cannot get the visuals out of my mind...I am ruined forever.
> 
> American Stand: packing a gun with bullets today, wearing brass TaTas, driving a truck fulla bulls, full speed ahead then crashing into a Baker's train while shouting Belly Time! at the top of his lungs...
> 
> ...


 I’ve just got one one thing to say,

Hold my beer....


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> .....I’ve just got one one thing to say,
> Hold my beer....


 Here, the "hold my beer" is usually followed by "and watch this cheese" Unless you are absolutely sure you can do it with 2 hands. If you can do it with one hand, it's "gimme anudder burr and lurn sump'n"


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Looks to me like politics can be discussed without most of the snark and name calling by the HT members.There are three or more threads in progress. Just as I can ignore the "goat" threads others can ignore these threads.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Looks to me like politics can be discussed without most of the snark and name calling by the HT members.There are three or more threads in progress. Just as I can ignore the "goat" threads others can ignore these threads.


Maybe more threads on how to cook goats. They are tasty.


----------



## Dustin (Apr 20, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't fool yourself into thinking they are really a lot different.


I don't need to fool myself, I can observe and critically think based on my observations. This quality of homesteading content on this forum has been steadily declining for a while with a rapid acceleration as of late. Some people's constant combativeness doesn't help either. YouTube alone allows more of a pull of information you'd like rather than a push of all the BS on here.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Dustin said:


> YouTube alone allows more of a pull of information you'd like rather than a push of all the BS on here.


Youtube isn't a forum so there's really no way to compare the two sites.
It's still quite simple to get information here by simply asking questions.
A large number of the folks at the other forums you named post here too.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe more threads on how to cook goats. They are tasty.


A couple years ago, someone posted something in Horses about a breaded mare. Thread drift involved recipes and helpful suggestions and things were pretty entertaining right up until someone spoiled our fun by letting us know we were cold hearted and insensitive.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Dustin said:


> I don't need to fool myself, I can observe and critically think based on my observations. This quality of homesteading content on this forum has been steadily declining for a while with a rapid acceleration as of late. Some people's constant combativeness doesn't help either. YouTube alone allows more of a pull of information you'd like rather than a push of all the BS on here.


Be the change you want to see. 
Have you been starting a lot of informative threads, yourself?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

wr said:


> A couple years ago, someone posted something in Horses about a breaded mare. Thread drift involved recipes and helpful suggestions and things were pretty entertaining right up until someone spoiled our fun by letting us know we were cold hearted and insensitive.


I remember that thread and may have contributed to it. Ate horse while in Europe. Found it quite tasty.


----------



## Dustin (Apr 20, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> Be the change you want to see.
> Have you been starting a lot of informative threads, yourself?


Nope. Not the point at all and deflecting. 

As I mentioned, I was an information sponge. The homesteading information has dramatically decreased. Simple as that folks. I’m sure some don’t mind either way or prefer the new forum content/style.

I don’t.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Dustin said:


> Nope. Not the point at all and deflecting.
> 
> As I mentioned, I was an information sponge. The homesteading information has dramatically decreased. Simple as that folks. I’m sure some don’t mind either way or prefer the new forum content/style.
> 
> I don’t.


Actually, it sounds like you are deflecting. 
You come on here griping about a forum that you don’t bother contributing to, just proudly proclaim yourself an “information sponge” and we are all supposed to be wowed by your insight? If you want it to be something else, contribute. Or go mooch somewhere else.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Wow.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya wow,, that sure wasn't call for. Seems some better take a chill pill themselves eh?


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Reading the quoted poster's other 2 comments in this thread, seems to me that Lisa is right.

While his statements are basically factual, it is also factual that he claims to not participate very much. He also promotes Youtube, and a couple of other forums as being better, in a move that historically is unacceptable upon by all forums.

Kinda like telling your wife that her cookies aren't nearly as good as the 42 year old neighbor widow up the road's cookies. Furthermore, you'd prefer to watch cookies being made on the internet. 

It just isn't good form


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

If we want this site to move towards it former glory then we need to understand why people might not join or might not post after they join. Those of us that have been here for years have a certain way of viewing HT. We need to consider the opinions of others. While I admit his posts put my back up right away, I did not respond like others have because it I don't believe it would be inviting to new posters or lurkers to attack their opinions in that way.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I have always found the other HT forums on sheep, cattle and chickens to be an invaluable source of assistance.

There are some special people here I will always be indebted to.

GC and Politics are simply an added bonus of entertainment, and information on how varied opinions can truly be.

I would not change a thing, except maybe the way Politics is so subjective on handing out criticism. Mod are people, and have opinions, and bias that cannot help but shine through. Personally, I think politics should allow one to say anything and let nature take its course. Policing GC and all the other ones is fine, but let politics run free.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

HDRider said:


> I have always found the other HT forums on sheep, cattle and chickens to be an invaluable source of assistance.
> 
> There are some special people here I will always be indebted to.
> 
> ...


That's why we have more than a single mod in GC and the Dark Room as well as encouraging mods outside those two areas to weigh in as well. 

Mods have no problem with anyone's opinon in Politics as long as conversation is relatively civil. Can you tell me how members will benefit by allowing personal attacks?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> Be the change you want to see.
> Have you been starting a lot of informative threads, yourself?


 When you just start getting interested in something you DONT have a lot to contribute. How much wiser to Look and lurk than spew nonsense?
Sure you can ask questions but A lot of questions are already covered here and you can simply look them up.
Perhaps Something that would Bump a post up by views and not just posts would be nice?
Also Good to remember to be nice to the new folks here so that we have some!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> That's why we have more than a single mod in GC and the Dark Room as well as encouraging mods outside those two areas to weigh in as well.
> 
> Mods have no problem with anyone's opinon in Politics as long as conversation is relatively civil. Can you tell me how members will benefit by allowing personal attacks?


What is a personal attack might only be noticed by a reporting, and some bait so they can play that reporting game. That is their thing. If you don't report then you are made to suffer. Being a tattle tale is against my nature. I like to take my licks and take care of myself.

Why is attacking someone not allowed in certain formats? That is just life. You try to make a rule about it, and it has its frailties. I know you try to be fair, and I appreciate it, but it is impossible. Lift the burden from yourselves.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> That's why we have more than a single mod in GC and the Dark Room as well as encouraging mods outside those two areas to weigh in as well.
> 
> Mods have no problem with anyone's opinon in Politics as long as conversation is relatively civil. Can you tell me how members will benefit by allowing personal attacks?





HDRider said:


> GC and Politics are simply an added bonus of entertainment, and information on how varied opinions can truly be.
> 
> I would not change a thing, except maybe the way Politics is so subjective on handing out criticism. Mod are people, and have opinions, and bias that cannot help but shine through. Personally, I think politics should allow one to say anything and let nature take its course. Policing GC and all the other ones is fine, but let politics run free.


​ Lets not call The darkroom Politics, It seems to be causing a perception problem about Both the dark room and general chat.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> What is a personal attack might only be noticed by a reporting, and some bait so they can play that reporting game. That is their thing. If you don't report then you are made to suffer. Being a tattle tale is against my nature. I like to take my licks and take care of myself.
> 
> Why is attacking someone not allowed in certain formats? That is just life. You try to make a rule about it, and it has its frailties. I know you try to be fair, and I appreciate it, but it is impossible. Lift the burden from yourselves.


What if I want to participate in a forum where attacks are not allowed? I want to discuss an topic not the person discussing it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Lets not call The darkroom Politics, It seems to be causing a perception problem about Both the dark room and general chat.


I was responding to a specific comment by a specific poster and my response was based on their wording.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> What if I want to participate in a forum where attacks are not allowed? I want to discuss an topic not the person discussing it.


You yourself attack others more than most.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

HDRider said:


> You yourself .........


Wowsy!! Double personal intro..
to an attack about attacking!! Kudos.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> You yourself attack others more than most.


Your opinion is noted.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I told the admins I thought the darkrooms might save this place from leaky memberships...get it? But hey. If this is what everyone wants to see popping up on the recent activity feed...I'll play along.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> *Lets not call The darkroom Politics*, It seems to be causing a perception problem about Both the dark room and general chat.


It is politics, so why not call it that? This is the subheader under "dark rooms": 
*Politics, Religion, Debate and Controversy*
Notice the word "politics"? That is the section where politics belong, not in Gen Chat.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Also Good to remember to be nice to the new folks here so that we have some!


Telling the truth is the nicest thing I can think of.



> AmericanStand said: ↑
> *Lets not call The darkroom Politics*, It seems to be causing a perception problem about Both the dark room and general chat.


The "dark room" IS "Politics".
Pretending it's not is the only perception problem.

Some just want to turn GC into Politics when historically they have been separated for good reason.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Clem said:


> Wowsy!! Double personal intro..
> to an attack about attacking!! Kudos.


Thanks. I have a gift.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Telling the truth is the nicest thing I can think of.
> 
> 
> The "dark room" IS "Politics".
> ...


This is not completely accurate. For years, politics were perfectly acceptable in general chat.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

wiscto said:


> I told the admins I thought the darkrooms might save this place from leaky memberships...get it? But hey. If this is what everyone wants to see popping up on the recent activity feed...I'll play along.


I was under the impression that the Dark Room was for Religion, Politics and controversial threads and that's why the Dark Room was formed.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> This is not completely accurate. For years, politics were perfectly acceptable in general chat.


That was before the Dark Room was added.


----------



## Dustin (Apr 20, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> Actually, it sounds like you are deflecting.
> You come on here griping about a forum that you don’t bother contributing to, just proudly proclaim yourself an “information sponge” and we are all supposed to be wowed by your insight? If you want it to be something else, contribute. Or go mooch somewhere else.


Most of the changes away from traditional homesteading have been, from what I've inferred, to make this a business or to cater to clicks and advertisement streams. I'd think the owners view folks that come here to read and provide advertisement numbers valuable too. 

If the business model is to get eyes on advertisements or to get people to pay and this is supposedly a homesteading forum, you'd think people would want critical input on their observations. A drift away from homesteading is going to decrease the number of eyes from people looking for valuable homesteading knowledge. I'm sure the changes have had a positive impact on the overall numbers.

Thank you for the suggestion, or command, but I'm going to continue popping in because I am an information junkie and there are still a few acorns to be dug up.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> That was before the Dark Room was added.


Politics was a dark room in itself for a couple of years, wasn't it? Prior to that, I have no idea how many years, politics was part of general chat.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

If it's the new norm at least we need general chat neutrality. One left leaning post reguires 2 normal post to keep the world in balance.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The dark room is less than 2 years old. Before politics was mostly in GC though it was also in S&P and other sections. The dark rooms were created to hide the snarking etc. I believe it was a hope that the everyone could get the snarking out of their system in the dark. 

I don't see what the problem is with threads such as politics being in other areas if the snark is left out.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

The problem is innuendo. A simple quip gets some folks sideways and their panties bunched up. Then they get offended and all of a sudden they scream discrimination. Then the race or sexism is drug into it and intellectual ability is questioned. Just because a person commenting has an opinion that does not line up with you , it's ok to disagree just leave other things I've mentioned out.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

M5farm said:


> The problem is innuendo. A simple quip gets some folks sideways and their panties bunched up. Then they get offended and all of a sudden they scream discrimination. Then the race or sexism is drug into it and intellectual ability is questioned. Just because a person commenting has an opinion that does not line up with you , it's ok to disagree just leave other things I've mentioned out.


AND..... Stop bringing up stuff that happened in the past. "You remember back in 2012 when you misspelled that word?"


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> AND..... Stop bringing up stuff that happened in the past. "You remember back in 2012 when you misspelled that word?"


Yep, and opinions don't have a link to post .


----------



## Dustin (Apr 20, 2011)

Clem said:


> Kinda like telling your wife that her cookies aren't nearly as good as the 42 year old neighbor widow up the road's cookies. Furthermore, you'd prefer to watch cookies being made on the internet.
> 
> It just isn't good form


I disagree. From my perspective it is more like your wife has been making cookies with your homegrown milk, eggs and honey and then she starts making them with Walmart eggs and refined sugar with a side of liver, which obviously doesn’t go with cookies. Then I express my thoughts and she knee jerks into defensive mode.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Some history. GC posted Nov 6 2003

"In order to take full advantage of the GC Forum you must read and understand the following rules and operating procedures and agree to abide by the rules and operating procedures in their entirety.

These rules will be strictly enforced and violators may, at the sole discretion of the moderators be suspended or "locked out" of the forum for any reasons without prior notice or opportunity to be heard. GC promotes the free flow of ideas and encourages wide ranging discussion of issues, certain behaviors carry potential risk to both individual and users and thus cannot be tolerated. While moderators may not be able to monitor all messages posted in the forum, members are encouraged to "report a post" to a potentially problematic message.

Respect all other members of the forum at all times.

Use this forum to promote and facilitate only legal activities.

Construct messages and files without obscenity and/or explicit or implicit descriptions of sex.

The messages and files you create should either be original or with specific written permission of the original author.

No public reproduction of any kind of private messages (PMs) without the expressed written permission of the message sender.

No commercial advertisements, ads for information exchange, solicitations for funds, or advertisements for other online services will be permitted without prior approval.

Disregard for forum policy or disrespect for forum staff members performing assigned tasks are grounds for immediate disciplinary action.

Like all forums, the GC forum is a friendly place, and good manners are expected of all members. Respect and simple courtesy towards others are necessary in a situation where so many different people with conflicting points of view come together.

While no one has the right or ability to tell you who you should and shouldn't respect, the GC forum asks that you display only a respectful tone and style in your messages and files regarding other members represented on the GC forum. Some examples of a lack of this basic public respect include but are not limited to the following:

anti-social behavior

deliberate disruption of forum discussions

harassment of other users, including taunting mocking and baiting attacks on the person instead of focusing on the issues

inappropriate familiarity

excessive duplication, quotation and/or blank messages

ad hominem attacks, implications of personal wrong-doing, libel 

While there is nothing wrong with a healthy argument, you must not use offensive language or engage in personal attacks on GC forum. Personal attacks may subject you to potential liability for defamation, contribute nothing to the free flow of ideas, and tend to inhibit rational discussion of the issues. So why invite an official intrusion into your exchanges when just a bit of courtesy or respect for others could avoid it?

So, what exactly might lead to a lockout VS a warning, etc.? Messages that are of questionable taste or which might be construed as a personal attack on another forum member will be moved from the general discussion area or deleted. Depending on the seriousness of the offense and the user's prior posting history, the user may get a friendly warning or a more formal warning. 

Please realize that essentially all of these actions take place in private, so that an apparent lack of response by GC doesn't mean that no response has occurred. Similarly, don't simply believe that you are allowed to break any forum rules because it appears another has already done so. If someone seems to treat you unfairly with regard to the rules of GC, report it to admin with as much relevant detail as is possible, as soon as you can. Please don't try taking matters into your own hands, as you would only open yourself up to action too. Two wrongs don't make a right.


We hope that the above rules and considerations and suggestions will be useful to users who are trying to understand how the forum demands for good manner, courtesy and respect are interpreted by the moderators. We hope you will find the forum useful, enjoyable and informative."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> This is not completely accurate. *For years*, politics were perfectly acceptable in general chat.


Also for years, Politics was a separate forum much like the "dark rooms".




Irish Pixie said:


> Politics was a dark room in itself for a couple of years, wasn't it?


It was done by member request because so many didn't want to see it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I don't see what the problem is with threads such as politics being in other areas *if the snark is left out*.


But it seldom is when discussing religion or politics, or many other things.
Hence the separate forum for those topics.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I am enjoying the new variety of HT members posting in the political threads in GC.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> This is not completely accurate. For years, politics were perfectly acceptable in general chat.


And for years, I had a full head of hair.

Sadly, that is no longer the case.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> And for years, I had a full head of hair.
> 
> Sadly, that is no longer the case.


So we agree that neither are unprecedented! We agree on something. 

It's too bad you're bald.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Jolly said:


> And for years, I had a full head of hair.
> 
> Sadly, that is no longer the case.


their was a time when it was acceptable to beat your wife also. Things change some for the better and some for the worse


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GC was and opt in forum when it was used for Dark Side subject matter.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> GC was and opt in forum when it was used for Dark Side subject matter.


It was in effect the "dark room", as was the separate "Politics" section.
It was a good set up.
It also had a header that said "Wear your flameproof undies"


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> GC was and opt in forum when it was used for Dark Side subject matter.


You are correct, my apologies. At some point even GC was opt in only, so perhaps it should be again?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> GC was and opt in forum when it was used for Dark Side subject matter.


It was not always but even then it was not hidden. The hiding is making it way worse than the rest of the site. Look at the amount of different people who are now participating in political threads that won't even venture into the dark room.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> It was not always but even then it was not hidden. The hiding is making it way worse than the rest of the site. Look at the amount of different people who are now participating in political threads that won't even venture into the dark room.


True, you could read but not post unless you had a certain amount of posts/time as a member. The hiding is the problem in my opinion too, if the posts were searchable on the web like the rest of the forum, posters may chose their words more carefully.


----------



## Dustin (Apr 20, 2011)

painterswife said:


> It was not always but even then it was not hidden. The hiding is making it way worse than the rest of the site. Look at the amount of different people who are now participating in political threads that won't even venture into the dark room.


Again, this used to be a homesteading forum, not anything goes including politics which pervades everything these days.

I’d prefer those that participated in political threads didn’t or at least we didn’t have to see it. I think there are plenty who feel that way. Politics does pervade everything so it’s not nearly as easy to ignore. There is a ton of emotion, opinions and ignorance that compels people to view and respond. It’s easy to ignore a quilting thread. Zero emotion or interest.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Dustin said:


> Again, this used to be a homesteading forum, not anything goes including politics which pervades everything these days.
> 
> I’d prefer those that participated in political threads didn’t or at least we didn’t have to see it. I think there are plenty who feel that way. Politics does pervade everything so it’s not nearly as easy to ignore. There is a ton of emotion, opinions and ignorance that compels people to view and respond. It’s easy to ignore a quilting thread. Zero emotion or interest.


I have no problem ignoring what I do like. Why should I or anyone have to operate under the rules of those that can't?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiding the topics you don't like will not make this site get anymore of the topics you do like. That happens by you starting and participating in those topics.


----------



## Dustin (Apr 20, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Hiding the topics you don't like will not make this site get anymore of the topics you do like. That happens by you starting and participating in those topics.


Minus this banter, I’ve been operating the same here since I came here so I’m not the variable in the change I’ve seen.

Politics is different though so that’s a pretty big variable a lot of people are discussing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Look at the amount of different people who are now participating in political threads that won't even venture into the dark room.


The "dark room" is really no different than any other section.
It's just reserved for the more inflammatory topics.

Any forum is exactly what one makes it, and the ignore feature works in all of them.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Chris has made a decision on this.

https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/threads/political-topics-in-general-chat.567964/


----------

