FOr all ya haters out there, Yes Doc posts a lot and so what. most of his posts have good points to them, and if yall hate him so much then simply dont read what he posts. Look I read all of his posts or at least try to. He keeps me busy at work so thanks DOC, there are a lot of worse posters out there that need to be banned
CHRISG612 said:Just wanted to add, why would the republicans on this forum vote to not ban Doc? This is not going to be an unbiased poll.....it is going to be about POLITICS
Well, because flaming liberals keep us in power.
I love seeing the likes of Nancy & Howard getting as much exposure as possible. Throw in "the Chicks" and "Moore bigger then anyone has a right to be" and the silent majority will surely turn out on election day, YET AGAIN.
BTW: thinking about Michael Moore, shouldn't he eat less in order to feed hundreds of starving people? Just wondering?
:smoker2:
Wil, I've just recently starting visiting the political forum, after Doc was reinstated actually. In that time frame, he didn't seem to be spamming, but maybe I'm wrong.
If he's toned it down, he should be allowed to stay. If he's up to the same stuff you guys have been trying to prevent, ban him.
I haven't been offended when we butt heads, and we don't agree on anything.
If he's toned it down, he should be allowed to stay. If he's up to the same stuff you guys have been trying to prevent, ban him.
I haven't been offended when we butt heads, and we don't agree on anything.
What's to stop Doc from re-emerging as someone else? The issue shouldn't be Doc, it should be how many threads can you start in a day? Nothing wrong with posting hundreds of times a day, as long as you are contributing in existing threads. When I miss 2 days here I come back and its pages of Doc's "spam". And as everyone knows my opinions are closer to Doc's than not. Just makes it tough to have a good board. So my thought is why not just put a limit on how many threads a poster can start a day? If so don't see a reason why he can't contribute and end a lot of the complaints. Having a mod around should help with the flaming inside the threads.
How about letting Doc decide his own fate via a "3 strikes you're out" rule, say?
Here I'm thinking about unprovoked name-calling. If someone starts a political thread with nothing personal directed at any posters and Doc makes a post referring to any poster in particular or even rightie posters in general, a mod would come in and post "strike one". Same goes for threads started by Doc that refer to any poster in particular or even rightie posters in general.
Get to strike three and it's an indefinite ban.
If Doc is not the first one in a thread to refer to other posters in a negative light, then he cannot get a strike in that thread no matter what he says about anyone. And if the unprovoked negativity is directed at Doc, then he gets a negative strike. If he gets to strike negative three, then he stays indefinitely and any further emails to mods regarding Doc will get an automatic form-letter response referring to this arrangement. In this case, the complainer will have no choice but to lay the blame on whoever bashed Doc and not on Doc himself.
I think it's only fair to give everyone another chance and let them decide their own fates. If the rules are stated clearly enough, then it will not be the mods or management deciding what happens but the participants themselves, so whichever way it pans out, the Rx cannot be held responsible.
What do y'all say?
Here I'm thinking about unprovoked name-calling. If someone starts a political thread with nothing personal directed at any posters and Doc makes a post referring to any poster in particular or even rightie posters in general, a mod would come in and post "strike one". Same goes for threads started by Doc that refer to any poster in particular or even rightie posters in general.
Get to strike three and it's an indefinite ban.
If Doc is not the first one in a thread to refer to other posters in a negative light, then he cannot get a strike in that thread no matter what he says about anyone. And if the unprovoked negativity is directed at Doc, then he gets a negative strike. If he gets to strike negative three, then he stays indefinitely and any further emails to mods regarding Doc will get an automatic form-letter response referring to this arrangement. In this case, the complainer will have no choice but to lay the blame on whoever bashed Doc and not on Doc himself.
I think it's only fair to give everyone another chance and let them decide their own fates. If the rules are stated clearly enough, then it will not be the mods or management deciding what happens but the participants themselves, so whichever way it pans out, the Rx cannot be held responsible.
What do y'all say?
wilheim said:
wil, This was well written bud!! :toast:
It really helps to understand what you have to go through on here
with this situation. Like you said it is a lose-lose situation.
I think this statement best suits this situation
"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
wilheim said:
If you really must do this, at least try not to be like George Bush and consider a close poll a "mandate," and axe Doc just because the forum is split down party lines! This forum sometimes lets the righties whine & get thier way, when it really is the fact that they are tired of seeing so much stuff rubbed in thier face. If you must do anything, put a daily thread limit of five or so for EVERYONE, and if he still fills up page 1, then it can only be because we're all posting in his threads!
Try and do something to squlech the complaints before doing something so drastic! That is the way we liberals feel in this America right now, please don't make the same thing true in this forum. We're really only blowinig off steam here anyway. Don't make this place so damn serious that people are actually banned for something like this. I mean, Doc doesn't post anything lude or obscence! If he is banned (& you guys won't care but so what) I'll be gone also!
Please think about it,
Yungbuck..............Out
:toast:
DEAC, you started the use of name calling. Did you think that I wouldn't respond in kind? Name calling is an easy response, requiring little thought or effort, and I can be as lazy as yourself.
I noticed that you never responded to my argument that, regardless of one's view of the specifics of Doc's case, a poll (especially in a political forum) will often be a popularity contest and sets a dangerous precedent. I know, this a one time, emergency measure and will never be used again. At least that's the rationale for allowing most dangerous practices to get started. Of course, this is actually the second Doc poll in the last week or so. Less than half failed to vote for a ban the last time before the poll was closed, so we try again.
If you or others can't see the bad precedent this sets, then, yes, you are blinded by either your own political views or your personal dislike for Doc. Try to look beyond this particular case.
I noticed that you never responded to my argument that, regardless of one's view of the specifics of Doc's case, a poll (especially in a political forum) will often be a popularity contest and sets a dangerous precedent. I know, this a one time, emergency measure and will never be used again. At least that's the rationale for allowing most dangerous practices to get started. Of course, this is actually the second Doc poll in the last week or so. Less than half failed to vote for a ban the last time before the poll was closed, so we try again.
If you or others can't see the bad precedent this sets, then, yes, you are blinded by either your own political views or your personal dislike for Doc. Try to look beyond this particular case.
davidbird said:
Dear Mr. bird,
I agree with you that it will be a popularity contest. However, it won't be divided between Democrats and Republicans. It'll be divided between those who like or can tolerate his relentless spam and inability to formulate a thought on his own and those who would rather not see 25 topics with no replies on the front page.
Have a Blessed day.
Your Friend,
Death Eats A Cracker
DEAC, I saw your Cindy Sheehan 'cartoon' in the thread "Wil, thank you, sir". This was far more offensive than anything I've seen from Doc. And before you commit the Ann Coulter fallacy, yes her views are fair game. However, personal attacks are not. Being passionate about a war that resulted in her
son's death seems pretty natural to me; it does not make her an "attention whore". Perhaps we should start a poll to ban you. That would not after all be an attack on your political views, but the disgusting way in which you expressed them.
But, on second thought, such a poll could easily be used to attack people based largely on the popularity of their views, so let's not establish such a dangerous precedent.
Get the point.
son's death seems pretty natural to me; it does not make her an "attention whore". Perhaps we should start a poll to ban you. That would not after all be an attack on your political views, but the disgusting way in which you expressed them.
But, on second thought, such a poll could easily be used to attack people based largely on the popularity of their views, so let's not establish such a dangerous precedent.
Get the point.
davidbird said:
DB get a clue buddy. This is not a right/left thing. KingBill, X, KTV, Edub, Levi too name a few are for sure not rightwing.
He post lies 90% of the time. He will post trying to think it was his own thought without giving the source. Did ya hear the 1 about Barbara Olsen getting arrested on a border between 2 countries that did not even connect. Or that he posted that out of respect for Wil he will no longer be posting at theRX.
INSULTS: Yes we all throw around the normal insults of idiot , moron, dipshit. Doc no not Doc he has to take it to the next level. How many times do we have to hear about Bulldog Gannon doing a rightie in the ass. Do you even know how many times he posted the pic of Bush and Gannon. What about the post when he posted an article thinking it was ripping Buh and put the headline about this proves Bush did this or that. LMAO to bad the article was about how Clinton fucked up. He was in such a rush to be negative about Bush he didn't even read the article he posted.
MOST IMPORTANT DB. This in the end is a gambling website. Do you know that Doc has welched on 3 bets. Now if you gamble that should make you lose all respect for this turd. LMAO on a gambling website he didn't pay up on 3 bets. He was open about it too. Cussin (not a right winger) runs that little comp just to have some fun, but NO not DocStupid he just couldn't relax for 1 minute and try to have some fun. Well he lost and wouldn't follow the rules. Just like the CBB tourny picks he lost that too.
OH yeah 1 more lie that he stated over and over over over over. That was total BS. He claimed that I emailed an MOD to complain about him. Hell I don't have enough free time to ever do that. Shit I didn't even know that I could do that. When I denied that claim and told Wil to please post the email if it was from me. Which he never did. Even better he continued with his saying he had proof that I did it. So put up or shut up I told him I challenge him $1000's he shows his proof I send him $1000. If he gets proved wrong (which he did) he sends me a $1000. Yet he never seemed to produce the "proof" he had.
So in the end this is just a sampling of what a turd this guy is. He is a whore who thrives on all this drama. He has no life he has no friends this is his only outlet.
PS last thing did ya see the post where he told a poster that his Mom should of had an abortion.
Rightside, again, I am more concerned with the precedent of polls to determine whether one can belong or not to a political forum. Yes, there will always be a few who will not vote their political views, but by and large, just like in Congress, the vote will be largely partisan.
But to refer briefly to Doc's case, I've seen no new outrageous behavior sense the last poll taken here. And since his return from the last banning, he has more often been the target, not the instigator. If you look at the title of threads for the last couple days, only one states its purpose to be the bashing of another poster. Doc is the target of that thread.
As I said in a post above, DEAC's Cindy Sheehan post is maybe the most offensive I've seen recently.
But I don't think a poll asking whether he should be banned is the answer. That would, of course, be another largely partisan exercise.
But to refer briefly to Doc's case, I've seen no new outrageous behavior sense the last poll taken here. And since his return from the last banning, he has more often been the target, not the instigator. If you look at the title of threads for the last couple days, only one states its purpose to be the bashing of another poster. Doc is the target of that thread.
As I said in a post above, DEAC's Cindy Sheehan post is maybe the most offensive I've seen recently.
But I don't think a poll asking whether he should be banned is the answer. That would, of course, be another largely partisan exercise.
