The Truth About Cars wasn’t founded for the discussion of partisan politics. Thanks to the Motown Meltdown bailout buffet, it just turned out that way. While the intersection of automobiles and ideology has become both inevitable and unavoidable, the discussions centering on political ideology have recently spun OOC. In certain threads, we’re seeing the same endless rounds of right/left blunderbuss action. Even worse, it’s become nasty. As I was away from my desk for 35 seconds yesterday, I missed the onset of the flame wars and, thus, failed to extinguish them. By the time a couple of our Best and Brightest sent a heads-up email, more than a couple of commentators were burning down the house. This morning, I’m in retroactive delete and warn mode. TTAC’s flaming rule is simple: no flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators. The corollary is this: please keep it as car-related as possible. If you can’t work your way back to the words “and that’s why I’m a Porsche/Corvette/Nissan/Ferrari guy,” you’ve probably gone too far.
How about a single comment per post protocol ?
I can tell, as soon as a persons posts twice, it’s headed down hill. Even I won’t hack through a dialogue of 60 responses. And, while we’re at it, people should keep their posting brief. I’ll generally won’t read anything that appears to be more than 1 paragraph long, unless there is a real grabber in the first sentence. Getting to the point SOON will actually get your message through to more people !
Bully for you Robert. Idealogues and bomb-throwers suck.
I missed the excitement, but note that people here do stray away from cars into politics including a variety of public affairs topics- healthcare, economy, who’s in office, crooked local govs (oxymoron) and on and on.
I agree that if the message can’t wind up with “and thats why i like cars” its off topic.
And thats why I like cars.
Just another left wing, Obama kissing, Commy, socilaist, suppression of our right to free speech by a dictorial evil thinking czar with a single narrow minded ill advised philosophy.
Just kidding ; )
I agree with you 100%
Sometimes we stray too far…
And that’s why I’m a car guy. LOL
Amen to all you say here. And the “one post” idea may have merit. But it seems to me also, Robert, that you’ve allowed this political stuff to get way out of control. Some of it is just dumb and ill-informed, but a goodly amount is simply outright ugly and suggests that, for some posters at least, professional help might be in order. Please, let’s save this place from the bomb heavers and general haters.
Why does the use of “Nancy Pelosi” seem to illicit such vitriol? I love cars, especially American built, by UAW members. It seems like all this bail out is set up to keep manufacturing in the US of A. I remember H. Ross Perot talking about a “giant sucking sound” as US manufacturing (including auto) left the country. We need cars to be built here, preferably high-quality, attractive ones that are the benchmark for the world. I hope that is what we all want for out country and our cars. (sorry for rambling)
FWIW, I would not like to see a one-post restriction. TTAC often has good, on-topic, informative dialogue and debate threads that add real value to the site. Tighter control over the purely political comments are all that is required.
Thank you. Never mix never worry. The politcal “gotcha” being played had me wondering if I should just stop coming to TTAC. It was really unpleasant.
Some people on both sides of the political spectrum simply cannot accept the fact that there will always be times when the side opposite of what you believe in is in power. That is a simple fact of life. Everything in life is not a political debate. Every problem in life is contrary to the belief of some, is not caused by George W Bush or Barack Obama. Sometimes a car is simply a car.
Really
Agreed that the political BS is making this site much less of a must visit site. Keep the politics to a minimum
If you can’t work your way back to the words “and that’s why I’m a Porsche/Corvette/Nissan/Ferrari guy,” you’ve probably gone too far.
Three imports, and not a single Ford on the list. Get out the fire extinguisher, you’re never going to hear the end of this…
Well, ‘fess up now, Robert Farago. You do sometimes subtly provoke emotional responses; sometimes that’s how to make things interesting. But as you’ve now realized, things can get 00C.
We’re living in truly troubed times. Subjects that might stimulate spirited but civil dialogue during better times can and will get heated rather seriously. The guy(s) in charge simply have to be alert and rein things in before they really get out of hand.
I was recently surprised how a number of really crude argumenta ad hominem went unpunished, but you’re now enforcing the rule(s). Things should be calming down in a bit.
I moderate a dirt bike enthusiasts board and the political posts have turned into a nightmare. Almost no topic is brought up without somebody finger pointing or saying it’s the liberal’s or conservative’s fault.
I can understand much of it, our government is getting involved in every facet of our lives down to the most minute levels. Sadly I believe this is going to become more and more an aspect of discussion on virtually anything, especially something that’s becoming tightly integrated and controlled by politics, our beloved cars.
Wait… that’s 911/Corvette/GT-R/F430-599-whatever… what does Ford have (for sale) that fits in with that?
We’ve found on other boards that the easiest way to cut through the bullshit is to create a separate subforum for politics and current events… unfortunately… since many of the posts on the main page of TTAC are, in some part, political in nature… you can’t do that here.
Does anyone else see the GM mouse-over ad in Sherman Lin’s post? Mouse over the words “Barack Obama” and you get GM. I hope posters on both sides find that hilarious like I do.
It is a shame, and a detriment to the interests of the USA that the political dialoge has descended to such a low level. Creative name calling (often with a profane spin), verbal attacks, even outright lying are apparently entirely legitimate and acceptable forms of debate these days. It is a nasty feedback loop that only hobbles actual productive discourse.
I still strongly suspect that the whole “liberal vs conservative” feud is just a diversionary tactic by those truely in power to keep us all distracted and thus easily misled.
That said, am I allowed to totally flame a particular car or a car maker here in this site? :)
I am grateful for the lack of flame wars. Having said that, there’s something really funny about a Pelosimobile. And I’m a liberal Democrat living on the outskirts of Cambridge (aka Lexington in my case), which, to paraphrase George W. bush, is much closer to San Francisco than Texas is to San Francisco.
RF: I’m going to check back in a while to see if my above post is still up. But remember: the best medicine against inflammation is humor. (The second best may be O3s or aspirin or steroids)
Robert, thank you for putting some limits on the political flame wars. As an alternative to pleiter’s single comment limit, maybe we could limit the number of words per post. I would also like to see limits on lumping all people with an opposing political view into a group under labels. Real people are not that easy to stereotype.
I’m conflicted between wanting to have the choice to buy Ford, GM, and Chrysler cars and trucks, supporting the Americans who work for those companies, and not wanting to give one red cent to the UAW. Would be easier to be keep politics out of TTAC if auto manufacturers and their unions didn’t get so heavily involved in partisan politics.
It’s about time somebody stepped up over the politics. This place was starting to remind me of that lost season of Monday Night Football when ABC thought it was a good idea to put Dennis Miller in the commentator’s booth.
Wait… that’s 911/Corvette/GT-R/F430-599-whatever… what does Ford have (for sale) that fits in with that?
Ford GT. What, are you telling me that you don’t own one?
On a serious note, I suspect that a lot of the complaints from the posters here are arising from the views that are being heavily promoted in the last couple of weeks, rather than the politics themselves.
We’ve had months and months of Ayn Rand rants, Christian missionary evangelism, links to libertarian sites and videos that have nothing to do with cars or the industry, all without much complaint. Now that it’s the leftist view that is being shouted out is when people are getting upset.
The whole thing ought to be toned down, in my opinion. I don’t mind the politics per se, but the redundancy and inappropriateness of some of the comments has been an issue for awhile. I like facts to go with my morning coffee, and some fringe thinker with a YouTube account is not likely to be factual.
Thank you for intervening.
There’s a basic rule, if followed, that would preclude most over-the-line vitriol: don’t debate a person, but do debate their ideas. This means not just the person one is speaking with, but also the people being talked about. It also means groups of people being talked about.
If those kinds of boundaries are not established and enforced, then it’s natural for things to devolve into personal conflicts instead of simply differences of opinion. Unfortunately, very few people have a background in logic or formal debate, so are unaware of the high degree of reliance they have on logical fallacies like ad hominem and appeal to authority.
That being the case, the course of events in a given exchange usually unfolds from a debate of ideas, one side losing the debate of ideas, so the losing side resorting to debating the person instead of the ideas in the hopes that the other side will descend to that level, at which point it’s a pissing match. And in a pissing match, it’s usually the one on the predominant side (the one with the most numbers) who “wins.”
The Internet is balkanized into relatively small cliques that tend to reinforce their own viewpoints. Challenges to the shared viewpoints (dogma), particularly from new outside influences, are not taken well by many who are protective of their clique.
It’s a constant problem for any Internet community, and why it must be a thankless nightmare to be an admin – aside from having Godlike powers. :)
Godlike powers would include the ability to fry a troll’s PC with a well-aimed trojan… one that won’t affect anyone else. Sadly… such is not the lot of site admins and moderators.
(at least not the conscientious ones)
–
Ford GT. What, are you telling me that you don’t own one?
With all of them accounted for and Ford foolishly not deciding to continue production of such a fine automobile, my Toys R’ Us free gift voucher has gone to waste.
I don’t even like the new toys that are out… 20’s? On a Cobra? SRSLY?
I think you do have a problem. I stopped commenting a month or two ago, tired at getting shouted at from other commenters for my comments. Now I usually read only the articles, not the comments. And I visit the site much less often than I did. Many days not at all.
Here’s what I see is the problem. What we have here is more a chat room than a court room. A chat room is like a bar, a barbershop, or water cooler. People talk. People express opinions both founded and unfounded.
Lately, people attack others for their ideas. If we limited our conversations here to what we know or what we can defend with cites or whatever — there’d be nothing here.
Why do we need evidence as a prerequisite for opinions? I think for the most part people know we are in a casual setting and people know, implicitly or even explicitly, that what we say for the most part is opinion, idle speculation. We don’t all feel the need to weigh every one of our pronouncements with “support.”
Speaking hypothetically, if I say George Bush is an idiot, asking me for a copy of his Yale and Harvard transcripts as proof of stupidity kind of misses the point that it is an opinion based on observation of his conduct, not his scholastic record or whatever.
There are times for evidence for sure. There are times when opinions are passed off as facts and they should be challenged. But when one challenges every bar/barber shop/water cooler chat room statement and demands evidence, that’s tiresome. Most comments are just chat room chatter.
I’m a lawyer, and I’m held to a burden of proof in my job. I get that. But when I relax I don’t think I’m alone in thinking, hey, look if you disagree, fine, just tell me what you think and I’ll do the same. But let’s not make every conversation the equivalent of defending a client in court.
Its not all black and white, I know, and I get that conversations can be fluid and there are times people should be put to the proof. I guess there is a time though to just let opinions be opinions — for you, me, whoever.
But if you try to moderate, I don’t know where you draw the line. Some of my comments probably offended others, and so would go over the line. Yet I did not make them to offend, and think they should be permissible.
Any measures taken — some sites try banning and limiting comments — backfire more than they work. Political and policy issues about carmaking, though not strictly car issues, do deserve debate on this site.
So I guess I have to say just keep trying to put out the flames as best you can, and leave it at that. Don’t try to moderate the comments. This is, as people say, the Internet. Bitter bickering and offensive posts will be a chronic problem that defies solution. As Emerson said, “Do what we can, summer will have its flies. If we walk in the woods we must feed mosquitos. If we go a-fishing, we must expect a wet coat.”
Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say, on the one hand, that you want to keep the discussions car related; and, on the other hand, the root issues presented are so obviously presented in a one-sided ideological manner? It is clear that you believe the auto bailout is anti free enterprise, that certain politicians are beholden to unions, that government has no business stepping in to save the domestic auto industry; or that non-union auto manufacturers are better than unionized ones because workers are lucky to be allowed to work for the boss.
The majority of the topics, news, and editorials have a clear ideological bias which is clearly Republican. Like Sean Hannity, the vast majority of your targets for ridicule are the Obama administration, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, and the UAW.
Why not embrace the fact that the current economic crisis and the collapse of the global auto industry has raised new questions about national industrial policy and the sustainability of our current patterns of production and consumption?
One way you could begin is by laying out your alternative scenario with all of the implications. If you had been in George W. Bush’s shoes, and could have let GM and Chrysler die during the last quarter of 2008, how would that have played out? If you could have let all the banks and investment houses fail instead of using TARP to rescue them, would there have been a global run on the banks? Would the dollar have collapsed? Would there have been violence and riots when people were unable to buy food? Would the current number of unemployed, instead of being 7 million have been double or triple or more?
It is so easy to throw rocks and criticize the hard work and hard decisions that were made by both Bush and Obama during this crisis. It is easy to say they were wrong. Tell us, for once, about your alternative scenario and let us decide for ourselves whether you are just out to tear down or if you have any clear ideas of your own.
There are trade offs between moderating and not moderating. Often, commenters add great insight to a discussion that everyone should have a chance to see. But, if one has to skim past a bunch of off-topic/baiting/trolling/flaming comments, many will be put off, leave the site and never come back or not as often. That’s bad for us.
How do we define trolling/flaming? It’s difficult and my definition may differ from the other admins’ or from your’s, but I liken it to pornography: I know it when I see it.
I’ve already added “Hitler” and “Stalin” to the mark-for-moderation filter because, in my mind, if those words are in a comment, there’s little chance the comment is car-related.
Oh, and when Robert wrote, “If you can’t work your way back to the words ‘and that’s why I’m a Porsche/Corvette/Nissan/Ferrari guy,\'” that did not mean adding that phrase to the end of an off-topic comment will excuse that comment from scrutiny.
Robert and I will work to find a balance between no and heavy-handed moderation. Wish us luck!
You’re all wrong.
That why I’m a Lotus guy.
I must have missed the excitement Friday. Too bad, I always enjoy a good fight, as long as it’s brief, fought fairly, and there’s a decisive winner.
I did get the sense something was about to blow, however, because I read several “you’re ignoring”, “you’re not paying attention”, or “once again, you fail to realize” types of comments. Using “you’re” in this context is often the catalyst; it’s a verbal chest-poke that really gets things heated up fast.
I’m not opposed to a posting limit. Or maybe even a number-of-words limit. Having that in the back of the mind might make some of us more thoughtful about posting.
However, I would be opposed to a limit of 1 post per topic, as suggested by some earlier posters.
A limit of 1 post would discourage (or outright make impossible) any back-and-forth commentary. It would eliminate the possibility of asking each other a question, or asking for clarity (and actually receving an answer). Consequently, such a limit would reduce the usefulness of the TTAC site.
I suggest that if any limit is imposed, we start with 5 and see how well that works. And maybe establish a 400 or 500 word limit; something a little less than the length of the original article. If somebody really has a lot to say, they could burn two of their five posts, or 40%. Or else they could submit an opposition article to Robert.
And of course, I suggest that we have no limits (or very high limits) for any person who wrote the article in the first place. After all, he/she took the time to get the ball rolling!
As Bill Wade points out above, much of the shift towards politics is on account of the vastly increased role politics and politicians now play in the car universe. When every minute detail about how, what, where and when you drive involves “democracy” and our “elected leaders”, it becomes hard to keep politics out of car discussions.
And it’s not like this effect is limited to just car related topics. For those who had the “pleasure” of spending time in Eastern Europe back in the day, I’m sure you remember how every minute discussion topic involved government one way or another. Down to the kind of sauerkraut the local grocery store ought to be carrying, what price they ought to be selling it at, and who ought to be appointed commissar in charge of sauerkraut to make sure that the store again became responsive to the wishes of “the people.”
As “political” as this may seem: If the federal government went back to exerting approximately the same influence over Michigan industry and transportation issues in general as they did back in Jefferson’s day, the comment section of TTAC would surely become less political almost overnight. Guaranteed.
I used to read nearly all the comments of all the stories except for reviews of cars I do not care for. Now there are many stories that I do not bother clicking on because I know it will be non-stop bullshit about socialism or communism or fascism, all topped off with a good amount of ranting about Chairman Hussein.
That ill advised and quickly pulled call to boycott GM and Chrysler showed that you really do not have the sense to act as your own editor. Me being a cynical fellow, it looks to me like after the boycott debacle, you decided to pursue the same ends by different means by slanting every story since. I am someone who would never buy a vehicle from the Big 3 and I still find the non-stop bashing tiresome.
The complete turnaround on many issues is mystifying. After years of saying that the domestics have too many dealers, it is now an assault on the fabric of our society that dealers are being cut. After calling for Wagoner’s head for years, it is a capitalism killing move that he was fired.
A fish rots from the head. The tone of the stories has set the tone of the comments. I used to read this site for intelligent commentary by posters like Pch101 and Katie. Now such comments are lost in a sea of ideological snark and outright hate.
Qwerty,
there is a big difference (or at least used and ought to be) between recommending that GM shareholders find a more competent CEO for their company, and advocating / acquiescing to government intervention in the hiring and firing decisions of a private company.
Similarly, pointing out that GM has too many dealers in no way amounts to the same thing as advocating government unilaterally sidestepping franchise / bankruptcy and other laws to achieve their “enlightened” objectives.
Also, somewhat meta, for an “alternative media” outlet, be that am talk or internet blogs, to be successful, it generally pays to take a somewhat different point of view than the “mainstream” media outlets. Not much use reading TTAC if you could get the same commentary in NYT. OOAC (Obama’s Opinion About Cars) likely wouldn’t exactly peg Alexa, to put it mildly.
Just keep it two dimensional…much like kindergarten.
The Indiana Treasurer, Richard Mourdock, already tried to argue that the government broke bankruptcy laws. This argument was rejected by the Bankruptcy judge, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the U.S. I have yet to be shown any evidence of illegal action on the part of the Obama Administration with regards to the auto bailout. This seems to be a thin straw to cling to.
And yes, when you come to the U.S. begging for money, it does give them the right to place conditions on that money. Now, if Obama were to ask the Ford CEO to resign, that would be a different story.
Finally, there is a far greater number of right wing talk radio and television shows than liberal shows. I’m not interested in reading the same regurgitated RNC crap I have already seen in the WSJ opinion page and Fox News.
Perhaps if politicians would leave automobiles alone, there’d not be so much political bickering at a car site. If government was imposing it’s will on collecting bottle caps, a site geared toward bottle caps would see an influx of people discussing politics. It should be fair game to discuss politics until it no longer affects (or finishes affecting) the car industry.
I have enjoyed this site both for the reviews and the information on the auto industry. This time last year, GM and Cerebus were still denying the inevitable and TTAC was a source of facts, years ahead of the MSM that was dealing with press releases apparently. Farago does not deal in releases except for effect.
My comments have led me to being accused of being ignorant, perception deprived, parochial and worse. Might all be true BTW.
I do enjoy even the retired UAW guys defending their benefits. No one else in the outside world will.
That said, I reply less now that TTAC has picked up a bigger following. I still try to correct absolute historic falsehoods (Bush started the S&L’s, electric trolleys were torpedoed by GM, etc.) because the majority of the posts are no longer as great as they used to be. Most still are but the % is dropping.
I suggest that any post that includes words like “genocide, liberal, conservative, fuck, moron, idiot” and the like just be deleted.
Or just require the posters be between the ages of 5 to 15 and 24 and above.
Pious words, every one of them. Some of them are sincere, others no doubt are less so. I’m particularly amused at the response from one of the worst violators in the recent contretemps. So call me a frickin’ cynic.
The threads were degenerating and a couple of comments clearly violated the no-flaming rule. I considered giving RF a heads up but didn’t want to “teacher, teacher, Johnny’s being a bad boy”, so I lobbed back a couple of rhetorical grenades. I made the mistake of thinking this was a debate and inadvertently ending up feeding trollish behavior and apologize to the B&B for contributing to the above degeneration. TTAC has been mercifully free of trolls so perhaps our guard was down.
I think part of the problem is TTAC’s recent surge in traffic along with publicity from the WSJ, Instapundit and maybe even Farago’s stint on Al-Jazeera. I think the site is getting a lot of visitors that are new here and some of them have non-automotive axes to grind. With the political aspect of the automotive meltdown, some of those axes are bound to be political.
Also, being newbies they may not be familiar with appropriate boundaries for discourse here.
Pch101 and the Canadian with the Armenian sounding name I refuse to memorize are proudly on the left and I strongly disagree with them about a range of issues but they usually act like mensches. Likewise on the right, menno’s a bit of an out there big L libertarian, but he generally keeps things in good humor.
Some of the recent commenters, though, appear to have no interest in cars, are obsessed with politics, and are just plain mean spirited and a turd in the punchbowl.
It’s possible, btw, that the no-flaming rule may counter-intuitively contribute to a lack of respect. Sometimes someone posts something (including myself), that the only appropriate response is “you can’t be that much of an idiot”. So instead of calling nonsense what it is, we end up debating it.
Complete and utter narishkeit I tell you.
the posts on ttac, recently, have been increasingly political in nature. it’s not surprising that some subscribers have overstepped the boundary of reasonable discourse :) and that’s why i’m a cayman guy.
Times like these bring out the political side of things. With cars firmly embroiled in issues beside the usual (environment, CAFE, etc) it was bound to happen. Too bad the comments being posted left behind real discussion about policy and the interaction with the industry and degraded to slandering the president (past and present) just because it was thing to do. I chose to keep my somewhat left of center comments to myself. And that’s why I like performance cars, to show that the left side of the aisle can do as good a burnout as the right, maybe even better.
I have to add, though, it saddens me to hear people actually be happy about those who are now unemployed and have had their retirement destroyed, regardless of the cause.
Mea Culpa – I allowed myself to be drawn in to one of these “debates” and am certainly old enough to know better. Never again.
I’m a liberal… maybe not in the sense or way it’s used in the US nowadays… but I am.
At the height of Dubya-ism, the right-wingers on our internet discussion groups were complaining about all the criticism for GWB. There was no more room for intelligent discussion, simply because of the incessant flow of Dubya jokes.
But despite cracking down on such posts, the flames continued unabated. I was accused, by one neo-con, of being an unpatriotic arsehole who wanted young americans to die unsupported in Iraq. I actually responded with a personal attack on that one… I called him an idiot. I didn’t want to send those Americans there in the first place.
Heated debate is unavoidable. But it should be a debate on the issues at hand, their causes and solutions, rather than what color underwear the debaters are wearing. I find that I can have a perfectly cordial, though long-winded, debate, with any person of the opposite political stripe, as long as those rules are followed.
–
I was pro-Obama during the election… but I am still, and have always been, anti-bail-out. It’s not a political thing when GWB and both GOP candidates were calling for bailout bucks during the election campaign. It’s more of a “this thing is a bad idea” thing.
Failed companies should fail, be beheaded, and bought out. I would have had no problem with the government buying out failed companies and replacing their boards with people who know what they’re doing… but that’s not what’s happening…
A failed business model should not be allowed to propagate. It should be forced to adapt to the changes and reinvent itself as something different. The thing with GM is, the further into the reinvention process we get, the more we realize that it’s mostly more of the same old same old.
From the perspective of a TTAC writer, cars touch to many aspects of our lives that our coverage can’t leave out any stories that shed new light on our relationship with these machines. Sadly, a lot of these stories have been political lately, and I agree that government’s involvement in the industry has created a lot of emotion. However, the story of the American automobile is going to be too interesting and unpredictable to waste a lot of effort raging against the inevitable. So we’ll try to keep covering all the stories of interest and hopefully the debates will continue to be thoughtful, respectful and constructive.
A couple of thoughts in defense of political posts:
When the U.S. government does the once-unthinkable act of owning 60% of the largest U.S. carmaker, political debate seems in order. Personally, I think that fact is symptomatic of a governmental takeover of too much of our lives. And I have posted on that theme. But that aside, federal ownership and control of GM cannot help but spark debate over nearly every decision they make, which will determine the types of autos we will drive for the foreseeable future. The decisions, the decision-makers, and the decision making process will be fuel for heated debate.
P.S.- one or two posts should be enough to make one’s point, I think. ;-]
While the intersection of automobiles and ideology has become both inevitable and unavoidable, the discussions centering on political ideology have recently spun OOC. In certain threads, we’re seeing the same endless rounds of right/left blunderbuss action.
This is quite misguided. Whenever there’s a post even marginally related to social issue, the usual stream of programed rhetoric starts. It’s important to understand where and why these comments come into being if this site cares to be the truth about car-related anything.
Otherwise, just don’t post anything which may relate to subjects which receive heavy indoctrination. There are reasons why the typical “flames” get dragged out, and the only way to resolve this is examine and conclusively determine the reasons. The repetition is the result of avoiding root causes and instead falling into the trap of PR for plebs.
In the face of overwhelming uncomfortable ideas, it’s common to desire a reprieve from a possible penetration of familiar worldviews. It would be telling whether commentators choose to go back to the manufactured wonderland, or a brave new world not beholden to purchased influence.
I’m really tired of people diving the political spectrum into “left” & “right” when there are many other views.
I’ve been accused of being Republican when I’ve posted items that are anti-bailout or anti-democratic and I hate it.
I hated the BUSH presidency more than I hate the OBAMA one, although i have a strong distaste for both.
In ANY case, I’m _FOR_ both a per word min (& or ) maximum in a post as WELL as a 1 post/article policy.
Stricter rules should cut down trolls (unless they have multiple accounts I guess) as well as MAKE PEOPLE THINK TWICE before they hit the submit button.
In ANY case, I’m _FOR_ both a per word min (& or ) maximum in a post as WELL as a 1 post/article policy.
Why would anyone encourage hit-and-run posting or any other dredge of internet commentary?
Limiting everyone to an equally low word count? What are you a communist?
I’ve already added “Hitler” and “Stalin” to the mark-for-moderation filter because, in my mind, if those words are in a comment, there’s little chance the comment is car-related.
Oh, and admin guy? How about spending that time to implement comment search so we can more easily refer to prior post/threads to substantively reduce the amount of churn?
Yes, that’s 3 posts already, so there.
–
Awe crap, I stupidly quoted Hitler and Stalin so now my comment is awaiting moderation…
Oh- THAT’S not flaming ! ;-]
(Referred to above post that was removed.)
As one of those that got an email from RF regarding stepping out of bounds, I will say that at the time, it felt like it was a very vigorous debate on issues – not personal attacks. That’s what happens when people talk politics and cars.
TTAC has gone way political, mirroring what’s happened to the industry. This change has altered the nature of discussions and comments. I really like intense, thought provoking debate, but also see how it can (and I guess did) devolve.
For my contribution to this, my sincere apologies.
And if you don’t like wagons with sticks, Gitmo should open a new wing just for you.
I’m sorry I missed the flames. I completely agree with the point that cars have been heavily politicized over the past year. I can no longer discuss any automobile without coming around to the politics of it. I despise those that authorized the bailouts (Bush, McCain, Obama, etc). I am furious at those who took bailout money (Chrysler & GM) and deeply resent those that just stood there and never said a f^cking word, instead looking for their own future bailout needs (Toyota, Honda, BMW, etc).
As a child my favorite toys were Hot Wheels. I love the automobile. I would rate it as the greatest invention for the common man. It allows each individual the freedom to get a job wherever they want and to experience leisurely travel. Things that are impractical for a horse drawn carriage or bicycle and much to expensive to be done via air travel are easily doable in a car.
As some of the B&B have pointed out, our government has its corrupt hands in everything (corn subsidies, TARP, etc). It has been asked, why does one get so mad and ask for a boycott of GM and Chrysler when there are other equally, if not more, egregious acts of government interference? Because this is something I can have a say in! I cannot raise my own corn or avoid banking. I can choose not to buy a car from anyone taking bailout money or looking the other way. Unfortunately for me, this means all auto makers. That’s why I am sticking with my old FJ until it vaporizes (and then I’ll try to build my own).
I’d move for adding “Ayn Rand”, “Communist”, and “Fascist” to the moderation filter.
On second thought, something has to be said about genies and bottles.
On one hand, you tell us that you can’t discuss car topics without bringing in politics, but on the other hand, you want us to keep it civil. Unfortunately, politics is anything but (which is why we were all warned by our mothers to avoid talking politics and religion when we’re dating).
Politics and religion is gasoline, and to inject either one in a discussion is guaranteed to ignite a flame war. The way I see it, there’s only two solutions: Quit bringing up politics in your posts, or accept the fact that your site will become a tug-of-war between adherents of the DailyKos and readers of the National Review.
As much as people want a middle ground to exist, unfortunately, such a place does not exist.
I don’t like a lot of rules about comments, like only so many words, or only one comment per post. Threads can get as twisty as our favorite roads, and it would be a shame to bar people from commenting on new ideas that come up in a thread.
I’m all for RF being rigorous about moderating flames, and for people to alert him. (Ronnie, next time you’re hesitating about alert him, email me, and I’ll do it.)
Of course, there is a point where even non-flaming conversations degenerate into the same old stuff we’ve heard time and time again. I’m thinking about arguments over climate change. I deliberately avoided the issue in a blog post earlier this year, although it was relevant, because I knew it would hijack the thread when there were other issues the post raised that merited discussion. I don’t know what to do about that, but I’d much rather not discuss climate change here than have such arguments ruin threads that might otherwise be very interesting.
Oh, and I’m a Lotus guy (but still have a fondness for Detroit muscle).
@ Ronnie Schreiber:
Your original post characterizing one of the participants was spot on!
More generally, I have remarked to RF at least once that I would love to have the politics toned down, too.
And that’s why I am a BMW guy….
agenthex>
The reason for the min/max word postings are:
If you have 800 words, I’d rather read/skip it as an article posted to ttac.
If you have less than say an-arbitrarly-low-number-f words, you are probably trolling.
I think everyone should have “1 post” to make their point and/or beliefs known as opposed to going back & forth saying the same thing over & over again.
I really think this would bring higher quality posting to ttac.
I think everyone should have “1 post” to make their point and/or beliefs known as opposed to going back & forth saying the same thing over & over again.
I really think this would bring higher quality posting to ttac.
I just noted that empirically speaking, this doesn’t work well. The real problem isn’t repetition within a thread, but across threads.
–
Quit bringing up politics in your posts, or accept the fact that your site will become a tug-of-war between adherents of the DailyKos and readers of the National Review.
As much as people want a middle ground to exist, unfortunately, such a place does not exist.
Really? Have people’s imagination really been limited to that one axis of possibilities?
I suppose another suggestion might be adding the equivalent of a “killfile” (who remembers this from newsgroups?) that is on a per login basis.