StrangeSox

!

3 more to go!

QUOTE (idave03 @ Apr 21, 2012 -> 05:01 PM) boy am i glad this is on fox. I dont have cable but itd be nice if hawk and stoney were calling this game. Same here! KKKKKKK

Sunday morning news shows: overwhelmingly Republican white males. Half the women appearances were Bachmann and half the minority appearances were Cain.

I don't think too many people were contesting that there was an altercation and that Martin may have had the upper-hand, though. Aside from some people making poor assumptions based on that video.

I don't think that photo really changes the case at all. They don't have to contest that Martin got the better of Zimmerman and had him on the ground.

"Martin had the right to stand his ground against the armed aggressor Zimmerman" You're right in that this new picture weakens the charge based on those videos that "he wasn't even attacked!" It was pretty silly at the time anyway.

It could be that their interpretation of the law means that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is invalid since he followed and wanted to confront Martin.

Africans shocked by uncivilized antics of European savages

We still don't know the most important part, which is who was the aggressor.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) I like how the danger to the police from the protesters here is so immediate that the policeman calmly steps over the protestors before unleashing the mace. And it's nice when the explanation appears laughable based on the video. Here's the UC Davis report on this: http://reynosoreport.ucdavis.edu/reynoso-report.pdf It's not very kind at all to either the administration or the police. Brad Hicks reviews: I want to highlight this from the Kroll Report: The protesters also did not anticipate chemical weapons in response to passive resistance, belying the idea that they intentionally provoked this response:

Two years after BP oil spill, sick fish found in gulf Gulf seafood deformities alarm scientists

But GoT>All, maybe with the exception of Breaking Bad.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) Using google's option to search within the site works ojk for some stuff. I know it isn't perfect, but it isn't that bad. It is better than nothing but still not really comparable.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) Even when companies do, people still have that prevalent attitude toward jury duty. I would be a professional juror if I got paid well for it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 08:18 AM) OR, and I know this is a crazy idea, take it seriously as someones life, livelihood or future may hang in the balance and they deserve good jurors? A day may come when you're up there innocently...and those of you who feel this way better hope you don't get yourselves as potential jurors...because, well...you won't get yourselves...you'll get the garbage left over that weren't intelligent enough to weasel out of doing it. Mandate that employers pay a full days wage for jury duty.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 9, 2012 -> 10:25 PM) I checked it now and it doesn't work in Chrome -- it says I have to update Java but after I do it still doesn't work -- but it works fine in IE: just lick "run" and then "no" when prompted. I'd say a lot of people click "yes" without actually reading the prompt, I know that's what I used to do and that locks you out. Came in here to post that it doesn't work in Chrome.

The Catch-All Catch-Alls Thread

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 08:04 PM) And that is even worse, because you are violating your customary standards and reverting to inconsistent enforcement. What is the goal? To have the largest readership possible? Or to have the best discussion possible? Or the best of both worlds? We're all adults here. I'd much rather bear the brunt of a few vile comments for the sake of stimulating and passionate discussion rather than have a s*** and span forum that is bland and emotionless. Some kind of balance should be struck between "letting people be as big of assholes as they want to be" and "prim and proper conversation with a lot of condescension and disrespect right under the surface." I've seen a board implode in the first case and another essentially splinter into two communities in the second.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 08:04 PM) I cannot disagree with that. In fact, I think we can change that, if I remember correctly. Good point. Balta explained to me the intent--so that two posters don't keep going at each other via PM. It may be possible for the board software to restrict PM-ability to certain usergroups (mods and admins) only. Alternatively, discussion could be allowed in "hidden" threads only viewable by mods, admins and the person involved. As ss2k5 is saying, though, not everyone may be able to handle a discussion over their posts without melting down and making the situation worse for everyone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:40 PM) It has happened in the past, and it caused really, really big issues. One thing that I pointed out to balta when I was suspended is that all board functionality is completely removed. You cannot even view the board without logging out, but more importantly, you cannot respond to administrators and mods. I don't believe that's fair, to not give the member a chance for input. In my case, I simply wanted to apologize, to admit that I knew my post was over the line. IMO mods and administrators should be at least somewhat accountable to the membership. This cannot happen without discussion.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:46 PM) Let's be honest, if we're going to go by the letter of those rules, the debate will be bland, humorless, and not mentally stimulating for anyone. Change the rules... This can also result in long-winded or passive aggressive insults and snark cloaked in a bunch of words as some people constantly try to walk right up to that line without going over it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:37 PM) It has always been our goal to stand as a group. A lot of that comes out where people came from before here where the perception was that people were routinely suspended for essentially personal grudges of individual admins/mods. It has always been our goal to interfere as little as possible and to keep the discussion as respectful as possible. It isn't an easy balance. There have been times where I have wanted to drop the hammer, when others didn't and vice versa. A solid discussion ensues about the specific instance and a decision is made as a group. If it makes it out the moderation team, there is always a good reason for whatever we decide. I promise you that much. I can honestly say while we may argue internally about specific decisions, it has worked well for the site as a whole. I will say this much about the Martin thread, the edited post wasn't the only one that brought up discussion. I'd venture to say everyone who posted in the thread violated the letter and intent of the filibuster rules at some point. First, let me say that I think you have done a very commendable job in achieving your goal of impartial and fair moderation. I think this still points out an important issue--decisions on what is or isn't over the line are simply handed out by the moderation group black box without talking to the poster in question and then informing the community as a whole as to what was over the line. Sometimes, as when Y2HH and I got ourselves banned with essentially a "go f*** yourself" exchange, it's crystal-clear as to what happened and why. If Y2HH or iamshack made a post that resulted in a suspension but it wasn't exactly clear as to why they were suspended, how are the rest of the members supposed to check that they're in line with policy? With a quadrennial stickied thread? On the other hand, I also understand not wanting to drag every member/post discussion out into the public and that finding a way to communicate issues without doing so isn't necessarily an easy task.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:20 PM) The moderation policies are all out in the open, and always have been. It is the discussion behind the enforcement of them that isn't, and won't be. If you were to receive a punishment of some sort we would tell you why you got it, but it wouldn't be public, unless there were extraordinary circumstances. It might not upset you, but trust me when I say this, you would be an exception to the rule. I feel it's only fair that, if mods and admins are discussing a specific member's posts, that that member is informed and perhaps even brought into the discussion.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:14 PM) SS, I'm sure you have a pretty good idea of what posts and posters push the envelope. They just discuss how to keep things productive, while allowing the most freedom of expression possible. I do not have a good idea if multiple posts within the Martin thread were over the line in the view of some mods and admins. I recall one post near the end having a mod's edit notes. I would like to have a better understanding. FWIW the other board I frequently post at is 100% openly democratic in everything. This has it's own negative aspects e.g. endless rules-lawyering, but everyone knows where individual moderators and admins stand on board policy and what is or isn't appropriate. That board is that way for board history/cultural reasons, and I don't believe that's necessarily the best policy for SoxTalk to follow. But that may give you some idea of where I'm coming from. I don't have a problem with the SoxTalk moderation and never have. I've been suspended once, deserved it and knew it when I hit "Add Reply." Something to consider is that while some may not like the loose moderation policies at SoxTalk and post less or leave because of it, others may not like a more heavy-handed approach. I do not view the moderators and admins as any different than the rest of membership, except they have a few more buttons to play around with. I mean this in the most positive way possible, in that I don't hold them to any different standard than I expect from anyone else and I haven't witnessed any biased moderation imo.