What is with the obnoxious anti-Trump trolling flooding the site? Why is it allowed?

Hmmm...just trying to think who was obsessed with the subject of "cliques" and "mod favoritism" since "Benedict Arnold" had another post going about that.  I was having some sort of SH flashback...I dunno.  Something tells me they just wanted to stir a pot.  Perhaps they were feeling bored somewhere else.  

I get your drift.  Well, that other place has gotten a bit boring.

I would love to hand out a "sense of humor pill" to anyone that wants to bring misery to a site.  Too bad they miss out on the fun most of us have here.  :)


This post was edited by PeaPod is just popping by at February 3, 2017 11:47 AM MST

I believe the issue isn't so much whether or not it is pro or con, but the relentless amount. It comes across as unwelcoming, and just some crazy person standing on their soapbox. Most of the questions are either ignored or if one person does answer they seem to quietly agree. I have answered a few with the intent to start a dialog and have been dismissed just because I don't agree. If this person truly wanted change they would be open to a discussion rather than just ranting. She is not changing anyone's mind on any issue.

No, but changing someone's mind isn't a requirement for a political question. My point is what you stated first: pro or con doesn't matter. It's not that someone is anti-Trump, that's not the issue. It's the type of questions, viz. the repetitive nature, and the sheer volume of them. Perhaps we could see limiting the number of questions a person can ask if they are to ask the same types of questions. 

If I don't like what I am reading, I will consider posting my own question to get a discussion going.

Maybe all these complainers just don't know how to do that, so they pick on another to feel important.

I agree maybe limiting the number of questions on one subject might be an option.

In the past, we've polled the members to decide what to do. There's still a poll up about this that I asked maybe 4 months ago or so. What it comes down to is that the larger member base does not want any form of censorship or limits on the number of questions people can ask. Censorship is a very slippery slope. Today, it might be a rash of political questions we squash, but who will it be tomorrow? Or the next day? 

We do have tools in place to help you customize your experience here. You can filter your feed on the home page- see stuff from just your friends, remove certain members from your feed, etc. In this respect, your view of AM is mostly in your hands. 

It saddens me that people avoid AM in the mornings, but not to the point where I would begin censoring. Open dialogue (within the TOS of the site), is important to me. We did begin a group for people who want more diverse questions and quite a few have joined it. In it, people can sign up to play games within the Q&A or pledge to ask a certain number of questions each day. I think this puts a more positive spin on it... rather than censoring it, it is possible to create a deluge of alternate questions that appease the broader audience, but it's up to you guys to make that change. The people who are aware of this and are taking steps to create more diversity have made a huge impact, but there's always room for more growth.

If it was open dialog that would be great. I have answered with an opposing view (only moderately opposing) and did so in a polite manner. I was told that she disagreed and to have a good day.  That isn't an open dialog, that is grandstanding.

Must the dialog only occur between you and the question poster?  You might have a dialog with others on that post.

If other people answered, maybe. But everyone just avoids them.

I see your point, but if the question prompted you to want to discuss something, you could post your own question.

I'm with you.  It is, and there is no intention of dialogue just grandstanding and bloviating.  That's why no one really answers them or bothers with them.  I don't know, bring up these points on those threads if anything.

If it was open dialog that would be great. I have answered with an opposing view (only moderately opposing) and did so in a polite manner. I was told that she disagreed and to have a good day.  That isn't an open dialog, that is grandstanding.

If it was open dialog that would be great. I have answered with an opposing view (only moderately opposing) and did so in a polite manner. I was told that she disagreed and to have a good day.  That isn't an open dialog, that is grandstanding.

I don't disagree with you, but I don't think it's for me to decide who should be allowed to talk. I don't personally care for those questions, so I don't answer them. Problem solved, in my book. It takes all kinds of people to have a functional community- the fact that you or I don't see the value in those discussions doesn't mean they don't have value to others. Who am I to stop those people from having a dialogue when it isn't hurting anyone? Is it irritating when someone doesn't care enough about a response to have a dialogue with you, sure. I agree with you there as well, but there's no site rule saying you have to engage in debate with everyone who talks to you, either. I don't want to "police" the site. People are free to come and go and talk as they please. The only time I plan to step in is when that somehow infringes upon a person, law, or protected class.

 

I don't fault anyone for being irritated, but if the shoe was on the other foot, where a handful of members deemed your contributions inadequate or useless, I really have a hard time believing you'd be ok with me censoring you to appease them. That's just not cool. I won't make that decision. It's not up to me to decide what has value, nor should it be up to anyone else. 

Im not sure the content of the questions is what's being objected too. I believe the issue is more of quantity than quality. 
No?
But we've sort o been here before. )

We cannot do it alone. And furthermore, if no one joins in the mornings, US time. many of our questions are vasted for no good to disappear in the middle of those other questions. My take is to join us no matter of time of day, and participate actively in the questions asked, and by creating our own questions too. That is how we would create more diversity, in the mornings too.

True, it's annoying and the questions are blatherings disguised as such.  Still suggesting someone shouldn't be allowed to speak their mind how they want as a site rule  is BS.

I can't help but notice this person I think everyone is referring to doesn't go and bother other people on THEIR posts.  So she can be easily ignored if she isn't for you.  

Some of us enjoy her for her.  She's been here for a long time from what I understand and is very nice to talk to in general.  

She and I have had quite a few discussions on other subjects. I like the lady.

I do too!  She contributes much to the site and is a friend to many.

I agree with everything you said there.