jross

Have you looked into the logs for user accounts to determine if there is a common IP pattern? Combining IP lookup services, reverse DNS, ASN information, and behavioral analysis can indicate if a member is on a mobile phone, home network, work network, etc. Users with the savvy to mask their connection type and location are unlikely to be the members that nag, annoy, and provoke on a wrestling forum. Members are likely to connect from a phone most often near work or home. The same cell tower and perhaps IPs will hit more often during certain hours. Perhaps there is a pattern for AT&T, etc. for folks at home. You wouldn't want to do this for PSU university or a large corporation with lots of potential members. You wouldn't want to ban IPs that multiple members share. If there is any consistent pattern over days for a user, and you block that IP address, the user will become frustrated and may move onto a different vice. If there is no pattern, its a waste of time. I assume the need for this is few and far between. I have 8 people on my ignore lists... a smallish number considering the overall member count. I wonder if you can turn a trick like making certain members login five times to gain access. Certain members are required to utilize dual authentication and validate they are not a robot. You configure the system to slow down and annoy them to move to a different vice. Scam the scammer (if only that easy).

How good are the Invision moderation features? How often do you get reports about comments and blogs? Some behaviors and language patterns might be possible for auto moderation. Content or members might have automatic consequences based on the number of reports, etc. Who are some regulars that are trusted posters? Ask them to take on restricted moderation responsibility such that they address problems according to the forum behavior guidelines. Nobody needs to check every message but coverage through responsible members that ready most things anyway would spread the moderation load. If you ever go this route, I'd encourage a pinned discussion on Moderation. The post description could list content and moderation expectations. The comments allows open discussion for moderators, the accused, and the members with transparency in most cases. Moderation isn't a fun task. Thank you for doing it. You know I wonder if you can run a report that indicates which members are ignored by the most members. This is a good start list for which members to consider restrictions on, etc. Any new member that shows up quickly on the ignored list is auto flagged.

That's an example of trolling and unacceptable behavior.

Kamala and Donald are not good people; they are politicians. John Kruk was no athlete, he was a ball player! But John could hit a baseball. The Donald can get things done. I'm voting FOR the Trump Republican Platform (link) Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion Carry out the largest deportation operation in American history End inflation, and make America affordable again Make America the dominant energy producer in the world, by far! STOP OUTSOURCING, AND TURN THE UNITED STATES INTO A MANUFACTURING SUPERPOWER Large tax cuts for workers, and no tax on tips! Defend our constitution, our bill of rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms Prevent world war three, restore peace in Europe and in the middle east, and build a great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country -- all made in America End the weaponization of government against the American people Stop the migrant crime epidemic, demolish the foreign drug cartels, crush gang violence, and lock up violent offenders Rebuild our cities, including Washington DC, making them safe, clean, and beautiful again. Strengthen and modernize our military, making it, without question, the strongest and most powerful in the world Keep the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency Fight for and protect social security and medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age Cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children Keep men out of women's sports Deport pro-hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again Secure our elections, including same day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship Unite our country by bringing it to new and record levels of success There are potential Democrat platform items that may interest me... waiting for Kamala to provide policies. Stop interfering with other countries, stop spending money we don't have, prioritize helping needy US citizens before spending a dollar on non citizens, stop illegal immigration, increase legal immigration, defer state law on abortion, treat marijuana the same as alcohol with law consideration, ban congress from trading individual company stocks, make college education affordable, provide accountability behind benefits... RFK JRs has some good polices (link) but no chance to win. If Kamala came out with identical policies as Trump, I'd vote for the person that has a proven track record of getting things done and playing hardball in negotiations. That's Trump.

Yes, exactly. Instead of resorting to insults, you could say: “Drinking bleach as a cure for cancer is dangerous and incorrect. Please consult reliable medical sources for accurate information.” Then, ignore the person spreading harmful advice. Darwin’s law wins.

I joined a Wrestling Forum on Facebook and was appalled by the TMZ-like sensationalism over a senior member’s DUI. When I criticized this gossip, I was banned. I encountered similar behavior on Twitter and was blocked by the same man for calling it out. It’s a stark reminder of a conversation I once had with college students at a gym: When does a man truly become a man? It’s not just about having the physically developed mind at 25 years old; it’s about taking responsibility and guiding the next generation. Sadly, many people, even in their 50s, behave like children, despite having their own kids.

An attempt at standards. It could be tweaked Acceptable Behavior: Respectful Communication: Be polite and avoid insults. For example, instead of saying, ‘You’re always wrong,’ say, ‘I disagree because…’ On-Topic Contributions: Keep your comments relevant to the discussion. If we’re talking about tech, stick to that topic and avoid discussing an unrelated subjects. Constructive Feedback: When giving feedback, focus on the idea rather than the person. For instance, instead of saying, ‘You never get it,’ you might say, ‘This approach might not work because…’ Unacceptable Behavior: Personal Attacks: Don’t belittle or insult others. For example, avoid saying, ‘You’re an idiot.’ Trolling: Refrain from intentionally making inflammatory statements designed to upset others or start arguments. Reporting Misuse: Don’t report posts just because they offend you personally. For instance, if someone compares a pro-abortion stance to pro-murder, it might be provocative but it is not a personal attack. If someone says that a particular climate change viewpoint is akin to ignoring science, it might be a heated opinion but it’s not a personal attack. Consequences: Violation of these standards may result in being banned or moved to the zoo. The member name, consequence, and reason for consequence may be posted, and you may be allowed a community discussion to potentially restore your member rights. An IP address may be banned. A warning(s), consequence, and member rights restoration are at the sole discretion of Forum moderators.

Liberal sources (less aligned personally) Barack Obama Robert Reich (nuts) Bill Maher Jason Kander Liberal views.. Emmanuel Acho (like...) Matt Tiabbi (like...) Tim O'Reilly Stopped following some wackos with too much TDS. Libertarian (better aligned personally) Ron Paul...

Would you please think critically about what the media is telling you? "You won't have to ever vote again" regurgitates media misinformation. You can watch and listen to the video to understand the context. "Losers and suckers" What bias does the original article author have and why did he use an anonymous source? Later John Kelly supported the article. What is his bias? What is his reputation for mischaracterization and lies? How many and which people have vouched that Trump did not say this? What is their bias? General speaking, does "losers and suckers" seem like something anyone would say, even the draft dodging Trump? How is this matched against positive and negative support Trump has shown the military?

Censorship should be a last resort, reserved for situations where there's a clear and present danger. Feeling offended and being dumb (drink bleach) are not reason enough for censorship. Censoring respected medical experts providing alternatives to Covid vaccinations was over censorship and caused harm.

Who decides what constitutes false information? Who decides what information needs to be censored? In response to your question, I have legal options if I am defamed or falsely accused. To protect itself, Intermat could establish and share transparent guidelines on acceptable behavior and content moderation. If Intermat’s guidelines emphasize respecting privacy, avoiding defamation, and upholding the platform’s reputation, then Intermat should actively monitor and address content that violates these standards. If Intermat fails to address malicious defamation, it will lose members.

Yes, there’s clear right-wing hypocrisy. Trump often lies, and while he faces criticism for it, many people (this forum, right wingers, etc.) question his character. His draft dodging is also a valid criticism, but he didn’t run on his military record, so it’s a separate issue. Walz made a commitment to serve, knowing he might face combat. Retiring when faced with that possibility and the exaggerations about his service for political gain complicate things. His criticism is about both his decision to leave and the misleading claims about his service. While Trump’s draft dodging is a separate known issue, Walz’s situation involves new public awareness to his retirement controversy and his misleading military experience statements. Each deserves its own attention, but understanding both helps explain why Walz is facing current criticism.

Rather than confronting the uncomfortable situation directly, Scourge and others attempt to shift the focus from Walz to Trump and Vance. Deflecting is a childish response; an adult can face issues head-on. It's valid to criticize Trump and Vance, but first, have the courage to acknowledge and address the criticisms of Walz.

“Dangerous freedom is preferred over peaceful slavery.” It shouldn't be the responsibility of corporations or governments to control the flow of information. It is better to let people have open access to diverse information sources, to collaborate, and to make their own choices about what to believe.

Why don't you do the research and come back? You keep posting bullshit based on bullshit. After you've done the exercise, perhaps everyone will learn how to post less bullshit.

Your speech is an example of media spin. RV the Journalist: "Anybody that says anything bad about Trump has an anti-GOP agenda." Problem: over generalization, bias, lack of nuance, misleading... RV just made this shit up.

This same shit occurs on a variety of topics, celebrities, politicians, etc. Your choice: pick the OP instructions to raise your IQ or leverage this list to thicken your bubble.

Fact Check: They go back to 2018... Finding: True. It is also true that Walz has been criticized by his NG peers for stolen valor since at least 2006.

A critical thinker should apply the same process to social media posts as they do with news media. Copy/pasting what your expert has told you to think is a sign... bubbles This lady is LOW IQ... unaware she is regurgitating shit why claiming others are shit.

Yes, even Reuters with their policy of taking a "value-neutral approach"... 8/13: "Rambling Trump, Musk interview marred by tech issues" Problem: bias and subjectivity in article title word choice, and the title misleads on the article content Problem: article has bias in the coverage of Harris, selective framing, lack of nuance... Reuters normally does a good job... but not always. Same with the AP.

Experts like this? The Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson: “One more, Elon Musk is slated to interview Donald Trump tomorrow — tonight on — on X. I don't know if the president is going to — feel free to say if he is or not — but I — I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue. It's a — you know, it's an America issue. What role does the White House or the President have any sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of inter — intervening in that. Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but you know it's a wider thing, right?”

The best thing about X.com is better access to the primary source in raw form via video. Rather than blindly believing the media spin, you can listen and form your own opinion. And then you have community notes.

PBS Article Review: Source: An article highlighted by @RockLobster as one of the reputable sources debunking the claim that Tim Walz retired after learning of his deployment. The article, titled “Fact-checking attacks on Walz’s military record by Vance and other Republicans,” originally appeared on PolitiFact. Issue: The fact-check labels the claim as “mostly false,” but a closer examination of the evidence suggests it is “mostly true.” Key Points: Awareness of Deployment: The press release indicates that Walz was aware of the potential for deployment. Communication with Unit: Walz informed his unit that deployment was highly likely. Commitment to Duty: The press release also emphasizes Walz’s commitment to his unit, even if deployed to Iraq. Retirement Circumstances: Walz circumvented his superior to secure retirement before completing his intended service. Concerns About Perception: Walz questioned a unit member, asking if soldiers would view him negatively for not deploying, potentially seeing it as an attempt to avoid deployment. Unit’s Reaction: Multiple members of Walz’s unit criticized his character and actions.

Even when the articles report "just the facts"... the article title, article choice, and fact selection is problematic. 8/13: Fox News: Front page article title: "Harris responds after Trump unleashes a scathing attack, branding her a 'radical-left lunatic'" Problem: Emotionally loaded language, sensational, lack context Neutral Title: "Harris responds to Trump's criticism." 8/13: CNN: Front page article title: "A CNN investigation shows that a startup connected to JD Vance failed as a business and provided a ‘nightmare’ work environment for employees" Problem: implied bias - a very negative portrayal right from the start, loaded language, lack of specificity Neutral Title: “CNN Investigation: JD Vance-Backed AppHarvest Startup Company Faces Business Challenges and Employee Complaints”

A critical thinker can go to any major news site and immediately find false information plus bias across multiple articles. My kids didn't believe me but they can also do it. Fox News is the most obvious but ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. all have problems. Who benefits? What language and framing is used? What stories are reported and important, not reported? What information in the story is omitted? How much opinion, anonymous source, and speculation is included? Are you reading someone's slanted interpretation or evidence-based facts and drawing your own conclusion? What is the background and history behind a story that can provide a deeper understanding and prevent misinterpretation? To think critically: Ask Questions: Who, what, why, when, and how? Evaluate Sources: Check credibility and biases. Analyze Evidence: Is it relevant, sufficient, and strong? Consider Perspectives: Explore and be open to different viewpoints. Use Logic: Ensure arguments are consistent and avoid fallacies. Reflect: Consider implications and stay open-minded. ----------- Feel free to added tips on thinking critically. Feel free to point out and discuss problems in specific news articles.