Anonymous pseudonym posting.

[hornbuilder]

This forum allows people to post using anonymous pseudonyms. For numerous reasons I think this is a bad idea. Some of us do identify ourselves in our signature at the bottom of the page. Many do not. Those that do not identify themselves sometimes make inflammatory comment, as recently seen in the thread about the Marine Band concert being cancelled. I wonder would those same people make those comments if their identity were known?

[harrisonreed]

I don't think they would, unless they were very young or didn't have any hope of working with people who might look at this forum.

It's really unlikely that a forum* would ever force people to use their real names, though.

* Edited spelling

[tromboneVan]

Some would say the same about your posts being inflammatory. In America we have free speech. If you want to limit free speech, then you are going to have set your boundaries as to what content is allowed or not, versus censoring and or the left's other favorite tactic: doxxing. If people want to post here to sell their trombones, great, if others want to defend their side of the political spectrum against ad hominem attacks, they also have that right. You can't take a swing, and expect people not to have the right to defend themselves. The conversation became inflammatory from the beginning with MAGA being called "Bigots" and then it being equated to being "only white" people and ultimately shut down for voicing support for Black Americans who support Trump, and who were being disenfranchised. I regret buying one of your instruments, and I will never support M&W. That's how voting works. Sorry that your ideas suck and can't be defended without censorship and personal attacks. It speaks for itself. -Evan

[MStarke]

Here he goes again

And misses the point again. And posts anonymously again.

I think realistically people cannot be forced to disclose their actual name and identity, but in my opinion it largely increases credibility.

[hornbuilder]

Hmmm. This didn't age well

Fwiw. I made 2 comments on the other thread. Neither of which were directed at you, Evan.

[Matt K]

For what it's worth, everyone on this particular thread has not chosen to conceal their identity as the emails linked make it... fairly obvious... what the person's nominal name is.

Doug Yeo has brought up some very valid points about this in the past that I find to be fairly convincing which is why I started the "Verified" badge. Unfortunately, I am presently the only "verified" person. We talked about how it might be feasible to verify and that discussion went a bit by the wayside as as the time I was moving but IMO it would be reasonable to restart that discussion.

We have a bit of a problem where the TOS is a bit beefy as are the startup instructions, so people tend to forget (thus the inevitable 2-3 times a week people are unclear as to how to see pictures, search, etc.). It wouldn't be a stretch to limit those things to Verified people only. That would probably cut down entirely the balance of the scams that are taking place as a side effect.

[hyperbolica]

This forum allows people to post using anonymous pseudonyms. For numerous reasons I think this is a bad idea. Some of us do identify ourselves in our signature at the bottom of the page. Many do not. Those that do not identify themselves sometimes make inflammatory comment, as recently seen in the thread about the Marine Band concert being cancelled. I wonder would those same people make those comments if their identity were known?

I learned about communication online when it was dialup servers and Usenet. The game then was to get someones ISP to deny them access by making up a story and sending a complaint, or complaining to an employer that something untoward warranted HR action. The more you could mess with someone IRL the better.

I participate in several forums, in fact I run one directly related to my career. This one is not. In the one I run, I use my real name because there is a professional benefit. Here there is no benefit but there is the risk of old school vigilantes who just want to mess with people IRL.

If I said my name is Aaron Burr, some people would believe me, some wouldn't care, some would think there was a hidden meaning.

I do give my real name if I'm doing a financial transaction with someone like buying or selling a horn.

In the early days of Facebook and Twitter I watched several friends needlessly destroy both professional and personal lives through online actions. There is nothing to gain by sharing my name or by anyone knowing my name. If you're really dedicated, you can find out my name, and then you'll understand that you're no better off than you were before.

Personally, I believe that allowing or participating in threads like the one mentioned makes everyone look bad. There's no reason to participate. You're not going to "fix" anyone. It's all down side. It's also a reason to avoid this forum altogether . Stuff like that doesn't happen on the forum I run because people are concerned about their professional reputations. I allow aliases on my forum, and there is rarely any chaos.

[harrisonreed]

For what it's worth, everyone on this particular thread has not chosen to conceal their identity as the emails linked make it... fairly obvious... what the person's nominal name is.

Doug Yeo has brought up some very valid points about this in the past that I find to be fairly convincing which is why I started the "Verified" badge. Unfortunately, I am presently the only "verified" person. We talked about how it might be feasible to verify and that discussion went a bit by the wayside as as the time I was moving but IMO it would be reasonable to restart that discussion.

We have a bit of a problem where the TOS is a bit beefy as are the startup instructions, so people tend to forget (thus the inevitable 2-3 times a week people are unclear as to how to see pictures, search, etc.). It wouldn't be a stretch to limit those things to Verified people only. That would probably cut down entirely the balance of the scams that are taking place as a side effect.

How do I get verified?

[Matt K]

For the moment: be an admin and add yourself to the verified group I created!

I think that it’s the direction that most social media is going to have to go unless it’s just going to be AI spam which I would very much like to avoid so I’ll make that a priority to figure out how I can start verifying.

My thought is have mods call up an do a few minute interview with the person to make sure they’re a real person who is really interested in trombones in some capacity. It would be time consuming but probably worth it

[tbdana]

Maybe a real name and a copy of a photo ID to verify? No interview needed. I'm happy to be interviewed or whatever. My username is an incomplete version of my real name, but, for me, having to use real names would be fine. I've made my full name known, here. Nothing horrible has happened to me. I think verifying users is a good idea, but realistically it has to be easy for mods to verify.

[LeTromboniste]

This forum allows people to post using anonymous pseudonyms. For numerous reasons I think this is a bad idea. Some of us do identify ourselves in our signature at the bottom of the page. Many do not. Those that do not identify themselves sometimes make inflammatory comment, as recently seen in the thread about the Marine Band concert being cancelled. I wonder would those same people make those comments if their identity were known?

100% agree. I'm sure some comments would be inflammatory still. But I suspect some discussions would stay more civil, or at least stay civil longer. I think it also carries a different weight when someone decides to make things personal from a position of anonymity vs. signing it off with their name.

[Matt K]

I had to move a couple of additional posts here, largely because people were quoting what was said.

To be clear here: calling all or most of any group here a bigot is not permitted, and I will issue a temporary ban if I need to, whether you are anonymous or not. If, for some reason, you think what you are posting involves calling a person or a group of people a bigot take a step back.

In the case of the former it's also possible that the person you are responding to is ALSO saying something against the TOS. Please just report them and the appropriate actions will be taken, be it moving the topic, a warning, temporary ban or permanent ban depending on the severity.

[harrisonreed]

For the moment: be an admin and add yourself to the verified group I created!

I think that it’s the direction that most social media is going to have to go unless it’s just going to be AI spam which I would very much like to avoid so I’ll make that a priority to figure out how I can start verifying.

My thought is have mods call up an do a few minute interview with the person to make sure they’re a real person who is really interested in trombones in some capacity. It would be time consuming but probably worth it

I agree but maybe save the verified for someone posting as a real person? I could personally care less if someone is a verified pseudonym who loves the trombone.

Also, it does help when people give their bonafides, whether or not to take their advice or knowledge seriously.

Not to name names but there was a pretty recent member here who started posting with authority that had me sometimes scratching my head, and then they posted who they were and some examples of their playing and it's like, ah, I see where this person is coming from now and it's worth heeding the critical things they say. It gives weight to their advice, and their critiques of playing/music etc.

Everyone's opinion matters but if I am getting advice or critiques from Doug Yeo or William Lang, it hits different than if it comes from TubbyT-Bone1984.

[tbdana]

But, man, that Tubby can flat-out play!

[harrisonreed]

But, man, that Tubby can flat-out play!

Well we don't know that, because Tubby doesn't post their playing!

[VJOFan]

I've never really thought about this. I'll think about it.

I wouldn't care if any of the regular posters here knew who I was- you are all, real name or no, basically anonymous in my mind anyway. I just want to control how open my windows are.

I use a pseudonym here for the same reason I asked my wife not to follow my facebook or twitter (back in the day) I like compartmentalized living. I don't need my wife to see that I liked the Saracens Premier Rugby Club page and I don't need people I went to school with 30 years ago but haven't talked to since PMing me after a Trombone Chat post. It's like a social anxiety thing.

I've tried to add value when I post and have had disagreements over ideas, but not flaming matches.(I don't think.)

I am not sure it is ever about real name versus fake name. It's about the temperament of who is behind the keyboard.

[Cmillar]

Fair enough...a moderator can remove posts if they are 'inflammatory' to a community.

But we should all be required to use our real names.

Otherwise, forums can resort to just being 'trolling' sites for political subversives...usually the type of trolls that try to undermine humane outlooks, ethical discussions, centrist/left political viewpoints, democracies, social/democratic norms, etc. etc.

'Trolls' usually aren't associated with trying to make the world a better place. They just want to 'stir up shit' and inject lies, half-truths, political myths, and other vitriole trying to back up some kind of 'political minority' agenda or very short-sighted, very pointed viewpoint that is outside the norms of the community.

I sincerely believe that musicians and artists are here to try to make the world a better place. We're not here to drag humanity down and not living to see history repeat itself over and over and over.

We have to say to the world "this is who I am. I'm not hiding behind anything".

We should all have to use our real names in this, or any other, forum.

Especially in forums that are dedicated to an art or artform...with the hopes of making the world a better place for those that follow in our footsteps.

Cam Millar

[BGuttman]

I should point out that we (Matt, Doug Elliott, and I) have removed posts from members who exhibited troll-like behavior, banned some, and deleted some. Including one significant vendor of trombone gear who was using the Chat to berate customers upset about his [lack of] service.

We chose to avoid political talk simply because of the way the Purely Politics sub-board on The Trombone Forum became a free-for-all of people sniping at others because of their particular political viewpoint. I confess to participating in that board a lot. But we (the Chat management) have made a conscious decision that political postings of any sort do not belong in a forum devoted to Trombones and Music.

[Cmillar]

I should point out that we (Matt, Doug Elliott, and I) have removed posts from members who exhibited troll-like behavior, banned some, and deleted some. Including one significant vendor of trombone gear who was using the Chat to berate customers upset about his [lack of] service.

We chose to avoid political talk simply because of the way the Purely Politics sub-board on The Trombone Forum became a free-for-all of people sniping at others because of their particular political viewpoint. I confess to participating in that board a lot. But we (the Chat management) have made a conscious decision that political postings of any sort do not belong in a forum devoted to Trombones and Music.

Thumbs-up.

Glad that you try to put out any fires before they get started, and then before others of us have to 'fight fire with fire'.

[brassmedic]

For what it's worth, everyone on this particular thread has not chosen to conceal their identity as the emails linked make it... fairly obvious... what the person's nominal name is.

I don't understand this remark. What "emails linked"?

To be clear here: calling all or most of any group here a bigot is not permitted, and I will issue a temporary ban if I need to, whether you are anonymous or not. If, for some reason, you think what you are posting involves calling a person or a group of people a bigot take a step back.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this rule. So if I, hypothetically, were to say, "The Proud Boys are bigots", or "The KKK are bigots", I could be banned for that?

[hyperbolica]

To be clear here: calling all or most of any group here a bigot is not permitted, and I will issue a temporary ban if I need to, whether you are anonymous or not. If, for some reason, you think what you are posting involves calling a person or a group of people a bigot take a step back.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this rule. So if I, hypothetically, were to say, "The Proud Boys are bigots", or "The KKK are bigots", I could be banned for that?

How about you just stop calling people names, and you'll be covered. Your opinion about anything outside of trombone is off topic. Take that crap to facebook.

[Matt K]

I really cannot imagine a scenario where it would not be a violation of the TOS to be talking positively about the KKK, and by extension the appropriate action is to remove the flagrant violation of the TOS rather than pointing out the obvious.

For what it's worth, everyone on this particular thread has not chosen to conceal their identity as the emails linked make it... fairly obvious... what the person's nominal name is.

I don't understand this remark. What "emails linked"?

To be clear here: calling all or most of any group here a bigot is not permitted, and I will issue a temporary ban if I need to, whether you are anonymous or not. If, for some reason, you think what you are posting involves calling a person or a group of people a bigot take a step back.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this rule. So if I, hypothetically, were to say, "The Proud Boys are bigots", or "The KKK are bigots", I could be banned for that?

[ghmerrill]

While I tend, in general, to use my real name and "identity" (I think I have one of those), I can understand why some people wouldn't want to do that -- and those reasons need not be nefarious. There are just some people who would like to participate in online groups, but because of their own positions (jobs, responsibilities), reasonably see the disclosure of their identities as problematic. But beyond that, I don't see that anyone needs a specific reason or excuse to conceal his/her/its/their identity -- and I might go so far as to extend that (at least in the future) to intelligent bots. I see this simply as a condition of participation in social media and it doesn't bother me.

In addition, I wonder exactly what is to be gained by knowing the specific identity of someone whose postings I'm reading or with whom I may be interacting. And the bottom line for me is that I can always choose to simply ignore someone's postings. I don't have to read them and don't have to respond to them. I actually do that quite a bit. Applying the various rules of behavior and content on the forum does not appear in any way to require knowing the identity of the poster. So I think that some kind of "true identity enforcement" is a red herring in terms what people hope to accomplish with it.

[brassmedic]

I really cannot imagine a scenario where it would not be a violation of the TOS to be talking positively about the KKK, and by extension the appropriate action is to remove the flagrant violation of the TOS rather than pointing out the obvious.

I don't understand this remark. What "emails linked"?


I'm trying to wrap my head around this rule. So if I, hypothetically, were to say, "The Proud Boys are bigots", or "The KKK are bigots", I could be banned for that?

Where do you draw the line as to what views are not ok or ok to espouse? Does it start directly at MAGA?

[brassmedic]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this rule. So if I, hypothetically, were to say, "The Proud Boys are bigots", or "The KKK are bigots", I could be banned for that?

How about you just stop calling people names, and you'll be covered. Your opinion about anything outside of trombone is off topic. Take that crap to facebook.

Huh?

[LeTromboniste]

In addition, I wonder exactly what is to be gained by knowing the specific identity of someone whose postings I'm reading or with whom I may be interacting.

Well for one thing it helps when you know whether the advice or perspective you're reading is from a reputable professional, a student or just some kid authoritatively stating things they heard somewhere but don't even fully understand.

Another is people tend to be more civil in their actions and statements when they know their reputation is potentially at play. Just 24h ago some things were written here that I bet would not have been written without anonymity.

[tromboneVan]

The only person talking about unifying against discrimination and prejudice was me, representing MAGA. The rest freaked out about Black Americans supporting Trump, precisely because of the aforementioned reason, you want to keep certain groups mentally imprisoned to your ideas. It's clear who wants to suppress information through censorship, and make up lies unsubstantiated by facts to smear people, those are tactics employed over and over by the left. No reason to suppress information if you have a sound argument. When you cannot debate with facts and logic then you censor people. There's such a double standard on this site. No Politics only trombone, but we can smear MAGA ad nauseam and nobody can defend their beliefs from that side.

How about just sticking to trombone, or keeping your hatred to your first-class pay for play "verified" club. Now you want to gaslight people about supposedly saying bad things... no, I only gave voice to the minorities you claim to care about, but lump into and negate in various ways.... You people are probably lost as far as ever recovering from the brainwashing, but I think Gen Z sees what a disservice the media did to Trump and the effect it had with dividing our country, and continues to do so, and that's why he has a huge amount of support. You don't want a diversity of thought. You only want Leftist Democrat Trombonists to use the forum...to allow a laziness of thought, where nobody questions anything you say, no matter how unfounded and hateful and hypocritical it is to certain groups you deem "privileged". People are tired of the divisiveness.... so they voted and their voices were heard, including the many African American and Hispanic Asian, Indians, and others, who support President Donald J. Trump. It is not a fringe belief to support your President and your Country, or be MAGA, and want to put America first as a USA-Born American. Keep your hateful rhetoric elsewhere if you aren't going to allow for a rebuttal, or your elite version of the Trombone Chat you want to create where you do not have to be held accountable for discriminatory posts against other forum members. You swung first, remember that, when you try to shift blame away; One can only tolerate so much negativity, sexism, racism, and utter BS on here without saying something about it. Just because it works toward the groups you deem unworthy of rights, like "straight white men" that you love to attack and hate on here, that doesn't mean that in the country I live in, we do not have the right to speak freely in this manner.

Why not start a Communist / Marxist only trombone forum if you hate Patriotic Americans so much, That is the "utopia" you seem to want to enforce by censoring all skin-colors of MAGA, even the most disenfranchised and overlooked, the African American patriots who have walked away from the left's plantation of mental enslavement.

[ghmerrill]

Well for one thing it helps when you know the advice or perspective you're reading is from a reputable professional, a student or just some kid authoritatively stating things they heard somewhere but don't even fully understand.

There are few contexts in which this matters to me since I'm never swayed by appeals to authority, although a genuine authority (which would mean much more than a "reputable professional" -- that bar being exceedingly low and narrow) might make me look deeper for something I might have missed.

There are several fields in which I suppose I'm regarded as an authority (my life is an open book on ResearchGate and more broadly on the web) -- having had, for example, substantial formal training, experience, and a publication record. But I don't expect, as a consequence of that, for people to simply believe what I say (within those fields or anywhere else). If they believe it, then that should be because I've given them good reason to believe it -- independent of any "authority" or recognition I may have. I expect the same of others.

In addition, in the context of this thread, the cases being considered have nothing to do with anyone's authority in any way whatever -- since people have been speaking way outside any "professional authority" they may be inclined to claim -- and are about issues of behavior on the forum. And beyond that, any "reputable authority" wishing to wield his/her authority may easily make clear the nature and basis of that authority (as you have yourself) and need not conceal it. And people can then be influenced by that "authority" or not.

Besides, the notion of "authority" in a context such as this is just plain silly. It's social media, and a forum open to discussion for all (reasonable-behaving) people who want to participate. No, the authority argument for divulging personal information just doesn't fly. Take that on my authority as a multiply-degreed, highly trained, experienced, and widely published logician and epistemologist.

Another is people tend to be more civil in their actions and statements when they know their reputation is potentially at play. Just 24h ago some things were written here that I bet would not have been written without anonymity.

This may be true of some people, but overall I would not take that bet.

[LeTromboniste]

Well for one thing it helps when you know the advice or perspective you're reading is from a reputable professional, a student or just some kid authoritatively stating things they heard somewhere but don't even fully understand.

There are few contexts in which this matters to me since I'm never swayed by appeals to authority, although a genuine authority (which would mean much more than a "reputable professional" -- that bar being exceedingly low and narrow) might make me look deeper for something I might have missed.

There are several fields in which I suppose I'm regarded as an authority (my life is an open book on ResearchGate and more broadly on the web) -- having had, for example, substantial formal training, experience, and a publication record. But I don't expect, as a consequence of that, for people to simply believe what I say (within those fields or anywhere else). If they believe it, then that should be because I've given them good reason to believe it -- independent of any "authority" or recognition I may have. I expect the same of others.

In addition, in the context of this thread, the cases being considered have nothing to do with anyone's authority in any way whatever -- since people have been speaking way outside any "professional authority" they may be inclined to claim -- and are about issues of behavior on the forum. And beyond that, any "reputable authority" wishing to wield his/her authority may easily make clear the nature and basis of that authority (as you have yourself) and need not conceal it. And people can then be influenced by that "authority" or not.

Besides, the notion of "authority" in a context such as this is just plain silly. It's social media, and a forum open to discussion for all (reasonable-behaving) people who want to participate. No, the authority argument for divulging personal information just doesn't fly. Take that on my authority as a multiply-degreed, highly trained, experienced, and widely published logician and epistemologist.

My point was not an argument for making names mandatory, just my take on your question of "what is to be gained by knowing" as it's one of the main reason why I personally like to know who's writing. On this forum I do give more credence with regards to trombone-related matters when I can see that the post is by someone who's demonstrably an expert on that subject (for example, Doug or David about embouchure mechanics, Matthew or Brad about instrument building, Mattie or William about experimental music and extended techniques, Howard on historical matters, etc), than I give to anonymous posts that for all I know might be written by someone who's played 6 months. Doesn't mean I always agree with the experts (as a matter of fact I frequently don't), or that others can't make valid points. But at least when I do know it's someone who's really studied it, there's a frame of reference to set my expectations about the level of the discussion.

Another is people tend to be more civil in their actions and statements when they know their reputation is potentially at play. Just 24h ago some things were written here that I bet would not have been written without anonymity.

This may be true of some people, but overall I would not take that bet.

Yeah maybe I'm being naive there. You're pretty much certainly right.

There's also a question of principle for me in this. I don't particularly mind anonymity and I understand why some might need or prefer it. But I do mind if people are taking jabs at specific forum members while hiding behind a pseudonym. If someone's going to personally attack fellow members, the least they can do is sign their name. Otherwise, if this is the climate the forum is heading towards, nobody should be surprised when the few professionals who are regulars here just leave.

I do enjoy participating in discussions here, sharing my expertise when I can, learning from reading others the rest of the time (most of the time), and I do find it important to discuss and debate the big, sometimes uncomfortable questions that affect us, firmly and with conviction, yes, but debating the ideas rather than making it personal. At some point the enjoyment is not going to be worth the trouble though.

[atopper333]

The only person talking about unifying against discrimination and prejudice was me, representing MAGA. The rest freaked out about Black Americans supporting Trump

Interestingly enough, I was the first person to call for the tread to be locked. One other person agreed, but I was the only one to repeatedly ask for the thread to be locked. I had not participated in the rhetoric of either side, nor did I freak out about anything said as it was the same rhetoric said by both sides of the isle, which was completely…not surprising.

The reason I called for the thread to be locked was due to the behavior of BOTH sides not just one, and the fact that it was unproductive. There are plenty of venues for this type of discussion, the terms of service on this site clearly state what acceptable conduct is.

I have my political beliefs and I am more than willing to stand by them, in the appropriate forum. If I am in that forum I would choose to leave when no one is listening and everyone is arguing. Nothing is going to be accomplished with that type of behavior.

Don’t you all see the bigger picture? Don’t you all see the problem? We have Republicans calling Democrats evil and trying to destroy the country, we have Democrats calling Republicans evil and trying to destroy the country, all the while this country continues to divide and become weaker while the true existential enemies watch as our country is pushed into chaos, and people just keep giving into it. Read into Sun Tzu and the strategy will become quite clear.

Do I expect anyone to change their beliefs based on my post? No. Am I going to name call anyone or debate anyone on their politics? No. Why would I? Ya’lls mind is already made up. I’ll I could hope for is for you to just think about what I’m saying, consider it, and draw your own conclusion which I don’t intend to influence much to a certain degree…

At the end of the day, and this post has not just directed at tromboneVan for clarity, this country espouses principles of freedom, and to tear other people down due to their beliefs not being the same and call them ‘evil,’ ‘stupid,’ ‘bigoted,’ etc, or whatever adjective you come up with feeds into the same type of reprehensible, closed minded, and ignorant behavior both sides and even the moderates say the other side does…

At the end of the day it goes both ways.

[Doubler]

Having had my identity stolen twice, although not recently, despite taking security precautions well beyond what most people consider, I value my privacy and anonymity.

If I recall correctly, divulging basic personal details is a requirement for signing up on TC, so it's not as if the information is unavailable, it's just that some of us would prefer this information to not be available to all. Unfortunately, bots seem to sometimes overcome this prerequisite and acquire an account anyway. But I digress. PMs to members who have built up trust can contain whatever personal information members care to reveal.

It is my view that forums involve an exchange of ideas, and the veracity of these ideas are open to scrutiny and discussion. If an expressed idea is valid, why should the source matter? To be clear, I'm not talking about sourcing facts; that's different. It is helpful when statements claiming to be true can be corroborated, whether by the writer of the post or by readers doing their own research, but requiring footnotes goes a bit too far, as does requiring divulging an author's name, IMO.

Anonymity is a firewall against those who disregard civil discourse (or even uncivil discourse) and cross the line into personal harassment. Doxxing is not a positive thing.

[Matt K]

The line begins where relevance to trombone ends.

There are a few topics where this is going to be hard to draw such as with the Lassus trombone thread. Nobody was arguing that the intentions of the composer there were noble, so the line for that particular example is someone defending the music on non discriminatory grounds. There was a similar thread recently where Doug Yeo talked about a similar scenario involving a trombonist who was a woman; I have no intention of banning people for referencing performers and defending their work in a historical context, particularly as it included the nuance that the opinion would differ for a contemporary performer.

There are going to be some topics that will come up now, particularly tariffs, that will at least be tangentially be relevant to the trombone, as the Covid discussions. We’ll have to define a line, although it might just be me revisiting the existing TOS.

The explicit language I have there mentions restrictions on calling all people of a nationality inferior (thinking soecifically to Chinese made instruments which was the hot topic of the time). It might need to be updated to clarify the opposite side of this coin.

I am going to lock this thread today. I have electricians coming over and I have a gig tonight where I did all the arrangements (3 hours worth!) so I’ll be busy taking care of the house and prepping for that so I won’t have tons of time to update. The other mods are similarly preoccupied today.

I will reopen tomorrow. I would welcome any questions or concerns at that time - as the poking and prodding will, in my opinion, help to shape the direction of discussion over the next few years in a positive direction.

I really cannot imagine a scenario where it would not be a violation of the TOS to be talking positively about the KKK, and by extension the appropriate action is to remove the flagrant violation of the TOS rather than pointing out the obvious.

Where do you draw the line as to what views are not ok or ok to espouse? Does it start directly at MAGA?