News & Current Affairs

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It doesn't work though. "I don't put people on ignore in real life" - a place where there's no such thing - makes no sense. If you can remove the comments they post from your own experience on the forum (but not everyone else's) then your problem is not that you're subjected to them, it's that they're able to share them here in the first place. Banning those people wouldn't achieve anything more than blocking them would, other than removing the comments for everyone else instead of just you.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

While it's true that is an an adopted form of identity, I don't think this characterisation fully appreciates the weight of it in a Muslim person's psychological structures. When you are raised a particular way (Arabic classes as children, observing Ramadan with family, forming character and moral compass through Islamic philosophies/examples of the prophet pbuh) it's more a real lived experience rather than just something in one's head, or some cool book I happened to read.

I didn’t have a religious upbringing. Perhaps I’d think differently if I had. As it happens, I had a largely secular upbringing in a society/culture that doesn’t consider religious beliefs sacrosanct. And FWIW I’m grateful for that. It’s one reason why I rather like Britain and why I have zero desire to live in an Islamic theocracy like Sudan.

I understand your point: generally religious belief (not just Islam) is inculcated in people from a young age in way that political belief usually isn’t, which makes it more ingrained, more difficult to renounce, more painful to question, etc. But, with respect, I don’t think that matters. It doesn’t matter how beliefs are formed, how passionately they are held or how fundamental they are to a person’s sense of identity. They are still beliefs. They belong in that “non-immanent” category and therefore neither require nor deserve the same protection that immanent characteristics do.

When someone misrepresents or disrespects Islam or Muslims, it is that lived experience and culture that's being attacked - not too dissimilar to the feeling of racism. You can blatantly see it in the language used. I probably can do more to actively avoid it, but then I think why the hell should I have to.

You don’t have to. You have to deal with it as you see fit. I’m not trying to dictate the appropriate response here.

For the sake of discussion, however, I do think these “attacks” come in various forms, all hurtful to some degree but some more defensible than others in a moral and/or intellectual sense. Some will be measured and informed criticisms. Some will be expressions of (non-malicious) ignorance. Some will be poorly disguised expressions of racial or xenophobic prejudice. Some will be deliberately incendiary, i.e. trolling.

I think these different types of “attack” merit different responses. Some are worth engaging with. Some are not. I think there are 1-2 posters here who are in the “trolling” category. I think the best response is to stick them on “ignore”, not just because it’s a quick-fix solution but because banned trolls, having pretty much achieved what they set out to do, will often re-join under an alias and reconvene trolling.

FWIW, I've always stuck around because there are good people like yourself in this community who I do care to give time to.

Thanks. That’s kind of you to say.

Let's consider a real life scenario. A particular pub I frequent. Good diversity of mostly cool people. The owners are opportunistic and shady, but the regulars make the establishment. However, every single time I go in there I have to accept that the owners, and by extension everyone in this place deems it fine to have a couple idiots stand in the corner shouting some of the most nastiest crap that directly violates my very existence. Fair do's it's only a couple idiots, but it's not a place I'd be wanting to go back very often. I don't put people on ignore in real life, I confront them. Unfortunately on the internet, I can't.

This analogy expresses a false equivalence between online and in-person interaction, two things that are experientially different in significant ways.

The remoteness and non-physical nature of online interaction has its pros and cons. True, you can’t confront people in person; and that, along with online anonymity, encourages people to mouth off in ways they never would in person. The flip side of the coin is they can’t physically impose their idiocy as they could in an in-person interaction. It’s virtually impossible to ignore people being loud, obnoxious or abusive when you are physically present in the same space. You will hear their nonsense whether you want to or not. You will see them and feel their presence whether you want to or not. This isn’t the case with online interaction. Since TFFers can only communicate in text, everyone here is effectively on mute. It’s fairly easy to ignore people here; one can easily choose not to read something. Use the “ignore” function and you can make people invisible too.

Imagine it was within your power to attend your pub, hit a button under the pool table and make the known idiots in the pub both inaudible and invisible. That’s pretty much what online forums like this allow you to do. If you had that power would you use it? Would it make it easier to frequent the pub?

Of course it’s ultimately for you to decide whether to take that step. If you generally enjoy the forum but feel exasperated with 1-2 posters, then I think using “ignore” is a quick, simple and proactive solution. If you’re reluctant to do so because you think the responsibility lies elsewhere, then I respect and understand that.

 

[Hooped Wizard]

to lump communists in with fascists - i.e. compare those who want humanity's emancipation with those who want its extermination - is disgusting.

I'm sure the millions murdered by Stalin, Lenin, Castro and Mao might disagree.

 

[Renegade]

This analogy expresses a false equivalence between online and in-person interaction, two things that are experientially different in significant ways.

The remoteness and non-physical nature of online interaction has its pros and cons. True, you can’t confront people in person; and that, along with online anonymity, encourages people to mouth off in ways they never would in person. The flip side of the coin is they can’t physically impose their idiocy as they could in an in-person interaction. It’s virtually impossible to ignore people being loud, obnoxious or abusive when you are physically present in the same space. You will hear their nonsense whether you want to or not. You will see them and feel their presence whether you want to or not. This isn’t the case with online interaction. Since TFFers can only communicate in text, everyone here is effectively on mute. It’s fairly easy to ignore people here; one can easily choose not to read something. Use the “ignore” function and you can make people invisible too.

Imagine it was within your power to attend your pub, hit a button under the pool table and make the known idiots in the pub both inaudible and invisible. That’s pretty much what online forums like this allow you to do. If you had that power would you use it? Would it make it easier to frequent the pub?

Of course it’s ultimately for you to decide whether to take that step. If you generally enjoy the forum but feel exasperated with 1-2 posters, then I think using “ignore” is a quick, simple and proactive solution. If you’re reluctant to do so because you think the responsibility lies elsewhere, then I respect and understand that.

I sympathise with both sides of this debate, but find sl1k's argument more compelling and potentially more productive. I don't mean to prejudge sl1k, but I imagine he's the type of person in real-life (this is all fake after all) that relishes the chance to confront those with opposing opinions on politics/religion and would like the chance to change their mind.

It's anecdotal evidence I know, but I have found that I have been able to convince people (and vice-versa) that their ideology is flawed more successfully in person than online. The anonymity afforded to members who have questionable views or those that are trolling (but deep-down still kind of believe the shit they are spouting) enables them to more easily ignore any confrontation online. In person, you can't ignore the barrage of counter-arguments to your worldview in the same way, you usually have to deal with them.

If these posters serve no purpose but to wind other members up, derail actual (potentially productive) debate and will never be forced to evaluate their own positions, I don't see the purpose for them to be allowed access to that section of the forum. The ignore function works for individual members (like your good self), but the vast majority of posters on here do not use the function (or even think to). The rest of us and non-members are left with a forum littered with inane tripe that puts many off even bothering to engage.

As I said earlier, in public I am all for anyone being allowed to say anything, because their arguments will be countered. The idiots can be exposed. However, by opening the forum up to any troll (free speech innit), you are ironically preventing a potentially large number of posters/non-members in engaging in the debate. I reckon we actually get less diversity of opinion in the debate by enabling the troll(s). Of course, that may just be an incorrect hunch.

 

[Techno Natch]

I like reading the opinions of those with different views such as Alty and EG, and they do get me to reconsider my opinion. Even Stanley who I found pretty detestable had some good points on TFF. Hell I enjoy reading stormfront from time to time and they have some serious issues on there.

Unfortunately, since the referendum on this forum the debate seems to have been reduced to blatent wumming or one line sentences that don't really add anything to the conversation. It gets to the point where it's actually boring and I don't feel compelled to get involved. I hate it when I can't tell what someone's actual opinion is.

S1lk sorry to go over old ground but whats the difference between what people say about Islam and your view on homosexuality?

 

[sl1k]

It doesn't work though. "I don't put people on ignore in real life" - a place where there's no such thing - makes no sense.

As in I'm not usually inclined to ignore people's views just because they're offensive. I'd be able to challenge those views, rather than having them rinsed and repeated. Rene summed it up very well.

If you can remove the comments they post from your own experience on the forum (but not everyone else's) then your problem is not that you're subjected to them, it's that they're able to share them here in the first place. Banning those people wouldn't achieve anything more than blocking them would, other than removing the comments for everyone else instead of just you.

I'm not talking about opinions I don't like here, I speak of the very blatant trolling. So banning glaringly obvious trolls - who add nothing - wouldn't achieve anything for the forum, no?

Interesting.

 

[sl1k]

TI didn’t have a religious upbringing. Perhaps I’d think differently if I had. As it happens, I had a largely secular upbringing in a society/culture that doesn’t consider religious beliefs sacrosanct. And FWIW I’m grateful for that. It’s one reason why I rather like Britain and why I have zero desire to live in an Islamic theocracy like Sudan.

I'm a firm believer in a liberal, plural and secular society myself. Proud of these very British values.

I understand your point: generally religious belief (not just Islam) is inculcated in people from a young age in way that political belief usually isn’t, which makes it more ingrained, more difficult to renounce, more painful to question, etc. But, with respect, I don’t think that matters. It doesn’t matter how beliefs are formed, how passionately they are held or how fundamental they are to a person’s sense of identity. They are still beliefs. They belong in that “non-immanent” category and therefore neither require nor deserve the same protection that immanent characteristics do.

I do receive your point, but I wasn't asking necessarily for protections. Just conveying the feelz.

For the sake of discussion, however, I do think these “attacks” come in various forms, all hurtful to some degree but some more defensible than others in a moral and/or intellectual sense. Some will be measured and informed criticisms. Some will be expressions of (non-malicious) ignorance. Some will be poorly disguised expressions of racial or xenophobic prejudice. Some will be deliberately incendiary, i.e. trolling.

I think these different types of “attack” merit different responses. Some are worth engaging with. Some are not. I think there are 1-2 posters here who are in the “trolling” category. I think the best response is to stick them on “ignore”, not just because it’s a quick-fix solution but because banned trolls, having pretty much achieved what they set out to do, will often re-join under an alias and reconvene trolling.

No beef with discourse. I take your point of the benefits of the 'ignore' function, though I still wouldnt use it out of personal choice. Am just generally speaking out in context of the culture of the forum.

thanks. That’s kind of you to say.

This analogy expresses a false equivalence between online and in-person interaction, two things that are experientially different in significant ways.

The remoteness and non-physical nature of online interaction has its pros and cons. True, you can’t confront people in person; and that, along with online anonymity, encourages people to mouth off in ways they never would in person. The flip side of the coin is they can’t physically impose their idiocy as they could in an in-person interaction. It’s virtually impossible to ignore people being loud, obnoxious or abusive when you are physically present in the same space. You will hear their nonsense whether you want to or not. You will see them and feel their presence whether you want to or not. This isn’t the case with online interaction. Since TFFers can only communicate in text, everyone here is effectively on mute. It’s fairly easy to ignore people here; one can easily choose not to read something. Use the “ignore” function and you can make people invisible too.

Imagine it was within your power to attend your pub, hit a button under the pool table and make the known idiots in the pub both inaudible and invisible. That’s pretty much what online forums like this allow you to do. If you had that power would you use it? Would it make it easier to frequent the pub?

Of course it’s ultimately for you to decide whether to take that step. If you generally enjoy the forum but feel exasperated with 1-2 posters, then I think using “ignore” is a quick, simple and proactive solution. If you’re reluctant to do so because you think the responsibility lies elsewhere, then I respect and understand that.

Won't get too in to the analogy side of things, its' purpose has been served. I wouldn't actually let a couple idiots stop me from coming on here, though, my perspective and angle had to be voiced. The more dramatic, the bigger the audience

 

[sl1k]

S1lk sorry to go over old ground but whats the difference between what people say about Islam and your view on homosexuality?

You may have missed it Natch, but I actually released a statement in regards to that (which included an apology and reasoning behind crassness, as well as the logic behind my initial thinking) not too long ago in a thread on this forum section.

If you missed it, I concluded that if my son (this hypothetical scenario again ) liked willie, fine. Just give me grandchildren first for goodness sake!! I may even have his partner over for dinner if that condition was met.

Oh and for the record, there's a massive difference in the way I referred to homosexuals and some of the ways Muslims are referred to on here. If you feel different, feel free to quote me mate.

 

[Techno Natch]

You may have missed it Natch, but I actually released a statement in regards to that (which included an apology and reasoning behind crassness, as well as the logic behind my initial thinking) not too long ago in a thread on this forum section.

If you missed it, I concluded that if my son (this hypothetical scenario again ) liked willie, fine. Just give me grandchildren first for goodness sake!! I may even have his partner over for dinner if that condition was met.

Oh and for the record, there's a massive difference in the way I referred to homosexuals and some of the ways Muslims are referred to on here. If you feel different, feel free to quote me mate.

Yeah I missed that and also you're not spouting those views every day either. I honestly couldn't remember how it finished as I stopped reading after a while, and I can't remember what you were even saying now so I'll take your word that it was different.

I think constructive criticism of Islam/religion is fine but reading one line posts about refugees gets dull very quickly.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Comes to something when this thread is more like how News & CA should be than the section itself.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I'm not talking about opinions I don't like here, I speak of the very blatant trolling. So banning glaringly obvious trolls - who add nothing - wouldn't achieve anything for the forum, no?

Interesting.

Well you didn't really frame it like that before to be fair.

 

[sl1k]

Well you didn't really frame it like that before to be fair.

Didn't think I'd have to clarify it, again. My very first post in this thread was:

There's letting people voice stupid opinions (which I absolutely don't have a problem with, "free country" and all that), but then there's giving dickheads a free pass to troll and fish with outrageous statements with no pressure to back up what's being said. It derails, makes no contribution of substance, and just puts me off from bothering.

I can respect a person without rating his views, so long as he shows me the good will that is genuinely engaging with the topic. But there are sad, pathetic lads with tiny testicle (RIP brother ste) who wanna talk shit, hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. You, soft lads, are pieces of shit. You know who you are.

Thanks.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

@ The Paranoid Pineapple

When I say people should ignore him, I don’t mean they should just tolerate him. I mean they should actually use the “ignore” function. I do this, and because I can’t see his content he doesn’t impinge on my enjoyment at all. He might as well not exist.

Given the availability of this option, I just don’t see how Johnny (or any other poster) can single-handedly deter other members from posting. He certainly isn’t stopping others from posting. The basic format of an online forum doesn’t allow him to interrupt other people’s discussions. It’s generally very easy to ignore people on forums (much easier than, say, in group discussions offline). It’s even easier when the functionality exists for each user to effectively erase an annoying poster's content from the board.

It would be interesting to hear if others agree with you on this, though. The N&CA forum does seem to have slowed down a bit. I think it’s a bit weak to blame Johnny for this, but I accept I may be in a minority on this. As a general point, I think it's naive to enter a politics forum expecting (or hoping) not to be annoyed by other people. Most people feel political disagreement in a way that they don't when the argument is about other subjects. Political discussion brings out the worst in most of us.

A more valid concern, if I may briefly switch sides for a moment, is how non-members (especially first-time visitors) might be affected by the shitty content in the N&CA forum. After all, those people don’t have the “ignore” function; and it’s not hard to imagine someone visiting for the first time, reading Johnny’s pish and deciding TFF is not for them. I’m more sympathetic to that line of argument, though I think people tend to go off general impressions rather than base their judgement on 1-2 people. Most people understand that all forums have their idiots.

As for sluggish mod/admin responses, I don’t know. Genuinely, I don’t know. It’s a bit of a non-issue for me because it never occurs to me to report anyone. You’re certainly not the first to make this criticism and I generally respect your judgement, so there probably is something to it. At the same time, I think it should be remembered that in the early days of 1FF there was near unanimous agreement that we wanted light-touch moderation. Perhaps that needs to be understood in its historical context (an understandable reaction to TFF being ruined by the Admin monkeys being autocratic pricks) and some kind of rebalancing is required. It’s a tough one, though.

Yes, I think a lot of this is very fair. As one of those weirdos who's fairly happy to have that appallingly dirty term "liberal" applied to their politics I think I instinctively agree with you and appreciate where you're coming from. I've known forums that seemingly want to filter out dissenting views and it makes for a pretty boring user experience. I've always rather enjoyed the fact that you can find a range of views in this community. The issue, I suppose, is how best to respond to people who simply want to cause trouble. Most sites, I think, get the balance about right with a very basic set of guidelines regarding community standards that are incredibly easy to adhere to: refrain from personal abuse, avoid the use of "-ist" or "-phobic" terms, don't troll. And whilst you can put those individuals who fail to abide on ignore I rather question why people should have to - if you can't adhere to an extremely basic set of guidelines which largely just amount to respect for fellow posters then I'm not sure why you shouldn't simply be EXPUNGED. For all the sins of the former era I do think they did quite well in despatching trolls. Nothing was gained from their presence and nothing was lost when they departed. I can sort of appreciate the argument for keeping them but to my mind it's largely just a bit of a strange nod to the virtues of freedom of expression. In reality, it may rather hamper this by alienating both current and prospective members.

I dunno, I could probably just use the ignore function (I have done once or twice in the past) but I'm a bit loathe to do so, perhaps, perversely, because it seems overly censorious (struggling to see, I must say, why the ignore function is a more welcome solution than an outright ban). For a similar reason I very rarely report posts (literally twice in the whole course of TFF/1FF) as I often think that it ought to appear obvious when a line has been crossed. I think, in the case of JT, it's the repetitive and sustained nature of the posting that grates; kind of elevates it from mere nuisance to downright off-putting (it might disrupt the flow of a discussion, it may simply appear on your notifications and make you think "nah..."). My problem perhaps but I do think there may be some mileage in examining the kind of community we want to be. The forum appears to be stagnating somewhat and giving free reign to someone to be a bit of an idiot dickhead is unlikely to remedy that.

 

[Gladders]

Not read all this thread, but agree people are allowed to make themselves look stuipd with their opinions.

However I don't agree that obvious trolls should be allowed to remain posters because there is an ignore function.

Not every user uses it so obvious trolls stay and ruin thread after thread. Obvious who that is in the forum mentioned here, but plenty of other examples in other forums such as Eric in the lge 2 one for no reasons and other examples of posters around which go Un moderated and make the forums unpleasant place to be as mentioned in other thread.

Obvious trolls contribute nothing and I don't understand how mods/admins think it's OK for them to continue.

 

[mowgli]

Not read all this thread, but agree people are allowed to make themselves look stuipd with their opinions.

However I don't agree that obvious trolls should be allowed to remain posters because there is an ignore function.

Not every user uses it so obvious trolls stay and ruin thread after thread. Obvious who that is in the forum mentioned here, but plenty of other examples in other forums such as Eric in the lge 2 one for no reasons and other examples of posters around which go Un moderated and make the forums unpleasant place to be as mentioned in other thread.

Obvious trolls contribute nothing and I don't understand how mods/admins think it's OK for them to continue.

We inform admin what's going on and it's up to them who gets banned not mods.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

@ Sl1K, Renegade and Pineapple.

Good posts, all. Please forgive the lack of detailed responses. I was going to write some yesterday but decided it was unnecessary given the relatively few points of significant disagreement. Plus, the Man United vs. Chelsea game was on. Plus, I am very lazy.

One point I wish to follow up on:

I could probably just use the ignore function (I have done once or twice in the past) but I'm a bit loathe to do so, perhaps, perversely, because it seems overly censorious (struggling to see, I must say, why the ignore function is a more welcome solution than an outright ban).

The ignore function is the only way of dealing with trolls that doesn’t feed them. Trolls usually bugger off when no one is reacting. In response to a ban, however, they usually come back under an alias. So while I recognise there are difficulties implementing this approach consistently within a group (new users are especially problematic in this sense), I still see it as preferable. I have seen it work on other forums. Would it work on this one? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s been tried.

Also, I am quite wary about the charge of trolling. I have a firm idea in my head about what trolling is (and I dare say it would chime with yours), but generally too many online seem to think a troll is just someone who annoys them. People are annoyed by all sorts of things, including others making discordant sounds in their echo chamber, so it’s quite common for people to misapply the “troll” label and then invoke the idea of trolling to justify ostracism and censorship of people they don’t like, especially if they’re expressing unpopular opinions.

I was once suspended from a message board for “trolling”. This had nothing to do with my manner of posting. I was being sincere. I was arguing my points at length. I was responding to counterarguments. I just pissed off the regulars (or a small clique among the regulars) by expressing opinions they didn’t like, by debating them instead of slavishly agreeing with them. Is JT a victim in this sense? Certainly not. My point is more general: that concerns about “trolling” are often used, erroneously, to enforce online group think. The easiest way to deal with dissenting voices is to assume they’re taking the piss and then exclude them for not being serious enough to warrant inclusion.

For this reason I think it’s preferable if each user is the judge of what constitutes trolling. That’s what the ignore function allows. I can erase the people I think are trolling, but in a way that doesn’t impose that judgement on anyone else. Ditto for every other user. This approach intuitively makes more sense from a libertarian (or classically liberal) POV, which is probably why me and Ebbe prefer it and you INCORRIGIBLE PINKOS don’t.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I was once suspended from a message board for “trolling”. This had nothing to do with my manner of posting. I was being sincere. I was arguing my points at length. I was responding to counterarguments. I just pissed off the regulars (or a small clique among the regulars) by expressing opinions they didn’t like, by debating them instead of slavishly agreeing with them. Is JT a victim in this sense? Certainly not. My point is more general: that concerns about “trolling” are often used, erroneously, to enforce online group think. The easiest way to deal with dissenting voices is to assume they’re taking the piss and then exclude them for not being serious enough to warrant inclusion.

Proper trolling is a beautiful thing - an art-form even. It requires infallible patience, a deftness of argument and loads of knowledge. It requires constructing an argument that is both seemingly watertight and reasonable and yet utterly infuriating to your target(s) so that they can't help but respond.

Watching a skilled troll at work is like watching a master-craftsmen. They thrive on the gaps between received opinion and logical consistency. Often they're odious scumbags, but sometimes that forces us all to be better - to iron out the hypocrisies and fallacies in the opinions we hold we like to hope no-one will ever notice. It should be celebrated.

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between trolling and sincerely holding heterodox opinions.

JT should be banned not because he's a troll (though he is) but that he's a bad troll. Very few people bite on his posts, 95% of us have him on ignore and all that's left is a heap of unread racist bile that clutters up the entire forum. If he's not willing to do the intellectual work to troll properly we shouldn't tolerate his presence.

 

[Gladders]

We inform admin what's going on and it's up to them who gets banned not mods.

Maybe thats a problem then, there is only what three admins? Two of them are hardly ever around and don't see what goes on day to day on the forum, I doubt they are reading every thread let alone enough to have opinions on some of the posters.

There should be more mods and they should have more powers, I know it can be difficult to choose mods you can trust, but mods powers can quickly be reversed if abused.

Is it not worth running a community driven thread to advertise for people willing to mod and then let the community decide who would be worthy mods and having some final say by admins so its not just given to the popular kid who would be bad at being a mod?
Various sub reddits on reddit do that often and seems to work.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

JT should be banned not because he's a troll (though he is) but that he's a bad troll. If he's not willing to do the intellectual work to troll properly we shouldn't tolerate his presence.

It's beyond my powers of sophistry to produce a convincing counterargument to this.

 

[T.A]

Maybe thats a problem then, there is only what three admins? Two of them are hardly ever around and don't see what goes on day to day on the forum, I doubt they are reading every thread let alone enough to have opinions on some of the posters.

There should be more mods and they should have more powers, I know it can be difficult to choose mods you can trust, but mods powers can quickly be reversed if abused.

Is it not worth running a community driven thread to advertise for people willing to mod and then let the community decide who would be worthy mods and having some final say by admins so its not just given to the popular kid who would be bad at being a mod?
Various sub reddits on reddit do that often and seems to work.

Giving some mods more power has been mentioned along with other things but for whatever reason it just hasn't been implemented. There are certain members that have had several chances on here and are still able to roam about and cause mischief all the time. No point having an active forum if there are posters on here not making it welcome for others to join.

 

[Saddlerrad]

I would like to announce that TheMinsterman has been promoted to the Current affairs Moderater.

Congrats, I shall be making your name green shortly.

 

[Stevencc]

Good choice imvho.

(If it wasn't going to be Ian)

 

[Hooped Wizard]

Should have appointed somebody at least on the centre, if not politically neutral. Poor but not surprised. Guess that johnny fellow won't last long now yet that communist guy will continue to be able to spout his hateful views.

 

[Saddlerrad]

Should have appointed somebody at least on the centre, if not politically neutral. Poor but not surprised. Guess that johnny fellow won't last long now yet that communist guy will continue to be able to spout his hateful views.

Welcome to your new life TheMinsterman

 

[TheMinsterman]

Should have appointed somebody at least on the centre, if not politically neutral. Poor but not surprised. Guess that johnny fellow won't last long now yet that communist guy will continue to be able to spout his hateful views.

You'll be the first in the Gulag (I mean... political re-alignment spa....).

 

[Dirk]

So, the minsterman is it? A church(man) with the witcher Geralt von Riva Avatar. Suitable for CA I think Congratulations!

 

[TheMinsterman]

So, the minsterman is it? A church(man) with the witcher Geralt von Riva Avatar. Suitable for CA I think Congratulations!

Witchers are emotionally dulled by the trial of grasses and mutations so even more appropriate

 

[smat]

Willing to give him until the end of the season.

 

[Martino Quackavelli]

Was a mod on TFF, should NEVER have been given a position of authority after that. If TFF was nazi germany (and in many ways it was) MM shoveled his fair share of corpses like the rest of them.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Was a mod on TFF, should NEVER have been given a position of authority after that. If TFF was nazi germany (and in many ways it was) MM shoveled his fair share of corpses like the rest of them.