I think there's something to be said for saying that posters are FFs even if you disagree with them politically. There are definitely posters on this forum who are good people, and state their case in a reasonable manner. The fact that I disagree with many of their views doesn't make them a bad person, in my eyes. On the flip side, there are also posters who I agree with a fair amount of the time, but who are enormous tools. IMO, the FF/HP rating should be at least mostly independent of whether or not you agree with their views. I'd hate to think some people think of me as a horrible person just because my views are different from theirs.
I agree. Unless someone' views are really bad like the Nazi/NK stuff BRTD was bringing up, politics shouldn't etermine an FF/HP vote.
Here's how I decide how to vote:
Plenty of posters are bland but they're still nice people, so there's no way I'd vote HP. Likewise, a few of our posters are... prickly, but they still write really interesting stuff, so I still vote FF.
I save my HP votes for posters who are both jerks and boring. To use BRTD's example, TNF was a jerk (besides the NK apologetics, he kept talking about sending posters to the guillotine was generally mean), that might have been redeemed if he posted interesting stuff about say different kinds of Marxism or the history of the labour movement, but it was almost all "blah blah guillotine, blah blah NK > American capitalism". That makes for an easy HP vote.
This exactly fits my own criteria. And obvious trolls don't deserve an FF or an HP vote because they don't deserve their own threads about them. This forum is very good at taking people's bait.
EDIT: I will always vote HP on people like Santander, however.
Poll
" reasoning
