Political threads/forum

David. said:

And if they don't think they made a mistake and the offended party continues to take issue with it?

Click to expand...

I think the person making the "mistake" has to be willing to just drop it in those situations, even if they don't think they made a mistake. They shouldn't be muted or banned or given a black mark on their record, but they have to be willing to drop the topic that's angering other users and threatening to turn the thread in a negative direction.

Obviously you can come up with extreme hypotheticals where there's a single user who just claims to be offended by every single thing, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. For starters, lets just go into this expecting other users to be mostly reasonable people.

MediumBaller said:

I agree with you on principle that they shouldn't be, but I see it creating problems if they continue to be used. Just a thought that I had. We're probably going to have to compromise on some boundaries if we want the threads to come back and I don't think that agreeing to that would affect the conversations toooo much.

Click to expand...

Issue with that is it tells people if they just complain enough..

David. said:

I haven't exactly thought this through, but I think rep of any kind has a negative effect on these threads.

Reqlly changes the tone, dynamic, and content. This exacerbates the team Dynamics

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Wish we could make the buttons not work.

If you disagree, you need to post why.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Honestly, I think it's got to be less formalized than that. It's going to depend on the nature of the offense, etc...

One thing I'd toss out there -- and I haven't consulted with anyone including @jking948 about this -- is perhaps we'd ask him to check with some posters on each side of the political divide before actually banning someone. It's his decision, but maybe working informally among people on different sides would help ensure that bans are truly apolitical. Not that I don't trust him, but I think that rulings (and warnings) are more likely to be taken seriously if people know that others across the spectrum have @jking948 's back.

Click to expand...

This actually sounds like a great idea to me. The "power" does not do anything for me, so being able to engage in a bit of principal-agent relationships would be helpful.

DJTJ said:

Agreed.

Wish we could make the buttons not work.

If you disagree, you need to post why.

Click to expand...

Even the winner etc, it begs for incendiary, team appeal posts

Also, my view on race issues are that they are incredibly important and need to be discussed. My concern comes with if this is the right location to discuss them. If so, awesome, but we need something fairly concrete.

I.E., I might not see something I say as racist towards African Americans, but I am white, and my personal experience does not afford me the ability to fully empathize. So how do we evaluate that?

In short, if we want to talk about race, I want people to come up with concrete rules that can be enforced. Otherwise it seems like these threads will be self-defeating and path dependent.

ETA: I do not want to have to rely on the "porn standard." I.E. Justice Stewart may be able to unbiasedly know something when he sees it, but I think most people do not have that ability with race.

Nathan S said:

I think the person making the "mistake" has to be willing to just drop it in those situations, even if they don't think they made a mistake. They shouldn't be muted or banned or given a black mark on their record, but they have to be willing to drop the topic that's angering other users and threatening to turn the thread in a negative direction.

Obviously you can come up with extreme hypotheticals where there's a single user who just claims to be offended by every single thing, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. For starters, lets just go into this expecting other users to be mostly reasonable people.

Click to expand...

I agree with some, but the issue I take with this is just about every issue can be framed as a race issue. And ifi you disagree with the person making the argument, that say, puts you against blm, which is representative of blacks and the betterment of black people, so you're racist


Ive' seen the most inoccuous shit framed as racist and that can be used to silence just about every discussion should the tactic be used.

MediumBaller said:

I agree with you on principle that they shouldn't be, but I see it creating problems if they continue to be used. Just a thought that I had. We're probably going to have to compromise on some boundaries if we want the threads to come back and I don't think that agreeing to that would negatively affect the conversations toooo much.

Click to expand...

Coddling, double standards, etc. If someone needs that, it's not an area for them.

Wrathe said:

Coddling, double standards, etc. If someone needs that, it's not an area for them.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I’m not interested in an approved source committee. If the content is that bad it should be easy to refute it without having to call the source into question.

Hilarious memes should be rewarded.

David. said:

I agree with some, but the issue I take with this is just about every issue can be framed as a race issue. And ifi you disagree with the person making the argument, that say, puts you against blm, which is representative of blacks and the betterment of black people, so you're racist


Ive' seen the most inoccuous shit framed as racist and that can be used to silence just about every discussion should the tactic be used.

Click to expand...

As I said...the only way to go into this is with the expectation that other users are going to be reasonable. If that's not the case and half the userbase just blows a gasket at the slightest provocation, then no set of rules is going to save us.

Nathan S said:

As I said...the only way to go into this is with the expectation that other users are going to be reasonable. If that's not the case and half the userbase just blows a gasket at the slightest provocation, then no set of rules is going to save us.

Click to expand...

It's the fact that we can't all always be reasonable that we're where we are. Judging what is reasonable is subjective. And people are going to have bad days and take it out on the board. They always have always will.

And anyone making the stink about something can find enough reasons as to why they're offended. How do we deal with the certainty that this is imminent?

David. said:

It's the fact that we can't all always be reasonable that we're where we are. Judging what is reasonable is subjective. And people are going to have bad days and take it out on the board. They always have always will.

And anyone making the stink about something can find enough reasons as to why they're offended. How do we deal with the certainty that this is imminent?

Click to expand...

I don't think the reason political threads got shut down was because people were too easily offended. I think it was more because arguments got personal, and there was no check against that happening, and to a lesser extent because people insisted on forging ahead with talking points that broad groups of users found offensive. Hopefully this change in moderation strategy can address both issues without hopelessly stifling all attempts at discussion.

The Human Q-Tip said:

I have been asked to post this discussion thread focused on whether or not we wish to have political discussions here, and if so, what the ground rules will be. There have been some preliminary discussions with board management by @King Stannis that if we can get our collective shit together, such discussions may be permitted again. We just have to stop acting like 6 year olds.

The threads were shut down for a combination of two reasons:

1) people repeatedly whining to moderators and/or Ben about other posters. I personally cannot fathom running to daddy just because someone called me a douchebag, but some of you apparently can.

2) Trolling/name calling by some posters that were dragging threads down.

There are two non-negotiable criteria for a political subforum to exist:

3) The forum must be a closed, invite-only forum. That will make banning someone from that forum much easier, and give us a chance to protect ourselves from trolls. New people could be added based on consensus.

4) There will be one moderator -- and everyone who participates on the forum must agree to take any issues to him only, and no running to Ben or to anyone else under any circumstances. @jking948 has been approached and has agreed to do it. He's a very even-tempered and open-minded guy willing to listen to everyone. If people have concerned about how the forum will be moderated -- and I do as well -- this is the thread to get this stuff out in the open and discuss it.

People can be very passionate about their political/social beliefs, and there's a reason people say that politics and religion shouldn't be discussed at family gatherings. But people should exercise at least some restraint, and others need to develop thicker skins. And all have to agree that whining to the site ownership if something about the new forum upsets them is something you agree not to do if you participate.

We need to know who is willing to buy into this, and comments/questions/concerns. So...have at it. Needless to say, acting like a douche in this thread probably isn't a good idea.

ETA: I know that because of Ben's recent edict, there have been requests to ban people who are still trying to discuss politics. I'd ask that we all let that go, and instead focus on this thread and the terms under which such threads may be permitted again.

I am very well aware of the concern by some that the threads were deliberately sabotaged by people who think any defense of Trump is unacceptable. Again, this is the thread to hash all that stuff out, and to figure out the parameters of a new forum. I personally am not interested in a subforum where "denormalization" is accepted, so I'd ask for a bit of faith from other board conservatives that I wouldn't go along with that either.

Let's just see what happens in this thread, and try to have a friendly discussion about what we all really want, on all sides of the political spectrum. It would probably be most helpful if there was as little finger pointing as possible, and we instead discuss the framework and whether each of us as individuals is willing to abide by it.

Click to expand...

Oh my! Where to start?

Let's first review why we are discussing this.
In a contentious political season, partisan posters could not maintain civility. Even in a forum with lax rules, they couldn't resist name-calling, personal attacks, lying and demonizing opposing politicians and posters. As Q-Tip said, collectively we were acting like 6 year olds.(remember that phrase)
Management, faced with the choice of banning prolific posters or shutting threads, chose the latter.

So now we have a proposed path forward with 2 non-negotiable criteria. Let's look at the criteria and judge whether it will address the problem of "collectively we were acting like 6 year olds".

1)The forum must be a closed, invite-only forum. That will make banning someone from that forum much easier, and give us a chance to protect ourselves from trolls.

-Does a "closed forum" address posting behavior?
No, of course not. It only hides that behavior from the general public.
-Does an "invite only" policy address posting behavior?
It can, depending on who is doing the inviting and what criteria they are using. It goes without saying that, absent other controls, inviting posters who act like 6 year olds will get you the same old same old.
So...the only purpose of "invitation only" is a de facto ban on certain posters. The question then becomes, who is doing the "pre-banning" and what are his/their standards?

1a)New people could be added based on consensus.
Wow, talk about ambiguity!
Consensus as in majority, plurality or unaminity?
And who votes? Those who are invited? Those who are invited and accept?
If the first three people are invited by someone,(we don't know who) can they then vote to exclude any future candidates?
Again, the issue is "collectively we were acting like 6 year olds".
So what are we doing?...empowering a few selected 6 year olds and giving them an island where they can fashion their own exclusive secret political club? Will there be a secret handshake? a jacket? a pointy hat? mutual masturbation?

There will be one moderator -- and everyone who participates on the forum must agree to take any issues to him only, and no running to Ben or to anyone else under any circumstances. @@jking948 has been approached and has agreed to do it. He's a very even-tempered and open-minded guy willing to listen to everyone. If people have concerned about how the forum will be moderated -- and I do as well -- this is the thread to get this stuff out in the open and discuss it.

-My sympathies @jking948.

-I see most of you like this idea. I detest it, and here's why:
Political discussion, by its very nature, will have outliers. These are people who don't and won't fit into the the main political thought-streams. You can call them extremists or independents or mavericks, but the point is they won't march in either parties parade.
In a rule-based political discussion forum they can get their views heard because they can obey the rules and still voice unpopular opinions.
In a 'membership-by-consensus' political forum they will be ousted, if not by pre-emptive exclusion, then by majority disapproval of their ideas, which will be deemed trolling, shitposting, hateful, bigoted, sexist or racist. It is inevitable.
First the partisans of the two major parties will play nice with each other and gang up on the outliers. Then they will go after each other, eliminating the easy pickings from both sides.

I currently have 6 people on ignore because I don't find their postings useful. But I would never advocate for voting them off the island. They have a right to voice their political opinions to anyone that will listen.
There is a reason that discipline in discussion forums is rule-based rather than popularity-based.
Forgive my pessimism but I can't see myself participating in a forum where the continuation of my presence is dependent on the consensus opinions of people who act like 6 year olds.

I was the community mods (i.e. lead mod) of politics forum in a general basketball message board for years (basketballboards.net when it was an actual competitor to realGM and before reddit came around).

You have my sympathies @jking948 and that honestly is the only real good advice I have for you after all those years.**

**If I had to do it again I actual like the final say with one mod (our forum went downhill when the administrator started favoring one of the posters he liked). I would also suggest being quick to close threads for cool down periods. For individual a yellow card/red flag system before perma-ban from poster.
The problem with all this advice is that it is a lot of work for one person even though personally I think a one mod system is the way to go.

One thing that would be helpful but I doubt is possible with the software package is to limit posts (i.e. one post per hour). This really helps prevent derailing of threads by posters feeling the need to go postal on any single thread or poster (i.e. the jonfromva vs gour gatling gun exchanges). Much harder to be an effective troll as well. This can be accomplished by short periods of closing threads and the yellow card/red flag but these don't do it nearly as efficiently