Political threads/forum

The Human Q-Tip said:

It is a totally fair question.

Click to expand...

And yet you didn't answer it, in hundreds of words.
Lawyers.

- Different forum (not just thread) - Political economy (PE)?
- Open invite
- 2 yellow card to red card forum ban, repeat red card: perma-ban to PE.
- @jking948 for community mod, one right wing mod (@The Human Q-Tip ?) , one left wing mod. Either CM or combo of blue/red together to issue yellow card
- Best thing IMO experience is to with separate political forum is just to shut down debate by closing a thread for 24 hours: works wonders. Any of the mods should feel free to do that.

- the supporting free speach doesn't real mean shit in private message board in my experience. See what happens beyond just obviously banning name calling, shouting, etc: it's really the mods that create a good atmosphere.

jking948 said:

On this subject, what are we thinking in regards to political religion? I.E., we have had some really informative conversations about Islam on here; conversely, we have had conversations about Islam that have led to nearly as many personal assaults as race. If we do, how are we defining the bright line? Is it just when personal assaults start?

Just so you guys know, I am 100% down to do this, but I want some serious ground rules first. I do not want to be God here and make rules up as I go. If we are going to do this I would rather us have this type of serious conversation first.

Click to expand...

If we're being honest about this, the General Terrorism thread got hijacked a year ago and turned into something really dark and targeted against Muslims.

The goal here is not to be an all-encompassing space that includes what genuinely amounts to bigotry; even if that word makes some uncomfortable on the outset.

The goal here is to resume, at a minimum, genuine political discourse.

I'm not arguing about debating Islamism or Political Islam; but I am talking about conversations that we have had here, without moderation, where the entire purpose was to malign Muslims and Islam as a religion.

You and I know the difference between Islam and Islamism, so it shouldn't be difficult for us to keep conversations focused on political matters.

I

gourimoko said:

If we're being honest about this, the General Terrorism thread got hijacked a year ago and turned into something really dark and targeted against Muslims.

The goal here is not to be an all-encompassing space that includes what genuinely amounts to bigotry; even if that word makes some uncomfortable on the outset.

The goal here is to resume, at a minimum, genuine political discourse.

I'm not arguing about debating Islamism or Political Islam; but I am talking about conversations that we have had here, without moderation, where the entire purpose was to malign Muslims and Islam as a religion.

You and I know the difference between Islam and Islamism, so it shouldn't be difficult for us to keep conversations focused on political matters.

Click to expand...

I am one thousand percent fine with letting people know they're just being closed off intellectually or myopic or irrational. I just think the words racism and bigotry carry a lot of weight and have a huge stigma. like a lot of people throw the words around way too freely so even if the offender IS guilty, they're shut down by the accusation because "they've seen this tactic before"

Whittaker said:

And yet you didn't answer it, in hundreds of words.
Lawyers.

Click to expand...

Have a Blessed Day! Dickhead.

If anyone else wants to take over trying to shepherd this into something workable, please be my guest. I was asked to start this thread, but if anyone has a problem with it...shit, I really don't care. I'm perfectly fine with no political threads here, and really don't need this headache.

To be blunt, I don't think there is enough of a consensus to make this work anyway. Too much division between those who want very minimal moderation, and those who want something more.

I always get great info from every angle in the political threads.

Not opposed to dropping rep.

"Sides" arguments made the thread horrible.

Forget about race. it's not happening here.

Post with respect. No one should be telling someone "how stupid their post is"

Moderating this is going to be hell. Thanks @jking948

Thank you @The Human Q-Tip for getting the convo started.

Tlyons said:

I always get great info from every angle in the political threads.

Not opposed to dropping rep.

"Sides" arguments made the thread horrible.

Forget about race. it's not happening here.

Post with respect. No one should be telling someone "how stupid their post is"

Moderating this is going to be hell. Thanks @jking948

Thank you @The Human Q-Tip for getting the convo started.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't think it is going to work, and if I was @jking948, I wouldn't take the job.

Just being honest.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Have a Blessed Day! Dickhead.

If anyone else wants to take over trying to shepherd this into something workable, please be my guest. I was asked to start this thread, but if anyone has a problem with it...shit, I really don't care. I'm perfectly fine with no political threads here, and really don't need this headache.

To be blunt, I don't think there is enough of a consensus to make this work anyway. Too much division between those who want very minimal moderation, and those who want something more.

Click to expand...

I just wanna step in for a second and point something out..

We asked Q-Tip to do this.. Myself and @King Stannis explicitly sought out his (reluctant, lol) advice, consent and approval for the idea...

Q-Tip is trying to have as open a dialogue and discussion as possible on the topic. So giving him a hard-time about this makes literally no sense when all he's trying to do is open up a discussion that was otherwise already being had.

People getting on his case are just proving why I've said an invite system is probably needed. Maybe even a closed-thread entirely where those not invited can't even read the posts.

I'll post more of my thoughts on this in the morning, but people really shouldn't be attacking Q-Tip for just trying to be open about this.

gourimoko said:

I just wanna step in for a second and point something out..

We asked Q-Tip to do this.. Myself and @King Stannis explicitly sought out his (reluctant, lol) advice, consent and approval for the idea...

Q-Tip is trying to have as open a dialogue and discussion as possible on the topic. So giving him a hard-time about this makes literally no sense when all he's trying to do is open up a discussion that was otherwise already being had.

People getting on his case are just proving why I've said an invite system is probably needed. Maybe even a closed-thread entirely where those not invited can't even read the posts.

I'll post more of my thoughts on this in the morning, but people really shouldn't be attacking Q-Tip for just trying to be open about this.

Click to expand...

I will add to this, that any restoration of political threads will require support from all sides of the aisle. That is why the three of us came together to brain-storm about how to get something done. It has taken a couple weeks just to get to the point where we can pick people's brains about this.

@The Human Q-Tip has actually gone to bat for quite a few people here and has been the most fair and open-minded partner in what has been a pretty intense give-and-take between us.

He has been championing the rights of everyone, especially those he dislikes from the beginning.

The cold reality is that politics would not get opened up unless Ben could be assured that people wouldn't be running to him or some other moderator every two seconds whining about someone else. That's why the thread would have to be closed/invite only. Otherwise, some malcontent a-hole could spam the shit out of Ben and kill the forum, and it would be inevitable that would happen sooner or later. If someone has a better idea that doesn't amount to the fairy-dust solution of "let's just all act like adults", please bring it up.

The difference of opinion that existed between myself, @gourimoko , and @King Stannis essentially revolved around two questions -- who gets invited, and what is the standard of moderation. I preferred a very open approach, where everyone who wants in gets in, and people are booted only for truly egregious stuff for which there is a consensus they should go. I acknowledged that means we'd still have a lot of the usual pissing contests and trolling -- the difference is that people couldn't run to Ben and shut it down if they didn't like it. The bolded was basically my only goal. That model was my preference because I think trying to moderate based on "trolling" gets too subjective in terms of political views. I think people should just use the ignore function/disregard arguments or posters they don't like.

But I completely understand the other point of view that a lot of people don't want to participate if there is going to be a continuation of a lot of the same behaviors and pissing contests. I personally think trying to enforce "better" behavior puts the moderator in a very difficult position because he'll have people constantly carping in his ear about how so-and-so deserves to be banned.

We made these discussions public precisely because we didn't want to be in the position of doing things behind peoples' backs, and assuming authority we don't have. The goal was simply to come up with something that had as much support as possible, then take it to Ben and see if he'd okay it. I'd point out that anyone else was and is absolutely free to to do the same, at any point, if they believe they have a better idea.

But it seems like people here are split on which approach they'd support, just as we were, which is why I don't think it can be resolved. Maybe people should just pick one or the other, make their case to Ben, and those who don't want to participate, don't.

I would like to be invited if possible

If it’s what you say it is, I love it.

Make the rules however the people creating it want them to be. If people don't like those rules, then they can excuse themselves from participating.

There also needs to be a formal rules post/thread in the sub forum.

These are the rules. They are firm, break them, and here ya go.

But at the same time? One of the rules needs to be axing this idea that everyone should be debating as if they’re in the debate team. 90% of the issue was people on both sides hiding behind ridiculous expectations that their posts were safe from ridicule if, for example, the well was poisoned. How many times did we see a multi-page discussion on if the well was poisoned because the person who claimed it was couldn’t stand on their own feet to defend their point? And that’s only one of the excuses to fend off ridicule of their point.

Hurl Bruce said:

Make the rules however the people creating it want them to be. If people don't like those rules, then they can excuse themselves from participating.

Click to expand...

If too many people choose not to participate, it's eventually going to be one-sided, boring as hell, or both. The goal is/was to try to find something that enough people from all sides of the political spectrum can accept so that participation is high.

But I'm not sure that's really possible, so you may be right.