Political threads/forum

[Nathan S]

I think a five-member Directory to adjudicate grave matters, like a borderline issues regarding what is truly bannable outside the normal offenses is an interesting idea.

Two lefties, two righties and a moderate in the middle?

If we go this route, I'd suggest that the Directory set up a regular meeting time (once every two weeks? once every month?) to make decisions on any contentious issues that have come up during that time. Of course, any of the five would have the power to deal with acute and obvious rule breaking as it happens.

 

[Sebastian]

If we go this route, I'd suggest that the Directory set up a regular meeting time (once every two weeks? once every month?) to make decisions on any contentious issues that have come up during that time. Of course, any of the five would have the power to deal with acute and obvious rule breaking as it happens.

I think the moderator should take care of obvious stuff.

The Directory can deal with weightier matters that is grey for a moderator.

Open quarterly elections by poll?

 

[Nathan S]

I think the moderator should take care of obvious stuff.

The Directory can deal with weightier matters that is grey for a moderator.

Open quarterly elections by poll?

Problem is, that puts a lot of stress on the one moderator to be on call 24/7. If two people start going at it, it's better to nip it in the bud than to let it drag out until jking comes online.

 

[Sebastian]

Problem is, that puts a lot of stress on the one moderator to be on call 24/7. If two people start going at it, it's better to nip it in the bud than to let it drag out until jking comes online.

I think someone brought up having more than one moderator. Maybe a right and left one, or pairing Jking with another. I think that is not unreasonable. If you can find someone willing to immolate themselves.

I think having five people with moderating power is a lot and if they are elected then it can be abused and turn decisions into popularity contests.

 

[Mr. Orange]

What if we just made a one post locked thread that was the Abe Simpson GIF?

 

[Nathan S]

I think someone brought up having more than one moderator. Maybe a right and left one, or pairing Jking with another. I think that is not unreasonable. If you can find someone willing to immolate themselves.

I think having five people with moderating power is a lot and if they are elected then it can be abused and turn decisions into popularity contests.

Ideally you want a system that deals with potential issues as quickly as possible but also as fairly as possible. Obviously tough to have your cake and eat it too. Maybe the "secondary moderators" could simply have the ability to lock threads, but not to mute/ban users? That would greatly limit the potential for power abuse.

 

[ACisKING]

I just want to say I love what you are trying to do here @The Human Q-Tip. I come from a liberal state and, like most people, I tend to associate closely with people that agree with me politically. This forum's thread on politics was a rare means by which I could get out of my echo chamber and see some interesting viewpoints from the other side from posters I respect based on their posts on other areas of this website. I know there are plenty of other political forums out there, but posters on such sites are inevitably categorized by political association. On the old politics thread, it was actually possible to identify with a poster with a differing viewpoint because we got the chance to see them as more than just a Republican or a Democrat based on their posts in other threads. Therefore, if this new proposed forum can manage to maintain the same spirit as the old one absent the snark and trolling that made it unreadable and cluttered at times, it would truly be a valuable endeavor that I would love to participate in.

One of the suggestions I saw earlier in this thread that I particularly liked - I think by @David. - is the notion that this new forum might be better off without the like and disagree system. I don't know if that is possible, but I think likes and disagrees are far more useful when the vast majority of posters are still rooting for the same outcome (like the Cavs winning). Having likes in a political discussion just creates an almost tribal system and actually harms discussion. Indeed the very concept of a disagree button is antithetical to the stated goal of discussing why we disagree.

 

[brownindian]

I just want to say I love what you are trying to do here @The Human Q-Tip. I come from a liberal state and, like most people, I tend to associate closely with people that agree with me politically. This forum's thread on politics was a rare means by which I could get out of my echo chamber and see some interesting viewpoints from the other side from posters I respect based on their posts on other areas of this website. I know there are plenty of other political forums out there, but posters on such sites are inevitably categorized by political association. On the old politics thread, it was actually possible to identify with a poster with a differing viewpoint because we got the chance to see them as more than just a Republican or a Democrat based on their posts in other threads. Therefore, if this new proposed forum can manage to maintain the same spirit as the old one absent the snark and trolling that made it unreadable and cluttered at times, it would truly be a valuable endeavor that I would love to participate in.

One of the suggestions I saw earlier in this thread that I particularly liked - I think by @David. - is the notion that this new forum might be better off without the like and disagree system. I don't know if that is possible, but I think likes and disagrees are far more useful when the vast majority of posters are still rooting for the same outcome (like the Cavs winning). Having likes in a political discussion just creates an almost tribal system and actually harms discussion. Indeed the very concept of a disagree button is antithetical to the stated goal of discussing why we disagree.

Yes and i know the irony of me hitting the like button on your post a well. For me I honestly want to express my views on issues as well as get opposing views on them as well. Sometimes that is the best way to get a better idea of the issue.

 

[gourimoko]

IMHO, @King Stannis makes the most sense as a secondary moderator along with @jking948 ...

 

[David.]

Can we have someone on the board that wants more moderation to have more diversity of opinion?

 

[brownindian]

Can we have someone on the board that wants more moderation to have more diversity of opinion?

Maybe we add more contributors who post good quality views and also have enough posts ? @gourimoko and @The Human Q-Tip to be added to the moderator list?

 

[David.]

Maybe we add more contributors who post good quality views and also have enough posts ? @gourimoko and @The Human Q-Tip to be added to the moderator list?

The ideology difference is important because mods will be biased towards individual posters, so I like that, but it could be helpful to have contrasting opinions on the actual running of the thread. They see the board from a different angle

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'd prefer not to moderate, but would be more than happy to give my opinion to jking if he asked, or to try to talk people off the ledge.

 

[Nathan S]

I'd prefer not to moderate, but would be more than happy to give my opinion to jking if he asked, or to try to talk people off the ledge.

Great! You're hired!

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think a five-member Directory to adjudicate grave matters, like a borderline issues regarding what is truly bannable outside the normal offenses is an interesting idea.

Uh...a five member Directory?

Exactly how tall is @gourimoko?

@Whittaker - you were right!