Political threads/forum

[brownindian]

OK, look. You or @gourimoko have to change your Avatar. It's totally confusing the hell out of me!

NEVER !!! atleast not until the Cavs win another championship.

 

[MediumBaller]

Agreed man, everyone should "etch-a-sketch". Shake that bitch and poof, like it never happened. It'll sort it self out real fast if someone is coming in w/ old baggage.

Exactly. Create strict rules, give everyone a clean slate, and be quick to throw down the hammer if any of the old bs ensues. That's my opinion, at least.

 

[Wrathe]

Look closer at my avatar...

I see it's slightly different, midget Lebron, no yellow shirts. It's just in passing, those two look identical, I always get confused as to who I'm reading.

 

[brownindian]

Look closer at my avatar...

The SHOT vs The SHORT !!!!

 

[Wrathe]

NEVER !!! atleast not until the Cavs win another championship.

Thank God! Just a few more months!

 

[gourimoko]

In the very short term participation may be limited while the moderator(s) are busy getting everything underway, but I imagine in the long run anyone with at least a modest posting record (>100 posts?) in the regular forum and no history of major rule violations could join with no questions asked. The invite-only would just be to prevent the use of alts, and to keep out randos like that skyscraper guy who would derail the forum.

Is this approximately what other people had in mind?

At first, it might need to be a narrower list than any of us may have wanted simply due to administrative reasons, and we've not done something like this since S34...

But I actually agree with everything here.

 

[Wrathe]

At first, it might need to be a narrower list than any of us may have wanted simply due to administrative reasons, and we've not done something like this since S34...

Why would that be?

 

[gourimoko]

Why would that be?

There's lots of moving parts... lot of users to invite and then you need to be sure it's going to work and not just waste the admin's time.

 

[Hydroponic3385]

I think the obvious moderators are @Huber. and @AZ_

And @The Oi should be perma-banned from the start

 

[David.]

I think the obvious moderators are @Huber. and @AZ_

And @The Oi should be perma-banned from the start

Oi was stuffed in a closet by his five year old and his wife didn't really care he was missing until it was too late. He is no longer with us

 

[Wrathe]

There's lots of moving parts... lot of users to invite and then you need to be sure it's going to work and not just waste the admin's time.

Seems unnecessary and arbitrary. Do you expect the users to accept that?

 

[Sebastian]

Seems unnecessary and arbitrary. Do you expect the users to accept that?

There are indications from above that a trial-period will be required to see if everything works and if everyone can get along.

If there is to be an original invite, it would be open first-come, first-serve to fill the X number slots. Upon proof it can work, like after a month, it is opened to any that wants in.

 

[Wrathe]

There are indications from above that a trial-period will be required to see if everything works and if everyone can get along.

If there is to be an original invite, it would be open first-come, first-serve to fill the X number slots. Upon proof it can work, like after a month, it is opened to any that wants in.

K, then put in jk, TyGuy, Whittaker, Gouromiko and AZ and let them test it out for a month. That sounds like a great stress test!

Seriously though, you know that's gonna alienate a LOT. Many have been very vocal against an invite only list, elite club, etc.

 

[Cavalier Domer]

I doubt anyone in here will recognize me, as I'm probably one of the greatest lurkers on this site. I'm actively reading on RCF, daily, for a long, long time now. I keep up on all the political threads, as there are some extremely intelligent, well-reasoned, and conscientious posters on all points of the spectrum. I have my opinions, and it's a genuine pleasure for me to read counter points and challenge my own opinions. I will also admit I have changed some of them simply by reading and engaging my own mind. I sadly don't have the time to engage, and I feel one of the worst things would be to jump in and then not be able to respond and the conversation moves on. (Honestly, I feel like a few people have a full-time job posting on RCF!)

All that said, I would absolutely love if political threads came back in a meaningful way, and that I could still have read access! But that second part aside, I think as a neutral party here, I have some observations that can hopefully add to the conversation.

First, while I understand the goal to make the new forum for this the best it can be, I think it's important to say that some forum is better than no forum. Whether it's an exclusive "white list" of posters, or a heavily moderated open forum, or a lightly moderated free for all (that would fail again...), there needs to be some version of it here, because there are too many intelligent, great posters that genuinely can have an impact on open minded readers. So, @The Human Q-Tip , with the others behind closed doors, please present something. Honestly, something is better than nothing.

In this same vein, there have been some excellent ideas to moderate the problems:
-Removing rep, if possible, is a great and easy fix to limit trolling compared to any benefits. This is a discussion forum, not a "stroke my ego" thread. Removing flash points like this seems like a no-brainer.

-If at all possible, there needs to either be a minimum post length (to limit snide comments, simple .gifs that don't add to the conversation) OR there needs to be a "cool down" timer on posts that limits frequency. People wouldn't waste their posts if they knew they would have to wait to post anything else.

-I'd suggest that any cited article needs to have the relevant portions posted in the forum itself, and not just links. Too often people would just post a link and say "See" or "Read it there." Much better for the person proposing the argument to show the text, with the source on there, so everyone knows the exact thing being discussed. And not the whole article, either. Just relevant and contextual portions.

Outside of those two things (and some others I may have forgotten), as I think about this problem, and read through everything, I'm brought back to political philosophy. You're basically trying to form a society here! And honestly, I think this is the rare scenario where you could turn to Hobbes and embrace the benevolent dictator. That's sort of where things started with jking as moderator, but there's then been a ton of discussion about how he should moderate, rules, guidance, etc.

I would submit, that if people were willing to go down this road, that you should honestly consider making the rules "Don't go to Ben" and "Jking's decisions are all that matter and are binding." It's impossible to codify behavior in this scenario. There are plenty of high-minded people that would make for great debate. They'll need limited moderation, and most of them will self-moderate and are usually aware when they are going overboard. It's the next step down, people that aren't open-minded, or potential trolls, that are the biggest hurdle. And I'd say with this whole mix of people, the benevolent dictator is the best way to handle it. Decide that a single person (or small group) are in charge. It's better than not having a forum, and as long as it's clear up front, can keep things in check. And I would definitely be much more restrictive in posting access up front, then open it up as the forum grows. Again, something sustainable is better than something equitable that'll just fail immediately! Just make sure you choose a benevolent leader!

I hope you call can work it out. I miss what this place had been. If you'd want an outsider's opinion on how things played out in the forums, posters who I saw as the most problematic, etc., I'd be happy to do so in PMs.

 

[Huber.]

I doubt anyone in here will recognize me, as I'm probably one of the greatest lurkers on this site. I'm actively reading on RCF, daily, for a long, long time now. I keep up on all the political threads, as there are some extremely intelligent, well-reasoned, and conscientious posters on all points of the spectrum. I have my opinions, and it's a genuine pleasure for me to read counter points and challenge my own opinions. I will also admit I have changed some of them simply by reading and engaging my own mind. I sadly don't have the time to engage, and I feel one of the worst things would be to jump in and then not be able to respond and the conversation moves on. (Honestly, I feel like a few people have a full-time job posting on RCF!)

All that said, I would absolutely love if political threads came back in a meaningful way, and that I could still have read access! But that second part aside, I think as a neutral party here, I have some observations that can hopefully add to the conversation.

First, while I understand the goal to make the new forum for this the best it can be, I think it's important to say that some forum is better than no forum. Whether it's an exclusive "white list" of posters, or a heavily moderated open forum, or a lightly moderated free for all (that would fail again...), there needs to be some version of it here, because there are too many intelligent, great posters that genuinely can have an impact on open minded readers. So, @The Human Q-Tip , with the others behind closed doors, please present something. Honestly, something is better than nothing.

In this same vein, there have been some excellent ideas to moderate the problems:
-Removing rep, if possible, is a great and easy fix to limit trolling compared to any benefits. This is a discussion forum, not a "stroke my ego" thread. Removing flash points like this seems like a no-brainer.

-If at all possible, there needs to either be a minimum post length (to limit snide comments, simple .gifs that don't add to the conversation) OR there needs to be a "cool down" timer on posts that limits frequency. People wouldn't waste their posts if they knew they would have to wait to post anything else.

-I'd suggest that any cited article needs to have the relevant portions posted in the forum itself, and not just links. Too often people would just post a link and say "See" or "Read it there." Much better for the person proposing the argument to show the text, with the source on there, so everyone knows the exact thing being discussed. And not the whole article, either. Just relevant and contextual portions.

Outside of those two things (and some others I may have forgotten), as I think about this problem, and read through everything, I'm brought back to political philosophy. You're basically trying to form a society here! And honestly, I think this is the rare scenario where you could turn to Hobbes and embrace the benevolent dictator. That's sort of where things started with jking as moderator, but there's then been a ton of discussion about how he should moderate, rules, guidance, etc.

I would submit, that if people were willing to go down this road, that you should honestly consider making the rules "Don't go to Ben" and "Jking's decisions are all that matter and are binding." It's impossible to codify behavior in this scenario. There are plenty of high-minded people that would make for great debate. They'll need limited moderation, and most of them will self-moderate and are usually aware when they are going overboard. It's the next step down, people that aren't open-minded, or potential trolls, that are the biggest hurdle. And I'd say with this whole mix of people, the benevolent dictator is the best way to handle it. Decide that a single person (or small group) are in charge. It's better than not having a forum, and as long as it's clear up front, can keep things in check. And I would definitely be much more restrictive in posting access up front, then open it up as the forum grows. Again, something sustainable is better than something equitable that'll just fail immediately! Just make sure you choose a benevolent leader!

I hope you call can work it out. I miss what this place had been. If you'd want an outsider's opinion on how things played out in the forums, posters who I saw as the most problematic, etc., I'd be happy to do so in PMs.

Part of the problem with that they're discussing is that lurkers like you that appreciate the discussion will get left out from being able to lurk since it will be invite only and hidden from the rest of the board.