Political threads/forum

[The Human Q-Tip]

One thing I think would be beneficial to all agree on would be to end the mass generalizations of each others "teams" in these discussions. Categorizing or ascribing an idea or narrative to all conservatives or all liberals does nothing to move conversation forward, and in fact just promotes team trolling. I'm not sure how that would end up a rule or be moderated, but maybe just something we all keep in mind since we have a second shot at this? If the goal of a post is to trigger or demoralize someone, it will do nothing but derail a thread.

This is where it gets tricky. We'd all agree in the abstract with what you're saying, but is there/should there be a line between posts that are unwise/unfair, and posts that result in the mod stepping in/banning?

Political arguments often include slippery slope arguments, which others may see as trolling, etc.. So how do we balance having free-wheeling discussions with having "quality" discussions? I think that's the hardest line to draw.

I lean towards free-wheeling, but others need to speak out on this. I'd want banning only for bad name-calling/freakouts -- not just because someone is making shitty arguments.

 

[MediumBaller]

I don't think so. Probably best to keep race-related discussions off limits.

@AZ_ what do you disagree with in this post? @gourimoko and others have said that the discussions on race have been offensive to them, so it's probably best to not have them at all. There are plenty of other political topics to discuss.

 

[Jordan]

As the guy who could end up moderating this, specifics on what people are looking for from me would be helpful.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

If someone is easily offended by differing opinions, then they'll weed themselves out of the forum by how they react to that.

I miss having those threads for their information value alone. I don't always understand the political machine, and posts would help me form more informed opinions.

 

[pr26]

This is where it gets tricky. We'd all agree in the abstract with what you're saying, but is there/should there be a line between posts that are unwise/unfair, and posts that result in the mod stepping in/banning?

Political arguments often include slippery slope arguments, which others may see as trolling, etc.. So how do we balance having free-wheeling discussions with having "quality" discussions? I think that's the hardest line to draw.

I lean towards free-wheeling, but others need to speak out on this. I'd want banning only for bad name-calling/freakouts -- not just because someone is making shitty arguments.

I think we're on the same page here, and maybe I didn't word it the best because it is kind of a hard line to draw.

I'll dig into this more when I have time later, but I also agree that people shouldn't be banned for shitty arguments (even lazy slippery slope arguments.....jk jk). I guess I'm trying to come from a place of promoting good faith discussions. If your argument starts with "all conservatives" or "all liberals", and then launches into a negative tirade, I don't see any positive discussion coming from that. Maybe I'm the only one bothered by that stuff? If so, I'll STFU and deal, just wanted to throw it out there.

 

[Wrathe]

I'll be forthcoming here and say, yes. I've used the report button. My post in the banned section wasn't intended to ban anyone, if you're referring to me. It was me inquiring there to see if I could get an answer to what so many were asking. Are these conversations allowed again, as I (and others I'd seen asking the same thing) didn't wanna break rules.

As for the idea, I like it, the invite only portion, how do you plan on the area to grow or even maintain? Referral systems and all sound good, but who would you advertise that to? Decay rate will win there I think. With that said, instead of a white/black list, how about just a black list? All are welcome until you're not. I've never noticed much of a ghost account problem on the site, so I assume registration is working.

I do miss it, for all its annoyances, it was enlightening. Being stuck at home, I don't get much "adult" time anymore so I do miss that portion. Thanks to those who are spearheading the concept.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

As the guy who could end up moderating this, specifics on what people are looking for from me would be helpful.

Once expectations are set for manners of discourse, those need to be enforced strictly. There can be a warning system in place followed by a time-out system.

1st Warning - stop it
2nd Warning - Non-exclusionary time-out (can read, not post)
3rd Warning - Exclusionary time-out (can't read or post)
4th - Ban

That may be too many chances, but from a behavioral perspective, that would be what I would do for a classroom type environment.

 

[David.]

@AZ_ what do you disagree with in this post? @gourimoko and others have said that the discussions on race have been offensive to them, so it's probably best to not have them at all. There are plenty of other political topics to discuss.

Someone's just trying to get off to a good start.

 

[Wrathe]

Oh, and can we mentally redefine a Disagree mark to just mean "I disagree w/ the idea your post conveys"? I understand it used to cause negative rep, but that's gone. It's really just a fast way to express your thoughts on their post, like most every other button. If someone's really mad, maybe we're better off just getting a disagree mark from them vs an angry rant anyways.

 

[AZ_]

Someone's just trying to get off to a good start.

While I appreciate you not being able to get through the discussion of possibly bringing back politics without subposting about me, I’m not here for this type of shit anymore.

It’s got to stop.

 

[BMAN]

Someone's just trying to get off to a good start.

Seems like you’re not far behind.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If your argument starts with "all conservatives" or "all liberals", and then launches into a negative tirade, I don't see any positive discussion coming from that.

I agree with that. In fact, just about every argument that starts with "all" is going to be messed up.

But the key question here is whether that is considered bannable, or just a bad argument? That's what @jking948 needs to know if he is going to take on this thankless task.

To put it another way, it's no secret that I have @-Akronite- on ignore. But just because I have a guy on ignore doesn't mean I'd support banning him. Others may enjoy his contributions, and that applies to all of us.

So we really need to decide what it is we are trying to create -- a haven for "quality" discussion, or a haven for even crappy discussion as long as it doesn't cross certain clear lines. I know not everyone sees the same way, so it best be something we hash out now.

 

[BMAN]

Oh posters trying to bait other posters needs to end. That stuff shouldn’t fly.

 

[AZ_]

Plenty of great discussion on any topic in and out of the political world.

It’s a sub forum, full of pretty intelligent people. Limiting topics seems like a waste of time, nobody is forcing people to participate in discussions on race.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Once expectations are set for manners of discourse, those need to be enforced strictly. There can be a warning system in place followed by a time-out system.

1st Warning - stop it
2nd Warning - Non-exclusionary time-out (can read, not post)
3rd Warning - Exclusionary time-out (can't read or post)
4th - Ban

That may be too many chances, but from a behavioral perspective, that would be what I would do for a classroom type environment.

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.