The "Politics, Religion & War Issues" Manifesto

[Guy Fawkes]

It seems that several of the posters in that forum didn't take heed of the multiple warnings about attacking other members of the message forum. Any discussion in this thread must remain on topic and conducted in a civil manner. Violators will be ejected.

 

The object is to update the Terms & Rules or create a manifest that specified the guidelines that are acceptable to the management.

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Guy Fawkes

[Guy Fawkes]

When you guys are done mourning the fraternity house that got closed for bullying, hazing, and hatred perhaps you should move on to how to clean it up.

 

I'm not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican. Yet I have been bullied for my beliefs. It's somehow ironic that the person that has maintained the message-forum since the turn of the century is one of the victims.

 

HooBoy wanted a Gentlemen's club. If we can not represent diversity and all of the different aspects of the LGTB community then why should we bother?

 

We have a real enemies that are driving a lot of hate. We need to be united if we want to keep the rights that so many have battled for over the last 50 years.

 

It's time to start working on the action plan that combats the problems Tulsi Gabbard talked about in her Dawali message in the first post. If this doesn't happen the PR&W forum will just silently slip away.

 

The Grinch is showing up early this year. If you're not a part of the solution, then you're a part of the problem. If you misbehave, you'll be timed out until next year.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.

Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Guy Fawkes

[Guy Fawkes]

OUR GOAL

 

The goal of this site is to provide information to those of the escort community — information designed to ensure that those involved in escorting can avoid violence, prevent HIV, find community services and have access to a supportive community.

 

Our goal in establishing a set of rules for this Message Center is to provide a clear framework within which we can all communicate with each other. We want to provide members with the greatest possible freedom while at the same time respecting the business needs of this site, the legal framework within which it operates, and the kinds of common decency that govern human interaction worldwide.

 

We recognize the inherent worth of all those who come here. We will always strive to treat each person with dignity and respect and without favoritism. In return, we ask only that members abide by these rules.

[Lookin]

When you guys are done mourning the fraternity house that got closed for bullying, hazing, and hatred perhaps you should move on to how to clean it up.

 

OK, I'll bite.

 

I'll start by saying that, like @Stormy and many others, I find the Politics Forum to be a great source of ideas and insights. It's unlike most other political forums in that participants are drawn in as members of a non-political affinity group, with a wide range of political beliefs and understanding. There's information and points of view presented every day that would be hard for me to track down on my own.

 

I'll add that, with the number of people in this country who would like nothing better than to shut down opposing views, it doesn't make sense to help them do it. In some cases, we're fighting for lives and I'm damned if I'm going to surrender without a fight.

 

And, finally, I understand that @Guy Fawkes and other moderators don't want to spend their days dealing with antisocial behavior on a message board that matters a great deal to them and, hopefully, contributes to making a living.

 

So I'll throw out a suggestion that may cover some of the bases, and it begins with a software feature that would allow signed in users to hit a "disruptive" button much as we're able to hit a "like" button. As with "likes", there's a running count for each poster and, when a threshold is reached, a poster is prevented from making further posts for a period of time. I'd start with three disruptive posts locks me out for a day, five locks me out for a week, ten locks me out for a month, and twenty-five locks me out for a year. You don't have to explain why you found a post disruptive, just that you did. The system would rely on "the wisdom of the crowd".

 

Once the software is modified, site management can sit back and let it do its job.

 

Just like IBM's Watson computer learned how to win at Jeopardy by making mistakes and learning from them, posters who want to keep posting would figure out what they did wrong and make sure they don't do it again. It's not much different from how most kids learn social norms on the playground. If they want somebody to play with, they'll learn how to get along and handle disagreements.

 

Just as we do with "likes", I'd suggest showing the name of the user who flags a post as "disruptive" so we'll know if someone is abusing the feature and should likewise be timed out for a week or so.

 

Anyhoo, that's one idea. I don't think we should give up the Politics Forum. We need it now more than ever. But it's also not fair to make management act in loco parentis.

 

I'm sure there are better ideas and I think it's worth finding them. Thanks for the opportunity to chime in and help solve the problem. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.png

Edited November 20, 2018 by Cooper

[instudiocity]

The IGNORE button is the finest invention for all forums.

 

If you aren't reading the offensive post about you, you won't feel no need to flame the ignorant poster.

[Lookin]

This priciple was called “tyranny of the majority” by the framers of the US constitution, who expnded much effort to prevent it.

So can you think of a way to harness the wisdom of our forefathers to prevent the loss of the Politics Forum?

 

I'm by no means married to the idea I put out there. My hope is that you and others can make it better.

 

Just sitting around and losing such a valuable Forum asset doesn't feel right. As I mentioned earlier, there are those who would like to see conformity, passivity and obedience become the norm.

 

I'm definitely not there yet.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Cooper

[+ Charlie]

The Politics, Religion & War Issues" forum was created because comments on those topics were cluttering up the Lounge, and it was considered a good idea to segregate them in a place where members who were not interested did not have to encounter them, and where members who were interested in using the MB only to discuss those topics could congregate. There is at least one forum in the current site that is open only to those who meet a certain requirement. Why not impose some kind of restriction on those who are allowed to post in the PR&WI forum? Perhaps they could be required to pay a membership fee for the PR&WI forum, and could be expelled if the moderator of the forum felt they were abusing their privileges ("You have insufficient privileges to post here" is already available for use). Paying even a nominal amount does tend to make one appreciate one's privileges more. Although I sympathize with the administrators' exasperation at dealing with some of the nastiness and childishness that takes place in that forum, I agree with Steven K. that simply banning discussion of topics that mean a great deal to many of us--especially those of us who have fought as gay men for the right to talk about those subjects in public--seems unrealistic in a site designed for gay men to talk in private. In one form or another, those subjects will find their way back into the Lounge, and we will be back where we started from.

[Lookin]

At the end-of-the-day, it comes down to personal responsibility to be civil.

 

That's certainly my take on it. But I wasn't born being civil. It took many years of socialization to learn that there were some things I could do that would get me included in the groups I wanted to belong to, and some things that would get me excluded. I was lucky to have parents and other mentors in my life who helped me learn those lessons.

 

My suggestion wasn't meant to cure all of society's ills, or to hasten Armageddon, but rather to put a form of modest rewards and penalties in place to help those few adult posters who have not yet learned what it means to be part of a healthy social group. And for those very few who are unable or unwilling to learn, we would be able to carry on without their disruptive participation and without the need for time-consuming and heavy-handed moderation.

 

The "ignore" button, while useful for some, doesn't really encourage a disruptive poster to modify his behavior. While being sidelined for a period of time just might. And it puts the responsibility for change squarely on the shoulders of those who need to change, and not on the shoulders of those who wish they would.

 

I'm not here to beat a dead horse. I've participated in many groups over the years and one thing that's always proved useful for me is to offer a solution or two, sit back while others find all the things that are wrong with it, and eventually see suggestions and improvements emerge.

 

In his original post, @Guy Fawkes challenged us to find a solution to a problem that has troubled him and many others for years. Maybe we can find such a solution, and maybe we can't. But I'm planning to stick it out through the process of finding all the things that are impossible and hope that my fellow posters and I can get to some things that are possible.

 

I have little doubt that better ideas will soon begin to flow.

 

[+ tassojunior]

Maybe just a big red warning at the top of the page to be civil and not attack another poster ever, only their argument.

 

There are only 15 or 20 people in that forum but it's the most combative I've ever seen. I've done my share of what I considered defensive attacks but that's no excuse for me getting mad. Even being on the left you get attacked for any deviation from DNC platform or CNN talking points. Intruders from the right are really roasted.

 

I don't care what opinion someone has. I care what information or viewpoint they can share. I'm used to having to find the best argument for both sides, to being a devil's advocate sometimes, and to having conversations like "but what about the argument that....". Some posters present simplistic mantras conservative or liberal but I ignore them. What's the purpose getting worked up over a simplistic parroted line? You won't gain any new perspective arguing with them over a simplistic line they're repeating. It's like arguing with the stenographer in a courtroom.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I'm planning on taking Thanksgiving week off so that I can do a major upgrade of all of my systems. The To-Do list is about two dozen items

 

One of the things I wanted to do was test-drive the next version of the forum software. The forum is actually a 3rd party product call XenForo which does offer a plugin system. We use some of the packages ("Thumps Up" is an example) and I want to make sure it works in the new version.

 

The plugin to do what @Lookin suggested would take a immense amount of work to develop. So I'll look and see if somebody else has gone there first. Cost may be a factor.

 

@Lookin thank-you for being the first with a concrete suggestion.

 

OK, I'll bite.

 

I'll start by saying that, like @Stormy and many others, I find the Politics Forum to be a great source of ideas and insights. It's unlike most other political forums in that participants are drawn in as members of a non-political affinity group, with a wide range of political beliefs and understanding. There's information and points of view presented every day that would be hard for me to track down on my own.

 

I'll add that, with the number of people in this country who would like nothing better than to shut down opposing views, it doesn't make sense to help them do it. In some cases, we're fighting for lives and I'm damned if I'm going to surrender without a fight.

 

And, finally, I understand that @Guy Fawkes and other moderators don't want to spend their days dealing with antisocial behavior on a message board that matters a great deal to them and, hopefully, contributes to making a living.

 

So I'll throw out a suggestion that may cover some of the bases, and it begins with a software feature that would allow signed in users to hit a "disruptive" button much as we're able to hit a "like" button. As with "likes", there's a running count for each poster and, when a threshold is reached, a poster is prevented from making further posts for a period of time. I'd start with three disruptive posts locks me out for a day, five locks me out for a week, ten locks me out for a month, and twenty-five locks me out for a year. You don't have to explain why you found a post disruptive, just that you did. The system would rely on "the wisdom of the crowd".

 

Once the software is modified, site management can sit back and let it do its job.

 

Just like IBM's Watson computer learned how to win at Jeopardy by making mistakes and learning from them, posters who want to keep posting would figure out what they did wrong and make sure they don't do it again. It's not much different from how most kids learn social norms on the playground. If they want somebody to play with, they'll learn how to get along and handle disagreements.

 

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/hShxpYG_ql0/mqdefault.jpg

 

Just as we do with "likes", I'd suggest showing the name of the user who flags a post as "disruptive" so we'll know if someone is abusing the feature and should likewise be timed out for a week or so.

 

Anyhoo, that's one idea. I don't think we should give up the Politics Forum. We need it now more than ever. But it's also not fair to make management act in loco parentis.

 

I'm sure there are better ideas and I think it's worth finding them. Thanks for the opportunity to chime in and help solve the problem. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.png

[bigvalboy]

I love Lookin's optimism and I liked his idea, but I'm more skeptical, and I see the problem a little more simply. I don't think the problem was about being conservative or liberal, or our tolerance for either, but it was about trolling. Two members clearly came on to troll the board. I don't give two fucks about Avalon's political views, he's entitled to them and entitled to express them. I never put him on ignore, but I did choose not to respond to him. If others who were so bothered by his seemingly endless threads and apparent racist views, then they should have stopped posting on every single thread that he started. If you can't exhibit some self control, and your not aware enough to realize that your being trolled, and that you are not going to change the views of posters like Avalon, then don't be surprised when your participation encourages more trolling behavior, and certainly don't complain about their participation here.

 

I think Admin made this about liberal and conservative, but I saw it as someone who logged on with the sole purpose to disrupt, and I think admin was divisive, intolerant of posters who were complaining, and took far too long to address the issue. Some posters have left for the other site, which is a joke and seriously not a solution, some posters left permanently, and some have clearly stuck it out, but damage has been done, that is a fact. Perhaps this is merely a bump in the road, certainly admin has had to banish disruptive posters before, so time will tell, and maybe thoughtful and prolific posters like Moondance will reconsider their decision to leave.

 

My Two Cents...

Edited November 19, 2018 by bigvalboy

[Guy Fawkes]

Someone said: "Big Red Letters" at the top of the forum. We've done this before and it worked well. "Escort Travels" comes to mind.

 

So let's work on that short, simple manifesto.

 

For me the important point is centuries old: "Attack the message not the messenger."

[+ Keith30309]

When I watch one of these threads there’s a point where I go “uhoh... this is going south” and that seems to be when the words “I think”, “I believe”, “I dislike” devolve into “You think”, “You believe”, “You don’t” (and the much dreaded “you people...”)

 

Good idea @Lookin ... “like” has always confused me a little anyway.

 

What about “agree”, “disagree” and “foul”.

 

I can agree with a post but find its tone to be aggressive against another poster. Right now the number of Likes is already displayed on one’s profile along with the number of messages... why not replace that with Fouls or Foul Ratio or something to reflective of a well-mannered or ill-mannered member of the community, as decided by the community itself. If I have 100 message posts and a 50% foul ratio then I might be playing in the wrong sandbox.

[Guy Fawkes]

Another important point: "No Name Calling." We're not going to bully other people by denigrating them.

[+ oldNbusted]

When I watch one of these threads there’s a point where I go “uhoh... this is going south” and that seems to be when the words “I think”, “I believe”, “I dislike” devolve into “You think”, “You believe”, “You don’t” (and the much dreaded “you people...”)

 

Good idea @Lookin ... “like” has always confused me a little anyway.

 

What about “agree”, “disagree” and “foul”.

 

I can agree with a post but find its tone to be aggressive against another poster. Right now the number of Likes is already displayed on one’s profile along with the number of messages... why not replace that with Fouls or Foul Ratio or something to reflective of a well-mannered or ill-mannered member of the community, as decided by the community itself. If I have 100 message posts and a 50% foul ratio then I might be playing in the wrong sandbox.

 

This sounds like a variation of some forum reputation systems, here is a pretty good description of one such system:

 

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/faq.php?faq=repuationsystem_faq

[Guy Fawkes]

@Keith30309 Love it, now turn it into a single simple line for the manifesto. Fouls Ratio would be a plugin. I'll keep an eye out while I'm doing the version testing.

 

When I watch one of these threads there’s a point where I go “uhoh... this is going south” and that seems to be when the words “I think”, “I believe”, “I dislike” devolve into “You think”, “You believe”, “You don’t” (and the much dreaded “you people...”)

 

Good idea @Lookin ... “like” has always confused me a little anyway.

 

What about “agree”, “disagree” and “foul”.

 

I can agree with a post but find its tone to be aggressive against another poster. Right now the number of Likes is already displayed on one’s profile along with the number of messages... why not replace that with Fouls or Foul Ratio or something to reflective of a well-mannered or ill-mannered member of the community, as decided by the community itself. If I have 100 message posts and a 50% foul ratio then I might be playing in the wrong sandbox.

[+ oldNbusted]

Another important point: "No Name Calling." We're not going to bully other people by denigrating them.

 

It would be helpful if this applied to everyone, not just other members. I worked hard to resist the temptation to name call famous people, which is usually deemed ok because they have chosen to be public figures, but it really doesn't help an argument.

[+ tassojunior]

If you have "dislike" buttons you are simply going to have people with a different viewpoint from the majority kicked out. Echo chambers are comforting but not interesting or educational. But yes, keeping politics out of the rest of the site is invaluable.

[+ bigjoey]

If you have "dislike" buttons you are simply going to have people with a different viewpoint from the majority kicked out. Echo chambers are comforting but not interesting or educational. But yes, keeping politics out of the rest of the site is invaluable.

 

Good point. Instead of “dislike” how about “misbehaving” or similar such term?

[Scorpio]

If you have "dislike" buttons you are simply going to have people with a different viewpoint from the majority kicked out. Echo chambers are comforting but not interesting or educational. But yes, keeping politics out of the rest of the site is invaluable.

 

Years ago, there was a feature that allowed other members to post positive or negative ratings/comments to another members profile page. The negative comments got out of hand and became abusive. It was disabled. In my opinion,this will end much the same way.

 

As for the No Name Calling Manifesto, is that not already a part of the Terms Of Service? It is arbitrarily enforced. Certain members seem to resort to name calling routinely with no consequence, while other members make an minor infraction and are punished.

 

Members learning how to exercise self-restraint and a uniform application of the TOS are a good place to start.

[+ PapaTony]

The only people I blame for the loss of the politics forum is all of us who chose to repeatedly respond to @Avalon and his ilk as if any one of us could or would change his ignorant, short sighted, racist views.

 

Using the igore button only created a mess of message threads as we all know. We ALL needed to JUST IGNORE him/them because it’s been proven trolls do not survive without oxygen.

[Nvr2Thick]

I follow an informal routine every time I bring up a browser in my spare time. I run through a series of personal and group social media feeds. Now when I get to the Message Forum I catch myself as I scroll down to the "Politics, Religion & War Issues" forum and say "oh yeah..." I don't miss it too much, and I wonder whether I'm gaining any time in my day or just spending it elsewhere. So many of my social media groups and forums are like a big bowl of chips that you'll stop eating if someone takes it away.

 

I love the member "block" feature on Facebook; it almost completely eradicates your view of a blocked member while doing the same to you from his or her perspective. With fairly active members it could develop some "Garfield minus Garfield" qualities, but that's a small price to pay. I'm not about to request that someone else go to a lot of effort to develop it here for me -- it would really be an automated substitute for having the discipline to ignore, scroll, and avoid bait.

 

I believe that a large amount of the tension on this site is the result of a single member's intentionally or unintentionally provocative yet pervasive posts and comments. I had drifted away, participating far less lately, because of it. I recognize that this is my problem though. It's easier to ignore the entire forum though sometimes than it is to ignore an omnipresent phenomenon. If you don't like potholes you may avoid certain roads, but if the rain and leaves start bothering you then you may have to avoid driving.

[+ Keith30309]

@Keith30309 Love it, now turn it into a single simple line for the manifesto. Fouls Ratio would be a plugin. I'll keep an eye out while I'm doing the version testing.

Strawman:

 

One goal of the forum to sustain an environment in which frank exchanges of opposing opinion can occur without attacks to the character or motives of another member. Any post can be considered a “foul” by any other member if they consider it to be of an ad

-

hominem, personally-aggressive nature.

 

[Populist Fury]

I'm cool with w/e works. People just need to stop taking politics so personally & seriously. Nothing said on a message board like this one is going to actually change or influence any of what happens out there in the real world. Social media is a far more effective venue for that kind of political activism.

 

I post @ another board where the average age is like mid 20's to 30, vast majority under 40 (we had a board census back June <3), & we all get along just fine even after vicious fights over politics break out in the one thread dedicated to the subject. Whatever happens in there, stays in there, & we don't drag any of the political drama out into other areas of the board. We also deal with the resident trolls there with humor, & that's always more effective than allowing them to trigger us with their posts. I actually dig a couple of them lol

[+ stevenkesslar]

I'm cool with w/e works. People just need to stop taking politics so personally & seriously. Nothing said on a message board like this one is going to actually change or influence any of what happens out there in the real world. Social media is a far more effective venue for that kind of political activism.

 

I post @ another board where the average age is like mid 20's to 30, vast majority under 40 (we had a board census back June <3), & we all get along just fine even after vicious fights over politics break out in the one thread dedicated to the subject. Whatever happens in there, stays in there, & we don't drag any of the political drama out into other areas of the board. We also deal with the resident trolls there with humor, & that's always more effective than allowing them to trigger us with their posts. I actually dig a couple of them lol

 

Hmm. Let me guess.

 

Are you Trevor Noah in disguise?

 

I don't agree with the idea that politics is not personal and serious. But I do agree that treating it the way Noah does - with humor and as a sense of incredulity when you run into a real Bozo - is a good strategy. And Noah talks about how he differs from Jon Stewart and his approach is intentionally age-centric - meaning oriented to a highly educated younger audience that is capable of showing humility and humor.