The "Politics, Religion & War Issues" Manifesto

[Guy Fawkes]

I don't believe so. I'm willing to have it pointed out.

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.

[Scorpio]

I don't believe so. I'm willing to have it pointed out.

 

Isn’t “name calling” a personal attack?

 

RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE

 

1. Attacks against other people are not allowed. Personal attacks stifle discussion and create an atmosphere that discourages many people from joining us. We want all people to feel welcome here and welcome to state their opinions. Those who come here for advice or assistance should be treated with respect. You are free to criticize the opinions of other people at will. But please do not attack, insult or disparage others themselves; all are worthy of respect, even those with whom we disagree.

 

1. Attacks against members will only be acted upon at the request of the member being attacked. If you are being attacked and want assistance from the moderators, use the ALERT function to notify the moderators. They will determine if some action is necessary. Please do not ask the moderators to take action for minor infractions of this rule. Attacks against non-members will be looked at upon the request of any member. Attacks against public figures (such as politicians or entertainers) will generally not be acted upon. Serious attacks against private individuals may require an action. Please remember that attacks against individuals means an attack against the person themself. The actions or opinions of any person are fair game: calling a person an idiot is a personal attack; stating that you believe their actions to be idiotic is not. For more information about ad hominem attacks see Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bartleby and Wikipedia.

 

 

 

[Guest]

So @Guy Fawkes, you have many ideas for the “new forum” noted above.

 

Do we need to have a “fall funds drive” or a telethon for financial costs or is the biggest challenge right now the bandwidth limitations of your time?

[+ Charlie]

Usually when I check in on this site in the morning, there are at least five pages of new posts to scroll through. Today there are only two pages. That was enlightening.

[Lookin]

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.

 

You're more than welcome! I like this site, and appreciate all the work that you and the moderators do. If I can't help financially, hopefully I can contribute in other ways.

 

If the coding for the "automated bans" is onerous, perhaps just a "disruptive post" button and counter - similar to the "like" system and perhaps copying that existing code - would work just as well. As long as posters know when they're being disruptive, and as long as management knows who's cocking up the site - so to speak - most of the benefits would still be there. You could look at the counter and decide who to boot, and when.

 

I like the idea of rating posts, rather than posters. My hope is that, by letting posters know when they're being a pain in the ass, they'll be able to clean up their act. On the other hand, if their intention really is to disrupt the site, then it's better that they disappear instead of sending everyone else to the hills.

 

Thanks again for all your efforts to keep such a valuable Forum going! http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.png

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes to "Fall Funds Drive", Yes to bandwidth, and Yes its off topic.

 

One of the benefits of PR&W being disabled is that I've a lot more time to work with. Like upgrade this machine, load a test version of the next version of xenforo. You should see a system message show up to the effect shortly.

 

So @Guy Fawkes, you have many ideas for the “new forum” noted above.

 

Do we need to have a “fall funds drive” or a telethon for financial costs or is the biggest challenge right now the bandwidth limitations of your time?

[Guy Fawkes]

Some of those people are on time-out until the start of the year. A few have been timed-out permanently.

 

Management has a policy of diversity and being a safe haven from abuse. That policy has been violated and this will not be allowed to continue.

 

We either set some ground rules or we no longer will have that forum. So far little work has happened to discuss the ground rules that are needed. So I agree that better participants are needed right now.

 

This entire thread and drama has been unnecessary, as has the closing of the politics forum.

 

Although this thread has been very enlightening and enriching as to whom the people of the politics forum represents, almost none who have contributed to the chaos and unrest which resulted in it’s closure have spoken here.

 

We don’t need better buttons. We need better participants.

[Larstrup]

 

Management has a policy of diversity and being a safe haven from abuse.

 

I associate myself with these very important goals and even more importantly being a safe haven from abuse. I have always supported these values and you have my unwavering support in doing so with these announced actions.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Larstrup

[+ oldNbusted]

Here are some rules:

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms

 

I don't really care for the exception for famous people in section 2. Not that I care that much about the dignity of famous people (who will never see the comments anyway), but posters pitching in yet again things like 'crooked Hillary/dumb Donald swindled all y'all' adds nothing to the discussion and just creates a slippery slope about when it is ok to disparage people. I think it's much better if the answer to that is simply 'never'.

 

But for me, when the time-outs end, if the incessant non sequiturs return to the previous volume, I'm not going to care much if PRW exists or not, as I'm mostly just going to not bother to try to make sense of threads that have been spammed, which it was appearing was just about all of them.

[+ tassojunior]

I think the "report" is good enough to have a mod take a look. Together with the big red warning notice.

 

Many people have trouble entertaining different viewpoints. But practice in a forum like Politics is invaluable in learning how to do so. It's an important tool in life.

 

Personally since I champion the poor, I'm used to dealing with narrow-minded and unsophisticated poor people. I try not to openly disagree but try to find out why they feel that way, seeming to agree. Then I turn their concern into a progressive issue. 9/10 of the time it works. "Deplorables" are people with many legitimate problems and concerns. And when it doesn't seem to work I politely say something like "I think we're on the same page what the problem is so please think about my solution".

 

Anger converts no one. Ever.

Edited November 20, 2018 by tassojunior

[bigvalboy]

Early on in this thread Deej posted this: I believe this to be accurate.

"I do know that anyone trying to alter basic human nature is doomed to fail. I’ve been online since before there was an internet. This behavior (and SPAM) have always been with us and likely always will be."

There will always be by some on message forums, troll behavior, a lack of civility, disrespect, and a disregard for the viewpoints of others. That is a fact. Most can change, but some will not.

Perhaps what is needed is a Political forum that is by invitation only.

 

Early on in the day when the Political forum had first been shut down, I got a couple of calls from forum members who weren't aware of what was going on. They were concerned that they were unable to post in the political forum, but seemed to be able to post elsewhere. They assumed that they had done something wrong, but couldn't figure out what. I logged on and realized what had happened. They were much relieved that they had not been singled out.

 

Perhaps what is needed, is a PR&W forum that is by invitation only. Everyone would be allowed to post at first, but misbehavior, with a couple of warnings, would get you temporarily banned from that particular forum only, not the rest of the site. If they choose to post elsewhere, and continue they're disruption, then a ban from the whole site would of course be in order. I've also always felt that banning someone without the rest of the forum knowing what is going on lacks transparency, and shrouds the offense in mystery. Perhaps when the offender is in violation, admin could remove the offending post, and post in red letters that the member is in violation of forum decorum, and further violations will result in temporary or permanent banishment. This was done recently, and it seemed effective. I also realize that his might mean more moderation, more work for the administrators, and that might present a problem... My 2 cents.

 

There will always be offenders on the Internet, there will always be trolls, just look at Twitter, it's a cesspool, but keeping those offenders in check, would greatly enhance the experience on the site.

 

 

 

[+ stevenkesslar]

So here's a few practical suggestions following up on comments by Lookin and Guy. They reflect a few biases of mine I have made very clear. Mostly, I really don't think there is a problem to be solved. Or, if there is a problem, it's a minor one. Beyond that, Guy has made clear that he values his time. So any improvement that requires a lot of code tinkering or time on his part is not really an improvemnt.

 

With that in mind, here's my suggestions, followed by data that drive it:

 

1. Use the existing forum software (which seems to be standard, since I've seen other forums with similar software) and simply repurpose it slightly. Don't waste a lot of time screwing around with code to solve this problem.

2. Use the "report" button to accomplish the purpose Lookin recommends. and/or

3. Repurpose The Cabana or create a similar new forum to accomplish the purpose Lookin recommends.

4. Either 3 or 4 would require some moderation. This could defeat the purpose, if the purpose is saving moderators time and heartache.

5. So: a primary purpose of 2 and 3 would be to shift moderation of "problem" members and posts from moderators to other members. The goal should be to encourage "community policing."

6. Use the "warning points" count on every member's profile to log how many warnings they have received, consistent with Lookin's recommendations. A certain number of warnings could result in automatic time out, based on clearly established and consistent rules consented to and policed by the group.

 

Now let me explain what I mean by the above to make sure it's completely clear.

 

There are two problems that are being discussed here, as far as I can tell.

 

The first and larger problem is basically Guy's, which has to do with the observance of rules of civility. Again, I don't see this as a problem. I didn't see it as a problem when we had a national leader named Obama who I think encouraged a civil and thoughtful tone. I certainly don't see it as a problem now that we have a national leader named Trump who I think encourages an uncivil, thoughtless, and often untruthful tone. Politics is more like a blood sport than a sweet sixteen party. So I think bloody noses are to be expected. But if Guy has a problem with what some members say or how they say it, he has never hesitated to time them out. If the issue is your time, Guy, then just dump the forum. I see no need for it. As you just said, having it closed for now saves you time and heartache. It has never been, is not now, and never will be a calm and peaceful gentleman's forum.

 

Or, accept that some members here are not quite as insult-laden and untruthful as Trump, but are still far from perfect. Compared to Trump, I think most members here are actually quite civil and thoughtful, and usually factual to boot. I don't think we should be held to a higher standard than POTUS. But that's your call. However you feel, I trust my own political judgment, and I think it's completely unrealistic in this environment to expect anything other than what the current tone is. 75 % of Americans in exit polls just agreed the country is deeply divided, and getting more so. If people who deeply disagree are going to try to talk at all, conflict is what we should expect and tolerate.

 

The second problem, which I suspect is not the same, is that certain members basically wish you, Guy, would shit can a few perceived jerks, who are seen as posting too much useless junk. Avalon appears to be the primary offender. My hunch is also that some members just wish other members would go away. I, for example, find a lot of the right-wing nonsense posted by conservatives like Augustus to be banal, non-factual, and completely thoughtless. Not to mention often steeped in racist and sexist notions, as well. But I'd bet they feel just as negative about me. Other than the fact that they seem to be Gay, which is presumably why they are here, I don't feel any real sense of community of shared values. It's more like we tolerate each other and barely veil the contempt we feel for each other. That, again, would be a good reason for you to just shit can the whole politics forum. The barely veiled contempt serves absolutely no useful purpose.

 

There are some people here who have stated that they enjoy the exchange of ideas, and are consummate diplomats. Lookin and Mike Carey come to mind. There are others who have interesting and popular perspectives, but come with certain types of baggage. Kenny is quite popular, but is super good at dishing out insults. I'm pretty good at that myself, which is why Kenny and I got into an annoying family feud. But more often people give me shit for using too many facts, or charts, or words, and repeating myself. So we all have our shortfalls, I guess. But there is a liberal to moderate consensus among most of the people who post most often here. And for the most part there is a sense of shared values and purpose among us. So, at core, I think this is a fairly functional and agreeable community, with a predominant orientation that is decidely Gay and left-of-center.

 

The purpose of repurposing The Cabana or creating a new forum would be to allow mostly like-minded members like the ones I just mentioned to report and, ideally, resolve perceived communication problems without even having to drag you and Deej into it. The way the conversation in this thread has flowed suggests to me that most like-minded people here are capable of understanding and resolving communication problems on their own, with some nudges by the resident peacemakers and diplomats like Lookin and Mike, among others.

 

One example of how that actually did work in practice, I think, was my feud last year with Kenny. How it started and why it escalated is probably best not addressed. What made it both interesting and weird is that Kenny and I are mostly of like minds politically. So the feud had more to do with tactics, or words, or perhaps just temperament. It got resolved when I posted a "little red warning" alerting Kenny I would report him to you, Guy, if he persisted in flinging insults at me. That did not go down well at all, in the moment. I got push back from almost everyone. Perhaps people thought it was hypocritical of me, since it was clearly "tit for tat." Or perhaps people thought I was usurping some role I should not play. Or perhaps people just liked Kenny and felt like defending him. Regardless, my "little red warning" achieved my goal of causing a stir, and it did get my point across. And that put an end to that. Since then, Kenny and I have gotten along fine. I often agree with him, and hit the "like" button. When I disagree, I just move on. He seems to do the same. Problem solved.

 

Another personal example is that Bigjoey clearly didn't like it when I recently compared him to Joseph Goebbels, which I clearly intended as a bitch slap in response to what I viewed as his sexist perspective in defense of a Republican cover-up. It should shock no one that discussion of the farcical SCOTUS hearings in a politics forum might be contentious. But William chimed in in support of Bigjoey - I suspect mostly because he doesn't like conflict and family feuds. If a Cabana-like forum existed where Bigjoey could "report" me and complain to other members that I hurt his feelings by comparing his ideas to Goebbels, and others chimed in, I suspect we'd be able to work it out, just like Kenny and me did.

 

The biggest problem from my perspective is that there are people here that are outside of and hostile to the norms of the vast majority of members. And they often enough serve the function of an Ann Coulter. I think they annoy me less than they annoy other members, one or more of whom have responded by saying, "Fuck it, I'm out of here." A Cabana-like forum would also be a place where we could try to agreeably resolve how to deal with truly difficult things like that. It could be a place where the vast majority agree, for example, that Avalon either has to significantly alter how he operates here, or we will just vote him off the island. I know how I feel about the issue of being a stranger in a strange land. I've spent a lot of time organizing in the Black community. And as a minority White man in the group, I always assumed that the burden was on me to be very open-minded, very respectful, and very cautious about being the least bit critical. Of course, that's because my agenda was to organize and unify, not disrupt. But speaking from my experience, my approach would be less to censor or ban people, and more to argue that if you want to be a conservative on a mostly liberal Gay website, the burden is on you to treat the rest of community with respect, and make us feel like you actually want to be part of our family. I keep harping on shared values because everything in my experience suggests it is the only way you build and sustain highly functioning communities.

 

I still think using the "report" button or the "warning points" function to time out members based on group input should be a last recourse. I am just deeply against any type of censorship or silencing, and deeply for freedom of speech. Part of it with me is I actually have more tolerance for what I view as useless and inflammatory conservative rant, for example, because I view it as part of a process to give people like Trump the rope they need to hang themselves. From a lot of recent comments it is clear to me that many other thoughtful liberal members of this community feel very differently, and are more sensitive about this than I am.

 

So other than timing people out because you decide to, Guy, I think Lookin's idea of using the existing software and forum structure to let other members direct you or Deej to time certain people out to send them a message is an excellent idea. I suspect that 3 to 6 months of that would solve many of the tone and content problems here.

[mike carey]

They were concerned that they were unable to post in the political forum, but seemed to be able to post elsewhere. They assumed that they had done something wrong, but couldn't figure out what.

I wondered that too, but thought if it were the case I would have received some sort of notice, so I watched and waited. I noticed that no one had been posting so assumed a shut down. It was only later I went to the Lounge and saw the notice about it.

 

Steven, the cheque's in the mail. (Hold that, maybe I should send it to Guy instead.)

[+ stevenkesslar]

Data on Messages, Likes, and Warnings points:

 

Marylander - 62,624 messages, 113,693 likes, 0 warning points

William M - 28,414 messages, 59, 530 likes, o warning points

JJ Kirkwood - 22,544 messages, 24,486 likes, 10 warning points

Stevenkesslar - 8338 messages, 9413 likes, o warning points

Kenny - 8,278 messages, 13,102 likes, o warning points

Avalon - 8520 messages, 3818 likes, 0 warning points

Mike Carey - 7,607 likes, 10,535 likes, 0 warning points

Lookin - 4034 messages, 5519 likes, o warnings points

Corporate Shill - 1323 messages, 1207 likes, 0 warning points

BnaC - 495 messages, 445 likes, 0 warning points

Augustus - 253 messages, 118 likes, 0 warning points

 

This is a companion data set to my recommendations above. I thought it would be interesting to compare how different "types" of members rank in terms of how often they post, and how many other members like the content of their posting.

 

I chose certain members to reinforce certain points.

 

One way to look at this list is that everybody offers some content that somebody likes to read. For the conservatives, their "like" rate is about 50 % of the number of messages they post. Members who post a lot of photos like Marylander and William of course get way, way more likes. But it does not surprise me at all that members like Mike Carey and Lookin get relatively high "like" rates - like 50 % above the number of messages they post. They are thoughtful diplomats and peacemakers, and it is no surprise that most members welcome and like them.

 

Kenny's like rate is interesting. Arguably, he can be bitchy and mean - as can I when I choose to be. But his like rate is more than 50 % of his number of posts. People who agree with him obviously like bitchy and pithy and terse. By comparison, I know before I hit the "post" button on some of my long-winded diatribes that most people won't bother to read or "like" it.

 

If this were a reality tv show where we all voted people off the island, you don't have to guess how Kenny and Avalon would fare in a duel. They have about the same number of posts, but Kenny has over triple the number of likes. Sorry, Avalon. In a reality tv concept, you'd be gone by now.

 

Having said that, I'm not sure what the argument is for saying that someone with 3,818 likes has no value to add. Clearly, somebody enjoys what Avalon writes, even if he doesn't measure up to Kenny.

 

All of this is why I mostly feel nobody should be banned, and we should attempt some form of "community policing." And if that doesn't work, we should then ask Guy or Deej to just get rid of the troublemaker.

 

These numbers also confirm my point that we are mostly a like-minded group. The people who post the most and are liked the most are all Gay and liberal to moderate individuals. I think we have the right to be the kind of group we want to be. And I think that it's fair to expect the conservative members at the bottom of the list to try to act like they actually want to be liked and respected.

 

The only person with warning points is JJ Kirkwood, and my guess is that's based on pictures he posted that fell outside the group rules. I don't know that anybody would really give a shit about how many warning points they or others have. But they would give a shit if it meant being timed out for a month.

 

I think the whole concept of "reporting" or "fouling" other members could end up inviting a whole new bunch of nonsense. It would be easy enough to just hit some button because you disagree with someone and you don't want them around. So in order to work, that function would still require as much or more moderation as we have currently. The main advantage I see is that it would allow the group to express it's prevailing sentiment if somebody really annoys them. Maybe that's the tyranny of the majority. But if we don't want to have to constantly be quarreling with people who we have very little in common with, something and somebody is going to have to give.

[Larstrup]

I think the whole concept of validating posts, and more importantly the people behind those posts thru clicking button likes, button dislikes, button disruptive, etc., discourage further dialogue between us. If you can just like a post, but don’t have to respond as to why you like that post, you might be stroking someone’s ego but you’re certainly not furthering discussion. If we reduce everyone to a push of a button as to how we feel, however that might be, we’re cheating ourselves of further understanding ourselves and others positions simply because we have buttons to push instead of taking the time to explain to the poster why.

 

At the end of the day, living in a digital world as opposed to the physical world will always lessen our relations and more likely prevent some from actually being who they really are simply due to the limited ability to communicate outside of face to face dialogue.

 

I’m rambling. But I’ll say it again. Politics are not our problem here. No matter what our personal party or political association. It’s our inability to talk to to one another minus the anger and angst which we live with day to day because of what’s happening in our national politics and the disgrace of which they have become.

 

Let’s forget the like buttons which creates unintended division and try just talking more to each other. I think that’s a good start.

 

Please like my post however.

 

It will validate me that I might have made some sense here.

[Guy Fawkes]

Posting off-topic is muddying the water and delaying a possible return of the PR&W forum.

 

One of things I've noted while looking at the next version of Xenforo is that the Warning system was improved. I suspect that we'll be using it more and it can trigger temporary or permeant bans. BTW: Lots of goodies to share all around.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Guy Fawkes

[Guy Fawkes]

My first reaction was OMG that's a lot to process. But on 2nd and subsequent looks I noticed

1. They use xenforo like we do, and
   
2. At the bottom they went into a lot of detail of the warnings which would be a good starting point for our system.
   
3. They define the various terms that they talk about
   
4. Most of what they say make sense and applies to PR&W.
   

When I have a chance I'll do an analysis and see how much of it is of use for us. I suspect that it'll affect both the manifesto for PR&W and Terms & Rules. However, the latter will require input from the administrators and moderators.

 

Here are some rules:

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms

 

I don't really care for the exception for famous people in section 2. Not that I care that much about the dignity of famous people (who will never see the comments anyway), but posters pitching in yet again things like 'crooked Hillary/dumb Donald swindled all y'all' adds nothing to the discussion and just creates a slippery slope about when it is ok to disparage people. I think it's much better if the answer to that is simply 'never'.

 

But for me, when the time-outs end, if the incessant non sequiturs return to the previous volume, I'm not going to care much if PRW exists or not, as I'm mostly just going to not bother to try to make sense of threads that have been spammed, which it was appearing was just about all of them.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Guy Fawkes

[Cooper]

The old adage, "You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" best describes how I feel about moderating this site. We can't please all but like you, I, too, want to see the PR&W Forum up and running so that all members feel comfortable in posting their positions in a civil way regardless of their political persuasion.

 

The PR&W Forum is a challenge to moderate. The majority of reports we receive deal with personal attacks. The rules are very clear about the actions moderators can take on this issue. They read: "Attacks against members will only be acted upon at the request of the member being attacked. If you submit a report because you see a violation of that rule keep in mind that the report must be submitted by the "member being attacked". Most members do not submit reports/alerts making it appear that the moderators aren't taking action or following the rules. Not so! But maybe it's time for us to revisit that rule if it helps getting the Forum back up and running.

 

The Moderators do not discuss on the Message Board alerts received or actions taken. We also do not mention the names of members who are banned or timed out. We respect your privacy. If you want to crack down on personal attacks help us out and submit those reports.

 

Are new Guidelines and new rules necessary to get this Forum back? Or are the current Terms and Rules sufficient? Perhaps following them is the best answer.

 

Cooper

[+ newatthis]

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, ... In one form or another, those subjects will find their way back into the Lounge, and we will be back where we started from.

I like the PR&WI -- which I almost never look at -- for the reason highlighted in Charlie's post. I sure hope y'all find a way to bring it back.

[bigvalboy]

I think the whole concept of validating posts, and more importantly the people behind those posts thru clicking button likes, button dislikes, button disruptive, etc., discourage further dialogue between us. If you can just like a post, but don’t have to respond as to why you like that post, you might be stroking someone’s ego but you’re certainly not furthering discussion. If we reduce everyone to a push of a button as to how we feel, however that might be, we’re cheating ourselves of further understanding ourselves and others positions simply because we have buttons to push instead of taking the time to explain to the poster why.

 

At the end of the day, living in a digital world as opposed to the physical world will always lessen our relations and more likely prevent some from actually being who they really are simply due to the limited ability to communicate outside of face to face dialogue.

 

I’m rambling. But I’ll say it again. Politics are not our problem here. No matter what our personal party or political association. It’s our inability to talk to to one another minus the anger and angst which we live with day to day because of what’s happening in our national politics and the disgrace of which they have become.

 

Let’s forget the like buttons which creates unintended division and try just talking more to each other. I think that’s a good start.

 

Please like my post however.

 

It will validate me that I might have made some sense here.

 

OK...lol I "liked" your post, but I disagree with your assessment of the use of the "like" button.

I think the "like" button is a valuable tool. All of us use it for different reasons. For myself, I will like a post for the obvious reasons. Yes, sometimes it is to validate and be on record for agreeing with a posters point of view, but more often than not, the like is for different reasons. There are conservative members who I might disagree with, but I will like their post as an acknowledgement that they have presented a good point of view. I will also like a post to express appreciation for a well thought out argument or research. I will do that with @stevenkesslar sometimes or with @Lookin, or @quoththeraven because very often the research or information that goes into their post is worth noting. And lastly, sometimes I will like multiple posts in the middle of a debate in the political forum. If a poster or posters are making a case in the middle of a heated debate in the political forum, better than I am able to do, then I will like a post instead of jumping into the fray. And sometimes I just enjoy watching the debate. It's not necessary to participate in every thread. I don't see the point of repeating the thoughts of someone that I already completely agree with and who is presenting the point better than I could. So my vote would be to keep the like button. AND... for the love of God, how do you not have a like button in the gallery?

 

 

I have made friends here, good friends, some will be life-long. Some, because of logistics, will be good friends in this cyber community on the forum. So I hope the political forum returns, and I hope that this was a good learning experience for everyone, and I hope that the members who chose to leave, will re-think that decision and come back. I have learned more on this forum than I could have almost anywhere else.

Edited November 20, 2018 by bigvalboy

[+ tassojunior]

The old adage, "You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" best describes how I feel about moderating this site. We can't please all but like you, I, too, want to see the PR&W Forum up and running so that all members feel comfortable in posting their positions in a civil way regardless of their political persuasion.

 

The PR&W Forum is a challenge to moderate. The majority of reports we receive deal with personal attacks. The rules are very clear about the actions moderators can take on this issue. They read: "Attacks against members will only be acted upon at the request of the member being attacked. If you submit a report because you see a violation of that rule keep in mind that the report must be submitted by the "member being attacked". Most members do not submit reports/alerts making it appear that the moderators aren't taking action or following the rules. Not so! But maybe it's time for us to revisit that rule if it helps getting the Forum back up and running.

 

The Moderators do not discuss on the Message Board alerts received or actions taken. We also do not mention the names of members who are banned or timed out. We respect your privacy. If you want to crack down on personal attacks help us out and submit those reports.

 

Are new Guidelines and new rules necessary to get this Forum back? Or are the current Terms and Rules sufficient? Perhaps following them is the best answer.

 

Cooper

 

I pretty much agree with Cooper on this. I certainly think a big red warning sign is important but don't like the "by invitation only" or "dislike people out" approaches. I don't enjoy forums where everyone agrees on everything. Even intelligent posters with information to offer get tossed out and then it becomes a dogfight as to who's the most "pure" on the party line. Cheerleader tryouts.

 

Forums are moderated with the "report" button and it's the mod's decision as to what is personal attacks and what is just unliked opinions or information. Personally I don't really pay much attention to trolls who are looking for a fight or to lonely people looking for friends. Both usually have simple posts and little new information. But the ones who come just to make personal insults against posters are too much to deal with. They spread poison that really makes a forum reek. And they should probably not be spending a lot of time online, they should be learning how to deal with other people. You can't act like that in real life; only behind a keyboard.

 

But the worst offenders for personal insults are the most liked !!! Who can throw the worst insults not only against the other tribe but against members of "our" tribe who intelligently voice any non-conformity. "A" is lonely and brings up simple things to start conversations. I disagree with virtually 100% of his politics. But he's polite and I politely ignore him. But "K...y", who I probably agree with on 90% of stuff, sometimes has useful information but his main purpose on the board is to hurl the most vile personal insults ad hominem directly at other people every day. I've never seen a board that tolerates repeated blasts of "pig", "moron", "stupid", "shut-up!", etc the way he gets away with every day. And it's probably because none of us hit the "report" button to get a mod to review those vile insults. Not only that but "K...y" has one of the highest number of "likes" on the board. Posters want a bloodly fight.

 

One of the things that made America great is our pragmatism. Free speech and democracy helped us try different things to see what worked. We didn't only tolerate one ideology. If an idea is bad it's going to fail when tried. But free speech is critical to come up with new ideas to try.

[+ WilliamM]

Some very nice people turn ruthless when politics is discussed. In PMs, Kenny is terrific, supportive, and displays a first-class sense of humor.

 

And K does not always "get away with it," he has been on time out far more than just once.

Edited November 20, 2018 by WilliamM

[+ José Soplanucas]

I am not one of the big posters in PR&W but I did contribute with my quote of name calling. My apologies, I try to control myself but often fail. From my not so involved point of view, @Cooper 's approach just seems to bring common sense to the situation. Perhaps there is no need to revamp and restructure the whole forum, but just a strong reminder if the rules and the resources we have (the Ignore and the Report tools) to contribute to our enjoying the environment.

 

That about the clashes that happen around differences of opinions that deviate in uncivil name calling.

 

However, it seems that the current crisis was not actually triggered exclusively by clashing points of views, but by compulsive behaviors that are not really contemplated in the Terms and Rules (I think). This irritating, compulsive, self centered and self serving behavior is a challenge to moderate, and I think it was the condiment that made the differences in PR&W too spicy for @Guy Fawkes . I solved it very easily with the Ignore function, but other friends seem not satisfied with that solution.

 

Most of the brainstormed fixes in this thread are addressing issues that, as pointed by @Cooper , are already contemplated in the Terms and Rules, we just need to do a better job at respecting and enforcing them.

 

But how do you deal with compulsive posters that take over the forum without actually breaking any written rules, which is actually a problem now beyond PR&W? Sometimes Admin has to make tough decisions.

[MikeBiDude]

Two thoughts come to mind as I’m letting all this percolate...

 

1) do we even NEED a politics/war/religion forum? Is it necessary to have this to preserve HooBoy’s gentlemen’s club philosophy? In one way it’s just a “parking spot” to keep politics/war/religion topics OUT of our discussion of escorts, etc. On the other hand I respect that our community may wish to express their political views in some way. Of course, there are dozens of places online for political discussions....do we NEED it here?

 

2) @Guy Fawkes is there a way to “ignore” an entire sub-forum? I for one got “sucked into” the politics forum a year or two ago after never entering it for many, many, MANY years. My own weakness/obligation to stay in out, I take responsibility for that. But....if there was a way to ignore the whole PW&R forum, perhaps the rhetoric there would be subdued.

 

Just thinking out loud....I certainly don’t have the best answers, but I’m certain we as a community we will get there.

[+ Keith30309]

This is interesting

 

I’ve not seen a single person say there isn’t a problem... or even major differences of opinion on what the problem is.

Perhaps there are different thoughts on the root cause of the problem.

 

But the discussion is encouraging in that a reasonable group of people who agree on a problem can surely devise a solution.

 

How about three suggestions of actionable, reasonable solutions and a vote on them as a recommendation to G.F. ?

 

Three ideas,

1. Amend the Terms and Rules Cooper mentions to more directly and aggressively address ad hominem attackers. Moderators continue to monitor and take appropriate action.

2. Immediately repurpose “Report” such that any member can call attention to a post they feel contains “Any personal remark about another poster that could reasonably be regarded as an intentional insult”.

3. Kindly request G.F. investigate enhancements to the software that will allow for crowd-sourcing feedback on posts that violate amended Terms and Rules - I.e., introduction of buttons for “agree”, “disagree” and “foul”.

 

I’m certain that others have some great, practical ideas.