The "Politics, Religion & War Issues" Manifesto

[Lookin]

I agree with you an all your other post but NOT on this one!

 

The powers are the ones who should decided whether to time-out someone or not, not the flock (calling a group of older men behaving like in a High School cafeteria a pack would be a compliment) shouldn't have that power.

 

It wasn't the greatest idea, that's for sure! It started from the premises that (a) we should let folks know when they were being disruptive and (b) site managers and moderators do not want to waste their time running a daycare.

 

 

I learned later that the coding to make the process automated would itself take a lot of work so, in a subsequent post, I backed off the automation idea and kept just the idea of a counter that tallied posts that folks considered disruptive. The final decision on what to do as numbers accumulated would be left up to management.

 

Over the years, I've seen two kinds of disruptive posters: those who have no clue they are ruining the Forum for others, and those who knowingly come here to do exactly that. Personally, I like the idea of letting the first group know how others are perceiving their posts and giving them a chance to learn some new behaviors. That process isn't much different from the socialization skills most of us learn on the playground, and others learn later in life.

 

The second group who is here to willfully engage in pathologic behaviors which drive others away, and create problems for moderators, would not change and would disappear over time. Just as they should. I'm not talking about those who hold "unpopular views" but rather those who are shit-disturbers: disruptors, if you like. I think we all know the difference and my hope is for a system that collects that knowledge and uses it to make the Forum better for those who remain.

 

Over the past few days, others have added better ideas. No doubt that process will continue. It's most heartening to me to hear @Guy Fawkes, @deej, and @Cooper express their desire to see the Politics Forum continue and their willingness to make it happen. But they need our help and it's good to see so many step forward to offer it.

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by Cooper

[bostonman]

I so appreciate that we have all sorts of off-topic sub-sections to the forum, including the Politics one. As I said earlier, one thing I like about this forum is that it's not *just* for its one main topic, and that although we're assumedly all here because of that main topic, that we can get to also enjoy each others' online company through other kinds of discussions. So yes, I feel strongly that we should have a specific place to discuss politics, religion, etc - and especially in this very historic and difficult time.

 

In terms of the "like" button - I was once asked by another poster why I didn't often "like" his posts - the honest answer is that I really would rather respond directly to a post than to "like" it. Occasionally I will hit "like,", when I just don't have anything to add, or when I only have time to make a very quick response. But I'd much rather discuss than to simply hit a default button. (On the gmail account I use at work, I've just noticed a new feature where I can send pre-fab responses to emails - I'm ignoring that, as I'd much rather take the extra few seconds to actually respond like a human being. I also feel the same about "likes" on Facebook - there I may "like" more often but I still tend to prefer to send an actual response.) If there's an implied "rating" system behind likes - well, I just don't play those games, sorry. (I used to frequent a board that had a built-in "karma" system that did the same kind of thing - I hated it. And boy, did people get upset when their karma was going down, etc. Too much drama for me.)

[+ oldNbusted]

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.

 

I'll be honest and admit that while I have read the rules, I missed this nuance about what is actionable for the administration. It certainly could explain the perception the rules were not being enforced equally. Regardless, I think this rule should be changed, it makes the rules situational, which I believe is not a recipe for success.

 

Additionally, this has not been my experience here, as I have never reported anyone for attacking me (I prefer to deal with that myself, if I even feel it's needed) but when another member had a total meltdown and changed his thread title to attack me and continued the attack me in a series of posts in that thread, while I was deciding if I wanted to reply (he was doing a pretty good of incinerating his credibility, so I wasn't sure I needed to interrupt him) the entire thread went away. I realize now that anyone with an understanding of the rules would have concluded that I reported him, which I did not, and I think that's a little unfair to me (I'll live).

 

The Moderators do not discuss on the Message Board alerts received or actions taken.

 

I have seen this happen myself, so moderators have done this. And actually I think we need more of it, not less. I don't believe moderators publicly commenting why a member's public comment is being moderated is a privacy issue. I will say this, most other boards I've been on have a zero-tolerance policy toward forum members publicly commenting on moderation, members are expected make comments about the administration privately to the administration. This is mostly due to these conversations quickly breaking down to arguments about semantics, which are only a distraction.

 

So in the end, I think clear rules, enforced consistently, regardless of how violations are reported, would be helpful.

 

On the topic of forum reputation system, like the one I linked in post #35, this is an attempt to somewhat automate a process. Just like the other rules, it shouldn't be used to shut out different opinions and the people who abuse such a system should be sanctioned in some way. Not perfect, but it's something. It certainly could be run for a bit without any enforcement, just to see if people can get the hang of it. Maybe this would be coupled with some restrictions on new accounts, so new members would have a chance to see how the system works before they can use it. I want to think a reputation system already exists for the forum software, this is far from the first forum to wrestle with the issue.

[Populist Fury]

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?

 

I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have one, but it's always nice having the option to discuss various subjects, including politics. Especially these days when almost everything has become so ridiculously politicized.

 

Vast majority of message boards out there have their own Politics section, whether it's just a single thread, or an entire forum dedicated to the subject. Even the MMA/Wrestling/Boxing mega site I sometimes visit for results has it's own vibrant political section

 

 

BTW: Lots of goodies to share all around.

 

Is there a way to make phone emojis show on the site after the update, or is that something you wouldn't be interested in enabling atm??????

[+ PapaTony]

There is one possible consideration I don’t believe has been raised. Let the PRW forum remain with the caveat that it is a free-for-all and only adults are allowed in the room. Can’t take the heat? Too damn bad, stay away.

 

The overarching rule would be; absolutely NO bleeding / overflow into other forums. Hurt feelings, bad personalities, Ill-will towards another based on PRW interaction ENDS THE MOMENT ONE CLICKS TO ANOTHER FORUM.

 

Honestly I see no way of conditioning behavior. Buttons, warnings, likes, dislikes...people are going to be who they are, do what they do when it comes to devisive issues.

 

Yes I like the PRW forum despite the heat and I wonder if it disappears many might express their energetic personalities in the other forums.

[+ pitman]

A Modest Proposal.....

 

The events which led to the shutdown of the politics forum were almost entirely the result of the compulsive and incessant posting behavior of one member and the reactions to it by others, which included a combination of attempts at friendly persuasion, harsh criticism which sometimes crossed over into personal attacks, ignoring said member, or departing the forums altogether. None of these responses had any effect whatsoever on this person. As others have pointed out, the problem was not confined to the politics forum, but extended to every forum where this member participated.

 

In the time I have been posting here there have been a number of instances of behavior which resulted in timeouts but none rose to the level of the current crisis. We all can probably think of a few posters with whom we sharply disagree and whose behavior we find to be annoying. I think the difference this time was the sheer volume of posts, mostly trivial, diversionary, and/or attention-seeking, which this member made.

 

My suggestion is to place a limit on the number of posts each member can make each day. I can tolerate annoying and/or disagreeable posts from anyone as long as they do not take over the entire forum. If there were a limit of, say 25 posts per member per day, that would force each of us to more carefully consider if what we are about to post contributes any real value or is just diversionary or repetitive. Whenever any discussion becomes dominated by one or a small group of posters it discourages others from participating and often devolves into behavior which devalues the forum for everyone.

[bigvalboy]

On a side note: I vote @Lookin as a alternate or backup moderator...If one is needed. On more than one occasion, his consistent sense of fairness and even temperament has brought calm to an otherwise contentious pile up.

[bostonman]

My suggestion is to place a limit on the number of posts each member can make each day. I can tolerate annoying and/or disagreeable posts from anyone as long as they do not take over the entire forum. If there were a limit of, say 25 posts per member per day, that would force each of us to more carefully consider if what we are about to post contributes any real value or is just diversionary or repetitive. Whenever any discussion becomes dominated by one or a small group of posters it discourages others from participating and often devolves into behavior which devalues the forum for everyone.

 

25 is still a lot, though - enough to still do some damage if one were inclined to do so.

 

I participate in an opera forum which for a long time has limited users to 2 posts a day. Recently that was increased to 3. And yes, such restrictions do make one think more carefully about what is being posted - but it doesn't discourage disruption (several posters still have very annoying approaches to posting and/or are prone to insensitive, caustic replies), and frankly, it results in that I (and surely others) don't post very often.

 

I would not be in favor of limiting the number of posts. But, I appreciate that you're suggesting it - don't get me wrong.

[marylander1940]

Monty Python complete stoning scene from Life of Brian:

 

This thread could use a little humor to add to Marylander1940’s great post on stone throwing. His post shows it is not all that complicated; just requires self policing of our actions.

 

Thank you Marylander1940.

 

I'm glad I inspired you!

 

As @oldNbusted points rules must be enforced equally and a poster's temper tantrum and full out hatred towards a member shouldn't be encourage by others clicking like and posting emojis while enjoying the show.

 

As @PapaTony says if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen yet the heat must have some limits. It amazes me how some who have used cursing often on here when they run out of other ways to express themselves all of the sudden pretend to be little lambs. I understand a member calling someone ignorant but "ignorant Jew" crosses the line and is unnecessary and hurtful.

 

We all know things we have said and have been said to us. I won't go any further on this matter, that pic is pretty clear about it.

 

Limiting the post to 25 per day as @pitman suggest is also a good idea. Considering at least 80% of my posts are pics in the gallery I might need to abandon that forum but I'm sure others would take care of it. I never cared about posting about politics on here. BTW @pitman proposals are never modest! I would gladly nominate him for moderator if he wants.

 

A warning or a threat to X, Y, and Z from posting on YOUR threads, quoting you, etc. can only come from someone who never learned to share toys in kindergarten.

 

At the same time folks who enjoyed the fact that a city with 27,000 people didn't have a polling station have the right to express their opinion. I just wonder what kind of person would feel happy about it.

 

We all have showed passion and multiple threads have been closed because of that. We must end this cafeteria mentality where you always agree with your friends and you don't sit with others, also as I explained above there's always a nicer way to say things.

[marylander1940]

@Lookin (as stated before by another poster), @bigjoey and @WilliamM Would make great moderators.

[+ WilliamM]

Suggestion

 

Modify the rule that only the person attacked can make a valid report. Often nobody is specifically attacked rather a group. To use an actual example: clowns we're viciously attacked when Bozo was still posting here.

 

It was much stronger than just "do away with all clowns."

Edited November 21, 2018 by WilliamM

[instudiocity]

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.

The ground rules aren't the issue. More rules will not correct the problem. Dealing with the "Shirley's"* on a case by case basis is the only way to have a P,R,&W forum.

 

* Shirley the rules don't apply to me!

[+ purplekow]

A Modest Proposal.....

 

The events which led to the shutdown of the politics forum were almost entirely the result of the compulsive and incessant posting behavior of one member and the reactions to it by others, which included a combination of attempts at friendly persuasion, harsh criticism which sometimes crossed over into personal attacks, ignoring said member, or departing the forums altogether. None of these responses had any effect whatsoever on this person. As others have pointed out, the problem was not confined to the politics forum, but extended to every forum where this member participated.

 

In the time I have been posting here there have been a number of instances of behavior which resulted in timeouts but none rose to the level of the current crisis. We all can probably think of a few posters with whom we sharply disagree and whose behavior we find to be annoying. I think the difference this time was the sheer volume of posts, mostly trivial, diversionary, and/or attention-seeking, which this member made.

 

My suggestion is to place a limit on the number of posts each member can make each day. I can tolerate annoying and/or disagreeable posts from anyone as long as they do not take over the entire forum. If there were a limit of, say 25 posts per member per day, that would force each of us to more carefully consider if what we are about to post contributes any real value or is just diversionary or repetitive. Whenever any discussion becomes dominated by one or a small group of posters it discourages others from participating and often devolves into behavior which devalues the forum for everyone.

Some of our more frequent posters are posters of pictures which sometime number more than 100 in a day. While I am not a big fan of the gallery, there are certainly those who are and who take every possible chance to like a photo. I think a limitation of number of posts would effect other fora more than Politics.

[+ pitman]

Some of our more frequent posters are posters of pictures which sometime number more than 100 in a day. While I am not a big fan of the gallery, there are certainly those who are and who take every possible chance to like a photo. I think a limitation of number of posts would effect other fora more than Politics.

Maybe it could be applied selectively to certain fora. I am just putting forward the general idea of limiting the number of posts (perhaps also the number of threads started?). How and where it should be applied and the numeric limit are certainly subjects for discussion.

[marylander1940]

Maybe it could be applied selectively to certain fora. I am just putting forward the general idea of limiting the number of posts (perhaps also the number of threads started?). How and where it should be applied and the numeric limit are certainly subjects for discussion.

 

What about a limit of the threads a member can start per day?

 

5 new threads per day and 25 posts per day.

Edited November 22, 2018 by marylander1940

[Larstrup]

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.

 

I agree with your disagreement of my overarching suggestion. I guess we're all just grasping for solutions here to fix a problem which was suppressed ignored for too long and then was presented to us as if we were the last cigarette smoked before the Surgeon General finally put warnings on the side of the packs of Marlboro's.

[+ WilliamM]

@Larstrup, I am not sure how one could write rules that anticipate a kind-hearted

shut-in who posts compulsively.

[marylander1940]

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.

 

I use the like button for exactly all the same reasons that you do, but I don't click it to show validation for misbehavior when someone out of the blue goes after another member with no other agenda but personal attacks and insults (like c#nt) while hijacking a valid thread. In that case I would suggest the powers to warn those who cheered for him encouraging his actions while enjoying the adrenaline of a free show.

 

I sincerely hope the Politics forum is restored, unfortunately the passions will remain but we can all promise to keep it classy, on subject and as factual as possible. We also should post on it remembering that as gay (or bi) men we're still a minority and we have a lot of haters out there. No need for us to be intolerant with those perceived as lower in the social pyramid.

 

My vote would be to keep the like button but is up to the powers to make that choice and whether to bring back the politics forum or not. Unfortunately when "like" was created it didn't keep some from posting emojis or the typical "+1" or "I agree" it was supposed to stop the need to do that.

[bigvalboy]

Suggestion

 

Modify the rule that only the person attacked can make a valid report. Often nobody is specifically attacked rather a group. To use an actual example: clowns we're viciously attacked when Bozo was still posting here.

 

It was much stronger than just "do away with all clowns."

 

As Cooper mentioned up-thread, I believe that's how it is now. Only the person being attacked can submit a "report, if I'm understanding you correctly. I always felt that was a bad idea, because as several members have mentioned, they will never report an offending post when they are being attacked, which allows the troll behavior to continue, even as other posters recognize the problem. I think if anyone is allowed to report trolling, stalking, or harassment, then perhaps admin can correct the problem sooner. I agree however that this would put an additional burden on the moderators, so perhaps adding another moderator to help out would be a good idea...

Edited November 22, 2018 by bigvalboy

[+ bigjoey]

. I always felt that was a bad idea, because as several members have mentioned, they will never report an offending post when they are being attacked, which allows the troll behavior to continue, even as other posters recognize the problem.

 

I plead “guilty” of not reporting offensive posts that are replying to a post of mine. I may just have a thick skin but mostly I believe that the offensive posts with lies, bullying, name calling, etc reflect back on the offending poster. The offensive posters just shows they do not have counter facts or that they can not point out errors in facts or logic. The offensive posters just looks juvenile.

 

I think that most of the readers understand Keith30309’s pyramid and that posters whose behavior is at the bottom lose credibility while those behavior is at the top are believable.

 

I think that everyone recognizes obnoxious postings and bullying postings and just chalks it up the unhealthy personality of the posters. When my opponent has destroyed himself in full view of all the readers, I feel vindicated in my original post and do not report him.

 

I would prefer a real exchange of ideas that stay on a high plane and at the top of Keith30309’s pyramid. That is the ideal and something to which we should all aspire. We would all benefit if everyone acted in a mature manner but some show a personality over time, with many postings that their growth is stunted and their behavior patterns are fixed. I almost feel like telling those obnoxious posters:

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I used the male pronoun because while I differ on some issues from our female poster and we go back and forth, I do not recall postings at the bottom of Keith30309’s pyramid. Our exchanges have managed to remain at the top of the pyramid. The few people with obnoxious replies to my posts are males. I want to be clear that I am not referring to her.

[+ tassojunior]

There is one possible consideration I don’t believe has been raised. Let the PRW forum remain with the caveat that it is a free-for-all and only adults are allowed in the room. Can’t take the heat? Too damn bad, stay away.

 

The overarching rule would be; absolutely NO bleeding / overflow into other forums. Hurt feelings, bad personalities, Ill-will towards another based on PRW interaction ENDS THE MOMENT ONE CLICKS TO ANOTHER FORUM.

 

Honestly I see no way of conditioning behavior. Buttons, warnings, likes, dislikes...people are going to be who they are, do what they do when it comes to devisive issues.

 

Yes I like the PRW forum despite the heat and I wonder if it disappears many might express their energetic personalities in the other forums.

 

 

That's pretty much how it was..........Sparta !

Tulsi Gabbard would be timed out; she called Trump "Saudi Arabia's Bitch" yesterday.

Edited November 22, 2018 by tassojunior

[+ E.T.Bass]

I'm curious to visit and see how LGBT people conduct their political discussions on other Websites.

What other active forums are there with ongoing political discussions similar to m4m-forum.org?

[+ PapaTony]

I'm curious to visit and see how LGBT people conduct their political discussions on other Websites.

What other active forums are there with ongoing political discussions similar to m4m-forum.org?

https://www.lpsg.com/forums/politics.42/

[Populist Fury]

Tulsi Gabbard would be timed out; she called Trump "Saudi Arabia's Bitch" yesterday.

 

That short tweet triggered many of the worst people of this nation, from both sides of the political spectrum <3

[+ E.T.Bass]

https://www.lpsg.com/forums/politics.42/

Thanks for the link.