The "Politics, Religion & War Issues" Manifesto

[+ Awwshuck]

Looks like things have fallen apart in my absence. Same thing will happen when ah leave the boss at the end of the year

[+ Keith30309]

Good discussion.

 

What other ideas do people have that Guy and/or members can reasonably implement that will sustain a healthy Political forum ?

 

Someone out there has a great idea in their head. Unzip and let it hang out.

 

[+ stevenkesslar]

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.

 

Wow.

 

Are you suggesting that a political forum should actually mirror the way politics works in the US?

 

You mean it should not be organized like a little girls' tea party with cookies and little donuts and pink ribbons and Mommy and Daddy making sure that everyone smiles and only says nice things?

 

Wow. What a weird idea.

 

Of course, in relative terms, politics in the US is quite docile. In much of the world if you are a journalist and you write something that Putin or some narco-trafficker doesn't like, you just end up with a bullet in your head. Probably we should not try that here.

[+ stevenkesslar]

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.

 

Wow.

 

Are you suggesting that a political forum should actually mirror the way politics works in the US?

 

You mean it should not be organized like a little girls' tea party with cookies and little donuts and pink ribbons and Mommy and Daddy making sure that everyone smiles and only says nice things?

 

Wow. What a weird idea.

 

Of course, in relative terms, politics in the US is quite docile. In much of the world if you are a journalist and you write something that Putin or some narco-trafficker doesn't like, you just end up with a bullet in your head. Probably we should not try that here.

[+ sync]

In much of the world if you are a journalist and you write something that Putin or some narco-trafficker doesn't like, you just end up with a bullet in your head. Probably we should not try that here.

 

I have the sensation that it's already on the DC drawing board.

[+ sync]

In much of the world if you are a journalist and you write something that Putin or some narco-trafficker doesn't like, you just end up with a bullet in your head. Probably we should not try that here.

 

I have the sensation that it's already on the DC drawing board.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Wow.

 

Are you suggesting that a political forum should actually mirror the way politics works in the US?

 

You mean it should not be organized like a little girls' tea party with cookies and little donuts and pink ribbons and Mommy and Daddy making sure that everyone smiles and only says nice things?

 

Wow. What a weird idea.

 

Of course, in relative terms, politics in the US is quite docile. In much of the world if you are a journalist and you write something that Putin or some narco-trafficker doesn't like, you just end up with a bullet in your head. Probably we should not try that here.

 

The forum may perhaps reflect the way that American Politics work should the participants were not able to hide behind sexy fantasy names like latbearblk. There are not many Stevenkesslars here.

[+ WilliamM]

@stevenkesslar, a number of people worked with you to help Jeffrey and Rentboy, including me. And I am ready and willing to help in any other gay- related causes you support. The Palm Springs weekend is not very important to me because I live on the east coast. I would be much more interested if the weekend events took place in or near Los Angeles

 

However, It would greatly matter to me if the political forum was closed. It is a place to share opinions and strategize with others, including wonderful people like @FreshFluff and @quoththeraven and many smart, funny and caring gay men.

[bostonman]

However, It would greatly matter to me if the political forum was closed. It is a place to share opinions and strategize with others, including wonderful people like @FreshFluff and @quoththeraven and many smart, funny and caring gay men.

 

I second that.

[mike carey]

Sort of à propos of @Kenny's comment on dog whistles, after the state election in Victoria on Saturday where the conservative opposition campaigned (and lost, big time) on law and order (subtext: alleged Sudanese gangs) and classic Conservative hot button issues (LGBTI issues, a safe injecting room) a commentator observed that dog whistles no longer work (or at least work less well) because people now see through them and know exactly what they mean. Much of the recent debate here on the right has been about how the [conservative] Liberal Party was abandoning its base and losing ground because of that. Some hard right pundits claimed that the Liberals lost on Saturday because they weren't right wing enough. The more widely accepted interpretation is that although the Liberal Party may have had a conservative membership base, their more progressive electoral base had abandoned them on Saturday. One moderate Liberal senator opined this morning that Liberal voters were sick of conservative views shoved down their throats. [There may be no lessons in this for the US. Here we have compulsory voting, so staying at home on election day isn't an option.]

 

As to Steven's questions, is what I have said necessary in these forums. My answer is no, but it might be interesting to some people. Is it really a political discussion? I would say no, but it is a comment on how politics works differently in different countries (and that observations on one polity don't translate to another, political systems and popular attitudes to issues are too different).

 

If we have a politics forum, should it be about politics in general, or about activism for issues that affect this community? One of the fallacies that we fight is that general politics and LGBTI politics are separate. They are but they aren't. While there are specific battles that are ours and ours alone, all political issues affect us as much as they affect anyone else. The argument that something is not an LGBTI issue is an argument to marginalise us. We don't need other people to tell us what we as a group should be interested in. That said, although I can see in interest in discussing politics in general, I see little appetite here for specific activism.

[bigvalboy]

This past year I asked this question: what if there can't be a party next year, because the website that helps promote it - this one - is shut down? Perhaps we should consider doing something political to protect this website, and escorting more generally? Both Oliver and Epigonos reacted in a way that was completely predictable: not on my radar. They both had a clear and deeply felt feeling: this party and website and community has been wonderful to be part of for years. And if it goes away, so be it. It was a fine affair, but hey - now it's over.

 

After last year's pool party, and seeing how clear and common the feeling was that this is a community not worth fighting for, I just decided it was better to quit than fight. I may be a dumb whore. But I'm not stupid.

 

Political correctness aside:

 

I can't speak for Oliver or Epigonos, nor do I know why they have the feeling that if the party is over, then so be it. I will say that in speaking with several members over the last several days, that seems to be a common thread, myself included. My thoughts? The list is far too long of those that have come here and posted and enriched my life, and you Steven would certainly be at the top of that list. Oh yes, we've had our outs, but you're pretty damn smart for an ignorant whore. I will always admire your contributions here and to the world. I have met some wonderful friends here, many will be lifelong. I have learned more on this forum, than most could imagine, but it has never felt like a community to me, never. There has always been a disconnect between those that post here and those that run the place. At every turn, in private messages, emails, phone calls, over a meal or casual conversation, everyone always seemed to be walking on eggshells, afraid to cross the "powers that be,". It wears on you over time, it was tiresome, so when someone asked me the other day, "What do you think will happen to the forum?" My reaction was similar to your friends.

 

Last week something changed. Can't put my finger on it really, but you could feel things unraveling. Does that translate into what your friends were talking about, I don't know, but I wouldn't be so quick to put blame on anyone who doesn't want to fight for this place. Everyone here is different, they come here for different reasons, and stay for different reasons, I just don't see the the PR&W forum surviving under the guidelines being proposed. Politics is too personal, too emotional, too divisive, too partisan in this climate.

 

Anyway, that's all I got. I'll be here until I log on one day and I get the message. "You've been banned for the following reasons" Then I'll quietly exit stage left, and my life will go on as it did before.

 

Cheers to all those that make this place so special. You know who you are.

[+ WilliamM]

@bigvalboy, I have never met the people who run this site, or HooBoy years before. l did work with Guy once briefly on a personal matter years ago, but we really do not know each other.

 

Now I am beginning to think it is not a bad thing to live almost three thousand miles away from the Palm Springs events.

 

I will be very sad if the political forum closes for good - devastated. But, I will not be blaming specific people.

[rvwnsd]

...At every turn, in private messages, emails, phone calls, over a meal or casual conversation, everyone always seemed to be walking on eggshells, afraid to cross the "powers that be,"...

 

It is my hope and belief that by "everyone" you referring to "everyone you talked to" and not generalizing that all of the members are afraid to "cross the powers that be?" If my hope has been dashed and my belief unfounded, subtract one from the tally for me, please. There is no reason to fear "crossing the powers that be." All one has to do is follow the "Terms and Rules."

 

Unlike many Forum members, I've read those terms and rules. They are clear, common sense-based, and easy to follow. It baffles me why so many members have such a hard time with them. On the few occasions where I've found a post to be so shocking, disturbing, or counter to the rules that I've felt something needed to be done, I've reported the post. In most of the cases, immediate action was taken. In one case, a moderator informed me that they were monitoring the post and in another it was politely pointed out that I was incorrectly interpreting the rules. When I've had a question about whether something I wanted to post would violate one of the terms and rules I've asked and received a polite, cordial answer. What's to fear about that?

[+ quoththeraven]

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

Others may have responded and I don't have time to go through all the subsequent posts, but I feel strongly that the requirement that a complaint come from the person attacked should be dropped. Oftentimes there is a strategic reason behind it - for one thing it can result in poisoning any relationship between the people involved if a reprimand occurs - and if the goal is a sense of community, community rather than individual reporting is necessary.

Edited December 1, 2018 by quoththeraven

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

Hard agree.

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

I thought (and still think) the most sensible solution would be to permanently ban the individual involved from the PRW forum but let him post to his heart's content elsewhere. That seems like a good balance between the health of the community and that individual's need for attention/social interaction.

 

Also any ToS worth its salt will have an out for a situation like this where a participant is disruptive but doesn't engage in personal insults. Just being disruptive should be enough to allow for timeouts, permanent or temporary.

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

Thank you for that endorsement. I would also like to say that it's an endorsement of law school as a place where one learns how to make cogent arguments without engaging in ad hominem attacks.

 

There have been times I wished some of my fellow posters understood how to do this.

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

In this instance, I am not sure it would have the same effect, as the behavior involved seems compulsive rather than thought through. It might have resulted in more threads started rather than less.

[Guy Fawkes]

Since the last 14 posts are off-topic, I shutting down thread. I'm disappointed.