Time for a Politics Forum Section?

[sachmo71]

I think some more mods would help immensely.
They better be thick skinned people, though.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

decreased posting or having to go to separate forums would make it all to easy for me to just move on to something else.

Then it's agreed. We separate the forums!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I think some more mods would help immensely.
They better be thick skinned people, though.

I think this is the answer!

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I'd relish a confrontation with you in the pit but you've already given yourself the weenie way out with your last sentence.

there isn't anything someone from Phoenix, AZ could say to me that would ever make me feel bad. knowing that, have a go at it.

[QuikSand]

With more mods, isn't there a risk that we'll end up with moderation-by-the-toughest? If we have five or six people empowered to hand out suspensions and the like, won't this turn into a system where anyone who offends any of the mods to a certain degree gets punished?

If your opinion is that the forum management is too hands-off now, I can see how this would be attractive. But I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that assessment.

[Senator]

I am sitting on the fence on this issue, testing the political winds, listening to my focus groups before I commit to an opinion.

[sachmo71]

I've seen message board where they have had multiple mods, and it's worked pretty effectively. If they are quality individuals who don't abuse their position, then it can work. I think it would be easier to deal with then 1 or 2 mods having to move threads whenever they get out of control to another forum.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

With more mods, isn't there a risk that we'll end up with moderation-by-the-toughest? If we have five or six people empowered to hand out suspensions and the like, won't this turn into a system where anyone who offends any of the mods to a certain degree gets punished?

If your opinion is that the forum management is too hands-off now, I can see how this would be attractive. But I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that assessment.

It depends on the mods and the rules; I've been in forums that had multiple (more than 5, even) moderators, and things ran very smooth.

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by Senator

I am sitting on the fence on this issue, testing the political winds, listening to my focus groups before I commit to an opinion.

Well, well played.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

With more mods, isn't there a risk that we'll end up with moderation-by-the-toughest? If we have five or six people empowered to hand out suspensions and the like, won't this turn into a system where anyone who offends any of the mods to a certain degree gets punished?

If your opinion is that the forum management is too hands-off now, I can see how this would be attractive. But I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that assessment.

Hah. Make me moderator, and I'll un-ban everybody.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Senator

I am sitting on the fence on this issue, testing the political winds, listening to my focus groups before I commit to an opinion.

moved

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If your opinion is that the forum management is too hands-off now, I can see how this would be attractive. But I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that assessment.

I was out of town for a week, so I've just gone back and read some of the threads that I think triggered this. Wow. I don't know what to say.

I'm generally not of the mind that this board is too hands-off, but after capsicom's (sp?) performance (although I could see some of it was deleted) in the original hurricane thread and the more recent NoMyths thread, how is she not in the penalty box?

If that stuff is going to go on, then I'm tentatively in support of QS's idea. The garbage is just too much and it does reflect very poorly on the board.

[Fritz]

quik is always stirring shit up.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

With more mods, isn't there a risk that we'll end up with moderation-by-the-toughest? If we have five or six people empowered to hand out suspensions and the like, won't this turn into a system where anyone who offends any of the mods to a certain degree gets punished?

If your opinion is that the forum management is too hands-off now, I can see how this would be attractive. But I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that assessment.

I actually think the moderation is pretty poor, and way too hands-ON. Now having said that, I don't see that changing, so what I would like to see is a group of moderators who will enforce the rules across the board, no matter the time of day or the post count of the offender. As it is now, it only happens when the current moderator has time or feels like it. Does that make sense?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I actually think the moderation is pretty poor, and way too hands-ON. Now having said that, I don't see that changing, so what I would like to see is a group of moderators who will enforce the rules across the board, no matter the time of day or the post count of the offender. As it is now, it only happens when the current moderator has time or feels like it. Does that make sense?

But there is no circumstance where the forum rules are going to be cut and dried - there will always be judgment calls. Trolling, or offering aggressive opinions? Personal attacks, or just aggressive debate? Harmful to the forum community, or just offensive to me personally? Whatever you define to be against the rules, there are going to be disagreements about where that line should be drawn, and whether it applies to any given circumstance.

If there really exists a council of people who are willing to make these sort of decisions collectively and as fairly as possible, I suppose that sounds fine, though I have rarely seen a situation where creating a bureaucracy really makes things more efficient or effective. By doing so these volunteers would seem to subject themselves to the sort of abuse that SkyDog receives (from people on both sides of nearly every issue of consequence), which seems to me like rather thankless work.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by vtbub

Well, well played.

Partisan lickspittle.

[Bee]

If we open up a political sub-forum, I think the only choice of mod would be Quiksand since he started all this...

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Partisan lickspittle.

uh-uh.

rotunda cloakroom monkie.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Bee

If we open up a political sub-forum, I think the only choice of mod would be Quiksand since he started all this...

I second the motion.

[sachmo71]

monkey. sorry.

i don't know why i have such a hard time with that word.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

monkey. sorry.

i don't know why i have such a hard time with that word.

I think you're blinded by lust.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I think you're blinded by lust.

bingo.


you know, it might surprise you what a chimp will do for a smoke.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Can't we just convert the Hattrick forum in to a policital forum? I mean, it's not being used, is it?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I actually think the moderation is pretty poor, and way too hands-ON.

I agree on the former ... and totally disagree with the latter. Frankly, this forum is about as laxly (is that a word?) moderated as any I've ever been any part of. And I've yet to see one moderated as lightly as this one that has survived in any meaningful form.

BUT ...

I don't put all that on the mods themselves (or at least not on their mod style), I put a lot of that on the lack of clearly defined rules that are then enforced as equitably as human mods can manage.

----
Separately, to the issue of "the main board will lose posts" ... so friggin' what?
We aren't in any post-count competitions I'm aware of, there's no prize for having the most posts per forum, so WTF difference does it make what the post count is or which sub-forum the posts are on?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Separately, to the issue of "the main board will lose posts" ... so friggin' what?
We aren't in any post-count competitions I'm aware of, there's no prize for having the most posts per forum, so WTF difference does it make what the post count is or which sub-forum the posts are on?

The only fear I have (and it is entirely hypothetical at this point) is that FOFC would dip below a critical mass of posts. Boards die not when everyone stops posting, but when there isn't enough content to maintain a steady supply of viewers who post. In the Sideline days, there were times when there were substantially less threads in a given day. If the number of threads had dipped lower, the board could have easily changed to just-another-fan-site-board. IMO, because of OT: posts, the board survived and thrived. Politics is an important area for maintaining that OT: critical mass. Since FOFC is pretty healthy now, I don't see a risk in board death, but if times get leaner, politics could help keep things "active."

With that being said, however, I'm still tentatively in favor of QS's proposal.

[Kodos]

I think they're saying the more posts in a centralized area, the more interested folks will be in the board. Nobody wants to search for threads in 15 different forums.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think they're saying the more posts in a centralized area, the more interested folks will be in the board. Nobody wants to search for threads in 15 different forums.

i certainly don't.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think they're saying the more posts in a centralized area, the more interested folks will be in the board. Nobody wants to search for threads in 15 different forums.

How about "three"? Think you could "handle" that?

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Bah, keep them all together. It makes the community more fun.

Though if we really need to get rid of some, a "Politics Penalty Box" as revrew stated may be the answer.

Let me note my support for this idea. I also thinking marking threads with pol- is a good idea that should be the norm. Other than that, I'm against a seperate forum.

[sabotai]

I agree with QS. "It's a bad idea whose time has come."

Nothing makes me want to leave this forum more than a thread that is political that degrades to mudslinging or a nonpolitical thread turned political truend to mudslinging. At least with this idea, it would cut it down considerably. If it cuts down a little on me seeing good posts and the activity of GD in general, I feel it's worth it.

It's no exaggeration when I say most of the time I come to FOFC now, it's to read or post in the Dynasty section. It's because of the garbage that threads oftan turn into.

[albionmoonlight]

Having read this thread and weighed the issue, I agree with a separate forum.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think they're saying the more posts in a centralized area, the more interested folks will be in the board. Nobody wants to search for threads in 15 different forums.

General all-purpose thanks to both you & JG for giving a straight answer to what really was a straight question. I really didn't get the point of that whole part of the discussion, at least now I get the point ... even if I don't agree with it.

My counter to that would be that "we aren't talking about 15 different forums", we're talking about (as far as I can tell) ONE "NHB" forum. Somebody mentioned one called "The Pit", one memorable example I recall was simply titled "Enter At Your Own Risk".

Those who choose to visit it know what they're getting, those who want to avoid it can do so. It's one forum.

As far the "critical mass" situation that JG referred to, I think there's a reasonable argument to be considered at this point that goes something like "if the political threads are all that's keeping the forum at critical mass, maybe it's time it be allowed to rest in peace anyway."

I do believe there's a devil of a detail to be worked out in determining whether it's all political items vs all potentially political items (I'd favor the latter, but can at least see where there's a debate on that distinction). And if moderator workload is even a tiny part of the equation as part of the equation then I would strongly support the addition of "specialty mods" to handle the transfer of items to the appropriate forum. Even with the immense political gulfs that exist here, surely 2-4 people chosen from across the spectrum can manage to identify when a thread is political or when it isn't.

Heck, in a rare concession of power to the other side of the aisle() I'd even be very supportive of a model that allowed any one "thread location moderator" to relocate a thread unilaterally; i.e. if I think it's politcal, it moves even if JG disagrees, likewise if he thinks so & I don't. Any one mod is enough to make the call.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i disagree. i'm bothered more by the most retarded theads started by QS than the political threads. QS must think he's the most interesting person in the world, what with the schlock he posts that he thinks passes as entertainment

Why does every thread here have to entertain YOU? Lots of people post here looking for all kinds of information, why not ask if someone has a favorite towel. It makes as much sense as the werewolf threads, or best song, hottest chicks, asking about recommendations for tv's, computers, recipes, laptops, etc.

[Cuckoo]

Having read this thread and weighed the issue, I'm against a separate forum. I actually agree with Papa Simpson.

[Raiders Army]

I agree with the separate forum and the Politics Penalty Box as well.

I also offer to moderate the Werewolf Forum.

[Franklinnoble]

Having read this thread and weighed the issue, I think people who cry about politics and religion creeping into their precious little threads need to find a better outlet for their frustration.

[JeeberD]

At Clutchfans.net they have a forum called "Debate & Discussion" and that's basically where all the politcal, religious, and other combustable threads go. Basically the rules are not to get personal or else you'll get kicked out of the D&D...either for a predetermined amount of time or permanently if you're a repeat offender. As the forum description reads...

Monkeys flinging poo at each other. Politics, Religion, Race and other heated topics you wouldn't fire away on in polite conversation. Not for the weak of heart, but keep it civilized or you'll get the heave.

If a thread that should be in D&D is started in General Discussion, it gets moved. If I thread starts to spiral out of control, it gets moved to D&D. And that system works pretty well over there, though they do have six or eight mods (some have powers confined to individual forums, though) who report to a central admin.

[terpkristin]

This thread has been an interesting read.

I must confess, I don't read much of the political-related threads here, so this doesn't really affect me...either I skip over the threads in a politics specific "board area" or I skip over them here in the general discussion area.

I find it particularly interesting because of the thread I created for updates on the status of those affected by Katrina. While that thread has stayed very good (thanks to everybody for that!), I don't know that there are many threads with such heavy topics that could.

As weird as it is for me to say this, most of the political threads here revolve around somewhat breaking news/current events. It strikes me that having a place for this type of news in particular would be a breeding ground for political discussion...which isn't necessarily bad, so long as the "news" portion of the thread is covered in the first post (such as Rehnquist's death thread, which covered the important parts in the first post and then got into some interesting debates...).

While I don't necessarily think that there needs to be a special forum section for political discussions, I do think it could work as follows:
Thread on breaking news story in general forum with a link to a parallel thread in political forum for political discussion. Thread in general forum gets used for updating the news aspects (such as in the case of Rehnquist, information on his body lying for repose for public view). Political thread could wend it's way doing whatever it does politically speaking, with a few ground rules including those in a previous post (similar to The Straight Dope's Pit area).

I understand that two "parallel threads" (though they probably wouldn't stay parallel for very long) might get too much for the board to handle, so that's a consideration, too. Just strikes me that there should be a place for actual news and a place for views, and a way to get both if they're wanted but otherwise have that "natural filter" to avoid the "views" if you want...

/tk

[Mountain]

I disagree with the need for a new forum. I enjoy the diversity of threads that are in general discussion. Frequently, I will discuss things with my wife that appear in the political type threads that I may not even have thought about had I not read them. While I have had disagreements with memebers of the board in the past I enjoy a spirited debate and the process of having my position challenged and having to defend it..

If we move these threads then we will inevitably lose some posters to these threads which would be a bad thing IMO. One of the reasons I come to this forum daily is because of all the information that is posted here and politics is a major part of that component.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Having read this thread and weighed the issue, I think people who cry about politics and religion creeping into their precious little threads need to find a better outlet for their frustration.

...says the guy who wants to turn the U.S. into a Christian theocracy....

[kurtism]

I demand this thread be moved to the political forum.

[WSUCougar]

Here we go...

[antbacker]

No seperate forum. It will get boring very quickly otherwise

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

...says the guy who wants to turn the U.S. into a Christian theocracy....

Christ is already the king. You just haven't acknowledged it yet. If you live long enough, you might see him assume the role in the flesh.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Having read this thread and weighed the issue, I'm against a separate forum. I actually agree with Papa Simpson.

Who-Hoo!! In your face, Kickstand!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Christ is already the king.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Blackadar]

I considered this waaaay back when and rejected it. I still think it's unnecessary.

This is an idea that floats back up to the surface every once in a while and then sinks again. It almost always floats at the start of the football season, when there's enough on-topic (sports, new game by Solecismic) subjects to justify moving it. It's when things get dull where you find you need it so the forums continue to have a hearbeat.

From a mod's standpoint, many subjects can turn into a political thread. Drawing the line is never easy and you're almost forced to move threads constantly. It takes a lot of time and moderating a political forum is rather difficult because the temptation is too great to ban users who disagree loudly with your favorite political position.

We wouldn't even be discussing this seriously if it wasn't for a certain she-who-must-not-be-named bitchtroll (TM, Blackadar 2005). The easy solution is to ban her and if her husband wants to complain, show him the door too.

[Antmeister]

I see where everyone is going with it and I was almost willing to go in this direction, but then I realized why people want a seperate area. The only reason people want a seperate forum is because of how most of them degenerate into name calling, hatred filled posts and some borderline trolling. This happens without the need of politics though.

By creating a seperate section, they will still have to follow the same rules unless you want to make it an "Enter at your own risk area." If that were to happen, most of the people who primarily come to the board motivated to talk about politics will dwindle since a lot of the posters actually like to have a dialouge and not an insult ridden tirades. Now if it weren't a "free to say anything area", I don't see why we have a need for this since everyone will have to follow the same rules.

And what happens when the topic can fall in both areas. The latest hurricane threads can fall into general discussion, but there are politics involved. People will talk about the tragedy (General discussion) and people will talk about what should have been done (Politics). And what if Hell Atlantic were to start another one of his sexual fantasy threads that dealt with Barbara Bush? Or what if someone posts their favorite song from Kanye West? I mean these have the potential to degenerate into political bashing really quick and I don't see how they can be seperated.

To be honest, I would like to see some rules, or at least guidelines to these forums. Sometimes there is that sticky of the top for links, but maybe it could be expanded a bit with some general guidelines.

Yet that is easy for me to say since I have no idea where to start. I mean I actually enjoy reading some of the risque material on the board, but somewhere there is a line that is crossed and I can't really define where the line is. One of the recent threads that was locked is a clear example. Someone posted about an email they received from a friend who knows someone at the Astrodome (hmmmm.....sounds complicated. No this is not a Flasch post). Anyways upon reading the thread, it was pretty much racist and mean spirited. Yet the original poster stated that it was not their opinion. How would you moderate that? Especailly when you see another thread about some guy called the "Amazing Racist?". Sure the Amazing Racist is a comedian, but where the frick is that line for questionable material? I didn't really care for either and promptly left the thread.

So in other words Skydog is basically moderating a place where he trying to balance against not too offensive and not too sterile and that is what has made this place fascinating to me and why I have always come back. That is why it would be difficult to come up with a set of general rules and why having a seperate section may not be a good idea.

[Chapter 1 complete]

[Senator]

That entry, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.

[Franklinnoble]

If you don't like it, ignore it. This "ban the people we don't like" crap is stupid.