Since the mods seem to be struggling with politics, again, and issuing bans, and I'm seeing politics turning up over and over again because, let's be honest, 'little plastic men is now political' no matter how hard we try to deny it, since GW and people like Arch have made it so. I understand the forum's position, but we're reaching the 'head in sand denial of reality' level now.
So, A suggestion on dealing with this:
Send them to the Wasteland. FFS that forum *exists* to take Dakka political BS overflow, but mods cannot seem to be bothered to use it. BrookM had a nice long post in a locked thread about this issue, but completely forgot that this tool exists, and it was specifically created as a solution *for this problem*.
So, might I suggest that we have a politely worded cut-and-paste that the mods apply to political locks/post deletions that contains a link and a 'helpful suggestion' that this line of discussion is better taken to an appropriate forum, as we would any other OT commentary, and ship them over to Wasteland.
I don’t disagree with redirecting people. The issue of people bringing up politics is against the rules of the establishment.
If someone posted *lewd* photos, would the reaction be to suggest they instead post on Lewdhub instead? Or would a “stop it or you get the boot” be appropriate?
And because I’m a bad person, were this to unfold without said lewd photo being deleted, and instead the mod posted a, “Hey, have you heard of Lewdhub before? You should check it out!” Message, I might lose control of my bladder.
From what I've seen, there haven't been a lot of issues with politics, and there certainly haven't been many suspensions. If something is getting too political (usually in OT) just hit the mod alert button.
A cut-and-paste message isn't a bad idea, there were some real gems that old-school mods used back in the day . But the Wasteland, while I was one of the main proponents of having people migrate that discussion over there early on, doesn't seem like the best fit to direct people to due to its majorly NSFW environment. Is there another good political discussion site someone could suggest?
I'm genuinely curious for myself as well - with the administration change in the US, I'm hoping it will be possible to have civil discourse about certain social issues again, and would like to find a place to do so. Facebook isn't a good fit for it, imo, but there must be a Dakka-like alternative geared specifically for politics somewhere. Suggestions very welcome!
The internet is full of debate forums, I'm sure you can find a few political ones.
That being said, civil discourse regarding the current American politics? they are so polarizing that one of the forums I'm a member already had a schism that produced a smaller forum of the opposite political wing.
RiTides wrote: From what I've seen, there haven't been a lot of issues with politics, and there certainly haven't been many suspensions. If something is getting too political (usually in OT) just hit the mod alert button.
A cut-and-paste message isn't a bad idea, there were some real gems that old-school mods used back in the day . But the Wasteland, while I was one of the main proponents of having people migrate that discussion over there early on, doesn't seem like the best fit to direct people to due to its majorly NSFW environment. Is there another good political discussion site someone could suggest?
I'm genuinely curious for myself as well - with the administration change in the US, I'm hoping it will be possible to have civil discourse about certain social issues again, and would like to find a place to do so. Facebook isn't a good fit for it, imo, but there must be a Dakka-like alternative geared specifically for politics somewhere. Suggestions very welcome!
RiTides wrote: From what I've seen, there haven't been a lot of issues with politics, and there certainly haven't been many suspensions. If something is getting too political (usually in OT) just hit the mod alert button.
A cut-and-paste message isn't a bad idea, there were some real gems that old-school mods used back in the day . But the Wasteland, while I was one of the main proponents of having people migrate that discussion over there early on, doesn't seem like the best fit to direct people to due to its majorly NSFW environment. Is there another good political discussion site someone could suggest?
I'm genuinely curious for myself as well - with the administration change in the US, I'm hoping it will be possible to have civil discourse about certain social issues again, and would like to find a place to do so. Facebook isn't a good fit for it, imo, but there must be a Dakka-like alternative geared specifically for politics somewhere. Suggestions very welcome!
That is the magic question. Most of the forums I've seen that permit that also permit the NSFW stuff as well. Maybe we should start a new forum for this? Or if Wastelands mods were more active we could do something about it, but atm...
I bring it up because I keep seeing Necromunda threads dipping into it over what minis are getting reprinted from classic Necromunda.
I'll say this, people are right that american politics is too toxic now. We have people on one side openly calling for the extermination of huge segments of america's population, and not being investigated for incitement too violence or charged with it.
In most countries this speech gets you in custody and blocked from media.
I'm ok with Dakkadakka doing a total clamp down on politics when you look at how another game board handled it.
The largest rpg net site (Mostly due it snagging an easy to remember domain name early on) allows ONE side of social, political and economic issues to be discussed and promoted while instantly silencing the other side completely. Dakkadakka is doing it better than that. A total shutdown is far better than a totally one sided biased site based on the mods personal biases.
As much as I dislike not being able to discuss issues of science, economics, society, etc because they have ALL become totally politicized, I gotta say the mods here are doing a decent job dealing with a total gakstorm situation. So,
There is a reason encampments build latrines, and why even 4chan uses containment boards. If you need to poo, do you poo into a latrine pit, or just walk into the middle of the encampment and drop trow right there, then spread it around the entire camp? Setting an arbitrary rule about politics, especially for GW games, is never going to work because people will ALWAYS skirt the line, and GW themselves put political content in the games lore. 40k, while not intended to be a satire of 80s British Politics, did incorporate some aspects of it and it permeates the work as a whole, no matter how much you put your hands on your ears and go Do-da-lalala!
Just make a containment forum, the latrine, and FAIRLY (and I mean the actual definition of fairly) enforce the rule that all political topics go in the latrine. Make it clear that the mods will not care about Mean Words On The Internet in the latrine, if you choose to roll about in the latrine, you're going to get covered in poo, and cover everyone else in there in poo. The only things mods will take action on in the latrine is spam and actual (as in actual, not twitter-grade) harassment (as well as the usual legal stuff like piracy).
If you want to talk about politics, or whatever arbitrary topic the God-Moderators decide should be banned this month, you go to the latrine.
If a thread turns political because people think fictional government system Zingiberales is similar to real world government system Ortervirales when Bananas have about as much in common with a Soymovirus, and can't stop arguing about how because Andy Chambers used an errant comma in one ancient fluff piece it means he wants to wipe out all dolphins who are within three shades of a specific pantone shade of grey, delete the posts, tell them to take up the topic in the latrine.
Want to talk about how the alt-right conservative centrist communist fascists have infiltrated some aspect of a hobby that has a place on this forum? To the latrine.
Keep spreading poo outside the latrine? Keep bringing poo FROM the latrine outside? You get locked in the latrine for a while to ponder on your life choices.
To carry on the latrine vibe... people come out reeking of poo.
And the people that fought in the latrine tend to bring their ill-will with them. So Abe and Bill argued from opposite sides of the latrine, and both pasted each other with that which comes from the south end of north bound creatures.
Are they physically, mentally, emotionally, and dare I say spiritually capable of leaving their poop at the door? Is it possible they will let bygones be bygones? Yes. It is *possible*. But it is not *probable*. It isn’t uncommon. It isn’t even rare... we’re talking Mythic level improbable. Plot armour level isn’t gonna happen.
That’s what goes down. I’ve been a flinger. I used to think people, exposed to my “truth” would see the error of their ways. Turns out, other people think the same thing. And sometimes it works. I’m fortunate to have had many conversations in my life where I’ve changed a fundamental part of myself. And I think I’ve done the same for others.
But a *solid* 95% of such conversations never had a chance to change the mind of either engaged person. I love a good argument / debate... but that’s not what happens 80% of those 95. It turns into poop flinging. And it feels great to get your stinger out and poke holes in your opponent. Few things feel as incredible as being *right*. But that type of exchange is damaging to the community. It’s selfish. It’s destructive to the purpose of growing a community that has nothing to do with politics. I’ve met so many people through this hobby that I enjoy playing games with that I would *never* talk religion or politics with. That’s ok. We have other shared interests.
That’s why containment doesn’t work... not because it can’t, but because it doesn’t.
BaconCatBug wrote: Setting an arbitrary rule about politics, especially for GW games, is never going to work because people will ALWAYS skirt the line, and GW themselves put political content in the games lore.
If you define 'working' as eliminating any and all mention of politics on the boards, sure.
That was never the goal, though, because it wouldn't have been a realistic one. Nobody expected the politics ban to stop there from ever being people making post that mentioned politics, and the occasional political post is not in itself any worse, or any more difficult to moderate, than any other inappropriate post.
The intention of the rule was to remove the extra hostility that political discussion was bringing to the forums, which was spilling over from the OT area and affecting the way people were interacting elsewhere on the site. Having a corralled area for that sort of discussion doesn't work. We had an area where political discussion was allowed, and the result was that people took disagreements resulting from that discussion, and fostered grudges against other posters, and then started fights with those posters in other areas. Allowing unmoderated discussion of political topics wouldn't fix that... it would make the problem worse.
Yeah unmoderated political discussion has the risk of escalating very badly.
If you are going to have political discussion, you will need some superb moderating team and a very strict rule-set of what is and isn't acceptable political discussion.
You don't leave the poo alone. You supervise it, analyse it, categorize it and finally process it into acceptable political debate or unsalvageable poo that must be jettisoned into the sun alongside the poolord that produced it.
Or if you aren't feeling up to the unrewarding, unappreciated and herculean task of moderating poo, just ban it. Which is what Dakkadakka decided to do, a very valid choice.
Yes, the problem now is that anything is'political" in america.
I mean, the science about human influenced climate change. 97% of world scientists agree human activity is aggravating and accelerating climate change, but you can't discuss it because "it's political."
So we can't discuss it because basically some people claim 97% of the world's scientists are in a vast scheme to destroy capitalism and replace it with argle bargle rant rave.
Can't discuss going beyond fossil fuel power because again, some people claim it's a political issue not a matter of scientific fact and technological possibilities.
Saying that people should practice recommended precautions against covid? that;s not a medical science issue, it's a political and religious issue now so a double no on that.
Banning all political and religious discussion has unintended consequences I'm sure the mods didn't really foresee or want, because they seem to be fairly intelligent reasonable people and just don't get how matter of fact issues are now smeared with politics and religion. At least they're fair about it unlike some boards, and i respect fair.
But that's what we've become in modern america sadly. We've entered the world of "alternative facts" and the "post truth era", where empirical data means nothing and beliefs matter more than hard data.
This is all very interesting, and graphic, but also not germane to my proposal. Anyone have a viable reason why the dakka mods should not forward posters to the Wasteland when deleting/locking Political posts/threads as a way to remind dakka posters that there are appropriate forums to discuss this that are, in theory, set up for that purpose, just like they do for OT posts, etc.
RiTides observation on wasteland having NSFW content is noted, but as I pointed out, some of those threads are a decade old, or older. I gave putting up a new one a whirl, and the mods disappeared it immediately.
BaronIveagh - thing is when mods point people toward other forums or resources if they do so then that is putting their seal of approval on that site. If the site is conducting itself in a poor manner and is generally a toxic place then its not really going to have constructive input. It's giving those people somewhere to go but its like saying "ok don't poop in the middle of the convention - go outside and do it in the toxic waste dump outside".
Sure it works but no one is going to like that suggestion and will think poorly of the staff for even suggesting it.
Also its my experience that few people are actually willing or desiring to take their conversation elsewhere. I've seen threads shut down due to a fight or otherwise and an offer made that anyone can restart the original subject. Yet almost every time I've never seen a discussion restart after that. It's very rare that it ever happens.
So many times even giving people somewhere else to go is not going to be taken up on that offer. It's a nicety and every so often a core of people might splinter off; but by and large people won't take up the offer.
Also I've even seen calm reasoned mods fall into insane fights over politics even when those political conversations were in an isolated area and between mods who otherwise got along perfectly fine and were normally more level headed. Politics (and religion) have that power and right now the situation in the USA in particular is so hot that its really causing a lot of additional strife in such discussions.
Shutting it down is the best course of action and despite some peoples desperation; yes you can talk about hobby stuff without political discourse. It's a shame to lose something the site once supported, but you can't deny that without it a lot of fights and ill feeling have settled on their own.
Banning all political and religious discussion has unintended consequences I'm sure the mods didn't really foresee or want, because they seem to be fairly intelligent reasonable people and just don't get how matter of fact issues are now smeared with politics and religion.
No, we get it. But politics being pervasive right now doesn't change the fact that allowing discussion of overtly political topics almost never ends well. And despite being so pervasive out there in the real world right now, the board has been ambling along much more happily without that discussion happening here.
The OT area is included as an optional extra, and it has some limitations placed on it in order to make sure that it doesn't have a detrimental effect on the rest of the site. Ultimately, this is a forum about toy soldiers. If you can't discuss global warming here, that really shouldn't be a big deal... there are other places more suited to that discussion.
People here talk about "additional strife" and "escalating".
Tell me, what effect do Mean Words On The Internet have in real life? Does your monitor come to life and punch you? If you don't want to see the Mean Words On The Internet, just don't go to the latrine, go to a different one?
BaconCatBug wrote: People here talk about "additional strife" and "escalating".
Tell me, what effect do Mean Words On The Internet have in real life? Does your monitor come to life and punch you? If you don't want to see the Mean Words On The Internet, just don't go to the latrine, go to a different one?
Once again, the problem is that the 'mean words' don't actually stay in the latrine. The leak out into the rest of the site, which has a detrimental effect on the site for those who just come here to enjoy their hobby.
And that's ignoring the fact that 'mean words on the internet' have a very large impact on the lives of a great many people. Particularly when someone is feeling bullied or harrassed.
BaconCatBug wrote: People here talk about "additional strife" and "escalating".
Tell me, what effect do Mean Words On The Internet have in real life? Does your monitor come to life and punch you? If you don't want to see the Mean Words On The Internet, just don't go to the latrine, go to a different one?
Once again, the problem is that the 'mean words' don't actually stay in the latrine. The leak out into the rest of the site, which has a detrimental effect on the site for those who just come here to enjoy their hobby.
And that's ignoring the fact that 'mean words on the internet' have a very large impact on the lives of a great many people. Particularly when someone is feeling bullied or harrassed.
And like I said, if you take the mean words out, you get punished.
Also, maybe I am just old, but last I checked, no-one forces you to read forums or messages from people you don't like or who are mean to you. What's wrong with just blocking people you don't like and moving on? If you're feeling "harassed" by a message on an internet forum, either block the person, don't go to that forum, or seek therapy because that isn't a normal thing to feel, imo.
BaconCatBug wrote: And like I said, if you take the mean words out, you get punished.
Also, maybe I am just old, but last I checked, no-one forces you to read forums or messages from people you don't like or who are mean to you. What's wrong with just blocking people you don't like and moving on? If you're feeling "harassed" by a message on an internet forum, either block the person, don't go to that forum, or seek therapy because that isn't a normal thing to feel, imo.
There are a couple of things here -
For one, telling people who are feeling bullied that they should just ignore it is right up there with telling people suffering from depression they should just try not being depressed. Many people can't just shrug off the these things, and telling them that they're doing it wrong won't change that.
For two, that's still only a part of the problem. The other part, which arguably creates a bigger mess to keep cleaning up, is those aforementioned grievances spilling out from OT into other areas. Even if we could magically 'fix' bullying and harrassment by telling people to just not feel bullied or harrassed, it's not going to change the fact that allowing discussion of politics here just makes a mess.
greatbigtree wrote:Hey BCB, you ever play Dungeons and Dragons?
Yes.
insaniak wrote: For one, telling people who are feeling bullied that they should just ignore it is right up there with telling people suffering from depression they should just try not being depressed.
No, it's not. Depression is a mental illness, it's real, and is a serious medical condition. Using Facebook or Dakka is a choice, and you have the ability to block people who you don't want to interact with, you can choose to not interact with them. You don't have the ability to just choose to not have depression or other mental illnesses, and for you to insinuate I was saying that is downright insulting.
If you block me because I think <Common sense opinion>, there is nothing I can do to unblock myself from you, so I can no longer say "Mean" Words On The Internet to you.
greatbigtree wrote: @BCB: If you were to suppose your personal “alignment”, would you consider yourself to be Lawful Neutral?
The entire concept of the DnD alignment chart is stupid and not helpful. Trying to pigeonhole yourself along those 2 axes is reductive at best and harmful at worst.
BaconCatBug wrote: ...and for you to insinuate I was saying that is downright insulting.
But that's ok - you can choose to not read it. It's just words on the internet.
I fully agree. I am still going to reply to you, and let you know my disagreement with your point, but I'm not going to block you, or use my moderator powers to ban you, or give out veiled threats to use said powers, or use my moderator powers to ban every single person on the forum from discussing certain topics. You're free to insult me, and I am not free to insult you back due to the difference in power, so the most I can do is tell you that you are insulting me, I agree with your right to insult me, and that I disagree with your insinuation.
I fully agree. I am still going to reply to you, and let you know my disagreement with your point, but I'm not going to block you, or use my moderator powers to ban you, or give out veiled threats to use said powers, or use my moderator powers to ban every single person on the forum from discussing certain topics. You're free to insult me, and I am not free to insult you back due to the difference in power, so the most I can do is tell you that you are insulting me, I agree with your right to insult me, and that I disagree with your insinuation.
All of which completely misses the point.
You were insulted by a comment that wasn't even intended to be insulting, right after claiming that people shouldn't take mean words on the internet seriously. You can't have it both ways.
This is why we moderate 'mean words on the internet'... because a lot of people don't have the filter that lets them just ignore those mean words. 'Mean words on the internet' have the power to end lives. And insisting that this shouldn't be the case won't fix that.
Sticks and stones will hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Is one of those things we teach children, yet its a lie. Words have phenomenal power. To deny that is folly.
And sure you can say that everyone should be able to debate politics, religion and other such topics without getting emotional; heated or taking insult. Without feeling slighted or insulted; without feeling saddened, angered, happy, gleeful or anything else.
Heck if that were possible moderators would hardly be needed.
However the opposite is true, we do care what words mean; even in meaningless discussions online. Heck people have come to blows and fought duels over insult and words said in the not that distant past (and heck some do still do that today - though its more of a brawl than a duel and the weapons might be a broken bottle or knife instead of sword or pistol).
In the end what does bringing Politics here gain us? What's the net benefit? Freedom to express our political views and discuss it - but what's the net loss? Social stability, friends, key members, new members, free time (for mods who have to resolve things).
The net gains are few and the net losses are great; especially when its all just an exercise in expression of viewpoints - we aren't changing the political world here. So the chance to share your political world view is measured up against the preservation of the membership as a functional friendly and welcoming community
I fully agree. I am still going to reply to you, and let you know my disagreement with your point, but I'm not going to block you, or use my moderator powers to ban you, or give out veiled threats to use said powers, or use my moderator powers to ban every single person on the forum from discussing certain topics. You're free to insult me, and I am not free to insult you back due to the difference in power, so the most I can do is tell you that you are insulting me, I agree with your right to insult me, and that I disagree with your insinuation.
All of which completely misses the point.
You were insulted by a comment that wasn't even intended to be insulting, right after claiming that people shouldn't take mean words on the internet seriously. You can't have it both ways.
This is why we moderate 'mean words on the internet'... because a lot of people don't have the filter that lets them just ignore those mean words. 'Mean words on the internet' have the power to end lives. And insisting that this shouldn't be the case won't fix that.
Dude, as I said, I'm not taking it "seriously", but it's still an insult. Instead of screeching on twitter that you should be demodded, lose your job, become a pariah, and die, I am just telling you that I feel insulted, then move on with my day. By your own logic, you should now ban yourself for Mean Words On The Internet, but I know you won't because you're a hypocrite. Either live by your own standards, or admit your hypocrisy. Which one is it?
That is my main issue with such heavy handed moderation. Those in power, without fail, are not subject to the same rules as the unwashed masses. Whether it's forums, IRC chats, Discord servers, or real life.
BaconCatBug wrote: Dude, as I said, I'm not taking it "seriously", but it's still an insult. Instead of screeching on twitter that you should be demodded, lose your job, become a pariah, and die, I am just telling you that I feel insulted, then move on with my day. By your own logic, you should now ban yourself for Mean Words On The Internet, but I know you won't because you're a hypocrite. Either live by your own standards, or admit your hypocrisy. Which one is it?
Ah. You're not taking it seriously, but are going to continue arguing the point. That seems like a productive use of both our time.
For what it's worth, intent matters. You found my comment insulting because you don't think bullying on the internet is a real problem. It wasn't intended as an insult, just an illustration of the point.
BaconCatBug wrote: Dude, as I said, I'm not taking it "seriously", but it's still an insult. Instead of screeching on twitter that you should be demodded, lose your job, become a pariah, and die, I am just telling you that I feel insulted, then move on with my day. By your own logic, you should now ban yourself for Mean Words On The Internet, but I know you won't because you're a hypocrite. Either live by your own standards, or admit your hypocrisy. Which one is it?
Ah. You're not taking it seriously, but are going to continue arguing the point. That seems like a productive use of both our time.
For what it's worth, intent matters. You found my comment insulting because you don't think bullying on the internet is a real problem. It wasn't intended as an insult, just an illustration of the point.
But you are the one who is claiming that "bullying" on the internet is a real problem. By your own definition, intent of the "bully" doesn't matter, only the feelings of the one being bullied. Ergo, you must ban yourself now. So, are you going to ban yourself? I wouldn't ban you if I had the power, but I don't have that power, you do.
Let's say, for arguments sake, I now take the position that your comment horrifically hurt my very soul and the only way this can be rectified is for you to be banned, will you ban yourself? If not, why not?
And since you seem to be under the impression that it's the "bullying" part I care about, I don't. What I do care about is the hypocrisy of heavy handed moderation.
@ BCB: The reason I ask, is that you seem to act in a way that values a sense of predictable order. When that “order” seems incongruous to you, you seem to react as though a moral issue is at stake. I haven’t noted a tendency towards altruism, or malice, which is why I suspect a net neutrality in your approach. Often self-serving, but not malicious. A seeming need to impose order, on a disorderly universe.
To which: Dakka is much more of a neutral / slightly chaotic lean. In many ways, very North American in its walk tall and carry a big stick ways. Based on my observation of tendencies, if you would fall on the Lawful side of the spectrum, it would likely be a “poor fit” for you here. Have you considered checking out 40konline? As a forum, they are much more structured. As a chaotic by nature, I found the place absolutely stifling. I expect you experience the inverse here. You might like to try it. It may fit your nature more comfortably.
Let's say, for arguments sake, I now take the position that your comment horrifically hurt my very soul and the only way this can be rectified is for you to be banned, will you ban yourself? If not, why not?
Whilst you're being somewhat obtuse and its hard to discern which parts you're being serious and which parts you're not; I can say that often as not when two or more people do have a conflict issue, banning the other side is often the only resolution they want. Or at least its the only one that they feel is a just punishment and is often the only result of moderator action that they will see.
So when mods instead step into shut down conversations or to tell someone off verbally in private or to mediate etc... - some people get hostile against not just other users, but against the staff for "failing to act". Again I've seen many a time where users get to a point where if those they don't agree with are not being banned then they feel insulted by the very site and mod staff and thus take up a new hostility not just to another user(s) but the "site" itself and the staff. Suddenly one or two offhand comments from one user to another; one single thread - perhaps not even a page of heated argument - and suddenly you've someone fast heading down the road to becoming a heavy burden on the site and getting an increasingly jaded viewpoint.
BaconCatBug wrote: People here talk about "additional strife" and "escalating".
Tell me, what effect do Mean Words On The Internet have in real life? Does your monitor come to life and punch you? If you don't want to see the Mean Words On The Internet, just don't go to the latrine, go to a different one?
BCB, one of the downsides of both my IRL jobs is the internet is something I see impact the real world every day, so maybe I get more of a face full of the lie that is 'it's just the internet'.
If you don't believe that 'mean word on the internet' have real world consequences, might I just point out that thousands are now dead over 'mean words on the internet' from a group that later became known as ISIS and that we've been reeling in home grown terrorists here in the US who name themselves after an internet meme.
But this is all irrelevant to my suggestion. Since many of the mods here originally came up with moving political discussion to Wasteland, to be blunt, the seal of approval that someone mentioned earlier is already stamped on that, since, as RiTides mentioned, moving politics to Wasteland was a move the mods here on dakka proposed in the first place.
Yeah that was totally my fault, and to clarify again, it was not an official policy and only my (probably overly enthusiastic) suggestion. We actually did get critical mass over there for a little while, I think, but to be honest I was appalled at the setting whenever I checked in on it myself...
So, that takes us back to where a number of people posted on the first page here. I think it's great that many folks can see why we just didn't feel up to having politics on the site (and still don't) where every moderator action or (importantly) Inaction leads to people assigning sides and resenting the site, each other, and having all that spill out into other areas. A neutral site to direct that kind of discussion to really would be ideal.
I've asked a number of times now (not just here) for an alternative site suggestion, but is it really that much of a unicorn in the current climate? Could anyone list a concrete suggestion (with link!) to a possibility or two? Really very open to pointing folks somewhere more decent, but just don't know of any such options...!
Last time there was an OT thread where someone made suggestions, they didn’t like what was proposed. What one considers a neutral, well-reasoned site another finds to be a crew pit. A board that seems blandly moderate on one continent is a pack of fri he lunatics on another’s continent. There is no middle round any more. Even the Golden Mean is a politically-leveraged fallacy.
You might be right, Bob - it does feel a bit like a unicorn these days. Maybe a site with multiple areas ("conservative corner" and "liberal library"...?).
Could you link me to that thread, though, I must have missed it? Really open to ideas, even if it's listing multiple options for people to consider.
I’ll see if I can find it. I remember moving to PMs for some suggestions, and shortly after that thread someone new signed up to the Wasteland, came on a bit too hard, and was apparently laughed off the board.
Generally speaking, I've found even the best run political forums atm are having problems,since being fair and balanced makes them prime targets for people who aren't.
BaconCatBug wrote: People here talk about "additional strife" and "escalating".
Tell me, what effect do Mean Words On The Internet have in real life? Does your monitor come to life and punch you? If you don't want to see the Mean Words On The Internet, just don't go to the latrine, go to a different one?
BCB, one of the downsides of both my IRL jobs is the internet is something I see impact the real world every day, so maybe I get more of a face full of the lie that is 'it's just the internet'.
If you don't believe that 'mean word on the internet' have real world consequences, might I just point out that thousands are now dead over 'mean words on the internet' from a group that later became known as ISIS and that we've been reeling in home grown terrorists here in the US who name themselves after an internet meme.
But this is all irrelevant to my suggestion. Since many of the mods here originally came up with moving political discussion to Wasteland, to be blunt, the seal of approval that someone mentioned earlier is already stamped on that, since, as RiTides mentioned, moving politics to Wasteland was a move the mods here on dakka proposed in the first place.
No, people are dead because they killed people. The Mean Words didn't kill anyone. By your logic, having children created the people who created ISIS, who caused people to die, therefore those terrorists parents are just as responsible for the people they killed as the people who said Mean Words On The Internet.
Example in point, the Anti-First-Amendment mob in the US. Do I think they are morons? Yes. Do I think they should have their speech curtailed in any way? No. Do I think they should be mocked? Yes. Do I think they should get away with actual violence? No.
BCB, I wanna preface this by saying that I really like having you around. I really respect the amount of effort you put into holding GW to account for their frankly toilet-water quality rules, despite charging people a premium for them. We've found ourselves on the same side in a couple of discussions, and you seem like an alright dude.
But what are you advocating here? As far as I know, even /b/ had moderators?
You want MORE bad words on Dakka? Let's be real for a sec, if the ad hominen rule got lifted, things would get fething WILD around here, esp. in News & Rumors, the Rules section and Off-Topic. I could name a BUNCH of posters who already regularly skirt around them. Likewise with politics. If nothing else, it would make reading a whole bunch of threads hellish, as people just bickered, and obscured what the content of the thread actually was.
It's hardly as if the Mods prohibiting a certain topic, and a few ways of talking to other people is draconian, when it's on a forum for little plastic space men.
Yeah, working around the politics rule can be a little tricky when it comes to some of the content in 40k, and its real-world inspirations, but beyond like a bit of historical/sociological contextualization, do we REALLY need to discuss it? I think I speak for quite a few people when I say that sometimes it's a pain in the ass to have to consider when posting, but I'd rather have mods who can do their jobs, and keep things civil, than let several corners of this site, which are enjoyed by a pretty large number of users, just turn into fetid little cesspools.
I for one really love Dakka, and how it's moderated. And that's not to say that I haven't had a spanking once in a while from the mods for being too cheeky. For the most part, the community here is very welcoming and helpful. I rarely feel as if grudges held between more than a handful of posters (you know who you are and also we all do, too) spill into too many threads. ATM, I think Dakka has a bit of a problem with posters trying really hard to be right all the damn time, and it's lead to this really infantile way of debating where a lot of people will just target one part of a post, and misconstrue it a bit, in order to have something to argue against, and keep the salt flowing. But, TBH, this is only an issue in the usual places people like to have spats, and even then, I think it gets reigned in pretty quickly. If we allowed ad hominem, and politics in those areas, I think it'd just open up more of a screeching match, and it'd make it even harder for the more creative parts of this site to flourish, as people already seem to have more time for mustache-twirling "well, actually"s, than, say painting and modelling. Something I really admire about a lot of the fightier posters is that they tend to put it to one side when it comes to participating in the more hobby-y side of the hobby, rather than the silly internet angry side of the hobby, and can not only be civil, be friendly towards one another.
Like, none of us are hanging out here because we're Johnny football heroes, and we need a quick breather from hanging out with all the cheerleaders.
We're a bunch of nerds. And like, pretty hardcore nerds at that. Not trendy nerds who like blockbuster movies, and have high-end games consoles. We're nerds who like poring over old-ass, dusty books, doing mathhammer, talking about decades worth of lore about goblins and space elves and gak.
I know, because I've been one of them, but some posters come here as a respite from the seemingly-endless kicking the outside world gives them. Some posters here could very well - as I'm sure we're all aware - be on the Autism spectrum, or likewise be in some way neuro-atypical, and find socializing very difficult, or even impossible in a face-to-face environment, for a whole host of reasons. I think that we can all be proud that, largely, for them, and for ourselves, Dakkadakka is a welcoming forum, where you can discuss a ton of stuff relating to the hobby, get tips, advice, and generally have a laugh with members of the community from all over the world.
It's also kind of bonkers that you're trying to claim that "bad words on the internet can't hurt anyone". We've seen tons of insane gak online, and crawl out of the shittier corners of the web in the last 5-10 years.
The internet is, certainly, on one level, just a communication tool, but it's still a vector for information, misinformation, instruction, propaganda and grooming. Sure, me typing "feth you" isn't gonna like, come at one of the mods with a switchblade and take their wallet, but a wall of "feth you"s, from a bloc of well-respected posters, all directed at a single person isn't great. When maybe that person is vulnerable, or lives in a difficult home situation, where this site is a refuge, that kind of feedback could quite easily be harmful. At the very least, it breeds an acceptance of toxic attitudes that that same person could easily carry into their IRL life. Sure, this is an extreme example, but as someone who has worked/works with vulnerable kids, you'd be shocked how common this kind of stuff actually is. Saying "just close the laptop lmao cyberbullying isn't real hahaha it's just the internet just turn off the router XD" is more or less proven to just not be the take here. You can cry "muh free speech" all day, but like, we're talking about skaven dude. It isn't that profound.
I think saying we need containment, or a "toilet" is mental, too, as if we're expected once in a while to just treat each other like fething garbage as a natural process. If there was a "toilet", it'd be like going in there to touch the poo. I just wouldn't want to touch poo, and tbh, I think it's kinda goofy to act like this is a normal thing to do. This isn't a peace summit in the West Bank, this is a forum for talking about space marines. If you really feel like you need to go postal on a message board once in a while... like maybe try to get off the internet and look at why you want to do that? Don't get me wrong, I dip in to stir pots here and there, but I feel like I'm pretty self-aware that I'm being a wiener about it. There's nothing fun about actually being mad at the internet, and I don't think it should be normalized as an acceptable behavior.
I'd like to share the sentiment other posters have brought up, that one day, when things in the US, and the UK chill out some more, maybe, just maybe, it'd be fun to have the politics ban lifted, but at the same time, I don't think it's something we need. Until then, like, this site? It's alright, man.
posermcbogus wrote: But what are you advocating here? As far as I know, even /b/ had moderators?
Not in the days before Moot sold out and decided to sanitise everything because the normies complained.
posermcbogus wrote: You want MORE bad words on Dakka? Let's be real for a sec, if the ad hominen rule got lifted, things would get fething WILD around here, esp. in News & Rumors, the Rules section and Off-Topic. I could name a BUNCH of posters who already regularly skirt around them. Likewise with politics. If nothing else, it would make reading a whole bunch of threads hellish, as people just bickered, and obscured what the content of the thread actually was.
Well done, you've proven you didn't bother reading my posts. Read them again, more carefully, and then realise I did not say "Remove all rules from the forum in its entirety".
As you have shown you didn't even read my posts, I shall not waste time responding to your further points.
posermcbogus wrote: But what are you advocating here? As far as I know, even /b/ had moderators?
Not in the days before Moot sold out and decided to sanitise everything because the normies complained.
That point was really more about how I can't understand what you're advocating, because your arguments are a mess and you're getting snappy with people, rather than the virtues of moderating on the literal worst board on 4chan, but go off I guess dude. If it gives you an excuse to twiddle that mustache and be patronizing and Technically right - the most satisfying kind of right then enjoy my guy. My post was really only half-replying to you, so piss into the wind about not reading it all you want.
Ultimately the mods/owners goal is to create a discussion forum that allows people to talk about toy soldiers. I'm not sure why that requires even an off-topic politics forum. I'd argue the ban on political discussion on Dakka isn't a complete ban in practice anyway. Political discussions do happen, provided they're in the context of the game and don't stray into the real world. But what advantage would be gained for the forum as a whole if there was a part of it that allowed discussion of real-world politics? There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can have those discussions.
The thing with "mean words hurt nobody" is that it's demonstrably false. We know people get worked up over insults and "mean words". Sure, you might not, and I might not, but some people will. So the owners of the board need to decide whether that's something that is conducive to the board's main goal. Does creating more of a free-for-all as far as freedom of expression make the board better for discussing toy soldiers? There isn't a definite, 100% correct answer to that and a lot does depend on how it's moderated, the consistency of the moderation and how much leeway is allowed. But taking a stance of "don't insult other people" is not wrong. It's not necessarily right either because it's a judgement call about what sort of board you want Dakka to be.
Slipspace wrote: The thing with "mean words hurt nobody" is that it's demonstrably false. We know people get worked up over insults and "mean words". Sure, you might not, and I might not, but some people will.
Do I need to point out the flaw with this line of reasoning or can you work it out without me needing to spell it out?
Slipspace wrote: The thing with "mean words hurt nobody" is that it's demonstrably false. We know people get worked up over insults and "mean words". Sure, you might not, and I might not, but some people will.
Do I need to point out the flaw with this line of reasoning or can you work it out without me needing to spell it out?
I find people understand me better when I say what I think rather making them guess at what I might be thinking of.
I also find a certain level of irony in that politics is essentially all words with great meaning (be they written and/or spoken) and yet you're here arguing that words online don't mean anything. Or at least that insult and snide remarks and all the rest are not a problem or that the problem is only with a subset of the community who should get thicker skin, or whatever.
BCB - We did, of course, have a lively politics discussion here once upon a time, but times have changed and it's not just Dakka - it can be difficult to have political discussions many places on the internet, as evidenced by the complete lack of alternatives to link to that have been suggested
And as insaniak said, in-context discussion relating to miniatures is generally just fine, anyway. It's a fine line, but we really do try to be light handed. Even your complaints about heavy handed moderation earlier in this thread - you were not warned, punished or suspended in any way. And to be honest, if the "normal" opinion (which pretty much everyone in this thread has agreed with) is that political discussion is just too toxic atm, that's what we're going to go with.
And to the amount this thread has devolved into a bit of mud-slinging, only reinforces the idea we just don't want that here. Maybe in the DCM forum if people really wanted it, where the paywall would keep out troll accounts? Again, this isn't a Dakka-specific problem, it's an issue everywhere. Bad actors have realized that sowing online discord reaps huge dividends for very little cost, and we're all dealing with the fallout of how to return to civil discussion in those arenas and separate genuine people from those trying to rile everyone up. This also means when someone has a genuine minority opinion they can get lumped in with those bad actors, and if they're Not moderated then the site can be. It's a no-win situation for Dakka. As the super computer in War Games said: the only winning move is not to play.
I really wish we could've solved these issues on Dakka. But since a solution is so hard to achieve everywhere on this, not participating and letting people enjoy the miniatures part of the site (which was always its purpose) just make sense. Again, I'd love to link people to a more actively moderated and SFW option for discussing politics if anyone has a suggestion? Even if you're not sure if it would work, please share!!
BaconCatBug wrote: No, people are dead because they killed people. The Mean Words didn't kill anyone.
That's divorcing the cause from the effect. It's like saying that the person didn't kill their spouse, the bullets did.
Words are potent. You'd be surprised the number of authors who've been murdered for their books over the years. And that's ignoring books like the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, who've led millions into madness and death.
Did the internet suddenly, magically, lose that power somewhere along the line?
Anyway, this digression is OT, and it's been fun dancing around your efforts to drag this discussion down, or mire the mods with, what is essentially, a political view, but it just underlines my point.
@Ritides: Hmm.... the DCM forum idea might not be a bad one. At least the site would get paid for the trouble.
Another idea that literally just occurred to me as I was writing the above post this morning: I could start an unofficial politics board, and message folks here to see if they're interested in migrating that discussion (and only that discussion) over?
We'd probably only need like 10 people to do so to get it going. If there really isn't a good place to have a bit of what we had here before, we can make it.
Full disclosure: the goal would be to have lively discussion from both sides, but remain SFW. You would need to make arguments based on merits, not expecting the other person to be banned. We'd be trying to get folks of all political stripes to engage and participate, so if any more moderators were needed I'd be looking for neutral folks. Finally, I voted for Jo Jorgensen, so you'd only be able to participate there knowing that and being okay with the knowledge that's who was running the place
Seriously though, let me know if you guys would be interested in this as a very much Unofficial solution. Cheers
Slipspace wrote: The thing with "mean words hurt nobody" is that it's demonstrably false. We know people get worked up over insults and "mean words". Sure, you might not, and I might not, but some people will.
Do I need to point out the flaw with this line of reasoning or can you work it out without me needing to spell it out?
You're going to need to point it out. Discussion generally works better that way. Also, you may want to read my quote in the full context of the rest of the post it appeared in.
@RiTides, one of the problems with discussing politics anywhere today is the difficulty in finding somewhere that doesn't just devolve into entrenched partisan opinions. I think it's probably just a problem with the anonymous, no-consequence nature of debate on the internet in general. IME, politics seems to be something that's much more effectively discussed and debated in person because you tend not to get quite so polarised opinions when debating with your average person rather than someone who already has a strongly partisan stance. It's why I think banning political discussion on a forum like this is the best approach. Those who want to discuss politics are usually the ones who really just want to espouse the superiority of whatever position it is they hold. Again, this is just my experience and not an absolute certainty but it's probably a likely enough scenario it's worth imposing a blanket rule to prevent it.
Neutral sites are unicorns because people gravitate towards safe spaces. A left-leaning poster is not going to visit a conservative site unless it is for trolling, and the vice-versa is also true. And the 2016 election pretty much forced previously neutral sites to choose a side.
Edit: And if Dakkadakka had a political sub-forum or RiTide's idea of unofficial board, the same would eventually happen. Unless both sides are evenly matched in numbers, one will dog-pile the other and pretty much will eventually force the "loser" out of the discussion. The "losing" side is going to have a negative view of the events that will spoil their opinion of Dakkadakka and likely will lead to them abandoning the site.
And both sides being evenly matched is unlikely considering the demographic nature of politics.
What we continuously saw was the opposite of that Tyran. We saw one side poisoning the well of discussion, constantly, and nothing be done publicly about it. And that's where the big issue was...that those individuals would do this and then be back within a few weeks/months doing the same thing.
The 'ban on politics' here was the only option because nothing seemingly ever got done about the bad faith posters and it contributed to an incredibly ramped up atmosphere. The only dogpiling done was people falling for the bait of those bad faith posters--and I should know, I fell for it a few times. But that's all those posters would 'contribute' to the thread. Their super edgelord takes intended to drive the thread into oblivion.
I'm trying to give an unbiased recounting of what I have seen on other boards. Current American politics are pretty much bad faith debating, with both sides viewing the other as an evil to be defeated. I'm personally not free of that blatantly entrenched partisanship, to me bipartisanship is dead and I fully blame the other side. But to honor the no politics rule, I'm not stating which side is that.
For a long time, it was one poster who singlehandedly sabotaged political discussion here. Just like it was one bad faith poster who got the coronavirus thread here locked and the topic banned.
BaronIveagh wrote: anyone have a viable reason why the dakka mods should not forward posters to the Wasteland when deleting/locking Political posts/threads as a way to remind dakka posters that there are appropriate forums to discuss this
Sure. The same cancer that killed politics in the OT metastasized to the wasteland. It would also do so to any new forum that was advertised here for that purpose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: For a long time, it was one poster who singlehandedly sabotaged political discussion here. Just like it was one bad faith poster who got the coronavirus thread here locked and the topic banned.
But what if we did the same thing at a different URL, tho
Slipspace wrote: The thing with "mean words hurt nobody" is that it's demonstrably false. We know people get worked up over insults and "mean words". Sure, you might not, and I might not, but some people will.
Do I need to point out the flaw with this line of reasoning or can you work it out without me needing to spell it out?
You're going to need to point it out. Discussion generally works better that way. Also, you may want to read my quote in the full context of the rest of the post it appeared in.
You can use that argument to justify anything. I could claim that "Not being able to discuss politics on Dakka hurts nobody" is "demonstrably false", therefore if you're going to forbid Mean Words On Internet, I can just as validly argue that you can't forbid Political Discussion on Dakka. You can't have it both ways, so which one is it?
RiTides wrote:Another idea that literally just occurred to me as I was writing the above post this morning: I could start an unofficial politics board, and message folks here to see if they're interested in migrating that discussion (and only that discussion) over?
We'd probably only need like 10 people to do so to get it going. If there really isn't a good place to have a bit of what we had here before, we can make it.
Full disclosure: the goal would be to have lively discussion from both sides, but remain SFW. You would need to make arguments based on merits, not expecting the other person to be banned. We'd be trying to get folks of all political stripes to engage and participate, so if any more moderators were needed I'd be looking for neutral folks. Finally, I voted for Jo Jorgensen, so you'd only be able to participate there knowing that and being okay with the knowledge that's who was running the place
Seriously though, let me know if you guys would be interested in this as a very much Unofficial solution. Cheers
I'm in.
Ouze wrote:
Sure. The same cancer that killed politics in the OT metastasized to the wasteland. It would also do so to any new forum that was advertised here for that purpose.
I don't think it's fair to compare Whembly to cancer, but beyond him, I can't say I've noticed that on Wasteland. NSFW threads, sure. but generally the Vietnamese casino bots have been a bigger problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: You can use that argument to justify anything. I could claim that "Not being able to discuss politics on Dakka hurts nobody" is "demonstrably false", therefore if you're going to forbid Mean Words On Internet, I can just as validly argue that you can't forbid Political Discussion on Dakka. You can't have it both ways, so which one is it?
Anyone been killed over not being able to post politics on Dakka? No? Ok, then consider it disproven.
Slipspace wrote: The thing with "mean words hurt nobody" is that it's demonstrably false. We know people get worked up over insults and "mean words". Sure, you might not, and I might not, but some people will.
Do I need to point out the flaw with this line of reasoning or can you work it out without me needing to spell it out?
You're going to need to point it out. Discussion generally works better that way. Also, you may want to read my quote in the full context of the rest of the post it appeared in.
You can use that argument to justify anything. I could claim that "Not being able to discuss politics on Dakka hurts nobody" is "demonstrably false", therefore if you're going to forbid Mean Words On Internet, I can just as validly argue that you can't forbid Political Discussion on Dakka. You can't have it both ways, so which one is it?
Except we saw that when politics was being spoken about users were getting insulted; users were getting suspended/banned/talked to by mods; threads were being locked and there were fights. There was ample proof and reason that political discussion was resulting in problems.
Similarly since the ban on political discussion we've not seen a resurgence of that same behaviour. It didn't just transfer to a new topic focus. So thus far I'd argue that we can prove that not allowing political discussion did result in a reduction in negative social behaviour and associated disciplinary actions being taken.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: For a long time, it was one poster who singlehandedly sabotaged political discussion here. Just like it was one bad faith poster who got the coronavirus thread here locked and the topic banned.
It's almost never one poster who gets threads locked.
Slipspace wrote: The thing with "mean words hurt nobody" is that it's demonstrably false. We know people get worked up over insults and "mean words". Sure, you might not, and I might not, but some people will.
Do I need to point out the flaw with this line of reasoning or can you work it out without me needing to spell it out?
You're going to need to point it out. Discussion generally works better that way. Also, you may want to read my quote in the full context of the rest of the post it appeared in.
You can use that argument to justify anything. I could claim that "Not being able to discuss politics on Dakka hurts nobody" is "demonstrably false", therefore if you're going to forbid Mean Words On Internet, I can just as validly argue that you can't forbid Political Discussion on Dakka. You can't have it both ways, so which one is it?
Except we saw that when politics was being spoken about users were getting insulted; users were getting suspended/banned/talked to by mods; threads were being locked and there were fights. There was ample proof and reason that political discussion was resulting in problems.
Similarly since the ban on political discussion we've not seen a resurgence of that same behaviour. It didn't just transfer to a new topic focus. So thus far I'd argue that we can prove that not allowing political discussion did result in a reduction in negative social behaviour and associated disciplinary actions being taken.
Yeah when you ban any dissent it becomes hard to argue against it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: For a long time, it was one poster who singlehandedly sabotaged political discussion here. Just like it was one bad faith poster who got the coronavirus thread here locked and the topic banned.
It's almost never one poster who gets threads locked.
If people believe that only one bad faith poster did things.. Well I can say they ignored a fair few things.
Slipspace wrote: The thing with "mean words hurt nobody" is that it's demonstrably false. We know people get worked up over insults and "mean words". Sure, you might not, and I might not, but some people will.
Do I need to point out the flaw with this line of reasoning or can you work it out without me needing to spell it out?
You're going to need to point it out. Discussion generally works better that way. Also, you may want to read my quote in the full context of the rest of the post it appeared in.
You can use that argument to justify anything. I could claim that "Not being able to discuss politics on Dakka hurts nobody" is "demonstrably false", therefore if you're going to forbid Mean Words On Internet, I can just as validly argue that you can't forbid Political Discussion on Dakka. You can't have it both ways, so which one is it?
Except we saw that when politics was being spoken about users were getting insulted; users were getting suspended/banned/talked to by mods; threads were being locked and there were fights. There was ample proof and reason that political discussion was resulting in problems.
Similarly since the ban on political discussion we've not seen a resurgence of that same behaviour. It didn't just transfer to a new topic focus. So thus far I'd argue that we can prove that not allowing political discussion did result in a reduction in negative social behaviour and associated disciplinary actions being taken.
Yeah when you ban any dissent it becomes hard to argue against it.
But dissent isn't banned, the whole topic is banned. It's not one side its all sides.
Plus on a forum which focuses on miniature wargaming, lore, fluff, artwork and general geeky topics - basically a huge bulk of fiction - the rights of a person to uphold and air their political views isn't really important at all.
It's a pain to lose something, but in the great scheme of things its not a huge thing. If it was we'd be having topics like this one all the time, yet they honestly only rear their head every so often.
Dakka isn't the only one, one of the most level headed, polite and friendly forums I know also banned politics because it was getting heated after having years of allowing it.
Slipspace wrote: The thing with "mean words hurt nobody" is that it's demonstrably false. We know people get worked up over insults and "mean words". Sure, you might not, and I might not, but some people will.
Do I need to point out the flaw with this line of reasoning or can you work it out without me needing to spell it out?
You're going to need to point it out. Discussion generally works better that way. Also, you may want to read my quote in the full context of the rest of the post it appeared in.
You can use that argument to justify anything. I could claim that "Not being able to discuss politics on Dakka hurts nobody" is "demonstrably false", therefore if you're going to forbid Mean Words On Internet, I can just as validly argue that you can't forbid Political Discussion on Dakka. You can't have it both ways, so which one is it?
You didn't read the rest of my post did you? We have seen the effect allowing discussions of politics has on this board and, as I specifically stated in the post you took that quote from, the purpose of this board is to discuss toy soldiers and the owners/mods need to make a judgement about what things should and shouldn't be allowed to best facilitate that discussion. Part of facilitating discussion is making the board a place people want to post and having subject matter allowed that frequently spills out of its latrine - as you put it - and into other parts of the site doesn't help with that goal.
When I spoke about the appropriateness of banning "mean words" I specifically called out that it's a subjective judgement and that heavily implies it's also not a binary choice - there's a spectrum of possible restrictions you could put in place. You'll note I never said not being able to discuss politics hurts nobody. I'm sure there are probably people that it annoys or even hurts in some way. It's possible to accept both may be true while still deciding one course of action is better than the other. What you've set up is a classic false dichotomy.
So we know political discussions cause problems - it's why they're banned. Do you have any proof that forbidding it somehow inhibits the fruitful discussion of toy soldiers on this board? If so, you'd then need to weigh up which of those two options best accomplishes the goal of the board. Which is what I pointed out in my original post.
I don't think this is about banning dissent either. Dakka's politics ban should be equally applied to all sides of any political discussion and the essence of the ban certainly achieves that: everything is banned so there's no dissenting position to crush here. Do the Mods sometimes leave political discussion in some threads and ban other threads with it in? Probably. You can choose to believe there's some agenda to that, I guess, or accept it's the consequence of having human beings making judgement calls.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: For a long time, it was one poster who singlehandedly sabotaged political discussion here. Just like it was one bad faith poster who got the coronavirus thread here locked and the topic banned.
It's almost never one poster who gets threads locked.
No, it's a group effort. One bad faith poster continuously posts outlandish assertions and trollbait, they suck out of the air out of the room, the mods ignore it (or tell everyone to ignore that person, which is a pretty galling admittance that one person is successfully trolling, btw), everyone responds to the same bad-faith poster, now the thread is the bad faith poster thread, and then the mods throw their hands up and lock it.
The problem really is that any single poster can utterly destroy any thread they want to with impunity as long as they don't use swear words or be overtly rude. It's not even a "politics thread" problem, it is that rules and how they are enforced allow for almost endless working of the refs. There is now not only a heckler's veto on politics, but also Coronavirus due to this.
There should only only not be a return of the politics thread, it would be the height of silliness to start another politics board elsewhere under the same rules and enforcement that make them totally unworkable here.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: For a long time, it was one poster who singlehandedly sabotaged political discussion here. Just like it was one bad faith poster who got the coronavirus thread here locked and the topic banned.
It's almost never one poster who gets threads locked.
No, it's a group effort. One bad faith poster continuously posts outlandish assertions and trollbait, they suck out of the air out of the room, the mods ignore it (or tell everyone to ignore that person, which is a pretty galling admittance that one person is successfully trolling, btw), everyone responds to the same bad-faith poster, now the thread is the bad faith poster thread, and then the mods throw their hands up and lock it.
The problem really is that any single poster can utterly destroy any thread they want to with impunity as long as they don't use swear words or be overtly rude. It's not even a "politics thread" problem, it is that rules and how they are enforced allow for almost endless working of the refs. There is now not only a heckler's veto on politics, but also Coronavirus due to this.
There should only only not be a return of the politics thread, it would be the height of silliness to start another politics board elsewhere under the same rules and enforcement that make them totally unworkable here.
7 sentences, infinite typos
Sometimes i wonder how you (not you ouze sorry, wrongly written i meant people nothing against you) People claim to be able to have a democracy when you can't blurr out the heckler and administer a modicum of enlightenment values, including empirical evidence. Individual responsibility applies torwards interaction with collectives just as much as it bears between people afterall.
And yes i go fully into baseline politics here. How the feth do you think a society determines the way it want's to go, what it's morals standards should be, etc.? With flowers and ample hand holding (occaisionaly it can happen but mostly there are discussion more often debates)? You have to bear the heckler, because everyone can be one for issues they hold dear, and that doesn't say anything about their position beeing right or wrong.
What is an issue is, the more polarized a system gets and the fewer options there are for the citizens to actually be relevant in the system and to connect with each other over the policymaking itself, the more these demagogical behaviours become commonplace, untill even "mainline" parties get highjacked. It's one of the reasons as to why the US politics thread was comparatively to the somewhat lively Europe one, a complete shitshow.
You don't however solve the polarisation by further clamping down and just remove the political sphere out of everything by threat of ban, to the contrary, the only thing that will lead to is further segregation of the corresponding sides. Places like dakka, which these normally opposing sides meet, serve as a plattform where the opponent get's an actual human face and ceases to just be another "enemy". Just clamping down to avoid actually talking about the issue at hand won't solve anything, you'll end instead like Switzerland before 1874 and 1918, where the lines were drawn and the rifles loaded for no apparent reason other then the gain of some elites which put the lines there in the first place.
Now you can argue that, a model forum doesn't offer the right place for that, but doesn't the common connection over the love of a hobby ( a huge one considering how emotional we get about rules alone ) offer not a better baseline? Frankly the best indicator is how Dakka itself politics wise, whilest rough still was vastly better in behaviour then purely political forums, preciscly because it still had a bigger part of normalicy attributable to people of the opposing side via the hobby mainline.
I don't know if it would be handleable for dakka, but the fact remains the ban itself is the Hecklers veto and the further garant for their power to achieve over their little bubbles.
Ouze wrote: No, it's a group effort. One bad faith poster continuously posts outlandish assertions and trollbait, they suck out of the air out of the room, the mods ignore it (or tell everyone to ignore that person, which is a pretty galling admittance that one person is successfully trolling, btw), everyone responds to the same bad-faith poster, now the thread is the bad faith poster thread, and then the mods throw their hands up and lock it.
That may be how you see it, sure. But here's how it generally looks from our side: One poster posts something that is borderline - quite often it's a comment that could be read as trolling, or just ignorant, or even just poorly worded. But either way, it's not, in itself, worthy of moderator attention. (If it had been, it would likely be removed at that point to avoid the thread derailing). If that comment was responded to politely, or just ignored, the thread would continue, and there's no drama. Sometimes, when that happens, the dissenting poster might even continue to disagree with the opinion of other people. This is also not in itself worthy of moderator attention. People are entitled to disagree. But what was consistently happening instead in politics threads was that people would either assume that the different opinion was 'clearly' trolling, or would simply be annoyed by that opinion, and a shouting match would ensue. By the time a moderator sees the thread, it's spiraled into three pages of back and forth, and it's just too much work to go through it all and try to clean it up.
You can not have sensible discussion when people persist in escalating drama when they see something potentially problematic instead of just reporting it and moving on. An argument requires at least two people.
Edit - also worth pointing out that we were always an awful long way away from the mods just ignoring what was going on. When politics was allowed, OT kept the mods busier than most of the rest of the forum combined.
so basically, it's a manpower issue in regards to the politcs thread.
simply because people haven't yet learnt to propperly have a disagreement and get so annoyed with each other that they shout up a storm...
Not Online!!! wrote: so basically, it's a manpower issue in regards to the politcs thread.
simply because people haven't yet learnt to propperly have a disagreement and get so annoyed with each other that they shout up a storm...
See my edit. It's not just manpower, it's down to whether or not it's actually worth the effort. At one point there, we effectively needed a full time moderator solely watching OT. Which is absurd.
Not Online!!! wrote: so basically, it's a manpower issue in regards to the politcs thread.
simply because people haven't yet learnt to propperly have a disagreement and get so annoyed with each other that they shout up a storm...
See my edit. It's not just manpower, it's down to whether or not it's actually worth the effort. At one point there, we effectively needed a full time moderator solely watching OT. Which is absurd.
Well we also have a swapshop mod, so yes it's primarily a manpower issue.
regretable but understandable still.
Not Online!!! wrote: You have to bear the heckler, because everyone can be one for issues they hold dear, and that doesn't say anything about their position beeing right or wrong.
The issue was that some posters would repeatedly make the same claims, over and over again, with no new argument or evidence to refute from when it was refuted 3 pages back. Their position was demonstrably wrong and shown to be so. Yet they would come back again. And again. And again.
This isn't someone being really passionate about an issue, it is them being passionate about an argument.
insaniak wrote: Yes, we have Swapshop mods. We also have a gallery mod. These are things that are directly linked to the actual purpose of the site. Politics is not.
But you have an OT section. Why not have an OT mod. Infact i'd go sofar since you have explicitly an OT forum suppart which you may expect issues due to the OT nature having not a separate one for it seems a bit counterproductive.
Not Online!!! wrote: You have to bear the heckler, because everyone can be one for issues they hold dear, and that doesn't say anything about their position beeing right or wrong.
The issue was that some posters would repeatedly make the same claims, over and over again, with no new argument or evidence to refute from when it was refuted 3 pages back. Their position was demonstrably wrong and shown to be so. Yet they would come back again. And again. And again.
This isn't someone being really passionate about an issue, it is them being passionate about an argument.
Refutation of a political issue is difficult, as a lot of it is upon a ideological basis.
Granted the covid thread is the parade exemple of the issue you raise. And if an argument has allready been refuted 3 pages back you'd think someone would've had an easy time to just link back to that state off afair and just not engage.
Ouze, I'm genuinely curious what you think the solution to the scenario you mention is. Ban that other person, or have the mods step in and basically say they can't post that view?
I'm genuinely thinking of starting an alternative board just for this, so obviously the answer would be helpful to know. But if the goal of such a board is to have people of all political stripes participate, I can't see how the approach you allude to would accomplish that. And that would certainly be the goal - otherwise, there's no one to debate with and reading a news article would be more appropriate.
Thoughts appreciated!! And thanks for the support, BaronIveagh
So, talking past Dakka here, since politics adds little value to the forum and much resources: You have to be willing to moderate bad faith. I can't just concisely express all that bad faith entrails: much like obscenity, you know it when you see it.
The most clear and recent example would be from the covid thread, when someone was willing to post something incorrect, have multiple posters debunk it, and just keep repeating it over and over again. Since it was on dakka, and it was neither profanity nor rude; it was allowed to continue disrupting the thread until the thread was no longer workable. You see this sort of behavior time and time again here, whether it be female space marines or Anita Sarkeesian or any number of a bevy of topics that expose what is functionally a structural problem in the forum and it's weakness to a heckler's veto when that heckler doesn't cross some specific, clear lines.
If you're not willing to moderate bad faith arguments, you are doomed to fail in this hypothetical venture. The road to that failure begins with deciding every view/opinion has equal value to a discussion on a topic.
What you would want to achieve probably is a common basis for discussion and to foster a discussion and debate culture that is on an honest basis.
(the later means that people that realise that they are maybee wrong admit that, which is in certian polarising themes a real issue. And or are big enough to agree to disagree and let the other person have his opinion)
How you get to that state though... Curation of participants? Contrary to the vision of an open debate now isn't it? Absolute enforcement of an Equivalent of Rule 1? Considering the themes will turn emotionally sooner or later quite difficult and probably requiring more then strictly necessary ammount of babysitters depending upon IRL situation. Not to mention that any action taken on a purely political forum might get accused (maybee rightfully or not) hypocrisy...
insaniak wrote: Yes, we have Swapshop mods. We also have a gallery mod. These are things that are directly linked to the actual purpose of the site. Politics is not.
But, politics is now directly impacting this hobby. To the degree that GW is putting out offical press statements because of it, and some lines are not being renewed.
It's like the line in Anno Dracula about the Diogenes club. If the place were to catch fire, the members would stay stubbornly silent about it even as they burn.
Some of the comments in this thread are a perfect example of why we don't/cant have a political OT section. Unneeded snide comments about people with different political orthodoxy just sliding on through. If I say anyone who plays space marines is a WAAC poopyhead, Id prolly get called on it but if I say anyone who believes XYZ should be is a &^*&^ and should be banned from the public square, nada.
As for RITides questions about setting up a site to talk politics, there's basically two options.
Moderate the discussion which will inevitably lead to an echo chamber that fits the mods (sorry you're human) or
Let the discussion flow and the moderators only job is to facilitate that flow (clear spam, NSFW pics and similar)
So the gist we can mostly agree on is politics has no reason to be part of *this* site.
We could redirect anyone with a desire for political conversation to a different site, but we'd like that site to be "suitable" for recommending.
Someone could create such a place, but (GBT ad libs) the maintenance on it would be a Sisyphean task and really, 95% of people that talk politics just want to make someone else look like an imbecile so they can feel better about themselves. Proper discourse, as in a debate, is nigh impossible via this medium.
meh, the later part is an overestimation the vast majority did indeed have interest in atleast wanting to interact with good manners.
until they snapped.
It'd be interesting to toy arround with an time gated response system Basically you post once and then get a 10 min timeout so to speak, the slower response is the longer a debate goes on and the less livid people tend to be.
greatbigtree wrote: So the gist we can mostly agree on is politics has no reason to be part of *this* site.
Not even close, but we can agree that Dakka's mods and owner's want to steer clear of the issue, despite the fact it has been impacting the hobby, and that it's understandable.
insaniak wrote: Yes, we have Swapshop mods. We also have a gallery mod. These are things that are directly linked to the actual purpose of the site. Politics is not.
But, politics is now directly impacting this hobby. To the degree that GW is putting out offical press statements because of it, and some lines are not being renewed.
It's like the line in Anno Dracula about the Diogenes club. If the place were to catch fire, the members would stay stubbornly silent about it even as they burn.
Woe be upon those now impacted by as petty things as their civilian duty.
The whole mobilisation and outrange mentality is only a symptom not an issue in itself.
Jerram wrote: As for RITides questions about setting up a site to talk politics, there's basically two options.
Moderate the discussion which will inevitably lead to an echo chamber that fits the mods (sorry you're human) or
Let the discussion flow and the moderators only job is to facilitate that flow (clear spam, NSFW pics and similar)
I think you're right that those are, basically, the two options.
Ouze, while I appreciate your answer above, I think the in-practice application of an admin deciding what is / isn't a "good faith" argument would be pretty terrible for discussion.
I'm much more interested in having an open discussion area that is, basically, kept civil. The more I've thought about it, the more sure I am that any admin would need to abstain from any discussion outside of just keeping civility - i.e. the role of a debate moderator at most.
I'm going to be exceedingly blunt here. It's fairly easy to spot a "bad faith" post, especially when it was the same people constantly trotting the same arguments out over and over again.
We had examples of them in the various threads about any mass shootings or gun control adjacent topics. It was only a matter of time before a specific individual came in ranting about drunk driving killing more people or another individual would come in to talk about how the libs didn't believe in the Constitution or another would post nonsense about a specific breed of pet.
That's acting in bad faith. And it never felt like those people were banned from engaging in those topics.
When people would do their signature swoop 'n' poop posts? You KNEW they were not engaging in actual discussion. They were there to dump their pet peeves into the thread and then scooch before they had to actually defend it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jerram wrote: Some of the comments in this thread are a perfect example of why we don't/cant have a political OT section. Unneeded snide comments about people with different political orthodoxy just sliding on through. If I say anyone who plays space marines is a WAAC poopyhead, Id prolly get called on it but if I say anyone who believes XYZ should be is a &^*&^ and should be banned from the public square, nada.
As for RITides questions about setting up a site to talk politics, there's basically two options.
Moderate the discussion which will inevitably lead to an echo chamber that fits the mods (sorry you're human) or
Let the discussion flow and the moderators only job is to facilitate that flow (clear spam, NSFW pics and similar)
This whole post, fyi, is a wonderful example of a bad faith argument.
"Moderating the discussion" does not automatically mean that it leads to an echo chamber...unless, in fact, one side of the discussion's position flatout does not have any value in being posted and they have zero intention to defend it or actually engage in a discussion.
Mods don't have to be factcheckers for a presidential debate, but dangit some of this stuff was just absurdly easy to spot.
Not Online!!! wrote: You have to bear the heckler, because everyone can be one for issues they hold dear, and that doesn't say anything about their position beeing right or wrong.
The issue was that some posters would repeatedly make the same claims, over and over again, with no new argument or evidence to refute from when it was refuted 3 pages back. Their position was demonstrably wrong and shown to be so. Yet they would come back again. And again. And again.
This isn't someone being really passionate about an issue, it is them being passionate about an argument.
And despite what Insaniak said, this actually is something moderators should deal with. It’s clearly a violation of rule 1.
The devolution into an echo-chamber is inevitable, because of how toxic (American) political discourse has become.
I mean even Twitter and Facebook, that have no moderation whatsoever, have developed their own echo chambers. The only difference is that such platforms are so massive that they can support countless echo chambers of different political preferences (not only the American two party line).
And good moderation, while unable to prevent a devolution into an echo-chamber that follows one of the two American party lines, can prevent such echo-chamber from further fragmenting into smaller ones. I mean, both the Republicans and specially the Democrats are coalitions of different political beliefs. E.g put a Blue Dog Democrat and a Social Democrat in the same room and they are going disagree on a lot of things. Good moderation can keep them in the same room, even if unable to do the same with a Democrat and a Republican.
Tyran wrote: Twitter is too massive to have moderation.
When thousands of tweets are posted per second, and millions to billions each day, it is simply impossible to moderate.
There are moderator bots, but they are an ineffective tool.
The difference is that the vast majority of those millions and billions of tweets are seen by, in terms of number of views relative to twitters total users, nobody. You actively moderate the people who do get seen by a large portion of people, and respond to reports of tweets which reach less people on the basis of the number of reports etc.
On dakka every single post in a thread has an equal reach, regardless of the poster. Well, unless said poster has alienated a lot of people and ended up on a lot of ignore lists.
Going by some posters here.. We should pretty much still continue to avoid having politics. I can see that some still are continuing to post their own little comments towards the other side despite things, and we had enough of that back when politics was around and people were being far more blatant in their attacks.
The difference is that the vast majority of those millions and billions of tweets are seen by, in terms of number of views relative to twitters total users, nobody. You actively moderate the people who do get seen by a large portion of people, and respond to reports of tweets which reach less people on the basis of the number of reports etc.
On dakka every single post in a thread has an equal reach, regardless of the poster. Well, unless said poster has alienated a lot of people and ended up on a lot of ignore lists.
But we are talking in the context of being a place for political debate, so those low profile posts "nobody" see are pretty much the equivalent of Dakkadakka posts, because Dakkadakka is a low profile site that nobody (except a very small demographic of tabletop gamers) sees.
Moreover dakka posts don't have equal reach, as dakka posters don't follow each thread or each sub forum equally.
The difference is that the vast majority of those millions and billions of tweets are seen by, in terms of number of views relative to twitters total users, nobody. You actively moderate the people who do get seen by a large portion of people, and respond to reports of tweets which reach less people on the basis of the number of reports etc.
On dakka every single post in a thread has an equal reach, regardless of the poster. Well, unless said poster has alienated a lot of people and ended up on a lot of ignore lists.
But we are talking in the context of being a place for political debate, so those low profile posts "nobody" see are pretty much the equivalent of Dakkadakka posts, because Dakkadakka is a low profile site that nobody (except a very small demographic of tabletop gamers) sees.
Not really. Everyone on dakka has an equal voice in any thread they choose to engage in (again, assuming they are not on ignore lists). On twitter this is not true. This is due to a fundamental difference in how we engage with the content in question, on twitter you follow people, on dakka we follow topics (in the form of threads).
I'm not talking about reach as a portion of the general population, I'm talking about reach as a portion of the userbase. A brand new poster can join Dakka and their post in a thread, or even their own new thread, has equal reach as any other on the site. A brand new twitter profile with zero followers cannot say the same. There is a zero percent chance that if you create a brand new twitter account, with no pre-existing brand, or celebrity, with no followers and post a tweet without using a trending hashtag or @ing a high profile figure that it will reach the same number of retweets, replies etc. that a tweet from a known figure does. It will not show up in searches except perhaps filter by time where it will just be swamped out by the other millions of other tweets.
Moreover dakka posts don't have equal reach, as dakka posters don't follow each thread or each sub forum equally.
Refer to my quoted post, specifically the part in bold and underlined. I didn't say posts, I said posts in a thread. To clarify, every post within a thread has an equal potential reach as every other post within that thread. If someone does not read the thread, they see none. If they do then they can see every single one.
Not really. Everyone on dakka has an equal voice in any thread they choose to engage in (again, assuming they are not on ignore lists). On twitter this is not true. This is due to a fundamental difference in how we engage with the content in question, on twitter you follow people, on dakka we follow topics (in the form of threads).
I'm not talking about reach as a portion of the general population, I'm talking about reach as a portion of the userbase. A brand new poster can join Dakka and their post in a thread, or even their own new thread, has equal reach as any other on the site. A brand new twitter profile with zero followers cannot say the same. There is a zero percent chance that if you create a brand new twitter account, with no pre-existing brand, or celebrity, with no followers and post a tweet without using a trending hashtag or @ing a high profile figure that it will reach the same number of retweets, replies etc. that a tweet from a known figure does. It will not show up in searches except perhaps filter by time where it will just be swamped out by the other millions of other tweets.
Ok fair enough. Yet regardless of the unequal weight of tweets, Twitter is still a badly moderated social site that is as full of echo-chambers and misinformation (and so much anger) as the rest of the Internet, if not even more.
But you have an OT section. Why not have an OT mod. Infact i'd go sofar since you have explicitly an OT forum suppart which you may expect issues due to the OT nature having not a separate one for it seems a bit counterproductive.
Let's say you run a restaurant. As a bonus for your customers, you put a table over in one corner with some adult colouring books for customers to use. Only a very small number of your customers use them, but those that do seem to enjoy them, and the cost of putting the table there in was negligible, so everyone's happy.
Then you notice that people seem to be having trouble sharing one particular set of pencils on the colouring table. Your wait staff start having to go over there more and more often to break up fights between customers who can't seem to share out the pencils on their own, which impacts their ability to actually wait on tables. And having people shouting at each other over in the corner is starting to make other customers uncomfortable, particularly when people from the colouring table carry on their arguing after they go back to their tables to eat.
It gets to the point where you need to hire someone specifically to oversee the colouring table... or you could just remove that box of pencils.
We removed the pencils, because it was the far more appropriate option for the site.
Ouze wrote: So, talking past Dakka here, since politics adds little value to the forum and much resources: You have to be willing to moderate bad faith. I can't just concisely express all that bad faith entrails: much like obscenity, you know it when you see it.
The most clear and recent example would be from the covid thread, when someone was willing to post something incorrect, have multiple posters debunk it, and just keep repeating it over and over again. Since it was on dakka, and it was neither profanity nor rude; it was allowed to continue disrupting the thread until the thread was no longer workable. You see this sort of behavior time and time again here, whether it be female space marines or Anita Sarkeesian or any number of a bevy of topics that expose what is functionally a structural problem in the forum and it's weakness to a heckler's veto when that heckler doesn't cross some specific, clear lines.
If you're not willing to moderate bad faith arguments, you are doomed to fail in this hypothetical venture. The road to that failure begins with deciding every view/opinion has equal value to a discussion on a topic.
That's my 2 cents, anyway.
And here is where you're going to get a fundamental disagreement. Because it is not the job of Dakka's moderators to decide whether or not an argument is correct. Expecting the volunteer moderators of a forum for toy soldiers to decide whether or not arguments about effective treatment of a worldwide pandemic are valid or not is absolute madness.
And here is where you're going to get a fundamental disagreement. Because it is not the job of Dakka's moderators to decide whether or not an argument is correct. Expecting the volunteer moderators of a forum for toy soldiers to decide whether or not arguments about effective treatment of a worldwide pandemic are valid or not is absolute madness.
Thank you for this refreshing display of common sense. The insistence of regulating opinions, on extremely complicated and undecided matters no less, is a plague upon online spaces.
Ouze wrote: So, talking past Dakka here, since politics adds little value to the forum and much resources: You have to be willing to moderate bad faith. I can't just concisely express all that bad faith entrails: much like obscenity, you know it when you see it.
The most clear and recent example would be from the covid thread, when someone was willing to post something incorrect, have multiple posters debunk it, and just keep repeating it over and over again. Since it was on dakka, and it was neither profanity nor rude; it was allowed to continue disrupting the thread until the thread was no longer workable. You see this sort of behavior time and time again here, whether it be female space marines or Anita Sarkeesian or any number of a bevy of topics that expose what is functionally a structural problem in the forum and it's weakness to a heckler's veto when that heckler doesn't cross some specific, clear lines.
If you're not willing to moderate bad faith arguments, you are doomed to fail in this hypothetical venture. The road to that failure begins with deciding every view/opinion has equal value to a discussion on a topic.
That's my 2 cents, anyway.
And here is where you're going to get a fundamental disagreement. Because it is not the job of Dakka's moderators to decide whether or not an argument is correct.
I know, which is why "talking past dakka here" were the very first words of my post. There is some discussion about a post-dakka forum.
insaniak wrote: . Expecting the volunteer moderators of a forum for toy soldiers to decide whether or not arguments about effective treatment of a worldwide pandemic are valid or not is absolute madness.
You know, I made several other analogies about the core problem here and how it applied to Dakka, and how coronavirus is actually just the most recent of a bevy of topics we can no longer discuss here. I even listed a few!
But sure, decide the problem is the pencils, and then some more pencils, and more pencils after that, and not the same customer gaking on the floor over and over.
I mean, I don't really care, honestly. I have no real investment here anymore over "a place I sometimes poke into when I have literally nothing else to do at work". I get more engagement on every level of the hobby from Facebook - discussion, feedback, the works.
What was interesting was the idea of maybe a new forum, and to that end, I wanted to weigh in what I think were the core approach problems that doomed that kind of discussion here. It doesn't really matter, things are so polarized maybe no approach will really work no matter what. "No moderation" certainly didn't work very well at the Wasteland.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Twitter has more moderation than Dakka, especially against spreaders of disinformation.
Speaking of disinformation....
if you think twitter isn't politically motivated in its moderation you're willfully misinformed.
Far too many people think they're opinion is fact and therefore anything they disagree with is disinformation. Far too many people think a line of argument they disagree with is bad faith posting.
@Tyran
I don't think its so much that political discourse has become any worse (yet, and I pray it doesn't reach there) but that social media exacerbates the toxicity.
I don't think its so much that political discourse has become any worse (yet, and I pray it doesn't reach there) but that social media exacerbates the toxicity.
Political discourse has become worse, but social media isn't making things better.
if you think twitter isn't politically motivated in its moderation you're willfully misinformed.
Far too many people think they're opinion is fact and therefore anything they disagree with is disinformation. Far too many people think a line of argument they disagree with is bad faith posting.
So far as twitter is concerned, that last statement works both ways. An awful lot of the perceived 'bias' on twitter is from people seeing things that they agree with being labelled as disinformation, while things they disagree with are not. So rather than accepting that there's fact checking doing its job, they just assume that there is bias against one viewpoint. We've see similar things here, on a much lesser scale.
It's still a valid point, though, so far as forum moderation is concerned. It's really easy to see a viewpoint that we personally think is stupid and assume (because we think it's stupid) that the person presenting it can't possibly actually think that, and so is clearly just trolling.
You do yourself(and the rest of the dakka team) a massive disservice by comparing yourself to twitter moderation. While I do think your biases occasionally show (you're human) I believe overall you all try to control those biases and usually succeed. OTOH Twitter doesn't even try or bother hiding it. When most of the Oops overeager AI seem to go in one political direction, when the CEO says “I don’t believe we should optimize for neutrality.” Its pretty clear they're not even bother trying to hide it.
Tyran
My point was its been worse and it can still get worse and people who should know better far too often forget that second part.
Whilst far from perfect, the simple fact they’re accused of partisan reporting by both left and right wing actually suggests they’re about nice.
There is a rather big omission in your statement there, Mad Doc. The right accuse the BBC of a left-leaning bias. Which by any reasonable metric, they are. Whether it's as extreme as some claim is up to debate. The left accuse the BBC of not being left-leaning biased enough, because the moderate left doesn't exist any more and the current left would consider Karl Marx as bad as Margret Thatcher. Both of which are correct accusations, for various definitions of correct.
As to the mods saying "Woe is us, we can't possibly handle moderating threads on a forum where we volunteer to moderate threads", the whole point of a containment board is to throw it to the wind and let the fires rage there, in a controlled burn, rather than wiping out the whole forest. The only reports that should be acted on in that containment board is spam/illegal content. If people report non-reportable things, they lose their right to report in that forum.
Whilst far from perfect, the simple fact they’re accused of partisan reporting by both left and right wing actually suggests they’re about nice.
There is a rather big omission in your statement there, Mad Doc. The right accuse the BBC of a left-leaning bias. The left accuse the BBC of not being left-leaning biased enough. Both of which are correct accusations, for various definitions of correct.
As to the mods saying "Woe is us, we can't possibly handle moderating threads on a forum where we volunteer to moderate threads", the whole point of a containment board is to throw it to the wind and let the fires rage there, in a controlled burn, rather than wiping out the whole forest. The only reports that should be acted on in that containment board is spam/illegal content. If people report non-reportable things, they lose their right to report in that forum.
Because there is, of course, no chance whatsoever that people will feel mad towards other posters at what is posted in the off-topic area, and that will spread to other subforums. That would NEVER happen!
Whilst far from perfect, the simple fact they’re accused of partisan reporting by both left and right wing actually suggests they’re about nice.
There is a rather big omission in your statement there, Mad Doc. The right accuse the BBC of a left-leaning bias. The left accuse the BBC of not being left-leaning biased enough. Both of which are correct accusations, for various definitions of correct.
As to the mods saying "Woe is us, we can't possibly handle moderating threads on a forum where we volunteer to moderate threads", the whole point of a containment board is to throw it to the wind and let the fires rage there, in a controlled burn, rather than wiping out the whole forest. The only reports that should be acted on in that containment board is spam/illegal content. If people report non-reportable things, they lose their right to report in that forum.
Because there is, of course, no chance whatsoever that people will feel mad towards other posters at what is posted in the off-topic area, and that will spread to other subforums. That would NEVER happen!
Almost like "If you bring the poo out of the loo, off to the gulag with you" I suggested would be the rule. If you don't keep it in the off-topic area, you lose non-off topic posting for a while to reflect on your life choices.
And considering how much work they already do as volunteers, I don't want to make more trouble for them than it's worth.
Moreover, this a forum for toy soldiers, of mayn varieties. It's not supposed to be about politics-if you want a political forum, go to a political forum. It's nice to have off-topic discussions (Geek Media, for example, is a somewhat related category that could arguably be excised, but has good reason to stay) but NOT at the cost of the primary discussions.
Whilst far from perfect, the simple fact they’re accused of partisan reporting by both left and right wing actually suggests they’re about nice.
There is a rather big omission in your statement there, Mad Doc. The right accuse the BBC of a left-leaning bias. The left accuse the BBC of not being left-leaning biased enough. Both of which are correct accusations, for various definitions of correct.
As to the mods saying "Woe is us, we can't possibly handle moderating threads on a forum where we volunteer to moderate threads", the whole point of a containment board is to throw it to the wind and let the fires rage there, in a controlled burn, rather than wiping out the whole forest. The only reports that should be acted on in that containment board is spam/illegal content. If people report non-reportable things, they lose their right to report in that forum.
Because there is, of course, no chance whatsoever that people will feel mad towards other posters at what is posted in the off-topic area, and that will spread to other subforums. That would NEVER happen!
Almost like "If you bring the poo out of the loo, off to the gulag with you" I suggested would be the rule. If you don't keep it in the off-topic area, you lose non-off topic posting for a while to reflect on your life choices.
But that requires fights and problems to break out on the main site to then moderate and lose those rights. So it doesn't actually solve the problem what so ever. You're still back to where we were before; more hostility in the general site. Only now there's a split in population somewhat and people can still fight in the political section. If anything it would result in a very hostile political section dominating the "new posts" section with fights and active threads; drawling in regular posters all the time and spilling outside of OT only to see some people half silenced but not silenced where they are starting the fights.
It's like trying to manage a tinder dry woodland whilst keeping a pet fire elemental. It's going to burn and spark and flame all the time and you're going to have far too many fires. Not that nice once every decade clear-out; but constant continual smouldering and burning fires that start up at random.
Forums with such communities tend to either become a total cesspool of fighting or they die. Either way the original focus of Dakka would be long dead and abused.
As to the mods saying "Woe is us, we can't possibly handle moderating threads on a forum where we volunteer to moderate threads",
Nobody said this.
the whole point of a containment board is to throw it to the wind and let the fires rage there, in a controlled burn, rather than wiping out the whole forest. The only reports that should be acted on in that containment board is spam/illegal content. If people report non-reportable things, they lose their right to report in that forum.
The reasons this wouldn't work have been explained.
Also a point to consider - forums right now can't afford to burn their userbase.
Back when forums and the internet was young and facebook didn't exist; forums could have more wild populations and still survive if they ranked well on google because forums were where everyone went to socialise and interact. There were many MORE forums and they were generally all a lot more active and with less effort to market the site.
Today is very different. Social media sites like facebook, twitter and others have bled the active recruitment of new users heavily. So now forums are far far less active; they aren't as heavily joined and many have up and died or wound up with just a small loyal core keeping things going.
Even though forums present a superior interface for discussion, FB is just easy and simple and direct. Social media has gobbled up the easy joining users.
Many forums now have to market themselves better; rank high on google just isn't enough on its own.
So on one level Dakka can't really afford to experiment with more hostile environments or risky content and such. Because if they wind up killing off their user base there's a much much harder road to recover it.
The wheel goes round and round. People want to talk politics here... they get told no for the same reasons they've been told no 4 or so times before.
And the salt flows, and the tears flow, and the rage-ohol gets passed around. 99 bottles of rage-ahol on the wall. 98 bottles of rage-ahol on the wall, 98 bottles of rage...
Could we possibly institute a rule banning the request for a return of political discussions? And maybe a further rule, banning the request of lifting the ban on the requesting of lifting the ban on political discussions? And maybe, for good measure, a rule banning the requesting of the lifting of restrictions on any restricted topic via the removal of any bans banning the banned content of banningness?
'Cause it always just devolves into people pissing into the wind about why can't I have my cake and eat it... and everyone else can eat gak because I wanna eat my cake, and I wanna eat it *here*. And no, eating my cake anywhere else isn't acceptable because someone else is telling me I can't eat my cake *here* so I'm gonna piss into the wind about it. Everyone is so unreasonable about not letting me eat cake *here*.
This seems like the really pertinent point in this discussion and it's been mentioned numerous times by a few posters. I'm still not sure why the board needs a place to talk about politics, or a section purely to allow for a burning dumpster fire. What value do we gain by allowing this? Dakka not having a place to talk about politics is not going to cause an inexorable downward spiral towards the breakdown of society and being denied your freedom of expression on a board for discussing toy soldiers is not going to lead to the collapse of democracy.
We know the crap in one part of the forum can often break out into another part of the forum. In fact, I believe that was one of the main reasons politics was banned in the first place: it didn't stay in its designated, walled-off place. So you can argue the mods should allow discussion of a largely uncontrollable topic unrelated to the board's main focus, that also causes arguments and bad feelings on other parts of the site by claiming they should do a better job of enforcing the rules that would only have to exist because of the existence of said board. It seems more reasonable to not bother with all that extra hassle and just ban politics altogether.
I have never understood what is so difficult about avoiding political discussion, and I think it is a very small minority of members that actually have a problem with it. I can see how moderating it is difficult, because the mods have to decide where a given post or thread crosses the line. But for the rest of us it is just a matter of not making politics the subject of a post and backing off when the mods ask. The ban is on discussing politics, it isn't as if "democracy" "authoritarian" "right-wing" and the like became forbidden words we can't even mention.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I have never understood what is so difficult about avoiding political discussion, and I think it is a very small minority of members that actually have a problem with it. I can see how moderating it is difficult, because the mods have to decide where a given post or thread crosses the line. But for the rest of us it is just a matter of not making politics the subject of a post and backing off when the mods ask. The ban is on discussing politics, it isn't as if "democracy" "authoritarian" "right-wing" and the like became forbidden words we can't even mention.
Those words might not be forbidden, but discussing circumstances surrounding things like COVID lockdowns or even why GW might want to move away from grimdark can fall under that umbrella.
And real quickly: have you not paid any attention at all to the terms used by the people who like to toss around crap like "SJW"? It's super political trash coming from them, just weasel-worded to avoid flying a flag.
Avoiding political discussion dealing with 40k right now? It's a lot more difficult than people like to pretend it is online. Hell, there's someone with a thread up right now for Trump 3D sculpts. Their signature line, before they or mods purged it, had their "Irish Nazi" Guard Regiment listed.
COVID is impossible to discuss without involving politics.
But I'm curious how 40k is political, as it has lost much of the political commentary it once had and honestly it is kinda hard to take seriously enough to be political.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I have never understood what is so difficult about avoiding political discussion, and I think it is a very small minority of members that actually have a problem with it. I can see how moderating it is difficult, because the mods have to decide where a given post or thread crosses the line. But for the rest of us it is just a matter of not making politics the subject of a post and backing off when the mods ask. The ban is on discussing politics, it isn't as if "democracy" "authoritarian" "right-wing" and the like became forbidden words we can't even mention.
Ultimately, there are some people who just cannot keep their political dicks in their pants, and will whip them out every chance they get and wave them around for all to see. They'll make little jabs, some sideways comments, dog whistles, snide remarks, etc., as often as they can get away with.
Tyran wrote: COVID is impossible to discuss without involving politics.
But I'm curious how 40k is political, as it has lost much of the political commentary it once had and honestly it is kinda hard to take seriously enough to be political.
Then you haven't been paying attention, because there were literal nazis trying to make inroads on 40k groups on Facebook/Reddit. There's a reason why the internet is inundated with these stupid memes of cheeto mussolini copypasta'd onto the Emperor's body from GW art.
And that's not even getting into the garbage that happened over this summer, or the continued harassment of a former GW employee by white supremacist trash.
It really isn’t... it’s an illness that has a series of effects on humans that can potentially cause respiratory failure.
I don’t need to discuss it *here* anymore than I need to talk about other ailments *here*. During common conversations the subjects may arise. We might talk about the impact on our lives. That only becomes political if we bring politics into it. It only becomes scientific if we bring scientific information to it. We, the people discussing, choose what we bring to our conversation.
I can get through conversations on here without bringing up my family. My job. My philosophy of existence. Things that matter so much more to me than politics. It’s not hard. It’s easy to follow the first rule of... never mind, actually. We weren’t talking about the rules of... anything.
So if you want to talk about something, stay out of the lava. Talk near the lava, but don’t talk *in* the lava.
I love to argue. My 99 year old Grandfather (that probably won’t get a family gathering on his 100th, in January) and I will argue politics till we’re blue in the face. We do it for the exercise. We do it to one up each other. Sometimes we learn something new from each other. We play-fight with our words, and I love it.
We make *EVERYONE* uncomfortable when we do it at dinner. So you know when we do it? After dinner. Could we do it during dinner? Does either of us give much of a feth about other people being uncomfortable? Sure. We both get a kick out of making everyone else uncomfortable. Because we’re donkey-caves. And sometimes it’s fun, to make someone else miserable, sometimes we want to have fun, at someone else’s expense, sometimes we park, in specially reserved spaces, while specially reserved relatives, make specially reserved faces! Cause we’re donkey-caves... e-oles e-ole-e-oleee-oles.
But we don’t want to ruin everyone else around us’s good time. So we do it later. After supper. We rant and we roar like true gladiators in our table-sized arena, after supper.
Then you haven't been paying attention, because there were literal nazis trying to make inroads on 40k groups on Facebook/Reddit. There's a reason why the internet is inundated with these stupid memes of cheeto mussolini copypasta'd onto the Emperor's body from GW art.
And that's not even getting into the garbage that happened over this summer, or the continued harassment of a former GW employee by white supremacist trash.
Well yes but those are issues regarding the fanbase, I meant what was political about 40k as a product.
First, apologies for my delayed response. I'm continuing the "thread within a thread" discussion about a possible alternate politics forum, which I am considering setting up.
The only reason for my delay is quite simple - I can't/don't post on Dakka during the day, and as a parent of young children, any serious posting I can make needs to happen after they're in bed. It also gives me a chance, sometimes, to read through what someone posted and have some time to think about it before replying. Any forum I set up would also basically be dealt with in this way, meaning I wouldn't be putting out fires all day - I'd deal with adminstrative things basically once or twice a day.
There are two things I'd like to reply to mentioned in this thread. The first is "bad faith posting" like Kanluwen's comment here:
Jerram wrote: Some of the comments in this thread are a perfect example of why we don't/cant have a political OT section. Unneeded snide comments about people with different political orthodoxy just sliding on through. If I say anyone who plays space marines is a WAAC poopyhead, Id prolly get called on it but if I say anyone who believes XYZ should be is a &^*&^ and should be banned from the public square, nada.
As for RITides questions about setting up a site to talk politics, there's basically two options.
Moderate the discussion which will inevitably lead to an echo chamber that fits the mods (sorry you're human) or
Let the discussion flow and the moderators only job is to facilitate that flow (clear spam, NSFW pics and similar)
This whole post, fyi, is a wonderful example of a bad faith argument.
"Moderating the discussion" does not automatically mean that it leads to an echo chamber...unless, in fact, one side of the discussion's position flatout does not have any value in being posted and they have zero intention to defend it or actually engage in a discussion.
Mods don't have to be factcheckers for a presidential debate, but dangit some of this stuff was just absurdly easy to spot.
I think this demonstrates really well why I Don't want to have a rule against bad faith posting, or having anyone make a judgement call on that. You previously mentioned posters who consistently posted a certain way in threads as an example of what bad faith posting is, and then immediately turned to an argument made on a one-off case in the same thread that you disagreed with. From what I've seen of bad faith posting - this example is merely something you disagree with, it is NOT made in bad faith. Jerram genuinely believes what he posted, and others in this thread have posted the same exact view. But you disagree with it, and labeled it as bad faith and something that you would want to see moderated. That would definitely Not be the case in a forum I would set up.
The second thing I wanted to address was "fact checking", like insaniak was discussing with Ouze here:
insaniak wrote: And here is where you're going to get a fundamental disagreement. Because it is not the job of Dakka's moderators to decide whether or not an argument is correct.
I know, which is why "talking past dakka here" were the very first words of my post. There is some discussion about a post-dakka forum.
...
What was interesting was the idea of maybe a new forum, and to that end, I wanted to weigh in what I think were the core approach problems that doomed that kind of discussion here. It doesn't really matter, things are so polarized maybe no approach will really work no matter what. "No moderation" certainly didn't work very well at the Wasteland.
I think part of the reason that got people so upset about Dakka, and honestly a lot of places that allow political discussion, was the view that false statements were a hazard to the public (and, in many ways in large social media venues, the argument can be effectively made that they are).
But in this type of setting, that concern isn't very relevant - it would be an area for debate and discussion among adults who choose to go there for that purpose. As for your previous comment (that I didn't include here just for length) regarding the "heckler's veto" - well, there wouldn't be a veto in this setting because we wouldn't need to keep peace for a wargaming forum. If people would want to disagree for hundreds of pages about health care, they could do just that freely. I did look into the possibility of a "slow mode" already to deal with someone who was dominating a conversation unfairly (basically spamming), but honestly with the level of traffic we'd get to start with I don't think that would be an issue at all. If we could generate the activity of this single thread in a day, I think that'd be a real win personally!
Kanluwen also mentioned this in his post, regarding presidential debates. But my view on debates is that the final presidential debate of this year was moderated correctly - the moderator, every time she was interrupted, asked the opposing candidate to respond, rather than responding or fact-checking herself. I thought she was brilliant, and the debate was actually quite good (but hardly anyone watched or listened, since things had obviously gotten so sour leading up to and through that point).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, to summarize my thoughts, here's where I'm at for some basic ground rules for such an unofficial politics discussion forum:
1. I would not participate in any of the discussion, other than on the moderating of the board (basically, what I'm doing here). The reason for this is kind of obvious - if I participate, I'm no longer viewed as a remotely fair "referee" in such a political debate.
2. I would not be fact-checking any arguments. There would be no "heckler's veto" simply because threads would not be in danger of being locked - they could remain open infinitely, or new ones created. There might possibly be a slow-mode or similar to cut down on someone dominating a conversation unfairly, but not based on their views - only their frequency.
3. I would not be making any judgement calls on "bad faith" arguments. The goal would be to try to attract people with different views to debate things. Otherwise, honestly, the forum would not serve much purpose!
4. Basic civility and NSFW rules would be enforced (I think this is a large part of the reason things did not work at The Wasteland - without some basic ground rules for debate, you cannot have a debate for long without it turning into a literal fight!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'd like to leave you with this clip from the West Wing, which I'm re-watching at the moment
The key quote:
President Josiah Bartlet:
We agree on nothing, Max.
Senator Lobell:
Yes, sir.
President Josiah Bartlet:
Education, guns, drugs, school prayer, gays, defense spending, taxes - you name it, we disagree.
Senator Lobell:
You know why?
President Josiah Bartlet:
Because I'm a lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead communist.
Senator Lobell:
Yes, sir. And I'm a gun-toting, redneck son-of-a-bitch.
President Josiah Bartlet:
Yes, you are.
Senator Lobell:
We agree on that.
The idea that people can sincerely disagree, and debate why, is something I think we've all noticed is becoming endangered online. I think we actually have had a pretty good run of sincerely disagreeing in political debate on Dakka, before running into the buzzsaw of the current climate for reasoned debate. I don't see what harm could come from trying it in a controlled space, and looking to have people debate and explain to one another why they think the way they think.
It's also possible it could fail spectacularly . But what's the harm in trying? I'm interested, particularly, in your thoughts Kanluwen and Ouze since I'm disagreeing with some of your takes on how I would structure the space. But I'd also like to hear what anyone else thinks and if you'd be interested in giving it a shot. Please note (and this will be in big bold letters somewhere) this would be strictly an unofficial thing of my own making, and I'd be the "referee" and nothing else. It would have no connection to Dakka. But for those who miss debating political issues with folks they got to know here and who they enjoyed tangling with over the years, it would be a chance to do so again. Further thoughts very much appreciated!
I think part of the reason that got people so upset about Dakka, and honestly a lot of places that allow political discussion, was the view that false statements were a hazard to the public (and, in many ways in large social media venues, the argument can be effectively made that they are).
No, it's because people were allowed to throw garbage out into the aether and derail threads with nonsense arguments and then no public punishments were ever really put out there.
I think this demonstrates really well why I Don't want to have a rule against bad faith posting, or having anyone make a judgement call on that. You previously mentioned posters who consistently posted a certain way in threads as an example of what bad faith posting is, and then immediately turned to an argument made on a one-off case in the same thread that you disagreed with. From what I've seen of bad faith posting - this example is merely something you disagree with, it is NOT made in bad faith. Jerram genuinely believes what he posted, and others in this thread have posted the same exact view. But you disagree with it, and labeled it as bad faith and something that you would want to see moderated. That would definitely Not be the case in a forum I would set up.
How do you know he genuinely believes it?
You claim it's not in bad faith--I'm seeing all the hallmarks of an argument being made in bad faith. It starts off with an absurd premise("moderating the discussion will lead to echo chambers") while also insinuating that there's going to be a problem no matter what...and then proposes an "alternative" that neuters any potential actual moderation as the only reasonable answer.
If you truly, sincerely think that a moderator's job needs to allow for people to repeat garbage arguments or conspiracy theorist nonsense with zero consequences?
Then you might as well keep moving on and pretend politics don't exist.
RiTides I think you are underestimating the intensity with which political discussions can be viewed. IIRC the coronavirus thread was closed in part because at the end people were very worked up and distressed because they believed that incorrect information posted in the thread was literally going to kill people. That is an unhealthy level of intensity and a twisting of things like posts on Dakka into being actual existential threats.
Another example would be the 40k is inevitably political assertion that was brought up in this thread. It's not that such an assertion has no basis, it does, but it also has no relevance to the vast majority of 40k threads/discussions on Dakka. It is very easy to discuss the game of 40k, the hobby of tabletop wargaming and the industry to producing miniatures without dragging in the fact that trolls and white supremacists like posting God Emperor Trump memes. Combining those topics into a discussion isn't a necessity or inevitability it's a choice. Not only that but it's not even choosing to have a discussion it's a choice to establish parameters on a discussion that forces it into a combative echo chamber. It's not a discussion, there is no intellectual curiosity involved or exchange of ideas when the basis for the discussion is asserting The Correct View on the situation and haranguing anyone who has the temerity to disagree because such disagreement is not only in defiance of The Correct View but is incorrect to such an extent as to make those who hold the incorrect view so horribly wrong as to be worthless or dangerous, either case making them an existential threat to life as we know it. What is the benefit of that type of discussion and do you really want to invest time and effort into moderating that type of discourse?
I can understand the appeal and the benefit of having the ability to take a diverse group of people, united in their passion for tabletop gaming, and allow them to discuss their different ideas, views and opinions on things like politics. There aren't many opportunities to have such discussions with people from all over the world with different experiences, knowledge and beliefs. Unfortunately I don't think such a place would actually be able to maintain the level of utopian casualness it would need. None of us are actually policy makers and power brokers. We're not the ones running the countries and making the big decisions. We'll never sit at those tables and if by some miracle we did get a seat at the table nobody would listen to us anyway. It's just an intriguing thought exercise. Once it becomes more about asserting The Correct View, and belittling, dismissing or crushing any dissenting views than listening to other views and acknowledging other perspectives, there's not a lot of value to be gained. Very few issues are actually absolutists almost everything has complexity and nuance. Very few people, ideas, and groups are irredeemably bad or undisputedly good but that is often the underlying assumption upon which political discussions are currently built.
You should do what you believe is best for you RiTides and I wish you luck with whatever you do. It's your sandbox, I hope you can manage and moderate it in a way that, if it doesn't bring you joy at least leaves you content.
You claim it's not in bad faith--I'm seeing all the hallmarks of an argument being made in bad faith. It starts off with an absurd premise("moderating the discussion will lead to echo chambers") while also insinuating that there's going to be a problem no matter what...and then proposes an "alternative" that neuters any potential actual moderation as the only reasonable answer.
If you truly, sincerely think that a moderator's job needs to allow for people to repeat garbage arguments or conspiracy theorist nonsense with zero consequences?
Then you might as well keep moving on and pretend politics don't exist.
Gotta say, I think you're way overreacting to that post by Jerram. I can't see anything in it that would indicate a bad faith argument. Seems like a pretty level-headed explanation of an opinion to me. You may not agree with the two options Jerram put forward for moderating a political forum but I don't see how that's bad faith posting. Just seems like you disagree with the framing of the two options. That's fine. Disagreement is what breeds debate, but automatically assuming someone you disagree with is posting in bad faith doesn't further debate.
It's a perfect example of what RiTides was talking about with regard to moderating bad faith posting.
I think the part of Jerram's post which caught my eye was this sentence:
Unneeded snide comments about people with different political orthodoxy just sliding on through.
I don't think anyone in this thread has made reference to any specific political orthodoxy. They have pointed out issues with argumentation (in my case the specific complaint of the repetition of claims which are not true without addressing any of the previous rebuttals of the last time they posted their claims). I may have just missed something and if so, I apologise, but it does seem like some people take a rebuttal of a style of argumentation that is inherently bad faith (as it is not based on actual discussion and debate) as a rebuttal against the policies they are trying to support using those arguments.
Honestly I think what some people want isn't a forum moderated by volunteers for social and functional reasons but a professional high level debating site with moderators who fact check; force advance of the debate beyond sticking points and generally operate on a much higher level of moderation.
I think they basically want degree level writing with references and facts in the post to defend and uphold viewpoints with the moderators acting like lecturers checking and marking and approving, disproving, etc.... the facts in the middle when the two sides cannot agree on points or if validity of sources is brought into question.
Basically you're not after a place where two or more people have a conversation; you're after a higher level of debate.
One where "Bad faith" would be exposed through lack of sufficient proof/supporting theory. Where opinion is crafted on fact and information adn where information is exchanged at a higher level than "what I was thinking of for the last5 mins whilst chatting about this".
And honestly that's a tall ask for volunteer mods who are mods on a miniature wargame forum and who, like as not, have no professional legal or political background to even give them the basic idea of the subject at large. You're after something WAY WAY different that Dakka and its staff cannot provide.
Because in the end online the only way to tell "bad faith" from incorrect stances is to have facts, fact checking, references, sources, key information and a much higher level of debate that would expose bad faith and false viewpoints from simple honest ignorance or variation of opinions on the same data sets.
Basically at best Dakka would offer a family table style of forum; what some are asking for is a professional university level debating forum.
Though I will respond that we do often see these kinds of potentially bad faith posts in other topics, which are related to wargaming.
A prime example is the argument of "Space Marines get the most support because they sell the most".
The longer any discussion about the perceived discrepancy between the support of factions in 40K goes on, the probability of this point being made approaches 1. I call it Goodwin's Law because I like puns.
Once this argument is made, it is guaranteed that the counter argument of "Space Marines sell the most because they get the most support" will enter the thread, usually with reference to the Dark Eldar 5th edition revamp, or Tau post-6th, where they went from slumming it with the SoB as a neglected faction to getting a new codex every edition, as well as supplement and model support. From this point the thread will almost always devolve into a bit of a mess of people defending the space marine focus, others wanting space marines to all be poured into the main reactor core of Chernobyl, the lack of support of Renegades and Heretics, the state of Blood Angels, how Eldar must atone for 6th edition, how Chaos must still repent for their 3.5 codex, how the Guardsman is too cheap etc. And often you get "Space Marines get the most support because they sell the most" thrown in there a couple more times by people who have skipped to the last page to respond to the OP.
Though I will respond that we do often see these kinds of potentially bad faith posts in other topics, which are related to wargaming.
A prime example is the argument of "Space Marines get the most support because they sell the most".
Even within Wargames its important to realise that "marines get the most" is a very casual observation that many people believe in. They don't study the numbers; they aren't focusing on the production schedul. They are simply looking at it through their own limited lens of casual observations. It's a fact they've never looked at the data to prove because by and large, its not important enough to bother with. In the end its a casual level of commentary and thinking ripe for being ignorant, incorrect, false, miss interpreted and all that.
And honestly that's how most of us are with hobbies and pass times - we research only so far and then no further. I can bet most photography fans do not have a clue about optical physics; or about digital translation of light data; or about the correct Japanese pronunciation of bokeh
"Bad Faith" is a problem as a term and way of thinking because it assumes that the person declaring "bad faith" knows the same information as the person making the "bad faith" comments. When in actuality both could be thinking of entirely different sets of data and criteria and one might not even have any raw data or impressions. In the end its also a bad path to head down because its essentially name-calling - in theory in a debate the term should never appear because one side will post data with sources/references which refute the other side. If the other side can't then present data to counter the point is lost and the moderator would move the discussion on if required.
I'll have a full reply tonight to everything, but just wanted to comment on this regarding the purpose:
Prestor Jon wrote: I can understand the appeal and the benefit of having the ability to take a diverse group of people, united in their passion for tabletop gaming, and allow them to discuss their different ideas, views and opinions on things like politics. There aren't many opportunities to have such discussions with people from all over the world with different experiences, knowledge and beliefs. Unfortunately I don't think such a place would actually be able to maintain the level of utopian casualness it would need. None of us are actually policy makers and power brokers. We're not the ones running the countries and making the big decisions. We'll never sit at those tables and if by some miracle we did get a seat at the table nobody would listen to us anyway. It's just an intriguing thought exercise. Once it becomes more about asserting The Correct View, and belittling, dismissing or crushing any dissenting views than listening to other views and acknowledging other perspectives, there's not a lot of value to be gained. Very few issues are actually absolutists almost everything has complexity and nuance. Very few people, ideas, and groups are irredeemably bad or undisputedly good but that is often the underlying assumption upon which political discussions are currently built.
That is definitely the appeal, and the reason I'd be interested in taking it on (again, I wouldn't be participating other than discussing how to moderate the site - but I actually enjoy reading political debate more than actually taking part myself, anyway!). In hindsight after seeing the number of places where divergent groups of people can come together and discuss politics become shockingly small, Dakka actually has a pretty great spread of people with which to have this kind of discussion (as far as different nationalities and political views goes, at least - not so much different ethnicities or sex, since we're a reflection of the makeup of the wargaming community in general).
The fact that no one has been able to link to an effective alternative for us to all go to is another point in favor of this. Many places I'm a part of have done the same thing as Dakka, simply removing political discussion to keep the peace for the main purpose of the site. But if we make a site whose main purpose IS to discuss politics, and have people sign up with clear ground rules like I outlined last page (that there would be no arbitrary moderation, no attempt to determine bad faith or fact-check, only to enforce a "level playing field" for discussion) I think it's actually something that I, at least, am missing at the moment. Or at least, am missing with people I have gotten to know (rather than utter strangers), and the caliber of poster on Dakka is actually quite high compared to the internet in general, making this place much more well positioned to try this than most.
As I said last page, and you mentioned in the first part of your post, it could fail spectacularly for a variety of reasons . But the goal from the moderation side would be for it Not to fail for the final reason you mention. There would be no "putting my finger on the scale", or actually participating in any debate (other than how to moderate) at all. It would simply be an open venue for, again, the pretty high caliber of people here to discuss things. Why can't we have a debate on health care, on minimum wage, on defense spending? There are obviously going to be topics that are much more difficult to address, but we should be able to debate things. From what I can see, the possible benefits of being able to have this space (which people consistently come back and ask for here!) far outweigh the possible downsides.
Bad Faith is a problem because people look at information (which is always imperfect) through who they are and interpret it differently. I've sat in a room with experts in their field before, all looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions.
As far as what I was accused of acting in bad faith in, its simple, the more you asks mods to make what are inherently subjective calls, the more they will (subconsciously if they're good) base those subjective calls on their own inherent biases, people learn that and act accordingly. Eventually more and more of the people with the minority viewpoint get tired of it and leave. I've seen it multiple times. I've never seen it not happen when boards are heavily moderated.
Malus, its a bit more than that but I'm trying not to drag this discussion into partisan political arguments.
RiTides
You still potentially have the problem of the poo getting dragged out of the loo, does that outweigh the benefits /shrug. I wish you luck.
Just a thought, but the only safe way for you to have another site for political discussion that won't have blowback onto Dakka is to have another site that has already established its entire own population separate from Dakka. That way arguments, debates and such that arise have a far greater chance to be their own thing on that site and the number of direct Dakka VS Dakka members (who know they are dakka members or use the same user names); becomes far less.
Otherwise another forum that's just dakka politics would have the same effect as a subsection on dakka - the mud would sling and it would blowback because the fights would be with hte same known faces and people. If anything it could actually be worse because someone might use a different user name on each site and use that as a means to target someone they don't like from one site on the other site.
If you want to "enforce a level playing field for discussion", then you need to ensure bad arguments cannot be put out there. You cannot have meaningful discussion without some modicum of common bloody sense being present.
Every time that garbage argument about drunk driving was posted in a thread about a mass shooting when gun control got mentioned? It should have been a flatout suspension for the poster who started to bring it up after Sandy Hook. They knew it was a garbage argument yet continued to trot it out because they also knew it was one guaranteed to get a reaction from people who were unfamiliar with their nonsense...which meant, unfortunately, that some people had to engage and put out that it was in fact a bad argument while having to ensure they didn't get too 'personal' against that poster because heavens forbid you call someone making a bad argument that they know is wrong and has been proven wrong ad nauseum a mean name!
Why can't we have a debate on health care or minimum wage or defense spending? Because for some reason, they're heavily politicized with terms like "socialism" tied to healthcare reform and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" with regards to minimum wage. Go figure right?
PS: I still don't know why that stupid "Trumpening" thread is up. It adds zero value to the forum, especially when dude is just spamming threads down that way. It's clearly intended to be political and the fact that you guys seem to have just let it skate is questionable.
I'm questioning your ability to dictate bad faith posts kanluwen. Because at this time it seems like in general it's "An argument I don't like" rather then anything relating to anything in general to bad faith posting.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm questioning your ability to dictate bad faith posts kanluwen. Because at this time it seems like in general it's "An argument I don't like" rather then anything relating to anything in general to bad faith posting.
And going by your posts in this thread, it's clear that you have zero interest in actually engaging beyond torching this thread.
I've said my piece. If you want to continue discussions RiTides, you can PM me. This isn't constructive as it stands because while waiting for your reply things can go off the rail. Politics can just stay off the table, but if that's the case? It needs to be a total shutdown of anything remotely political. Not just politics in general.
Anytime someone brings up "SJW" or "femnazis" or any of that trash? Come down like the wrath of fricking god on it. Because that is tied to political leanings at this point in time whether or not the moderation staff agrees if it is full on 'personal attacks' or not.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm questioning your ability to dictate bad faith posts kanluwen. Because at this time it seems like in general it's "An argument I don't like" rather then anything relating to anything in general to bad faith posting.
And going by your posts in this thread, it's clear that you have zero interest in actually engaging beyond torching this thread.
I've said my piece. If you want to continue discussions RiTides, you can PM me. This isn't constructive as it stands because while waiting for your reply things can go off the rail. Politics can just stay off the table, but if that's the case? It needs to be a total shutdown of anything remotely political. Not just politics in general.
Anytime someone brings up "SJW" or "femnazis" or any of that trash? Come down like the wrath of fricking god on it. Because that is tied to political leanings at this point in time whether or not the moderation staff agrees if it is full on 'personal attacks' or not.
The entire concept of 40k is political, since it satirises 1980's British politics. Are you asking for all 40k discussion to be banned?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm questioning your ability to dictate bad faith posts kanluwen. Because at this time it seems like in general it's "An argument I don't like" rather then anything relating to anything in general to bad faith posting.
And going by your posts in this thread, it's clear that you have zero interest in actually engaging beyond torching this thread.
I've said my piece. If you want to continue discussions RiTides, you can PM me. This isn't constructive as it stands because while waiting for your reply things can go off the rail. Politics can just stay off the table, but if that's the case? It needs to be a total shutdown of anything remotely political. Not just politics in general.
Anytime someone brings up "SJW" or "femnazis" or any of that trash? Come down like the wrath of fricking god on it. Because that is tied to political leanings at this point in time whether or not the moderation staff agrees if it is full on 'personal attacks' or not.
The entire concept of 40k is political, since it satirises 1980's British politics. Are you asking for all 40k discussion to be banned?
40k may have started political, but it can most definitely be discussed nowadays without bringing politics into it.
"Is S4 AP-2 D1 better than S5 AP0 D2?" is not a political question.
"How exactly does Disgustingly Resilient work with one-wound models and multi-damage weapons?" is not a political question.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm questioning your ability to dictate bad faith posts kanluwen. Because at this time it seems like in general it's "An argument I don't like" rather then anything relating to anything in general to bad faith posting.
That's why you need moderators that are able to make that distinction, because the debaters themselves are unlikely to be able to as they would be invested in the discussion.
JNAProductions wrote: 40k may have started political, but it can most definitely be discussed nowadays without bringing politics into it.
"Is S4 AP-2 D1 better than S5 AP0 D2?" is not a political question. "How exactly does Disgustingly Resilient work with one-wound models and multi-damage weapons?" is not a political question.
Only if we limit that discussion to rules (as your two examples do), or ban discussion of the context which gives meaning to the 40K universe.
Any discussion along the lines of, say, how the Imperium could have avoided becoming the dystopian misery factory it is would be impossible as it would rely on examining the fundamental principles of the Imperium, which are incredibly political (stuff like xenophobia, cult of personality, atheism vs religion, Imperialism, democracy vs authoritarianism, class, the value of an individual vs the collective, minority rights etc.).
JNAProductions wrote: 40k may have started political, but it can most definitely be discussed nowadays without bringing politics into it.
"Is S4 AP-2 D1 better than S5 AP0 D2?" is not a political question.
"How exactly does Disgustingly Resilient work with one-wound models and multi-damage weapons?" is not a political question.
Only if we limit that discussion to rules (as your two examples do), or ban discussion of the context which gives meaning to the 40K universe.
Any discussion along the lines of, say, how the Imperium could have avoided becoming the dystopian misery factory it is would be impossible as it would rely on examining the fundamental principles of the Imperium, which are incredibly political (stuff like xenophobia, cult of personality, atheism vs religion, Imperialism, democracy vs authoritarianism, class, the value of an individual vs the collective, minority rights etc.).
Even if we ban all that, which seems an overreaction when you can keep modern-day politics to a minimum, there's still a crapton you can talk about when it comes to toy soldiers.
JNAProductions wrote: 40k may have started political, but it can most definitely be discussed nowadays without bringing politics into it.
"Is S4 AP-2 D1 better than S5 AP0 D2?" is not a political question. "How exactly does Disgustingly Resilient work with one-wound models and multi-damage weapons?" is not a political question.
Only if we limit that discussion to rules (as your two examples do), or ban discussion of the context which gives meaning to the 40K universe.
Any discussion along the lines of, say, how the Imperium could have avoided becoming the dystopian misery factory it is would be impossible as it would rely on examining the fundamental principles of the Imperium, which are incredibly political (stuff like xenophobia, cult of personality, atheism vs religion, Imperialism, democracy vs authoritarianism, class, the value of an individual vs the collective, minority rights etc.).
Even if we ban all that, which seems an overreaction when you can keep modern-day politics to a minimum, there's still a crapton you can talk about when it comes to toy soldiers.
What do you class as modern day? Because Marx wrote the communist manifesto in 1848 yet I doubt me starting a thread in Off Topic to discuss his work would last long before being locked. And such a discussion could be relevant to a discussion of the Imperium's evolution.
JNAProductions wrote: 40k may have started political, but it can most definitely be discussed nowadays without bringing politics into it.
"Is S4 AP-2 D1 better than S5 AP0 D2?" is not a political question.
"How exactly does Disgustingly Resilient work with one-wound models and multi-damage weapons?" is not a political question.
Only if we limit that discussion to rules (as your two examples do), or ban discussion of the context which gives meaning to the 40K universe.
Any discussion along the lines of, say, how the Imperium could have avoided becoming the dystopian misery factory it is would be impossible as it would rely on examining the fundamental principles of the Imperium, which are incredibly political (stuff like xenophobia, cult of personality, atheism vs religion, Imperialism, democracy vs authoritarianism, class, the value of an individual vs the collective, minority rights etc.).
Even if we ban all that, which seems an overreaction when you can keep modern-day politics to a minimum, there's still a crapton you can talk about when it comes to toy soldiers.
What do you class as modern day?
A more relevant question would be what the mods class as modern day.
The vast, vast majority of posts on this board are completely non-political in nature. It's really not difficult to avoid politics completely in most cases. Even in those cases where there may be a political element to an on-topic discussion (the nature and history of the Imperium is a good example) there may well be a bit more leeway allowed but it's up to the mods to decide when that discussion strays too far towards the real world. In effect we don't really have a 100% ban on politics on Dakka. It's more a very strict guideline and warning about what may ultimately be deemed worthy of deletion.
However, every time certain subjects come up, they get banned. A majority of the current posts ...in the narrow group of accepted topics... is apolitical. If you want to talk about the role of women in the Imperium or inclusiveness in the hobby or even why Australian prices are so high, it inevitably gets locked. Pricing threads, FLGS horror stories, minority or female minis/what-is-cheesecake/offensive, all tend to go off the rails.
Dakka has removed a host of interesting conversation possibilities just so it can point to the bland remainder and say, “See? No politics in this hobby.”
The politic ban is an issue when it comes to media discussion, because media is full of it.
Star Wars, Star Trek and Marvel all have a surprisingly political nature.
And of course the relatively recent western animation shows like Steven Universe, Adventure Time, The Owl House, She-Ra, even Avatar, have social messages that are inherently political.
Well no one told the ST or SW people they couldn't talk about either topic any more - they are both going 50 pages strong and manage to be pretty moderator action free so far .
Why the need to discuss it on Dakka of all places?
As others have said, seemingly whilst advocating for it on Dakka, there are other sites better suited to such topics?
Please let me know where!
That Covid thread was such an interesting one and I am still sad that it got closed. I think 99% of it was well mannered and considered. I also think (and speaking a bit personally here) it was something of a pressure valve, and I think the fact that (most) of the posters on the site are well educated, or intelligent enough, to be able to sit and concentrate on miniature painting or playing a game I think lends itself well to that considered discussion. Compare Dakka to some of the forums focussing on video games for a comparison of quite how mature and measured most of the discussion is here.
But, in that thread, pretty much one person (perhaps unwittingly? I'm not sure whether it was master act of trollship or not) managed to act as a catalyst to raise tempers and led to the conversation getting a bit out of hand and at some strong language started being used against that person. Perhaps one or two people could have been blocked from that discussion and the other 50 or so could have continued to take part in the discussion?
Only if we limit that discussion to rules (as your two examples do), or ban discussion of the context which gives meaning to the 40K universe.
Any discussion along the lines of, say, how the Imperium could have avoided becoming the dystopian misery factory it is would be impossible as it would rely on examining the fundamental principles of the Imperium, which are incredibly political (stuff like xenophobia, cult of personality, atheism vs religion, Imperialism, democracy vs authoritarianism, class, the value of an individual vs the collective, minority rights etc.).
In-context discussion has always been fine (as mentioned with the ST and SW discussions). Bringing up real world examples to illustrate that in-context discussion would also potentially be fine, so long as the discussion overall didn't focus on that.
As has been discussed previously, the point of the politics ban was never to stifle hobby-relevant discussion, just to stop arguments over real-world politics from spoiling the site.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: However, every time certain subjects come up, they get banned. A majority of the current posts ...in the narrow group of accepted topics... is apolitical. If you want to talk about the role of women in the Imperium or inclusiveness in the hobby or even why Australian prices are so high, it inevitably gets locked. Pricing threads, FLGS horror stories, minority or female minis/what-is-cheesecake/offensive, all tend to go off the rails.
Dakka has removed a host of interesting conversation possibilities just so it can point to the bland remainder and say, “See? No politics in this hobby.”
Except we've never claimed that there is no politics in the hobby. Once again, the politics ban was not intended to stifle hobby-relevant discussion, just to remove an off-topic discussion topic that caused more trouble than it was worth.
All of the topics that you mention above were topics that would have consistently resulted in thread locks even before the politics ban, because they're all topics that people consistently refuse to discuss in a civil manner and so inevitably go off the rails.
insaniak wrote: Once again, the politics ban was not intended to stifle hobby-relevant discussion, just to remove an off-topic discussion topic that caused more trouble than it was worth.
You guys once nuked a thread about a Chinese printer not being able to deliver on a kickstarter game project because of censorship... a thread started by a mod, no less.
insaniak wrote: Once again, the politics ban was not intended to stifle hobby-relevant discussion, just to remove an off-topic discussion topic that caused more trouble than it was worth.
You guys once nuked a thread about a Chinese printer not being able to deliver on a kickstarter game project because of censorship... a thread started by a mod, no less.
Without being familiar with the thread you're taking about, I'm not sure how that's relevant to what I said.
JNAProductions wrote: 40k may have started political, but it can most definitely be discussed nowadays without bringing politics into it.
"Is S4 AP-2 D1 better than S5 AP0 D2?" is not a political question.
"How exactly does Disgustingly Resilient work with one-wound models and multi-damage weapons?" is not a political question.
Now try it with this one: 'Why are certain gangs being extensively reworked/not rereleased at all for Necromunda?'
Or, god help us, certain lore subjects. Or any discussion of certain BL authors, like what happened with Parrot.
Or even news items like "GW has banned these youtubers from making 40k vids." Never mind some of their other press releases of the "you will not be missed' vein.
I mean, consider how some threads that directly have to do with GW have on occasion dipped into this in the past, such as the various GW lawsuit threads or GW's shipping issues that came about due to the Trump/China trade war, or things like W Atiels (sp?) and Hasslefree's struggle to meet orders due to issues going on in the world right now.
Hell, COVID casualties among the local gaming groups in this area have been heavy. Granted I live in PA, where idiots keep the zone hot, but still.
Except we've never claimed that there is no politics in the hobby. Once again, the politics ban was not intended to stifle hobby-relevant discussion,
But that's been the result. I'm not saying that the ban should be lifted in dakka. My suggestion was just that Dakka mods start actually using Wasteland for it's intended function. The Mods brought up alternatives to that, that were, in theory, being discussed, though as usual, a lot of off topic discussion sprang up around that,
But that's been the result. I'm not saying that the ban should be lifted in dakka. My suggestion was just that Dakka mods start actually using Wasteland for it's intended function. The Mods brought up alternatives to that, that were, in theory, being discussed, though as usual, a lot of off topic discussion sprang up around that,
Honestly, I have no idea what the 'intended function' of the Wasteland actually is, these days, but given some of the content on there it is most assuredly not a place I would be recommending to people, unless I was sure they were OK with that sort of environment.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm questioning your ability to dictate bad faith posts kanluwen. Because at this time it seems like in general it's "An argument I don't like" rather then anything relating to anything in general to bad faith posting.
And going by your posts in this thread, it's clear that you have zero interest in actually engaging beyond torching this thread.
I've said my piece. If you want to continue discussions RiTides, you can PM me. This isn't constructive as it stands because while waiting for your reply things can go off the rail. Politics can just stay off the table, but if that's the case? It needs to be a total shutdown of anything remotely political. Not just politics in general.
Anytime someone brings up "SJW" or "femnazis" or any of that trash? Come down like the wrath of fricking god on it. Because that is tied to political leanings at this point in time whether or not the moderation staff agrees if it is full on 'personal attacks' or not.
Oh no I'm quite interested in engaging and certainly not trying to "Torch this thread" as you've branded me a firestarter over. I've just said my piece in general that politics really should not remain, and I try not to clutter up things much longer then that so as to let people discuss things as they need to otherwise, but your comments on the matter are so strongly worded that I felt the need to discuss them to provide some counterpoint. Not to mention also bringing up a random post to get locked at the same time because you feel they are political while they aren't discussing politics at all because simply they contain a matter you dislike.
Honestly, I have no idea what the 'intended function' of the Wasteland actually is, these days, but given some of the content on there it is most assuredly not a place I would be recommending to people, unless I was sure they were OK with that sort of environment.
To be fair, it's actually improved significantly from when the dakka mods first exiled Politics to that forum. For example, all the threads full of pics of men with their dicks chained together have been eliminated, we think.
Yeah, that was me ...and I was unfortunate enough to stumble across one of those type of pics... definitely the kind of mental image worm you don't soon get rid of
But I'm willing to put in some work to get us a better alternative! It looks to me like we've still got demand for such a space, and that we're actually really missing something in Not being able to talk about these things in certain ways with this excellent group of people we have here.
My goal will be to set it up by the end of the month (December), and I'll be putting in some work between now and then to make that happen. If anyone has more feedback / ideas please feel free to share, this has been very helpful! I'll post up a dedicated thread in OT when it's ready to go. Cheers everyone
I would say be more willing to hand out temp and perm bans to people with a trend of bad-faith posting. I'm not talking a single post or line of discussion, but those tiny minority of posters who repeatedly do it and have seen threads dragged down to locking time and again. I recall trying to tell people to ignore such people in the Covid thread lest it get locked, and we all know how that ended.
RiTides wrote: Yeah, that was me ...and I was unfortunate enough to stumble across one of those type of pics... definitely the kind of mental image worm you don't soon get rid of
But I'm willing to put in some work to get us a better alternative! It looks to me like we've still got demand for such a space, and that we're actually really missing something in Not being able to talk about these things in certain ways with this excellent group of people we have here.
My goal will be to set it up by the end of the month (December), and I'll be putting in some work between now and then to make that happen. If anyone has more feedback / ideas please feel free to share, this has been very helpful! I'll post up a dedicated thread in OT when it's ready to go. Cheers everyone
That's really great news
Sorry for being slow but are you talking about setting up something here on Dakka ?
This would be a completely unofficial, separate board. I'd obviously link to it in a thread in OT when it's ready, but the idea is to have a space for this community (and others who might be interested) to talk about politics and social issues that are currently unable to be discussed here (due to the site's main purpose being miniatures discussion).
In other words, not taking anything from Dakka, but filling a void we've had regarding being able to talk about some things. Will be looking into the interface options and costs this week (if anyone knows of a really high quality one please let me know)
To be clear, 'the dakka mods' never did that. 'A' Dakka mod suggested it as an alternative.
Let me amend that then: On this particular occasion just one mod brought it up. It's been done before, to the same forum, by other mods, including, a bit amusingly, yakface. It was founded literally as Dakkas dumping ground for OT that got too hot. To be honest, if I could get mod privileges, I'd just go through and clean it up, but I have no idea if anyone who still mods there has the ability to still do that.
To be clear, 'the dakka mods' never did that. 'A' Dakka mod suggested it as an alternative.
Let me amend that then: On this particular occasion just one mod brought it up. It's been done before, to the same forum, by other mods, including, a bit amusingly, yakface. It was founded literally as Dakkas dumping ground for OT that got too hot.
It wasn't just for the 'too hot' stuff. When the Wasteland was started, it was because Dakka didn't have an OT section. So a bunch of people, including several of the mods of the time, went over to the original Phantom Lord's OT Zone to scratch that itch. Back then, it was somewhat rowdy and lawless, but a far cry from the mess that it turned into over the years.
This would be a completely unofficial, separate board. I'd obviously link to it in a thread in OT when it's ready, but the idea is to have a space for this community (and others who might be interested) to talk about politics and social issues that are currently unable to be discussed here (due to the site's main purpose being miniatures discussion).
In other words, not taking anything from Dakka, but filling a void we've had regarding being able to talk about some things. Will be looking into the interface options and costs this week (if anyone knows of a really high quality one please let me know)
Great stuff!
Look forward to it, will be nice to have a place to have discussion (the 'd' being the operative word!)
I think if it starts with a solid foundation of members from this site (and I assume will have to have some 'red lines' that cannot be crossed in terms of content?) then hopefully it will be good for meaningful discussion, rather than just trolls or reprobates.
RiTides wrote: Which is entirely possible . We'll see...
So... I've been paying attention to this thread for quite some time without posting, as I wanted to see how it evolved.
There is enough history between Dakka's Political OT subforum and the Wasteland forum.
Two polar opposite forums in terms of rules and moderation.
I can say, without a doubt, that I vastly prefer how Dakka did it, as opposed to the unmoderated Wasteland forum. Of course, I understand how the "Dakka Model" became untenable to the mods and I fully support the mod's current stance to ban the kind of political thread we used to have. While I *do* miss it, it did become divisive and we all saw how it "infected" the other gaming subforums. Rather than bringing us all together to discuss our plastic crack habit, the OT politics thread became an avenue to raised acrimony throughout the site.
The Wasteland model is a failed one, as the ideologues simply retreated to their corners and simply trolled one another, even to the point of wishing death on each other. There's no sense of debating on the merits and eventually turned into an echo chamber.
As to your ground rules:
1. I would not participate in any of the discussion, other than on the moderating of the board (basically, what I'm doing here). The reason for this is kind of obvious - if I participate, I'm no longer viewed as a remotely fair "referee" in such a political debate.
2. I would not be fact-checking any arguments. There would be no "heckler's veto" simply because threads would not be in danger of being locked - they could remain open infinitely, or new ones created. There might possibly be a slow-mode or similar to cut down on someone dominating a conversation unfairly, but not based on their views - only their frequency.
3. I would not be making any judgement calls on "bad faith" arguments. The goal would be to try to attract people with different views to debate things. Otherwise, honestly, the forum would not serve much purpose!
4. Basic civility and NSFW rules would be enforced (I think this is a large part of the reason things did not work at The Wasteland - without some basic ground rules for debate, you cannot have a debate for long without it turning into a literal fight!)
This... is very similar to Dakka's old rules. What is that "secret sauce" you will be applying here that would make your new forum successful? Or, is it because that it'll be its own website, it wouldn't necessarily "spill" over into the other Dakka forums?
May I make another suggestion?
#5 Las Vegas Rule. What happened in "RiTide's Sandbox's, stays in the Sandbox™". Additionally, encourage anonymity by asking new posters NOT to use their Dakka handle. Although, I probably wouldn't do it and would like keep my name, I can see some posters wanting to debate in the new forum without bringing any preconceived notions/baggage from their Dakka handle. For example: While I'm not proud of some of the things I posted that contributed to the Wasteland insanity, I'd challenge you to read that thread from the beginning in the early days of that thread and see what happened when I started posting there. There was ZERO chance of any meaningful debates as I used my Dakka name (and a derivative in later postings), such that everyone knew of me and acted accordingly since there was zero moderation.
Lastly, since your "light touch" moderation would be limited at certain hours (ie, after work, and when kids are asleep), the posters in your forum need to understand that any moderation is delayed. Repeat offenders need a 'sin bin' if they abuse the system. Be upfront with that.
I’ve read that thread from the beginning, as well as the thread dedicated to the worst bad faith poster on Dakka and the Wasteland, and I will say that RITides should consider very carefully any moderation scheme that meets approval with said poster.
The Wasteland model is a failed one, as the ideologues simply retreated to their corners and simply trolled one another, even to the point of wishing death on each other. There's no sense of debating on the merits and eventually turned into an echo chamber.
Considering the sheer hypocrisy in *this* statement...
The Wasteland model is a failed one, as the ideologues simply retreated to their corners and simply trolled one another, even to the point of wishing death on each other. There's no sense of debating on the merits and eventually turned into an echo chamber.
Considering the sheer hypocrisy in *this* statement...
Just updating that I read the above posts and have been thinking about all the feedback. While all of this is probably fair game in my "sandbox", let's not get this thread locked if at all possible, please.
As for how it will stay separate, it seemed to for the most part when the Wasteland discussion was active, simply because you could freely discuss things there without running afoul of the "no politics" rule. So, I expect the same will likely be true - the easiest place to discuss things will be in the political forum.
I'm very open to ideas for a name, by the way. So far the best I have is "The Politics Space" . I've also convinced our resident Dakka economics PhD to participate! Apologies if there is another of you out there that I'm unaware of . Points if you know who it is...
As for moderators, my preferred candidate turned me down so looks like I'll be starting out solo, at least. If activity levels aren't crazy high that might be fine anyway, but there will definitely be a notice that any admin activities will likely be only enacted daily. No way I'm trying to mod from the toilet during the day
Thanks for your patience and for all the suggestions while I get things sorted!
I can understand the logic behind 'no politics', but there has to be some acknowledgement that there is crossover into our lives (and indeed our hobbies) and that having such a strict rule can make the forum feel weirdly detached and surreal. I'm imagining some kind of nuclear Armageddon or zombie apocalypse happening and then the thread discussing it being locked, after a certain poster comments "Fair play to Boris Johnson, he went on TV and refused to apologise for leaving the nuclear launch codes in the back of a taxi". Gradually the number of posters on the forum declines until it stops altogether. A few months down the line a new user 'Hero of Ultramar', "Hey guys are there any tournaments going on at the moment by me?"
I'm on a motorsports forum as well and that has exactly the same kinds of discussions going on (although I will say probably less civil!). You have the 'c' word, it's impacted events, and then at some point someone is always going to say "if only this... " or "because of x.. " and then off the argument goes and the thread gets locked.
There is the same discussion going on with tournaments being cancelled or releases being delayed, it's very difficult to ignore the elephant in the room with it and it needs people to stay civil and not immediately go for the throat of someone that doesn't agree with them.
Similarly with Brexit, although I'm glad a few threads offering advice about shortage of goods/buying into or out of the UK have been allowed to persist.
RiTides wrote: Just updating that I read the above posts and have been thinking about all the feedback. While all of this is probably fair game in my "sandbox", let's not get this thread locked if at all possible, please.
As for how it will stay separate, it seemed to for the most part when the Wasteland discussion was active, simply because you could freely discuss things there without running afoul of the "no politics" rule. So, I expect the same will likely be true - the easiest place to discuss things will be in the political forum.
I'm very open to ideas for a name, by the way. So far the best I have is "The Politics Space" . I've also convinced our resident Dakka economics PhD to participate! Apologies if there is another of you out there that I'm unaware of . Points if you know who it is...
As for moderators, my preferred candidate turned me down so looks like I'll be starting out solo, at least. If activity levels aren't crazy high that might be fine anyway, but there will definitely be a notice that any admin activities will likely be only enacted daily. No way I'm trying to mod from the toilet during the day
Thanks for your patience and for all the suggestions while I get things sorted!
'The Symposium' or 'The Salon' would be my suggestions.
Reading through this thread is quite amusing. its almost like an inverse of the philosophical discussions throughout history. We hit a sweet spot when we decided that speech should be as free as reasonably practicable, and now we've lost all that because we as a people are unable to even entertain the notion that people with different opinions to ours may not be evil/immoral and our enemy, and therefore they must be talking in 'bad faith' (WTF does that even mean?) So now we have internet forums trying to decide what can and cant be talked about in order to protect peoples fragile emotions. Funny. I just finished 'Heretics' by G.K.Chesterton, and in that he says: 'ideas are dangerous, but only to the man of no ideas...'
The Wasteland model is a failed one, as the ideologues simply retreated to their corners and simply trolled one another, even to the point of wishing death on each other. There's no sense of debating on the merits and eventually turned into an echo chamber.
Considering the sheer hypocrisy in *this* statement...
I mean, he's not entirely wrong.
It's hard to be a total donkey-cave and hide behind forum rules when there aren't any and everyone has known you long enough to know what a crappy conversationalist you are. From the perspective of a gak poster, Wastelands is a total failure and Whembly's derisive gakposting was 75% of the problem with politics in the OT board. It'll be 75% of the problem with any new space, which will be equally doomed to failure when the mods get tired of policing it and seeing the same 3-4 names at the end of every report button that they refuse to simply ban from the space because DakkaDakka doesn't deal with problem posters, just problem topics.
EDIT: And yes, this post is rather mean. I just don't see the point in pretending. RiTides has a noble ideal and I love that, but there it showcases the same underlying denials that have always plagued political discourse on Dakka. There never was political discussion here. Not really. Any given topic died within the first few posts, usually at the hands of the 'usual suspects' (four to five specific people, three of which still post here and two of which have recently gotten threads that edged to close to politics explicitly locked). We can't even discuss non-political topics sometimes without a 'that fing poster' derailing the entire thread. It's nice to talk about bringing people of different values and ideas together, but it's naive because it ignores the board's history and the reality of specific users who have always been problems. They're not problems because of their values but because of their behaviors. We can't even discuss posting behaviors without it becoming a pissing contest over who is censoring whose beliefs (this thread amply demonstrates that for the past few pages), and until there's a breakthrough on that front and a discussion about how values are expressed rather than what the values are, any effort to return politics to Dakkadakka will fail.
The Wasteland model is a failed one, as the ideologues simply retreated to their corners and simply trolled one another, even to the point of wishing death on each other. There's no sense of debating on the merits and eventually turned into an echo chamber.
Considering the sheer hypocrisy in *this* statement...
I mean, he's not entirely wrong.
It's hard to be a total donkey-cave and hide behind forum rules when there aren't any and everyone has known you long enough to know what a crappy conversationalist you are. From the perspective of a gak poster, Wastelands is a total failure and Whembly's derisive gakposting was 75% of the problem with politics in the OT board. It'll be 75% of the problem with any new space, which will be equally doomed to failure when the mods get tired of policing it and seeing the same 3-4 names at the end of every report button that they refuse to simply ban from the space because DakkaDakka doesn't deal with problem posters, just problem topics.
Way to prove my points guys. I was one of maybe 2 or 3 posters who held differing opinions out of the whole site at Wastelands where the politics essentially pitted the GOP/Republican/US Conservative posters against everyone else. Wastelands ought to be renamed as the "Liberal/Lefty Haven @ Wasteland" as any posters going against those orthodoxies is immediately a pariah.
@RiTides, this was what I was talking about... holding differing opinions gives certain posters license to engage in the kind of "debate" whereby the goal isn't to debate on the merits, but to otherize the dissent so that they feel justified for their own dickish behaviors. If you can herd these cats to debate on merits, rather than otherizeing the dissents...you've done something really meaningful.
I wish you luck on this endeavor as I probably won't join your sandbox in the near future and I sincerely hope you find success where Dakka OT & Wasteland failed.
I'm going to not ignore you this one time to be real;
I was one of maybe 2 or 3 posters who held differing opinions out of the whole site at Wastelands where the politics essentially pitted the GOP/Republican/US Conservative posters against everyone else.
Wastelands ought to be renamed as the "Liberal/Lefty Haven @ Wasteland" as any posters going against those orthodoxies is immediately a pariah.
You still post on Wastelands despite thinking its a failure. And they insult you back because it's a no moderation space, but the thing that stands out to me is how you're still posting there. Basically all but four people ignore you, and only one of those four people even tries to give you a chance. That space is explicitly hostile toward you specifically. I'm not even going to debate whether or not it's your posting behaviors or your conservatism that caused that. I think it's beside my point here and my point is for you as much as it is for RiTides.
You're still posting there. Why are you still posting there? Someone has wished death on you, insulted your father, insulted your kids, jesus feth I can be a real donkey-cave but I have my limits. I can't do anything more than say those comments are way out of line on Wasteland but the thing that gets me is that you're still posting there. You posted earlier this week! You've told me a bunch of reasons, many of them are completely unflattering but I don't think they matter here. The point is that you still go there. I've known you for ten years on this board and I don't know much of your life off the board, but from my experience on the boards, I'm telling you that you have a problem. It's unhealthy for you. It's unhealthy for the boards. Other posters have problems too, but you specifically go beyond normal problems requiring occasional moderation.
There are people like me who can get mean, but it's sporadic at worst. Unless the moderation team adjusts it's style to actually deal with people who are looking for bitter arguments because that's where they're comfortable, there is no point in a political discussion space. It can't even be moderated effectively outside of politics and regularly crops up in N&R and I see it plenty on Geek Media.
I'm currently, explicitly thinking of the HP Lovecraft thread, which became nothing but one user complaining about one thing despite attempts by me and others to refocus the topic elsewhere. I eventually blew up on that guy, because my patience threshold for shitposting is low, but as far as I can tell he's otherwise fine as a poster. That's true of most posters on Dakkadakka I think. We only occasionally get dragged down into shouting matches. It happens. We only occasionally need any sort of moderation to intervene into our behaviors. I think I was tempbanned upwards of fifteen times in six (???) years when politics was allowed here, and haven't been banned once since it was disallowed and my reflection on that time is that there are specific posters who bring out the worst in everyone. There was a point where I thought that meant political discussions were better off without me and I've tried to avoid some of the threads on Dakka that veered that way over the years because of it (not always succeeding).
You are like my opposite. I don't think you do it on purpose, but you revel in that nastiness you're so eager to complain about. You love it that people hate you. Looking back over the years I've posted in the same space as you, I believe you love making people hate you so you can love being hated. You like that people on the Wasteland hate you and that's why you keep posting there.
The moderation team has broadly failed to tackle that problem, in you and in other posters like you. Some posters don't want civility. They want incivility and they thrive in causing it and seek it out. I could be wrong, but feth I have no real explanation for your behavior over the years, or the behaviors of the other posters I'm thinking of who continually dragged political discussions into vicious and bitter exercises. Some people seem convinced it's an ideological problem. I completely disagree. The problem isn't political opinion, it's certain posters who love bitterness and find ways to engender it in others consciously or unconsciously.
There's a metaphor in here somewhere about toxic relationships. The way moderation is run here is that the mods don't get involved until the insults start flying, but specific posters are perfectly situated to use that moderation style to feed an addiction for conflict that most of the rest of us find exhausting. It brings out the worst in people and that's the real problem. I don't think anyone is really prepared to try and manage a politics board until they're prepared to deal with the kind of person that enjoys bitterness. I know Dakkadakka isn't. The mods will keep maintaining the 'don't respond' mantra, as if that's even remotely worked at any point in the last ten years I've been here.
I’m exalting LordofHats’ post. It’s everything I’ve wanted to say (and more) about posters being the problem rather than politics. My issue has been that Dakka banned topics when topics weren’t the problem.
LordofHats wrote: Basically all but four people ignore you, and only one of those four people even tries to give you a chance.
As that one person, I can't upvote your post enough.
Also, regarding the idea that the Wasteland is somehow an "echo chamber" that's only really true when it comes to one subject in particular: the US Republican party. Even then, there is dissent (see the relatively recent debate on what post-inauguration strategy Biden should pursue in regards to the Republicans (conciliatory vs. throwing the book at them). Hell, even myself and FutureWarCultist, who more or less despised each other, managed to apologize to each other and agree that whembly's being crazy (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the sentiment I've gotten at any rate). Is it an echo chamber when people tell Flat Earthers to get lost? When anti-vaxxers are shut down?
Which neatly brings us back to the concept of "problem posters". For the second part of the Obama administration, whembly's Benghazi posts were a fixture of the Politics threads in the OT forum. The slow decline of quality in political threads is not the blame of any one poster, but if one poster had to be chosen as the avatar of what politics became on Dakka it is impossible to nominate anyone other than whembly.
You know the more I think on it the more I think the problem isn't moderation - its forum structure. Forums are great as places of free exchange of information, where anyone can have a say as much as they wish (provided they remain with the rules etc...).
This is great when you have a casual discussion, debate or want to ask about how to paint or build something or ask lore questions etc...
But it utterly fails as a means to enabling a more serious debate/discussion. Because anyone can have a say you get caught up in small fights around a single issue which fast becomes a contest of egos. In addition because anyone can speak and speak when they want you get caught in a "last word wins" situation where neither side will back down; both sides want to have the last word since that implies that they defeated their opponent. At the same time many people say and believe (which is scary and sad whe you think about it) that "no one will change their opinion from what is said online". Whilst a totally false statement, it still feeds into this idea of a perpetual "last word" issue.
It also mean that anyone can derail or continue a single point of discussion even if evidence has refuted it.
Basically you get a mess very quickly that takes a lot of moderator time to sift through. However worse than that it can easily spill over and the fight continues elsewhere even if the original thread gets moderated and locked etc..
so lets pause and consider that the free posting on forums is perhaps as much a barrier to constructive political debate online. Maybe what needs changing isn't just moderation, but the actual functionality and nature of how political debates are conducted on an online service.
Perhaps you need to move toward a more formal system setup.
Consider if instead of free topics you had set topics; a limited range within the means of the moderation to keep up with. Ontop of that you also impose a specific moderator to moderate the thread itself, someone impartial to ensure order is maintained.
Then you restrict posters to perhaps have only one post in the thread. You've a single question/point/topic and each person has a single post to make their case within that topic.
If it was a simple one vs one situation with moderator then each side can identify their stance; then a moderator can permit them each an additional post to respond to their opposition - the moderator able to thus keep control. They've always got the last word and a formal design might even limit it to X number of posts per side per debate, adding to that value for each point raised within.
Slowing things down; constricting the posting speed and volume would increase weight of each post. It would also help to dismantle the more casual argument style of posting and replace it with a more formal structure. People would have more time to research and post their facts; have less chance of getting drawn into 2 hour fight in the evening. In addition it starts to remove the "last word" concept. You say your bit, you debate in the middle and then you make summary statements and that's it.
Adapt it for online and you could permit multiple people posting and giving counterarguments since in general salient points will rise to the top and dominate the discussion (effective moderating can also winnow out and ban/restrict chatter on clearly side/distraction or irrelevant points).
Of course this is all much more work in designing a system that works; moderating it and ensuring it remains active with enough turnover of content and discussion. It might suit being a bolt-on to another forum (or several) as an optional "once a month" type affair that could have a long term view to increasing the rate of debates as the community grew.
Of course this is all way more effort, but its at least one idea on actually looking not just at trying to punish/remove people from debates; but to deal with the fundamental weaknesses of forum design with respect to achieving a higher level of debate online.
I'm going to not ignore you this one time to be real;
I appreciate that.
You may not know it, but I value your posts as you continually challenge my positions.
How is that not a good thing?
The things that animates you, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you don't always persuade me to your perspectives and that frustrates you that I'm obstinate to my own persepctives.
It's okay to have disagreements. It's even okay to believe that you have the facts on your side and that I'm totally wrong. Why is it a problem then? Say your piece and move on.
I mean, if you really look at, much of the accusations of "bad faith" that is attributed to me is really over differences in each of our opinions.
I was one of maybe 2 or 3 posters who held differing opinions out of the whole site at Wastelands where the politics essentially pitted the GOP/Republican/US Conservative posters against everyone else.
Wastelands ought to be renamed as the "Liberal/Lefty Haven @ Wasteland" as any posters going against those orthodoxies is immediately a pariah.
You still post on Wastelands despite thinking its a failure. And they insult you back because it's a no moderation space, but the thing that stands out to me is how you're still posting there. Basically all but four people ignore you, and only one of those four people even tries to give you a chance. That space is explicitly hostile toward you specifically. I'm not even going to debate whether or not it's your posting behaviors or your conservatism that caused that. I think it's beside my point here and my point is for you as much as it is for RiTides.
You're still posting there. Why are you still posting there? Someone has wished death on you, insulted your father, insulted your kids, jesus feth I can be a real donkey-cave but I have my limits. I can't do anything more than say those comments are way out of line on Wasteland but the thing that gets me is that you're still posting there. You posted earlier this week! You've told me a bunch of reasons, many of them are completely unflattering but I don't think they matter here. The point is that you still go there. I've known you for ten years on this board and I don't know much of your life off the board, but from my experience on the boards, I'm telling you that you have a problem. It's unhealthy for you. It's unhealthy for the boards. Other posters have problems too, but you specifically go beyond normal problems requiring occasional moderation.
Why should I or anyone else, unilaterally retreat from the debate grounds simply because one is outnumbered?
Effectively the Wasteland is a manifestation of a rage mob. The absolute worst thing those posters in the Wasteland want, is my continued participation.
Why should I give in?
I mean, isn't those poster's behavior a true definition of a Heckler's veto?
Am I wrong?
FWIW, I don't consider myself a frequent poster anymore at Wasteland. Also, there's very little movement at that board unless I'm (or some others) frequently posting in a true back-n-forth fashion. It's literally an echo chamber now with no meaningful debates.
I mean, I religiouslyread that dakka COVID thread, but purposely stayed out of it outside of maaaaybe two posts. And it *still* got moderated and eventually got locked down. I'd argue it wasn't the same folks that you identified contributed to the demise of OT Political threads.
There are people like me who can get mean, but it's sporadic at worst. Unless the moderation team adjusts it's style to actually deal with people who are looking for bitter arguments because that's where they're comfortable, there is no point in a political discussion space. It can't even be moderated effectively outside of politics and regularly crops up in N&R and I see it plenty on Geek Media.
I agree with you there.
I don't see anything wrong with mods handing out temp bans with the justifications, as I've been on the receiving end on a few of them.
I'm currently, explicitly thinking of the HP Lovecraft thread, which became nothing but one user complaining about one thing despite attempts by me and others to refocus the topic elsewhere. I eventually blew up on that guy, because my patience threshold for shitposting is low, but as far as I can tell he's otherwise fine as a poster. That's true of most posters on Dakkadakka I think. We only occasionally get dragged down into shouting matches. It happens. We only occasionally need any sort of moderation to intervene into our behaviors. I think I was tempbanned upwards of fifteen times in six (???) years when politics was allowed here, and haven't been banned once since it was disallowed and my reflection on that time is that there are specific posters who bring out the worst in everyone. There was a point where I thought that meant political discussions were better off without me and I've tried to avoid some of the threads on Dakka that veered that way over the years because of it (not always succeeding).
You are like my opposite. I don't think you do it on purpose, but you revel in that nastiness you're so eager to complain about. You love it that people hate you. Looking back over the years I've posted in the same space as you, I believe you love making people hate you so you can love being hated. You like that people on the Wasteland hate you and that's why you keep posting there.
I tried, triiiiiiiiiiied to reset expectations and the debate parameters in Wasteland but there was ZERO interest for that.
I keep posting there, albeit infrequently, simple because I refuse to take myself out entirely because doing so otherwise validates the other poster's rage mob mentality.
The moderation team has broadly failed to tackle that problem, in you and in other posters like you. Some posters don't want civility. They want incivility and they thrive in causing it and seek it out. I could be wrong, but feth I have no real explanation for your behavior over the years, or the behaviors of the other posters I'm thinking of who continually dragged political discussions into vicious and bitter exercises. Some people seem convinced it's an ideological problem. I completely disagree. The problem isn't political opinion, it's certain posters who love bitterness and find ways to engender it in others consciously or unconsciously.
I *want* civil discussions.
I *want* to be challenged and I'm interested in seeing what other folks has to say because I recognize that we're all coming from different places with different ideas.
I don't believe I actively seek out bitter divisiveness, but I won't just "take it" when gak is lobbed my way.
However, I think the incivility stems partly from ideology and others not respecting dissenting opinions.
There's a metaphor in here somewhere about toxic relationships. The way moderation is run here is that the mods don't get involved until the insults start flying, but specific posters are perfectly situated to use that moderation style to feed an addiction for conflict that most of the rest of us find exhausting. It brings out the worst in people and that's the real problem. I don't think anyone is really prepared to try and manage a politics board until they're prepared to deal with the kind of person that enjoys bitterness. I know Dakkadakka isn't. The mods will keep maintaining the 'don't respond' mantra, as if that's even remotely worked at any point in the last ten years I've been here.
I was open to the idea that mods do more, but at the end of the day I support the mod's decision due to the amount of manhours needed to manage such a thread.
As for RiTide's new sandbox, it'll be "his" board so it'll be "his" rules. Maybe he can come up with a process whereby posters can petition to have "x" poster banned, sort of having "trial" where both sides make their case. As such he could decree to tell everyone to "move on from the topic" all the way up to site ban. I think that's what some folks want... some way to adjudicate the controversy and render judgement, rather some "light-touch" moderation.
Arguing in good faith is a prerequisite for civil discussion. Remember when you linked half a page's worth of articles that supposedly backed your views on climate change and I actually read them, pointing out that you'd included, among other things, an article critisizing people doing what you were doing? What about claiming that Bush would've won Florida even after recounts in 2000 and then linking a page that says literally the opposite?
You keep making claims and linking articles, pages, or other sources that back up the complete opposite. It's not just once, it keeps happening. Explain again how this is the behaviour of someone interested in civil discourse? If it walks like a duck...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Arguing in good faith is a prerequisite for civil discussion. Remember when you linked half a page's worth of articles that supposedly backed your views on climate change and I actually read them, pointing out that you'd included, among other things, an article critisizing people doing what you were doing? What about claiming that Bush would've won Florida even after recounts in 2000 and then linking a page that says literally the opposite?
Those were my sourcing mistakes.
Yet, you'd handwaved other sources substantiating my arguments as well.
Your efforts were to point out my mistakes instead of engaging the merits of the arguments.
You keep making claims and linking articles, pages, or other sources that back up the complete opposite. It's not just once, it keeps happening. Explain again how this is the behaviour of someone interested in civil discourse? If it walks like a duck...
That's a serious mischaracterization and you know it Wally.
I used to post on a forum that offshot from sherdog MMA forums back in 2007. It was completely OT. The barest of rules (no empty or 'first' posts etc) but that was it. Best forum I ever posted on. If you wanted a proper conversation, you could have one, if you wanted a scrap with no rules you could have one. The onus was on the individual to choose what he or she responded to. People crying about posters doing things they don't like, why not just move on? You don't have an obligation to indulge them if you don't want to. Take your own responsibility. You guys are all focused on moderation, who should do this, what should and shouldn't be allowed to be said or not... Have you ever stopped to think that fewer rules might be the answer?
Having 'trials' or banning people for 'bad faith' just leads to those being abused, and more of the same round and round bs. I know this will never happen here, and probably not at this new one if it manifests either, but one can dream..
Another example of engaging a thread where the poster, wolfblade in this case, refusing to having any discussion whatsoever. This thread was nothing more than an attempt to shame me.
@RiTides: I would argue that this should be unacceptable to do, unless there's a real debate between the parties.
Yeah, there's no point. He claimed I couldn't find any, so I did, then he, ironically, proceeded to participate in bad faith.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I used to post on a forum that offshot from sherdog MMA forums back in 2007. It was completely OT. The barest of rules (no empty or 'first' posts etc) but that was it. Best forum I ever posted on. If you wanted a proper conversation, you could have one, if you wanted a scrap with no rules you could have one. The onus was on the individual to choose what he or she responded to. People crying about posters doing things they don't like, why not just move on? You don't have an obligation to indulge them if you don't want to. Take your own responsibility. You guys are all focused on moderation, who should do this, what should and shouldn't be allowed to be said or not... Have you ever stopped to think that fewer rules might be the answer?
Having 'trials' or banning people for 'bad faith' just leads to those being abused, and more of the same round and round bs. I know this will never happen here, and probably not at this new one if it manifests either, but one can dream..
Or, by banning those who participate only in bad faith, it lets actual discussion flourish. The solution to someone purposefully and intentionally gaking up the place should not be "abandon thread/forum" it should be "the moderators need to be dealing with this more than not at all."
This whole thing requires neutral or impartial moderators, right? But modern US politics is so pervasive, divisive and harmful it brings up two questions: how do you find someone truly impartial, and what the hell is wrong with that person?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I used to post on a forum that offshot from sherdog MMA forums back in 2007. It was completely OT. The barest of rules (no empty or 'first' posts etc) but that was it. Best forum I ever posted on. If you wanted a proper conversation, you could have one, if you wanted a scrap with no rules you could have one. The onus was on the individual to choose what he or she responded to. People crying about posters doing things they don't like, why not just move on? You don't have an obligation to indulge them if you don't want to. Take your own responsibility. You guys are all focused on moderation, who should do this, what should and shouldn't be allowed to be said or not... Have you ever stopped to think that fewer rules might be the answer?
Having 'trials' or banning people for 'bad faith' just leads to those being abused, and more of the same round and round bs. I know this will never happen here, and probably not at this new one if it manifests either, but one can dream..
That's basically what was dakka's OT political thread was like. Only caveat was that you had to abide by Dakka's rules (be nice, don't bypass swear filters, etc...).
The issue then, was that nastiness in the OT forum spread to the other "main" forums, such that the mods had enough.
I think some commenters seek some sort of "validation" that their viewpoint is the acceptable one and when faced with dissenting views, rather than engaging on that topic many resort to appeals to authority, bullying, patented poop-n-swoop posts, and ultimately petition the forum owner/mods to "do something" about the dissenters. People have pretty strong views that are not political related (looking at the pro/anti GW factions...yeowsa!).
At the end of the day, posters are privileged to post at a certain site, so the owners/mods set the rules. We'd all be in a much better place to recognize that and treat each other accordingly, because there *is* a limit what the host/mods are willing to spending their moderation hours.
EDIT: and look at the usual posters from Wasteland coming here to comment. I rest my case RiTide, over and out.
I feel you. That was made all too clear in certain threads this year. But if you have fewer rules, people have no choice but to like it or lump it. The more rules, the more people can appeal to them when they need to cry to mods when someone hurts their pride/feelings...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Arguing in good faith is a prerequisite for civil discussion. Remember when you linked half a page's worth of articles that supposedly backed your views on climate change and I actually read them, pointing out that you'd included, among other things, an article critisizing people doing what you were doing? What about claiming that Bush would've won Florida even after recounts in 2000 and then linking a page that says literally the opposite?
Those were my sourcing mistakes.
Yet, you'd handwaved other sources substantiating my arguments as well.
Your efforts were to point out my mistakes instead of engaging the merits of the arguments.
Whembly, one of the links you linked literally said, and I quote verbatim:
The naysayers on climate change typically begin with appeals to the evidence. Lots of evidence. Ironically, they seem to revel in long lists of obvious counterexamples, “embarrassing predictions” (Newman, 2014), “admissions” of earlier errors (Dixon, 2013), Al Gore’s mis-takes (Terrell, 2014), simple facts about carbon dioxide (http://www.iloveco2.com/), and graphs, graphs, graphs.
You linked this article in a list that looked like this:
Spoiler:
Abbot, Benjamin W. et al, “Biomass offsets little or none of permafrost carbon release from soils, streams, and wildfire: an expert assessment,” Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 3, March 2016, iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034014/pdf
Akerlof, Karen, Katherine E. Rowan, Dennis Fitzgerald, Andrew Y. Cedeno, “Communication of Climate Projections in US Media Amid Politicization of Model Science,” Nature Climate Change, Vol. 2, May 2012, pp. 648-654.
Alewmaw F., Berhanu and Nako M. Sebusang, “Climate change and adaptation-induced engineering design and innovations in water development projects in Africa,” African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, Volume 9, Issue 5-6, pp. 1-13, September 28, 2017, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20421338.2017.1355601
Allchin, Douglas, “Global Warming: Scam, Fraud, or Hoax?”, The American Biology Teacher, Volume 77, Number 4, April 2015, pp. 309-313. abt.ucpress.edu/content/77/4/39.abstract
Beattie, Amanda Russell and Kate Schick, eds., The Vulnerable Subject: Beyond Rationalism in International Relations (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
Benestad, R. E., H. O. Hygen, R. van Dorland, J. Cook, D. Nuccitelli, “Agnotology: Learning from Mistakes,” Earth Systems Dynamics, 2013, Vol. 4, pp. 451-505.
Benestad, Rasmus E., et al., “Learning from mistakes in climate research,” Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 126, Issue 3-4, November 2016, pp. 699-703, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
Brügger, Adrian, Thomas A. Morton, Suraje Dessai, “’Proximising’ climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 46, June 2016, pp. 125-142, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494416300238
Brown Pulu, Teena, “Climate change blues: sustaining village life in Tonga.” Te Kaharoa – The e-Journal on Indigenous Pacific Issues, Vol.6, No. 1 (2013), pp.260 – 305.
Brysse, Keynyn, Naomi Oreskes, Jessica O’Reilly, and Michael Oppenheimer, “Climate Change Prediction: Erring on the Side of Least Drama,” Global Environmental Change, Vol. 23, No. 1, February 2013, pp. 327-337.
Brysse, Keynyn, et al. “Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?” Global Environmental Change 23.1 (2013): 327-337.
Carlin, Alan, “A Multi-disciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 8, No. 4, April 2011, pp. 985-1031.
Carneiro, Celso Dal Ré, and João Cláudio Toniolo, “‘Hot’ Earth in the Mass Media: the Reliability of News Reports on Global Warming,” História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, Vol. 19, No. 2, April-June 2012, pp. 369-390.
Carter, Bob; Evans, David Evans, Franks, Stewart; and Kininmonth, William, “Answers on Climate Change: Assessment of Minister Wong’s ‘Written Reply to Senator Fielding’s Three Questions on Climate Change,’” Quadrant Online, June 29, 2009.
Chen, Liqi, “The Role of the Arctic and Antarctic and their Impact on Global Climate Change: Further Findings Since the Release of IPCC AR4, 2007,” Advances in Polar Science, (2013) Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 79-85.
Chunhan, Jin, Liu, Jian, and Wang Zhiyuan., “Study on the characteristics and causes of interdecadal temperature changes in China during the MWP,” Quaternary Sciences, Volume 36, Issue 4, April 2016, pp. 970-982. html.rhhz.net/DSJYJ/20160418.htm
Çoban, Aykut, “Politico-Environmental Relations in the International Arena,” Alternatif Politica, Volume 8, Number 1, February 2016, pp. 67-108. alternatifpolitika.com/site/dosyalar/arsiv/Subat2016-Sayi1/9Coban_IR_and_Env.pdf
Cooke, Antony, “Gravitational Interactions of the Solar System,” Astronomy and the Climate Crisis (New York, NY: Springer New York, 2012), pp. 127-143.
Craig, John S., “The American Three Percent: The Politics and Economics of Climate Disinformation” (2016). Student Theses 2015-Present. Paper 26. fordham.bepress.com/environ_2015/26
D’Aleo, Joseph, and Dr. Don Easterbrook, “Multidecadal Tendencies in ENSO and Global Temperatures Related to Multidecadal Oscillations,” Energy & Environment, Vol. 21, No. 5, September 2010, pp. 437-460.
Damico, James S. and Alexandra Panos, “Reading for Reliability: Preservice Teachers Evaluate Web Sources About Climate Change,” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, Volume 60, Issue 3, April 2016, pp. 275-285. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.551/full
Deers, Donn, Carbon Folly: CO2 Emission Sources and Options (Reston, VA: TSAugust, 2nd edition, 2009).
DeLong, James V., A Skeptical Look at the Carbon Tax (Arlington, VA: George Marshall Institute, 2013), www.marshall.org/article.php?id=1199.
Dergachev, V.A., and O. M. Raspopov, “Reconstruction of the Earth’s Surface Temperature Based on Data of Deep Boreholes, Global Warming in the Last Millennium, and Long-Term Solar Cyclicity. Part 1. Experimental Data,” Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Vol. 50, No. 3, 2010, pp. 383-392, www.springerlink.com/content/1017734347n12131/
Dudu, Hasan and Cakmak, Erol H., “An Integrated Analysis of Economywide Effects of Climate Change,” WIDER Working Paper, 2014/106
Dunlap, Riley E., and Peter J. Jacques, “Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 57, No. 6, June 2013, pp. 699-731.
Dunlap, Riley E., and Aaron M. McCright. “14 Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies.” Routledge handbook of climate change and society (2010): 240.
Easterbrook, Don, Ed., Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming (Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2011).
Evensen, Darrick and Rich Stedman, “Scale matters: Variation in perceptions of shale gas development across national, state, and local levels,” Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 20, October 2016, pp. 14-21. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629616301396
Fang, JingYun, JiangLing Zhu, ShaoPeng Wang, Chao Yue and HaiHua Shen, “Global warming, Human-Induced Carbon Emissions, and their Uncertainties,” Science China Earth Sciences, Vol. 54, No. 10, October 2011, pp. 1458-1468.
Ferenc Jankó, Norbert Móricz, and Judit Papp Vancsó, “Reviewing the Climate Change Reviewers: Exploring Controversy Through Report References and Citations,” Geoforum, Volume 56, September 2014, pp 17-34.
Fildes, Robert, and Nikolaos Kourentzes, “Validation in Models of Climate Change and Forecasting Accuracy,” Lancaster University Management School Working Paper 2010/010, 2010, eprints.lancs.ac.uk/48992/1/Document.pdf.
Florides, Georgios A., Paul Christodoulides and Vassilios Messaritis, “Global Warming: CO2 vs Sun,” Department of Engineering and Technology, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus, ruralsoft.com.au/clim_temp/co2_vs_sun.pdf.
Foppa-Pedretti, Ester et al. Considerations on Renewable Energy Sources and Their Related Perspectives of Agricultural Engineering. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 35-45.
Freeman, Jeremy, “Efficacy of carbon taxes and recommendations for cutting carbon emissions,” Houston Business and Tax Law Journal, 2015, heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/houbtalj15&div=12&id=&page=
Freitas, Chris R.de, and Martin Perry, New Environmentalism: Managing New Zealand’s Environmental Diversity (Springer, 2012), pp. 221-252.
Georgiou, Paraskevas N., “A bottom-up optimization model for the long-term energy planning of the Greek power supply sector integrating mainland and insular electric systems,” Computers & Operations Research, Volume 66, February 2016, pp. 292-312. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305054815000544
Gould, Laurence I., “Man-Made ‘Global Warming’ (AGW): A Critical Thinking Approach to Exposing Some of its Scientific and Methodological Flaws,” Bulletin of the American Physical Society, November, 2012.
Greenfield, Liah, The Ideals of Joseph Ben-David: The Scientist’s Role and Centers of Learning Revisited, (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2012).
Guerrero, Maribel, and José de Souza Silva, “La Consrucción Social del Calentamiento Global Cambiando los Términos del Debate Desde América Latina,” Revisita Ciencia y Tecnología, No. 11, December 2012, pp. 70-77.
Hall, John R., “Social futures of global climate change: A structural phenomenology,” American Journal of Cultural Sociology, Volume 4, Issue 1 (October 2015), pp. 1-45. link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fajcs.2015.12
Hart, John. “Association Between Air Temperature and Cancer Death Rates in Florida: An Ecological Study.” Dose-Response 1.1 (2014): 1-10.
Hamilton, Lawrence C., “Did the Arctic Ice Recover? Demographics of True and False Climate Facts,” Weather, Climate, and Society, Vol. 4, No. 4, October 2012, pp. 236-249
Harlos, Christian, Tim C. Edgell, Johan Hollander, “No evidence of publication bias in climate change science,” Climatic Change, Volume 140, Issue 3-4 pp. 375-385, February 2017, link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1880-1.pdf
Harlow, Brooks E. and Roy W. Spencer, “An Inconvenient Burden of Proof? CO2 Nuisance Plaintiffs will Face Challenges in Meeting the Daubert Standard,” Energy Law Journal, Vol. 32, November 2011, pp. 459-496.
Hasani, Alvaro. “Forecasting The End of Climate Change Litigation: Why Expert Testimony Based on Climate Models Should Not Be Admissible.” Miss. CL Rev. 32 (2013): 83-205.
Hayasaka, Hiroshi, et al., “Synoptic-scale fire weather conditions in Alaska,” Polar Science, Volume 10, Issue 3, September 2016, pp. 217-226. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965216300330
Heleen, Blijlevens, “The Climate Change Debate: Another Perspective,” Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, Vol. 57, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 73–74.
Hertzberg, Martin, “Climate Change Reconsidered II –Physical Science,” Energy & Environment, Volume 26, Number 3, April 2015, pp. 547-554. eae.sagepub.com/content/26/3/547.short
Herzberg, Martin, Alan Siddons, and Hans Schreuder, “Role of greenhouse gases in climate change,” Energy & Environment, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp. 530-539, April 26, 2017, journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0958305X17706177
Hoover, D. and S. Boehmer-Christiansen, “Yes, but Is It True?” Veterinary Pathology, Vol. 47, May 2010, pp. 28–33.
Idso, Fred D., “S. Fred Singer and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,” Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, October 2014.
Idso, Craig D., and Sherwood B. Idso, Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path (Tempe, AZ: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2011).
Jaeck, Louis, University Paul Cezanne, France.”The Dynamics of Environmental Regulation: Benevolent or Opportunistic Policymakers?” EPCS MEETING, Rennes, April 28-May 1 2011, see footnote 33, crem.univ-rennes1.fr/EPCS11/submissions/epcs2011_submission_42.pdf.
Jankó, Ferenc, Judit Papp Vancsó, Norbert Móricz, “Is climate change controversy good for science? IPCC and contrarian reports in the light of bibliometrics,” Scientometrics, Volume 112, Issue 3, pp. 1745-1759, September 2017, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2440-9
Kaloustian, Noushig and Youssef Diab, “Effects of urbanization on the urban heat island in Beirut,” Urban Climate, Volume 14, Part 2, December 2015, pp. 154-165. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209551530002X
Keller, Emily Margaret, “Re-Constructing Climate Change: Discourses of the Emerging Movement for Climate Change,” Queen’s Research & Learning Repository, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada October, 2012.
Kesavan, P.C., “Shaping science as the prime mover of sustainable agriculture for food and nutrition security in an era of environmental degradation and climate change,” Current Science, Vol. 109, No. 3, August 2015, pp. 488-501. www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/109/03/0488.pdf
Kesavan, P. C., and M.S. Swaminathan, “Sustainable Rural Development for Disaster Risk Reduction,” in Anil K Gupta and Sreeja S. Nair, eds., Environmental Knowledge for Disaster Risk Management, National Institute of Disaster Management, IIPA Campus, New Delhi, 2011.
Khandekar, Madhav L., “Are Extreme Weather Events on the Rise?” Energy and Environment, Vol. 24, No 3-4, June 2013, pp. 537-550.
Khandekar, Madhav L. “Oceanography & Natural Disasters.” Oceanography 2013 (2013).
Kooten, G. Cornelis van, “Biotechnology in Forestry and Agriculture: Economic Perspectives,” Working Paper 2011-05, Resource Economics & Policy Analysis Research Group, Department of Economics, University of Victoria, 2011, web.uvic.ca/~repa/ publications/REPA%20working%20papers/WorkingPaper2011-05.pdf.
Kooten, G. Cornelis van, Climate Change, Climate Science and Economics: Prospects for an Alternative Energy Future (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2012).
Kuznetsov, Vladimir D., “Solar-Terrestrial Physics and its Applications,” Physics-Uspekhi, Vol. 55, No. 3, 2012.
Laken, Benjamin, “Reply to ‘Influence of cosmic ray variability on the monsoon rainfall and temperature: a false-positive in the field of solar-terrestrial research,” Cornell University, February 2015
Laken, Benjamin A., “Can Open Science save us from a solar-driven monsoon?”, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, Volume 6, February 2016, A11. www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2016/01/swsc150064.pdf
Lakhanpal, Anchit, “Statistical downscaling of GCM outputs using wavelet based model,” Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, June 2015, www.researchgate.net/profile/Anchit_Lakhanpal2/publication/280644589_Statistical_downscaling_of_GCM_outputs_using_wavelet_based_model/links/55c0b1a508ae092e9666da3a.pdf
Launius, Roger D., “Climate Change and Spaceflight: an Historiographical Review,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Volume 2, No. 3, May/June 2011, pp. 412–427.
Leal-Arcas, Rafael, Climate Change and International Trade (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013).
Lee, E.M., “Reflections on the Decadal-Scale Response of Coastal Cliffs to Sea-Level Rise,” Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology, Vol. 44, No. 4, November 2011, pp. 481-489, qjegh.geoscienceworld.org/content/44/4/481.abstract.
Liu, John Chung-En, “Low carbon plot: climate change skepticism with Chinese characteristics,” Environmental Sociology, Volume 1, Issue 4, June 2015, pp. 280-292. www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23251042.2015.1049811
Loveridge, Dennis, “Models, simulation and convergence in the polity: an essay,” Futures, Volume 81, August 2016, pp. 4-14. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328715001627
Medimorec, Srdan and Gordon Pennycook, “The language of denial: text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics,” Climatic Change, Volume 133, Issue 4, December 2015, pp. 597-605. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1475-2
Metin, Mustafa, Kerem Coskun and Yavuz Topkaya (Department of Primary Education, Faculty of Education, Artvin Coruh University, Artvin, Turkey), “Are the Primary Pre-service Teachers Aware of Environmental Problems?” World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2011, pp. 396-403, idosi.org/wasj/wasj13(3)/2.pdf.
Mirandola, Alberto and Enrico Lorenzini, “Energy, Environment and Climate: From the Past to the Future,” International Journal of Heat and Technology, Volume 34, Number 2, June 2016, pp. 159-164. www.iieta.org/sites/default/files/Journals/HTECH/34.2_01.pdf
Modebadze, Valeri, “Is Globalization a Source of Prosperity and Progress or the Main Cause of Poverty? What has to be Done to Reduce Poverty?” Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, pp. 13-17.
Moore, Adrian T., Samuel R. Staley, and Robert W. Poole, “The Role of VMT Reduction in Meeting Climate Change Policy Goals,” Transportation Research, Vol. 44, No. 8, October 2010, pp. 565-574.
Mörner, Nils-Axel, “The New Religion of Global Warming and its Misconceptions in Science,” Journal of Religious Studies, Buddhism and Living, Volume 1, Issue 1, December 2015, pp. 1-4. crescopublications.org/journals/jbl/JBL-1-001.pdf
Mundondo, Daphne, “A preliminary study on the effects of elevated CO2 on aphid resistance of Tugela Dn and the population dynamics of the Russian wheat aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae), Diuraphis noxia,” Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Fort Hare, January 2015, libdspace.ufh.ac.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.11837/425/MSc%20%28Biochemistry%29%20Dissertation%20MUNDONDO%2c%20D%20-%202015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Musilova, Michaela, et al., “Microbially driven export of labile organic carbon from the Greenland ice sheet,” Nature Geoscience, pp. 360-365, April 3, 2017, www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2920
Nemeth, David J. “Blissful Devolution: Our Rolling Judgment Day.” A World After Climate Change and Culture-Shift. Springer Netherlands, 2014. 327-349.
Ogutu, Keroboto B.Z., et al., Coupled Climate–Economy–Biosphere (CoCEB) Model – Part 1: Abatement Efficacy of Low-Carbon Technologies (Working Paper), Chair Energy & Prosperity, August 2017, www.chair-energy-prosperity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/publication-2017-coceb1-ogutu-ghil-andrea-nyandwi.pdf
Oldfield, Frank, and Will Steffen. “Anthropogenic climate change and the nature of Earth System science.” The Anthropocene Review (2014): 2053019613514862.
Paliewicz, Nicholas S. and George F. (Guy) McHendry Jr., “When good arguments do not work: post-dialectics, argument assemblages, and the networks of climate skepticism,” Argumentation and Advocacy, Volume 53, Issue 4, September 20, 2017, pp. 287-309, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028533.2017.1375738
Pandey, Jitendra, and Ashima Singh, “Opportunities and Constraints in Organic Farming: An Indian Perspective,” Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 56, 2012, pp. 47-72.
Plehwe, Dieter. “Think tank networks and the knowledge–interest nexus: the case of climate change.” Critical Policy Studies 8.1 (2014): 101-115.
Pontius, Frederick W., “White Paper on Climate Change Impacts on Small and Rural Public Water Systems,” prepared for National Rural Water Association (NRWA), June 22, 2010, mailu.nrwa.org/benefits/whitepapers/2010_Update/Climate%20white %20paper%20June%2022_2010%20-%20Final.pdf.
Prado Jr., Fernando Amaral de Almeida et al. “Clean Energy Certification in Brazil: A proposal,” Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1, March 2015
Reusswig, Fritz and Wiebke Lass, “Post-Carbon Ambivalences: The New Climate Change Discourse and the Risks of Climate Science,” Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, December 2010.
Ridley, Matt, “What the climate wars have done to science,” Quadrant, Volume 59, Issue 6, June 2015, pp. 10-17. quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/
Riplinger, Andrew J., “Debating Sustainable Development in Global Climate Change Policy: The ‘Cancún Agreements’ v. The ‘People’s Agreement of Cochabama,’” Theses and Dissertations, Paper 127, DePaul University, August 2012.
Ritter, Stephen K and Michael Mann, “Global Warming And Climate Change: Believers, Deniers, and Doubters View the Scientific Forecast from Different Angles,” [cover story] Chemical & Engineering News, Volume 87, Number 51, December 21, 2009, pp. 11 – 21. faculty.tamucc.edu/plarkin/4292folder/Climate%20Change%20CEN.pdf
Sarbu, Mihai B., “Educating for Community Resilience: How the Work of Thomas Homer-Dixon and John Dewey’s Pattern of Inquiry Can Help Us Prepare for the Ecological and Social Challenges of the 21st Century,” Brock University Digital Repository, April 2013.
Satipati, L.N., “Contemporary Climate Change: A Brief Review of the Science in the Context of the Current World Economy and Polity,” Climate Change and Socio-Ecological Transformation (New Delhi: Today and Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers 2015)
Scafetta, Nicola, “A Shared Frequency Set Between the Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records and the Global Surface Temperature,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 74, January 2012, pp. 145-163.
Scafetta, Nicola. “Empirical Analysis of the Solar Contribution to Global Mean Air Surface Temperature Change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 71, No. 17-18, December 2009, pp. 1916-1923.
Scafetta, Nicola, “Empirical Evidence for a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations and its Implications,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 72, No. 13, August 2010, pp. 951-970.
Scafetta, Nicholas, “Problems in Modeling and Forecasting Climate Change: CMIP5 General Circulation Models versus a Semi-Empirical Model Based on Natural Oscillations,” International Journal of Heat and Technology, Volume 34, Special Issue 2, October 2016, pp. S435-S442. www.iieta.org/sites/default/files/Journals/HTECH/IJHT.34.S2_35.pdf
Scalera, Giancarlo, “Sea Level Enigmatic Rising – New Perspectives from an Expanding Globe,” Cornell University Library, March 2015, arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1503/1503.02731.pdf
Shani, Amir, and Boaz Arad. “Climate change and tourism: Time for environmental skepticism.” Tourism Management 44 (2014): 82-85.
Shapiro, Jesse M. Special Interests and the Media: Theory and an Application to Climate Change. No. w19807. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014.
Shidi, Zhao, and Yang Decai, “Review on the Low-Carbon Economy,” China Development, Vol. 12, No. 3, June 2012.
Simon, Michelle S., Pentland, William, “Reliable Science: Overcoming Public Doubts in the Climate Change Debates,” William and Mary Environmental Policy and Law Review, Fall 2012.
Singer, S. Fred, “A Response to ‘The Climate Change Debates,’” Energy & Environment, Vol. 21, No. 7, November 2010, pp. 847-851.
Solomon, Lewis D., America’s Water and Wastewater Crisis: The Role of Private Enterprise (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2011).
South, Nigel, “Free Trade Agreements, Private Courts and Environmental Exploitation: Disconnected Policies, Denials and Moral Disengagement,” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, September 2016, repository.essex.ac.uk/17678/1/06_South_27%20Sep%202016.pdf
South, Nigel, Environmental Crime in Transnational Context: Global Issues in green Enforcement and Criminology (New York: Routledge 2016)
Sproghe, Hans and Larry Kreiser, “Do you get what you pay for with United States climate change tax provisions?” Environmental Pricing: Studies in Policy Choices and Interactions (Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing 2015)
Stilwella, Frank, and David Primrosea, “Economic Stimulus and Restructuring: Infrastructure, Green Jobs and Spatial Impacts,” Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 28, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 5-25.
Stein, Richard S. and Joseph Powers, The Energy Problem (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2011).
Stram, Bruce Nels. “A new strategic plan for a carbon tax.” Energy Policy (2014).
Swaminathan, M. S., and P.C. Kesavan, “Agricultural Research in an Era of Climate Change,” Agricultural Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 2012, pp. 3-11.
Turgeon, David Yaussy Elizabeth. “Unringing the Bell: Time for EPA to Reconsider Its Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding.” W. Va. L. Rev. 116 (2014): 1007-1167.
Ukonu, Michael Onyekachi, Church Soloman Akpan, and Luke Ifeanyi Anorue, “Nigerian Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change, 2009-2010,” New Media and Mass Communication, Vol. 5, 2012, pp. 1-38.
Van der Sluijs, Jeroen P., “Uncertainty and Dissent in Climate Risk Assessment: A Post-Normal Perspective,” Nature and Culture, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer 2012, pp. 174-195.
Van der Sluijs, Jeroen P., Rinie van Est, and Monique Riphagen, “Beyond Consensus: Reflections from a Democratic Perspective on the Interaction Between Climate Politics and Science,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 2, No. 5-6, December 2010, pp. 409-415, www.sti-studies.de/ojs/index.php/sti/article/view/42/29.
Vasquez, Miguel and Conrado Valdez, “Exploring the Non-linear and Non-stationary Effects of Sea Surface Temperature on Regional Precipitation and Forest Phenology in Panama,” Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, June 2015,
ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw:88/thesis/getfile.asp?date=2015-7-27&file=7350973402601.pdf
Viterito, Arthur, “The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming,” Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change, Volume 7, Issue 4, April 2016, pp. 1-7. www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-correlation-of-seismic-activity-and-recent-global-warming-2157-7617-1000345.pdf
Wackers, D.Y.M., “Reformulating the climate change debate. A study on context-specific conditions for strategic maneuvering with the straw man fallacy in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change’s report ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’”, Leiden University Repository, September 2015, openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/43679/ResMA%20Linguistics%20Thesis%20sr.pdf?sequence=1
Wang, Guocheng, and Chunji Liu. “Global Climatic Cooperation and Emission Rights Allocation.” British Journal of Applied Science & Technology 4.4 (2014): 662-681.
Wang, ShaoWu, “The Global Warming Debate,” Chinese Science Bulletin, Vol. 55, No. 19, July 2010, pp. 1961-1962, www.springerlink.com/content/btk08r89nu536904/.
Wang, Xixi. “Advances in separating effects of climate variability and human activity on stream discharge: an overview.” Advances in Water Resources (2014).
Wang, Xixi, et al. “Trend and extreme occurrence of precipitation in a mid‐latitude Eurasian steppe watershed at various time scales.” Hydrological Processes (2013).
Wang, Fang, et al., “A New Estimation of Urbanization’s Contribution to the Warming Trend in China,” Journal of Climate, Volume 28, Number 22, November 2015, pp. 8923-8938. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00427.1
Wang, Xixi, “Temporal variations of streamflow in a mid-latitude Eurasian steppe watershed in the past half century,” Hydrology Research, Volume 47, Issue 1, February 2016, pp. 185-200. hr.iwaponline.com/content/47/1/185
Weber, Alexander B., “Climate passion: Who and why in the fight against global warming,” The Age of Globalization, Number 1, 2015 cyberleninka.ru/article/n/strasti-po-klimatu-kto-i-pochemu-protiv-borby-s-globalnym-potepleniem
Wu, Marinda Li. “Letter to the American Chemical Society.” Energy & Environment 25.1 (2014): 257-262.
Yang, Peicei et al. “Causality of global warming seen from observations: a scale analysis of driving force of the surface air temperature time series in the Northern Hemisphere,” Climate Dynamics, Volume 46, Issue 9, May 2016, pp. 3197-3204. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2761-4
Zemp, Michael, et al., “Historically unprecedented global glacier decline in the early 21st century,” Journal of Glaciology, Volume 61, Number 228, September 2015, pp. 745-762. www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2015/00000061/00000228/art00011
Zimmerman, Michael E., “Including and Differentiating Among Perspectives: An Integral Approach to Climate Change,” Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, Vol. 4, No. 4, Winter 2009, pp.1-26.
Testimony to Congress:
Armstrong, J. Scott, Kesten C. Green, and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Research on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm: Testimony to Committee on Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on “Climate Change: Examining the processes used to create science and policy.” April 3, 2011, repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/139/.
Christy, John R., Testimony to U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, untitled, February 2, 2016. docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf
Moore, Patrick, Testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight, “Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies,” February 25, 2014. www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03/22514hearingwitnesstestimonymoore.pdf
The merits of your arguments do not exist, there is no argument to be had unless you argue in good faith. Tell me again how this list of *checks notes* one hundred and thirty four (!) sources where the result of a "sourcing mistake"?
You'll also note that the statement that I handwaved your other sources after that monster of a self-own was a l̶i̶e̶ sourcing mistake, as the debate continued after that point. I thus argue that I have amply proven that you're not, in fact, all that bothered about actually having a civil debate. QED.
Wolfblade wrote: Or, by banning those who participate only in bad faith, it lets actual discussion flourish.
The problem, as discussed earlier, is recognising 'bad faith' posts. One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion. We even saw examples of that in action in this very thread.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I feel you. That was made all too clear in certain threads this year. But if you have fewer rules, people have no choice but to like it or lump it. The more rules, the more people can appeal to them when they need to cry to mods when someone hurts their pride/feelings...
Allowing people to be rude to each other would not solve the problem of people taking their grudges to other parts of the forum.
To make it very, very clear - having Dakka be an environment that encourages verbal free-for-alls is the exact opposite of what the site's owners want. That is not in any way a welcoming environment, and is not what the majority of forum-goers want. People come here because it's a place to discuss their hobby. That should be an enjoyable experience, not one where you should expect to be insulted because you have a different opinion to someone else.
Expecting people to display a modicum of common courtesy while they are here really shouldn't be a big ask.
Wolfblade wrote: Or, by banning those who participate only in bad faith, it lets actual discussion flourish.
The problem, as discussed earlier, is recognising 'bad faith' posts. One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion. We even saw examples of that in action in this very thread.
I feel like that's a weak excuse when everyone was complaining about a handful of posters, not because of their political alignment, but because they engaged only in bad faith tactics like moving the goalpost, begging the question, and so on. Hell if I can provide about 100 examples of ONE poster almost exclusively based on logical fallacies and flat out ignoring previous discussions and pretending they didn't happen or not even reading their own sources, then the defense of "One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion" is incredibly weak.
Wolfblade wrote: Or, by banning those who participate only in bad faith, it lets actual discussion flourish.
The problem, as discussed earlier, is recognising 'bad faith' posts. One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion. We even saw examples of that in action in this very thread.
I feel like that's a weak excuse when everyone was complaining about a handful of posters, not because of their political alignment, but because they engaged only in bad faith tactics like moving the goalpost, begging the question, and so on. Hell if I can provide about 100 examples of ONE poster almost exclusively based on logical fallacies and flat out ignoring previous discussions and pretending they didn't happen or not even reading their own sources, then the defense of "One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion" is incredibly weak.
I think the problem for the Mods is something like "bad faith" posting is necessarily a pattern that builds up over the course of many posts. To the person complaining about it, they may seem very obvious if you're in the middle of the discussion, maybe specifically looking out for a particular poster's replies and seeing that pattern develop. But for the Mods, they may need to go back through pages and pages of posts, interspersed with perfectly reasonable posts from the bad faith poster and others and build up a picture for themselves before making a decision. I guess at that point the question becomes how much work do we expect the Mods to do in that situation?
Also, people indulging in logical fallacies, ignoring points and moving the goalposts may just be really bad at debating, or bad at communicating their points. Are we going to ban them for that?
Also, people indulging in logical fallacies, ignoring points and moving the goalposts may just be really bad at debating, or bad at communicating their points. Are we going to ban them for that?
If they keep doing it after being called out repeatedly? Absolutely.
Slipspace wrote: I think the problem for the Mods is something like "bad faith" posting is necessarily a pattern that builds up over the course of many posts. To the person complaining about it, they may seem very obvious if you're in the middle of the discussion, maybe specifically looking out for a particular poster's replies and seeing that pattern develop. But for the Mods, they may need to go back through pages and pages of posts, interspersed with perfectly reasonable posts from the bad faith poster and others and build up a picture for themselves before making a decision. I guess at that point the question becomes how much work do we expect the Mods to do in that situation?
That's a big part of it.
It's also worth pointing out that people should be expected to take responsibility for their own responses. If you're in a real world social situation and someone is presenting an argument that you feel is intended to just stir the pot, do you expect the host to kick them out? Do you abuse them? Or do you just not respond to them? (Hint - only one of those options would generally be considered socially acceptable)
The fact that the discussion is on a forum shouldn't change that. Realistically, you have two options - you can treat the argument as genuine and respond in a civil fashion, or you can assume it's just stirring the pot. And as much as people seem to dislike it when we present it as an option, choosing to ignore someone you feel is arguing in bad faith is generally the best and simplest option. If they actually are arguing in bad faith, they're doing it for the attention. Responding to them, especially if just to get abusive, just gives them what they want.
Also, people indulging in logical fallacies, ignoring points and moving the goalposts may just be really bad at debating, or bad at communicating their points. Are we going to ban them for that?
Also this. It's worth remembering that in an online forum environment, the person behind that post may be an adult ... or may be a 14 year old with very little life experience.
Can we all pick a forum to have this discussion, since the participants are jumping between forums?
I've already had Whemb try to hijack this thread just because it's Whemb, I'm more interested in what RiTides has to say than you guys fight.
@Wolf: we all know that Whemb just trolls anything to do with politics, and you egg him on. To be honest, I'd love to put the two of you in a cage and toss in a running chainsaw just to see who comes out. I could probably sell the recording on any number of sites you both frequent.
@insaniak The real issue is seeing the difference between certain posters who do it just to troll forums, and people who just suck at debate. One is a legitimate reason to ban, and the other is grounds for mild annoyance.
It's also worth pointing out that people should be expected to take responsibility for their own responses. If you're in a real world social situation and someone is presenting an argument that you feel is intended to just stir the pot, do you expect the host to kick them out? Do you abuse them? Or do you just not respond to them? (Hint - only one of those options would generally be considered socially acceptable)
This honestly feels like a defense for doing absolutely no mod work. In the real world, if someone is spouting bs and trying to disrupt everyone else over and over, not responding stops being an effective option, and kicking them out becomes the right choice as they'll just keep escalating until they DO get a response.
@insaniak The real issue is seeing the difference between certain posters who do it just to troll forums, and people who just suck at debate. One is a legitimate reason to ban, and the other is grounds for mild annoyance.
Yes, that's the issue. Which is compounded by the fact that people tend to be absolutely certain that [poster] is just trolling, and therefore when they demand that said user be booted from the forum and that doesn't happen, clearly the mods got it wrong.
In real life, most people don’t tolerate such toxic behavior in their lives. People lose friends, jobs, and partners from this level of persistent bad behavior.
This honestly feels like a defense for doing absolutely no mod work.
It's nothing of the sort. The existence of moderators does not absolve people from personal responsibility for their own actions.
In the real world, if someone is spouting bs and trying to disrupt everyone else over and over, not responding stops being an effective option, and kicking them out becomes the right choice as they'll just keep escalating until they DO get a response.
Even in that situation, things wouldn't generally jump straight to kicking the person out. You would generally start with talking to the person causing the ruckus and giving them the opportunity to amend their behaviour. Which is what Dakka's moderation aims for.
To be fair, we don't always get the balance right there, and that's something that we're still aiming to improve. But removing someone purely because someone else thinks they're arguing in 'bad faith' is never going to be a viable option.
This honestly feels like a defense for doing absolutely no mod work.
It's nothing of the sort. The existence of moderators does not absolve people from personal responsibility for their own actions.
In the real world, if someone is spouting bs and trying to disrupt everyone else over and over, not responding stops being an effective option, and kicking them out becomes the right choice as they'll just keep escalating until they DO get a response.
Even in that situation, things wouldn't generally jump straight to kicking the person out. You would generally start with talking to the person causing the ruckus and giving them the opportunity to amend their behaviour. Which is what Dakka's moderation aims for.
To be fair, we don't always get the balance right there, and that's something that we're still aiming to improve. But removing someone purely because someone else thinks they're arguing in 'bad faith' is never going to be a viable option.
I think after years of trying and failing to and talk to them and get them to be reasonable, they'd kick them out. By your own analogy, we tried the first bit here, and it didn't work. And instead of solving the problem by removing the bad faith posters, you (as in, the mod team) threw their hands up and said "No clue on how to fix this, just stop talking about it I guess"
I think after years of trying and failing to and talk to them and get them to be reasonable, they'd kick them out. By your own analogy, we tried the first bit here, and it didn't work. And instead of solving the problem by removing the bad faith posters, you (as in, the mod team) threw their hands up and said "No clue on how to fix this, just stop talking about it I guess"
Yes, when you grossly over-simplify the problem, that's possibly how it looks.
This has all been discussed ad nauseum in the past, but here it is again - the problem was never just bad faith posters. The problem was that people couldn't control their tempers in political discussions, and that grudges stemming from those discussions were polluting other parts of the boards.
Sure, we could have just booted everyone who was causing a problem... although that would have included a lot more than just those people you may feel were arguing in bad faith. The problem with that approach is that many of these were people who actually provide a worthwhile contribution to the site elsewhere, and only ever run into problems as a result of political discussion in OT. Removing these people is not, in the long run, a benefit to the site. As such, removing the topic of discussion that causes these issues to arise becomes the much more attractive option, particularly when keeping that topic results in a disproportionate amount of work for moderators who are supposed to be moderating discussions about toy soldiers.
It's not like this is even a particularly controversial solution. Many, many forums ban political and religious discussion, because it's just not worth the headache. And continuing our real world comparisons, many, many families and social groups do the same. My wife's family is one of these... the family is large, and comes from a range of different backgrounds, and many of them have very strong opinions on different aspects of politics. So in order to keep family gatherings amiable, we just don't talk politics.
You seem determined to paint this as the mods being lazy and refusing to do any work, but that was never the case. The politics ban was simply seen as the most sensible way to keep the forums a slightly more pleasant place to be.
You seem determined to paint this as the mods being lazy and refusing to do any work, but that was never the case.
It's more that, in my experience with mods here has always been negative. Time and time again I saw nothing happen to people who consistently cause problems as long as they're "civil," myself included. In fact, those posters were defended, and the people who did get in trouble were the ones who called them out by name, leading to any sort of discussion of problem posters having to skirt around If the problem posters were dealt with, they wouldn't have heckled others or wound others up into also becoming problem posters in my opinion. Basically, I feel the mods were too hands-off to the detriment of the community.
You seem determined to paint this as the mods being lazy and refusing to do any work, but that was never the case.
It's more that, in my experience with mods here has always been negative. Time and time again I saw nothing happen to people who consistently cause problems as long as they're "civil," myself included. In fact, those posters were defended, and the people who did get in trouble were the ones who called them out by name, leading to any sort of discussion of problem posters having to skirt around If the problem posters were dealt with, they wouldn't have heckled others or wound others up into also becoming problem posters in my opinion. Basically, I feel the mods were too hands-off to the detriment of the community.
That's largely because, on Dakka, Rule #1 is "Be Polite", not "Be Honest and Truthful".
And that's always going to be the core problem with any political discussion: unless there is a penalty for dishonesty or falsehood, there can be no progress.
You seem determined to paint this as the mods being lazy and refusing to do any work, but that was never the case.
It's more that, in my experience with mods here has always been negative. Time and time again I saw nothing happen to people who consistently cause problems as long as they're "civil," myself included. In fact, those posters were defended, and the people who did get in trouble were the ones who called them out by name, leading to any sort of discussion of problem posters having to skirt around If the problem posters were dealt with, they wouldn't have heckled others or wound others up into also becoming problem posters in my opinion. Basically, I feel the mods were too hands-off to the detriment of the community.
That's largely because, on Dakka, Rule #1 is "Be Polite", not "Be Honest and Truthful".
And that's always going to be the core problem with any political discussion: unless there is a penalty for dishonesty or falsehood, there can be no progress.
And that's the core of my complaint I guess. Dishonesty in political discussions where being polite trumps everything means you'll get pages of text and dozens of people dedicated to refuting a paragraph from one or two people. And then after all of that, they'll pretend the conversation didn't happen in a week and repeat what they said almost word for word and then pretend to act confused when people get tired of them, all the while only being able to gently rebuke them.
I won't belabor the point again, but it's why I feel the mod team was too hands-off considering the literal years of refusal to address the core of the problem.
In a sense I think a lot of us are a bit confused as to how lying isn't considered a violation of rule #1. It is, after all, generally considered rather impolite to lie.
Azreal13 wrote: Much could be gained by the adoption of a mantra I've kept to the forefront of my thinking for a while now.
"The conscious decision not to engage is not synonymous with an admission of defeat."
Problem posters are like a pyramid scheme.
They don't fall so long as there's always someone new, unfamiliar with their behaviors and patterns, to suck into the pyramid. Given the breadth of the internet, this makes problem posters perpetual until something is directly done about them. You can say this, and people can eventually learn it themselves, but by then there's already someone new innocently banging their head against the wall and becoming frustrated. That frustration spills into the broader topic space and endures.
Moderation policy shouldn't be solely predicated on the notion that posters will make mature choices. If people were so reliable, we wouldn't need mods at all. I don't call it lazy so much as stubbornly naive.
And to be clear, I'm fine with politics being banned. It's a gak hole topic, and while a lot of my criticism imo is relevant to the board at large, it's not such a problem that it demands a complete change in moderation policy. Politics invites far more heat from everyone than toy soldiers and nerd stuff most of the time. Nothing of value is really lost by ditching it and nothing of value really gained by bringing it back. It would take serious effort to properly moderate political discussions in a way that doesn't becoming simmering puss, and I don't hold it against the mods for not wanting to wade into that issue for something that is unnecessary to the board's purpose. The ban is the most sensible solution, and the mods have been fairly lenient and understanding in fringe cases, letting discussions dance close to the political line so long as things are civil. Everything else is a disproportionately absurd amount of extra work for Lego or the moderation team, or an utter waste of their time.
These facets are however relevant to the idea of starting an outside board to serve the purpose of a 'DakkaDakka Politics' space, which I would still consider both those things unless whoever starts it is willing to address the issues presented by disruptive posters whose only contribution is frustration and bitterness. On Dakkadakka, the usual suspect getting the occasional thread locked is completely innocuous. I only notice because I've been on the board for a long time and am familiar with their habits. It's not that much of a disruption here when the main lightning rod (politics) is banned. A political board won't have that luxury though. It'll be the same problems over and over and over again. Dakka can simply ban the topic and remove most of the problem. A politics board does not have that option unless it wants everything to be toxic under a civil veneer, which isn't healthy for anyone or the space they're in.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In a sense I think a lot of us are a bit confused as to how lying isn't considered a violation of rule #1. It is, after all, generally considered rather impolite to lie.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In a sense I think a lot of us are a bit confused as to how lying isn't considered a violation of rule #1. It is, after all, generally considered rather impolite to lie.
Bullseye.
You know I never had it put into words before but that is exactly where I'm at. Confused and frustrated.
Though I do suspect why lying isn't considered a violation of rule #1--it isn't in real life either. Maybe it's mostly a US thing, but modern society is both infested with liars and largely disinterested in holding them accountable. But I am very, extremely sure that the Dakka mods are intellectually above that, which leads to the confusion.
So... Just so we're very clear: You guys want the volunteer moderators of a forum devoted to toy soldiers to be the arbiters of truth?
Are you sure? Because from where I'm standing, that sounds like an awful idea.
If nothing else, a lot of the time judging whether someone is deliberately lying, or just confused is just too subjective. It's right up there with the whole bad faith argument thing.
Theoretically, yes, someone deliberately lying might be seen as rude.. But what action we could conceivably take against that would depend entirely on the situation, and in practice would require a great deal of erring on the side of caution. Because you can guarantee that the moment we suspend somebody for 'lying' there would be a dozen people in here shouting about biased moderators suspending people for disagreeing with them.
insaniak wrote: So... Just so we're very clear: You guys want the volunteer moderators of a forum devoted to toy soldiers to be the arbiters of truth?
Are you sure? Because from where I'm standing, that sounds like an awful idea.
If nothing else, a lot of the time judging whether someone is deliberately lying, or just confused is just too subjective. It's right up there with the whole bad faith argument thing.
Theoretically, yes, someone deliberately lying might be seen as rude.. But what action we could conceivably take against that would depend entirely on the situation, and in practice would require a great deal of erring on the side of caution. Because you can guarantee that the moment we suspend somebody for 'lying' there would be a dozen people in here shouting about biased moderators suspending people for disagreeing with them.
I feel like this is a purposefully misframed argument, if not an outright strawman. You're not being asked to rule on truth or reality, you're being asked to recognize and act accordingly when someone is purposefully acting in bad faith. Their intentions should not matter and it doesn't have to escalate immediately to a permaban. A warning will do just fine for the first offense or two, as will a temp ban if it continues. If you are worried about people needing to be educated on discussing in good faith, make a pinned post with resources and/or explanations of what good faith looks like and some basic dos and do not.
Again, I feel it's important to mention no one is asking you to be "the arbiters of truth," and I cannot stress this enough. If that's what you've taken away from this entire discussion with multiple people expressing the same feeling, I feel like you have lost the plot so-to-speak.
This whole thing requires neutral or impartial moderators, right? But modern US politics is so pervasive, divisive and harmful it brings up two questions: how do you find someone truly impartial, and what the hell is wrong with that person?
Someone not from the Staates that has no issues with it?
I feel like this is a purposefully misframed argument, if not an outright strawman.
Which rather nicely illustrates the danger of trying to judge whether or not an argument is made in bad faith based on the written word.
It's not, in this case. I was merely responding to the argument as I read it.
You're not being asked to rule on truth or reality, you're being asked to recognize and act accordingly when someone is purposefully acting in bad faith. Their intentions should not matter and it doesn't have to escalate immediately to a permaban. A warning will do just fine for the first offense or two, as will a temp ban if it continues.
But where someone is considered to be disruptive, that's what happens now.
The mods are not mind readers, however. Nor are we omniscient. So we make those decisions based on the information we have.
Which means that we won't always get the full picture from a single mod alert, and unless someone messages us directly with specific concerns it can often take a while to see a pattern of issues with a poster, particularly when they're a bit of a line toer.
I feel like this is a purposefully misframed argument, if not an outright strawman.
Which rather nicely illustrates the danger of trying to judge whether or not an argument is made in bad faith based on the written word.
It's not, in this case. I was merely responding to the argument as I read it.
You're not being asked to rule on truth or reality, you're being asked to recognize and act accordingly when someone is purposefully acting in bad faith. Their intentions should not matter and it doesn't have to escalate immediately to a permaban. A warning will do just fine for the first offense or two, as will a temp ban if it continues.
But where someone is considered to be disruptive, that's what happens now.
The mods are not mind readers, however. Nor are we omniscient. So we make those decisions based on the information we have.
Which means that we won't always get the full picture from a single mod alert, and unless someone messages us directly with specific concerns it can often take a while to see a pattern of issues with a poster, particularly when they're a bit of a line toer.
I fear you do not understand what bad faith is. Intentions do not matter. If I unintentionally "move the goalposts" for example, all that matters is I did it. And that's why I pointed out warnings as an option to inform users they are not acting in good faith. Hell, let's use you as an example. In your last post, you asserted (or asked if) we wanted you to act as the "arbiters of truth" and now you're making grandiose and hyperbolic claims about how mods are just lowly humans, not "mind readers" or "omniscient." Both of these are examples of bad faith even if you do not intend it as such.
But beyond that, we don't expect that from you, and we did not ask it of you. We don't expect a first time ruling that stands forever and is always 100% just and right. What I think we, the users, do have a right to expect is something more than literally nothing when a handful of other users consistently derail the thread and attempt to get it locked.
And for the record, which you didn't really comment on, I even described reasonable mod actions of two warnings, then a temp ban from that section of the forum. You could also very easily include or send a message asking the user to "inform themselves on good faith discourse, and they'll be unbanned in 24 hours" or whatever, and from there you can escalate based on future user actions, such as another warning or two before a longer temp ban (say, 3 days, 7 days, then permanent). This is all off the top of my head, and your job is made easier by the fact users who are participating in good faith are likely to call out those in bad faith, as it certainly happened here on dakka almost every single time problem users popped up, spewed bs, vanish, and returned in a week while pretending no discussion happened. And if a handful of users are causing an inordinate amount of work for the mod team by causing issues with other users, you should be considering what action to take, not if you should be taking action.
And if the issue is you only get mod alerts, maybe you should confer with the rest of the mod/admin team about updating the mod alert system to allow for reasons or comments. Anyone who is engaging in good faith is almost assuredly more than happy to provide a brief explanation of why they're using the report system.
TL;DR: We're not looking for arbiters of truth. We're not asking you to read minds or be omniscient. We're saying that when you (as in, the mod team) see a consistent pattern of bad faith behavior from a user, you (as in, the entire mod team) take some form of action. I cannot figure out a better, more direct way to express this. It's great if it happens now, but it certainly didn't fething happen enough back when the politics thread was around.
Wolfblade wrote: . We're saying that when you (as in, the mod team) see a consistent pattern of bad faith behavior from a user, you (as in, the entire mod team) take some form of action.
Wolfblade wrote: . We're saying that when you (as in, the mod team) see a consistent pattern of bad faith behavior from a user, you (as in, the entire mod team) take some form of action.
We do.
Having been a part of the political discussion threads here, I'm hard-pressed to believe you, the mod team, seriously did. It sounds like a seriously outlandish claim considering politics are banned instead of the offending users being banned from OT. Or, if you honestly believe that the mod team did, your priorities must have been totally fethed up. And it sounds like they may still be from my perspective. At the time, it seemed to be treated as "Well, they didn't break rule 1, therefore we can't nail them for anything as rule 1 trumps all else." There are multiple users who had no mod action taken against them for YEARS there who were directly responsible for almost every single derailment, hijacking, and descent into madness that the threads turned into. I can't speak to any private warnings, but I can speak to the fact every time a mod stepped in, it wasn't to ask people to stop participating in bad faith, it was to be civil* almost every single time.
And frankly, if you did hand out temp bans and they went back and kept doing the same thing maybe those bans shouldn't have been temporary from the OT forum.
*As far as I can remember at least, I don't feel like delving into ~400 or more pages to count how many mod warnings there were asking for "be civil or we'll ban politics" vs "participate in good faith."
I feel like this is a purposefully misframed argument, if not an outright strawman.
Which rather nicely illustrates the danger of trying to judge whether or not an argument is made in bad faith based on the written word.
It's not, in this case. I was merely responding to the argument as I read it.
You're not being asked to rule on truth or reality, you're being asked to recognize and act accordingly when someone is purposefully acting in bad faith. Their intentions should not matter and it doesn't have to escalate immediately to a permaban. A warning will do just fine for the first offense or two, as will a temp ban if it continues.
But where someone is considered to be disruptive, that's what happens now.
The mods are not mind readers, however. Nor are we omniscient. So we make those decisions based on the information we have.
Which means that we won't always get the full picture from a single mod alert, and unless someone messages us directly with specific concerns it can often take a while to see a pattern of issues with a poster, particularly when they're a bit of a line toer.
I fear you do not understand what bad faith is. Intentions do not matter. If I unintentionally "move the goalposts" for example, all that matters is I did it. And that's why I pointed out warnings as an option to inform users they are not acting in good faith. Hell, let's use you as an example. In your last post, you asserted (or asked if) we wanted you to act as the "arbiters of truth" and now you're making grandiose and hyperbolic claims about how mods are just lowly humans, not "mind readers" or "omniscient." Both of these are examples of bad faith even if you do not intend it as such.
Apart from the fact you seem to want the mods to enforce formal debating structure, I can tell you that your view that Insaniak's last post was bad faith is not one that is universally held and is entirely subjective. From their point of view - and, in this case, mine too - the summary of your previous position seemed pretty accurate. Was it a little hyperbolic? Probably, but there's nothing wrong with a little exaggeration in order to get a point across. So now we have a disagreement between two parties about what constitutes bad faith and the line seems to be almost impossible to draw. We could as the mod team to draw that line as we do for breaches of Rule #1 but that seems like it's a much greyer area by far.
I think the current solution seems to work OK but not perfectly. I'd like to see a bit more done to deal with persistently trolling posters but in general I find the mods do a pretty decent job of dealing with the worst offenders and still taking a fairly light-touch approach. The ban on politics probably helps with this because it frees up mod time to deal with the rest of the site.
Apart from the fact you seem to want the mods to enforce formal debating structure, I can tell you that your view that Insaniak's last post was bad faith is not one that is universally held and is entirely subjective. From their point of view - and, in this case, mine too - the summary of your previous position seemed pretty accurate. Was it a little hyperbolic? Probably, but there's nothing wrong with a little exaggeration in order to get a point across. So now we have a disagreement between two parties about what constitutes bad faith and the line seems to be almost impossible to draw. We could as the mod team to draw that line as we do for breaches of Rule #1 but that seems like it's a much greyer area by far.
I think the current solution seems to work OK but not perfectly. I'd like to see a bit more done to deal with persistently trolling posters but in general I find the mods do a pretty decent job of dealing with the worst offenders and still taking a fairly light-touch approach. The ban on politics probably helps with this because it frees up mod time to deal with the rest of the site.
No, I want them to be able to recognize what bad faith is, and react accordingly instead of standing to the side as they did with the politics threads. I.E. when one poster pretends to not have had the same conversations week after week from the same starting point with the same arguments and evidence, or when someone posts, literally, a dozen sources then admits to not reading their own sources they're trying to use to defend their own position. There's no question if that is or isn't bad faith. It's blindingly clear it's bad faith, and it's almost certainly intentional. When a poster moves the goalposts every single time someone refutes their position or tries to gaslight someone else that they did or did not say something when the post is right there there is no question if it is or is not bad faith. Being hyperbolic and building positions that no one is asking for or defending is bad faith.
Again, it doesn't matter if the bad faith is intentional or unintentional, it's still bad faith. They might be attempting to debate in good faith, but if they aren't for any reason, they need to be corrected. I'm literally not asking for mind readers, or psychics, or anything crazy. I'm saying that when someone is obviously ignoring or disrupting a good-faith discussion, they are punished, but that rarely, if ever, happened in the politics threads. I'm not asking for formal debate club rules, I'm saying the mods should be able to recognize basic logical fallacies, which was probably the most common source of bad faith in the politics thread. Hell, I'm not even taking the position of "lying violates rule 1" which absolutely an argument that could be made.
Bad faith is being thrown around like a common buzz word now at this point.
In general though it's not even just that logical fallacies were the common source of bad faith. The snide comments, the sly passive aggressive comments towards those who didn't share the same opinions seemed to dominate stronger moreso then anything else. The insults peppered in throughout towards those people disliked was one of the major issues I remember that spread out further and brought heavy grudges throughout.
As for logical fallacies.. I'm really not sure how well that could be implemented by the mods. It's one of those moments of figuring out how much extra work the mods will willingly take on just to deal with problematic posting.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Bad faith is being thrown around like a common buzz word now at this point.
In general though it's not even just that logical fallacies were the common source of bad faith. The snide comments, the sly passive aggressive comments towards those who didn't share the same opinions seemed to dominate stronger moreso then anything else. The insults peppered in throughout towards those people disliked was one of the major issues I remember that spread out further and brought heavy grudges throughout.
As for logical fallacies.. I'm really not sure how well that could be implemented by the mods. It's one of those moments of figuring out how much extra work the mods will willingly take on just to deal with problematic posting.
Those are absolutely bad faith examples too, but I was trying to focus on the more obvious/provable instances I can readily grab proof of.
To borrow a turn of phrase: it's a forum for toy soldiers. Why are you so deathly afraid to draw a line and tell people misbehaving to feth off? Would it be subjective? Yes, to a certain degree, but as we're often reminded it's your (well, Yakface's) forum. You already make subjective decisions; it's part of being a moderator.
Hey guys, once again, my apologies for the delay in reply. I'm continuing the "thread within a thread" about the alternate (and Completely unofficial) forum I'm aiming to have set up around the end of the month for political discussion.
There are a few things I want to comment on, the first being this:
This whole thing requires neutral or impartial moderators, right? But modern US politics is so pervasive, divisive and harmful it brings up two questions: how do you find someone truly impartial, and what the hell is wrong with that person?
Someone not from the Staates that has no issues with it?
First, well done Bob . But yes, that is exactly why the first person I asked to help me moderate (and was turned down by!) wasn't from the US. It's going to be very hard to find someone not polarized Blue/Red here at the moment. But for as much as is possible, I'd say that I am one of those people . Meaning - I genuinely did not make up my mind about who I was going to vote for until the final week of the election, I had close friends of both stripes strongly persuading me in either direction, and I ended up voting third party in a key swing state for Jo Jorgensen. Your "what is wrong with that person" comment is quite applicable but the point is, no, I'm not "Team Red" or "Team Blue". I often vote a split ticket (meaning I'll look at individual people running and vote for people of both parties).
I definitely don't think this makes me better than other people, and if anything, many have pointed out to me recently the issues with such a view. But one thing I've realized is that it Does make me decently qualified to try to maintain a political discussion space, because I genuinely am interested in what both "sides" have to say. Minority views will absolutely be allowed in the political discussion space I'm setting up, and if anything, I don't see what the point is without them. If you want "general knowledge" you can much more quickly and easily read an article summarizing things. This is going to be a space that encourages debate, and even if you don't change your mind on something, you might find you learn much more about your own views simply by having to defend/support/argue for them.
Turning to this:
Wolfblade wrote: Again, it doesn't matter if the bad faith is intentional or unintentional, it's still bad faith. They might be attempting to debate in good faith, but if they aren't for any reason, they need to be corrected. I'm literally not asking for mind readers, or psychics, or anything crazy. I'm saying that when someone is obviously ignoring or disrupting a good-faith discussion, they are punished, but that rarely, if ever, happened in the politics threads. I'm not asking for formal debate club rules, I'm saying the mods should be able to recognize basic logical fallacies, which was probably the most common source of bad faith in the politics thread. Hell, I'm not even taking the position of "lying violates rule 1" which absolutely an argument that could be made.
I pointed out previously in this thread where someone was accused of using bad faith in this very thread, about their not thinking the political space I'm setting up will work (which is very possible!). Again, I'm committing myself to not participating in Any arguments other than on how to run the site I'm setting up, but on this point I want to be very clear. I will not be making judgements about bad faith. If someone is spamming or breaking other basic rules (such as basic swear and NSFW rules) then they'll face a consequence (such as a time-out from posting, basically). But mostly, this is a space for adults who want to debate. On Dakka, the end result is that basically we said we Don't want the debate here... but on the site I'm setting up, I do - that is its sole purpose.
whembly wrote: As for RiTide's new sandbox, it'll be "his" board so it'll be "his" rules. Maybe he can come up with a process whereby posters can petition to have "x" poster banned, sort of having "trial" where both sides make their case. As such he could decree to tell everyone to "move on from the topic" all the way up to site ban. I think that's what some folks want... some way to adjudicate the controversy and render judgement, rather some "light-touch" moderation.
Whembly, as one of the "minority view" posters who I would Definitely want to participate on the site, I appreciate your persevering in making some points here. And I want to be clear on some points here, too, in that I think my rules will not make everyone happy - in fact, might not make anyone truly happy - but that's kind of the point, in my view. It's going to be an open space to discuss things. I'm not taking a side.
You, and anyone who similarly is willing to "swim upstream" against a larger number of posters posting the opposite view, are absolutely welcome on the site. And if you were to face swearing, NSFW images, or other "abuse" then that would be one of the (few) triggers to cause moderator action. However, the whole point is that people are free to discuss things civilly. Sometimes, this means people are going to think a view is out of bounds for some reason or other. An example would be the 1990s crime laws in the US, where someone could make a case that items in those laws were racist. There's a fine line here, where you can argue whether or not they were, but if you start calling another poster racist you may have crossed a line - or maybe not! Do you see what I'm getting at here? Certainly, I would not allow a thread dedicated to bashing one particular poster. But I would allow criticism of that poster. Crucially, however, I will also allow that person to post.
The easiest example I can think of to illustrate this is the coronavirus thread. On Dakka, we had issues handling this because there is a public health concern - this is a large forum. But in this political discussion space, that is not a concern I'm currently worried about. And there were, in fact, several minority views that were at the time made fun of, and later proven right. The first was Orlanth, who posted Extremely early about buying and wearing a mask. I myself even pushed back on him about this. And, in hindsight, he was posting something many people would later agree on - but at the time, he was the only one, an extreme minority view. The second is Queenannesrevenge, who I know many posters here wanted removed from that thread. I would say that, based on available data, they were proven almost totally right about outdoor exercise being harmless, even though they were "swimming upstream" in making this point of view at the time.
All of this to say - people who want to argue/defend "unpopular views" will absolutely be welcome in the space. They will have to stand on their own two feet and face and deal with legitimate criticism. But I will not be making the judgement calls on who can post (if they're doing so within the basic rules of civility), or what they can post for the most part (again with those same basic rules in mind). I won't be encouraging "anonymity" either. Many people here know my real name, and have met me in-person. I'm saying, we should be able to, as adults, talk about these important things. And I'm willing to put both my reputation, effort and some funding into trying to make a space where we can do so.
I hope folks will give it a fair shot, at least! Thanks again for reading, posting your thoughts, and your patience while I work out the details.
If I want to argue for the extermination of all Danes, would that be fine as long as I do so in a civil manner? As long as I treat any Danes that are part of the debate in a professional and friendly manner? I imagine such a view would be unpopular, but as long as I'm civil we're all Gucci, right?
Unless I'm mistaken Martin Luther King had some choice words for this civility fetish.
No. You'd be removed for such an argument, as I think you would be in any similar setting.
My hope is certainly that the mature adults I'm inviting to participate in this forum, both here and from my local gaming group, won't make such an argument. If they do, that's why you have an admin.
RiTides wrote: No. You'd be removed for such an argument, as I think you would be in any similar setting.
My hope is certainly that the mature adults I'm inviting to participate in this forum, both here and from my local gaming group, won't make such an argument. If they do, that's why you have an admin.
Why, though? I'm being civil, aren't I?
Or is it the case (as I would argue) that there something inherently uncivil about calling for the extermination of an entire nationality, and that the very act of making this argument is uncivil?
You already make arbitrary judgment calls on what is and isn't acceptable all the time. Using that as an argument against moderating certain behaviours seems strange to me.
AlmightyWalrus - I think your example is actually an easy one because it's so extreme. But I wouldn't be extrapolating such an instance to its obvious end point in debates like this - that everyone who disagrees with a certain view are Nazis, basically.
If you advocate violence, you'd be gone. That, again, is a really, really easy one, and I think it's quite obviously at odds with a basic requirement for having a civil discussion. I actually have, at times, myself made fun of the idea of civility, and certainly don't view it as an end goal. But for this space, it's table stakes. Right now, people can't talk to each other about the most basic issues. And we should be able to, and I'm willing to put in the work to try to, and basically act as a referee to let them.
This is also why I won't be participating in any debates myself, to remain as impartial as possible. But I'll be honest, that post put me to the test already . That's also why I'll be doing admin tasks only once a day, to get a chance to read things, and think about them carefully before replying. With that in mind, any further replies from me will have to wait until tonight, as I've got to get to work!
insaniak wrote: So... Just so we're very clear: You guys want the volunteer moderators of a forum devoted to toy soldiers to be the arbiters of truth?
Are you sure? Because from where I'm standing, that sounds like an awful idea.
If nothing else, a lot of the time judging whether someone is deliberately lying, or just confused is just too subjective. It's right up there with the whole bad faith argument thing.
Theoretically, yes, someone deliberately lying might be seen as rude.. But what action we could conceivably take against that would depend entirely on the situation, and in practice would require a great deal of erring on the side of caution. Because you can guarantee that the moment we suspend somebody for 'lying' there would be a dozen people in here shouting about biased moderators suspending people for disagreeing with them.
I feel like half the problem is the mind boggling frustration that comes from having to deal with blatant lies at an ever escalating rate, and then being told by the mods they don't want to intervene because its too much work to be arbiters of truth.
I remember the climate change denial incident referenced earlier, where an entire blog full of 'proof' was linked and multiple members went looking at the 'proof' and found half the studies listed claimed the opposite of what they purportedly said. There was no mystery. There was no real question. Someone's already linked a direct quote from one of those articles showcasing that the articles did not say what the person who linked them said they said.
The debate over that blatant lie lasted for pages and three days because the person who made that lie posted upwards of 20 times a day, and could simply cycle the same nonsense through other daily posters, to other-daily posters, to weekly posters, and maintained a nonsensical circular discussion over their inability to read before they linked for more than a week.
No one is actually asking the mods to be arbiters of truth. They are questioning why the mods are so unwilling to intervene into uncivil behavior that stops short of throwing insults. Set aside whether or not a lie is a lie. Instead, lets focus on how one can 'civily' foster an uncivil environment in a topic space by brigading that space with nonsense, posting up to 50 times a day in a single mega-thread, and burying it to the point it's more of a debate over them than a debate over politics. Now throw into that mess, that the poster in question likes it that way. When the exact same poster is doing the exact same thing, week after week, year after year, does it really matter if the behavior is deliberate or if the person in question is confused? I don't see how the distinction matters, especially when it's a metaphorical bonfire burning away on the board. The behavior is destructive to the community regardless of intent and damaging and should be considered the subject of moderator action.
In the entire history of DakkaDakka politics, I can only think of a dozen users who behaved this way. Some of them grew out of it, some of them have left the board or simply stopped participating in politics. None of them behave in that way outside of politics, so again, it is straight up easier for the board to just ban politics, and I do think there's some confusion here because I don't see many people asking for politics to return to the board* (they're mostly venting long past frustrations with that topic space). This behavior is mostly infrequent elsewhere save for one user who is themselves not a frequent enough disturbance to warrant any sort of action. I do however think it's worth pointing out that most boards ban brigading behavior for the exact reasons people are complaining about above. Dakka has in the past, and even now sometimes, allows singular users to brigade a thread and bury it with the mods doing nothing.
The mods aren't being asked to arbitrate truth. There is an expectation though that the point of rules and civility is to foster a civil environment. Some people are capable of creating an uncivil environment without ever becoming openly uncivil themselves.
*It's the point where locking the thread is probably more worthwhile than leaving it open but that's not my call so *shrug*
Whembly, as one of the "minority view" posters who I would Definitely want to participate on the site, I appreciate your persevering in making some points here.
*I had responded to this, and then thought better of doing so in public.*
Reavsie wrote: The fact this thread is still running is a testament to the patience of the mods here on Dakka.
Eight pages of entitled snowflakes wasting mods time.
Who would ever want to be a mod - what a thankless task. Sorry that you have to put up with this drivel.
As someone who's not only been been a mod, but also handled a job similar to what RiTides is proposing when the 40kRPG forum was a going concern, it can be a hard job, though I'll point out that my approach was different than yakface's in this matter. For example, we allowed discussion of the Forbidden 40k lore topics which shall not be named here. And if you think politics gets people hot, wait till you see a FSM or WAAC discussion.
And calling people names like that violates Rule 1.
RiTides wrote: The first was Orlanth, who posted Extremely early about buying and wearing a mask. I myself even pushed back on him about this. And, in hindsight, he was posting something many people would later agree on - but at the time, he was the only one, an extreme minority view. The second is Queenannesrevenge, who I know many posters here wanted removed from that thread. I would say that, based on available data, they were proven almost totally right about outdoor exercise being harmless, even though they were "swimming upstream" in making this point of view at the time.
And as parting words, I would say you're making the same mistake that has always been made.
You're assuming people want posters removed for their views (some do, but I think engaging them is ignoring the real problem), and conflating the fact people disagree with those views with the opinion that the way their views are expressed is disruptive.
I think I posted in the CV thread a few times, but not much. I did read it though and I think your characterization misses the real problem QAR presented to that thread. They weren't a problem because they were 'swimming upstream' and people disagreed with them. They were a problem because they couldn't do that one thing the mods are always telling us to do (don't respond to every post you disagree with) and buried the topic. This maxim gets thrown at anyone who points out how single users can destroy civil discussion but is paradoxically never directed at the person whose posts constitute half the page responding to every single reply that disagreed with them and burying the thread in an arguments over the poster rather than discussion of the topic. That brought in defenders and detractors for the defenders and the entire thread spiraled into incivility leading to a lock.
EDIT: I'd also point out the irony, inherit here. We're told the mods don't want to be arbiters of truth, but we're also told that poster X was right in the end so it doesn't matter that they disrupted the thread to the point it needed to be locked. We should respect them for swimming upstream? I'm kind of at a loss at this point on this front actually. It's not about being right. It's about being so certain you're right, you'll incite the thread into a downward spiral and this almost feels like tacit approval of that behavior while telling everyone else who finds it exhausting to go stuff it and "you don't have to reply." I know this is combining the replies of two different mods here, but it feels very accurate to my experiences and frustrations with certain posters and how the moderation team handles them; you'll apply one standard to someone and another standard to everyone else in the name of fairness.
I don't think that's typical of QAR mind and I wouldn't qualify QAR as a problem poster. This is a thing that happens from time to time online and in real life. Arguments happen, they end, we move on.
In this same post you mention two other users. One of them engaged in this kind of behavior in almost any thread that managed to catch their interest (which doesn't happen anymore in my experience the past three or so years) and the other could maintain it for years at a time over a single topic. They'd maintain it so hard they'd double down and then triple down rather than walk away and be proud of the fact they didn't walk away while everything burns around them. It's a paradox that some of us are repeatedly told "you don't have to reply" but the people who are frequently pointed at and called problem poster never do that, which is a big part of why they warrant being called problem posters in the first place.
You've proposed a throttling mechanic awhile back I think that would probably combat that in most cases, but still I think you're confusing differences of opinion with discontent over how some users are allowed to express their opinions. You're ignoring the creation of battleground mentality and while that's always a thing on the internet, I would charge some people not only excel at creating a battleground mentality, they like being in that mentality. They single-handedly turn a space into a battleground and are comfortable in that environment. Battlegrounds are not conductive to civility. At best they maintain a civil veneer over lingering toxicity and basic civility rules are insufficient to combat it.
Wolfblade wrote: . We're saying that when you (as in, the mod team) see a consistent pattern of bad faith behavior from a user, you (as in, the entire mod team) take some form of action.
We do.
When a poster pops into a thread to just ask questions or make statements, then ignores all the answers, rebuttals and counter-arguments addressed to him to post the exact same questions or make the exact same statements, that poster is not interested in the debate. That poster is acting in bad faith. This is what brought down the old politics thread and the coronavirus thread. I don’t see how you have to be an arbiter of truth or a mind reader to spot this very obvious pattern. And in all of Dakka OT, the mods have rarely, if ever, called a poster on this pattern of behavior.
This whole thing requires neutral or impartial moderators, right? But modern US politics is so pervasive, divisive and harmful it brings up two questions: how do you find someone truly impartial, and what the hell is wrong with that person?
Someone not from the Staates that has no issues with it?
You know what half the people from the states think about all people not from the states’ politics?
Not really. I don't really follow stereotypes.
Further, it would make a nice filter for those who indeed intend to discuss, which would welcome an unaligned arbiter with NO connection to the states whilest clearly marking those that don't.
@lord of hats, it was me that proposed a 10 min time gated response system Ri simply took it up allbeit a less draconian meassure in the form of a slow mode.. with the thought beeing the same behind making Direct democratic institutions work and preciscly avoid that mentality. Now compared to the months over here i agree one could wonder if 10 min gates work, but i think the concept is sound. Maybee even decent to curb trollers since it'd take a lot longer to post for them.
Not Online!!! wrote: @lord of hats, it was me that proposed a 10 min time gated response system. with the thought beeing the same behind making Direct democratic institutions work and preciscly avoid that mentality.
Now compared to the months over here i agree one could wonder if 10 min gates work, but i think the concept is sound.
Oh... It would still combat the ability of a single user to bury a topic *shrug*
I've seen rigorously moderated political boards that employed it in the past. One used escalating timers; your second response in an hour would incur fifteen minutes before you could reply a third time. Replying after fifteen minutes (within an hour of the last response) would escalate the timer to thirty minutes. Then an hour. It capped out a twelve hours if you responded more than a certain number of times in a day. I can't honestly remember how effective it was. I don't really use these spaces anymore and when I did my mentality was very different but my memory is that it worked sort of. People could still be combative posters, but their ability to disrupt was curtailed by inherent limits on how often they could post. The escalation usually gave people enough time to cool off from heat
I think this was proposed here years ago, but Lego would have to heavily redesign the back end or something to make it work? Too much work to be worth it. I'm not sure there's any prepackaged forums today that really have the feature.
Escalating seems iffy if overall applied, chances are you'd have multiple threads(?)...
As for forums and timed responses, considering how the DG threads / FNP threads went off a handle i'd say the 10 minute limiter might have helped, it certainly would be interesting if you'd have some metrics which would activate such a mode. Seems possible but also bit difficult to propperly programm.
LordOfHats - On my lunch break here so just wanted to say, that's why I won't be participating in anything, even giving an example gets dicey
I was pointing to those two instances as examples of where the view of a person in the minority turned out to be valuable in hindsight. A slow mode or other feature would certainly help with some of the other issues you raise, and I'm Definitely looking into these.
As for consistency, I do think you're replying to some things I didn't specifically say, and the fact is I'll be solo in this venture to start so will certainly be trying to be consistent . I obviously do like the light touch of moderation on Dakka, but for a politics dedicated space I would already be making a few changes: not participating in debates I'm moderating is a very important one, I think, and being able to make decisions on things relatively faster since, well, I only need to consult myself!
I'm hoping people will be "game" and come in with the view of trying to have real discussion on important issues. If people just want to burn the place down that will obviously be a major downer. There's nothing to gain here for me, other than wanting to see solid debate and discussion happening, and feeling like our community is well suited to it. Hopefully, you all can bear with me while I work out the kinks at the start.
I mean the thread may as well be locked at this point since we're at maximum mod-shrug.
There's obvious problem posters, multiple users can point them out, but since the problem posters are only trying to hijack a toy soldier forum to be a rightwing propaganda platform *politely* it's fine.
How about we ban future appeals of the politics ban rule? That way mods wouldn't have to bother retyping "we're not going to do our jobs" over and over.
ScarletRose wrote: I mean the thread may as well be locked at this point since we're at maximum mod-shrug.
There's obvious problem posters, multiple users can point them out, but since the problem posters are only trying to hijack a toy soldier forum to be a rightwing propaganda platform *politely* it's fine.
How about we ban future appeals of the politics ban rule? That way mods wouldn't have to bother retyping "we're not going to do our jobs" over and over.
Here we have a good example of the old politics thread post I described beforehand. The passive aggressiveness, the insults baked throughout. It's a rather good example of it.
How is determining bad-faith discussion more subjective than determining what is impolite? To me it seems less subjective, even. And aside from giving passive-aggressive insults a pass Mods do a pretty good job with rule 1.
Whembly, as one of the "minority view" posters who I would Definitely want to participate on the site...
Really? It frequently was not just a "minority" view, but a view that defied the reality around them that would devolve into page after page of him ignoring any and all rebuttals, and flat out lying at points. He's a major reason the politics thread was frequently derailed. He's probably the top problem poster everyone has been obliquely referring to. I have no issue with someone who wants to argue an unpopular opinion so long as they remain ground in facts, and are participating in good faith. This was not him, and there are literal years of proof of him engaging solely in bad faith. I know, because I actually looked when he claimed he couldn't think of a single instance and challenged anyone to prove him wrong.
And you know what he did when I presented him with the evidence of him using gish gallop, or moving the goalposts, or pretending to have never had conversations about X topic? He posted a handful of times trying to say that it was "a difference of opinion" that he posted 10 links and admitted to not reading them. He denied that he committed any sort of bad faith in doing so, and then later he edited his posts to just be a stupid meme about 20 times over.
I'm not looking for any sort of retroactive mod action, you all missed your time window of literal years, but I want you to actually think about if that's the type of person you want there. Does nothing else matter if they're "civil"?
Also, if Rule 1 is so important, why hasn't Reavsie faced judgment for name-calling? And don't say you didn't see their post, you literally thanked them for their input. Does civility matter, or does it not? Honestly, this isn't even a unique situation to this thread. This is typical mod action, or lack thereof, that I used to see on this site all the time. The mod team isn't even consistent in enforcing the rules, and if this is any indication of how your political forum will be run, I'm also suspecting that it won't work, but for different reasons than they had. It'll just be dakkadakka OT politics 1.1 at best, and dakkadakka OT politics 1.0 was an unmitigated failure, emphasis on "unmitigated." Basically, a different skin, different URL, same rules, same problems.
We had people here advocating for and defending worse who did not get punished because they were "civil". Call me rude or harsh, but I don't believe you will take action unless they're explicitly screaming about it. As far as I can tell mods only take action in extreme situations and let everything else slide. You've drawn an incredibly arbitrary and "subjective" line that it's impossible to determine bad faith, but civility is key... except when it isn't apparently. Or maybe it's just "subjective," or different rules apply if they praise the mods after insulting users I guess.
I know I may sound overly critical and harsh, but it's because the OT mods failed in the politics threads. Badly. There were clear cases of bad faith, and people seeking to just stir the pot, and wind everyone up, and the mod team let them for years. You've even GUSHED about one of them here. Am I supposed to really believe you'd treat them fairly and moderate their bad faith posting after you both have not for years, and then proceeded to explain how you'd protect them from "abuse" as you called it? What about the rest of your potential posters, are they not entitled to a forum where people participate in good faith?
I used to enjoy the political discussions here, but the ones I enjoyed the most were the abstract ones. The ones on questions of economics, or foreign policy, or the like; rather than red v blue of whatever country or hot issue.
Why?
Because I had the best chance of learning something rather than having an argument. There are some very intelligent or experienced people on this board, and it was useful/nice to be able to tap that. Sebster, nfe, even the superbly obstinate Dogma. It would be nice to have a way to sift such users into one forum for discussion, but the problem is, for every one of those? There are five more people with hearsay-based opinions, and at least one or two people intent on dragging their own politics over everything like a bad smell. Which inevitably damages the forum community, and that's where it crosses a certain line which I feel should be clarified here.
Dakka's operational model is the way it is not by deliberate moderator planning or organisational inertia. It's been constructed instead to resemble a community that the owner has some fond memories of from a game store he used to frequent. One where civility was the most important social factor, and toy soldiers the primary subject of discussion. And he's been quite clear that anything which detracts from those two niches and instigates community unrest, whether in moderation style or board content, gets the chop.
That's his decision on his web forum's priorities. He wrote the cheque to buy the website. He writes the cheques which pay the hosting. So his vision is how things are and how they will continue to be. It's his back yard, and so long as I play in it, I'll respect his rules (much as I may miss those chats!). He's happy to give us some leeway in what we play, and how we do it, but they minute something starts fudging or erasing those two key points (civility/toy soldiers), it's out. Simple as.
Politics, sadly, turned out to be one of those things. So there's not really much else to be said on the matter.
Dakka's operational model is the way it is not by deliberate moderator planning or organisational inertia. It's been constructed instead to resemble a community that the owner has some fond memories of from a game store he used to frequent. One where civility was the most important social factor, and toy soldiers the primary subject of discussion. And he's been quite clear that anything which detracts from those two niches and instigates community unrest, whether in moderation style or board content, gets the chop.
It's funny then that I can look through NnBs and find several threads about how "usual suspects" are derailing threads, and others agreeing. Some of those users are here in this thread, but some are not. Ironically, to maintain "civility" you have to actively moderate users, prune the problems which... just doesn't happen. Not enough to make any noticeable difference. I mean, the Geek threads are pretty bad. New releases do seem to be filled with people complaining X army didn't get a release instead (which was the topic of the most recent thread).
Basically, civility is more than using nice words.
edit: I'm not blaming any mod in particular for these failings, but the mod team as a whole, including yakface. What they want is nice, but their method of attempting to get it is not working.
Ketara, thanks for "elevating" the conversation a bit. Forgive me that I forget at this exact moment what your PhD is in but I know it's something impressive. The other user I was referring to last page was Wehrkind, who has a PhD in economics.
With the userbase we have here, we have the opportunity to have some awesome and interesting discussions. The types of threads I most enjoyed reading are similar to yours, and similar to what I'd considered "seeding" an unofficial forum for this with - "Why is the minimum wage an effective or ineffective policy?", "Is universal free trade something we should still strive for, or have things changed globally?" etc.
That's what I'd want, and the real purpose of such a space. Maybe it's not what I'd get, though
Wolfblade, you've mentioned we tend to have a light hand here and the post you pointed out last page, while using strong language, is the kind of thing we generally allow. If people want to talk about big things, there's going to have to be a certain level of thick skin. I don't know if I'd even have a mod alert button, and I certainly wouldn't want to foster the dynamic we've ended up with here in these types of discussions - basically complaining to the mods until they discipline the opposing party. Defeat them with your argument! Or heck, listen to their argument to understand why they think they way they do.
You can say that it's impossible, but just to use my own experience - the other day I met a Literal flat-earther in the park. While my kids played on the playground, I listened to this person for an hour describing how he came to believe it, and some common answers to the very obvious questions I had about how he explained certain things. I found it fascinating. Why can't you listen to someone you disagree with? Why can't you try to engage them in a debate?
If you say they're posting in bad faith, as I can see many people here are, it's a fair statement and not much I personally think there is much to be done about (other than a "slow mode" to avoid someone dominating a conversation). But I'm tired of people shouting down others just because they disagree. The fact is, no one here is right about everything. An open space to talk about things would be awesome. If we can't handle it, we can't handle it... but I personally don't believe that. Maybe I'd have to drop the hammer, but my hope is we really could talk about examples like I gave above. We'll see...
I wonder if all those people calling for users to be pruned and who have actively violated rule #1 realize where the best place to start would be? Its amazing I can sit down and shoot the breeze including about politics with an acquaintance of mine for hours who is so far left he would make most of the people here look like right wingers but try to have lightly political conversations here and ferget about it. Everyone should walk in to the restroom and look at that thing over the sink and then think real hard about how they can do better and stop trying to make everyone else behave like them. (Yes I know that's unlikely but just imagine).
edit: I'm not blaming any mod in particular for these failings, but the mod team as a whole, including yakface. What they want is nice, but their method of attempting to get it is not working.
You are of course, entirely free to perceive that as being the case. Other people (including the mod team) will naturally agree, agree partially, or disagree with you.
But frankly put, that's entirely beside the point. This is how the owner wants his website run. There have been cases where he has prodded moderator action in one direction, reined it back in others, and he has generally laid out in very clear and precise terms to the mod team the specifics on how he wants business conducted here. He's not involved on a day to day basis, and he tends only to keep half an eye on the forum more recently; but it's still his back yard, and his rules are still in force.
Politeness/civility. And miniature wargaming. That's what he wants. That's what he's structured Dakka to achieve. And by and large, it does. We have a thriving, coherent message board centred around miniature wargaming which functions in a mature, yet PG-13 format. That's certainly worth something, I think, especially as so many other forums have crashed and burned. You might think it would work better with some tweaks in one direction, I might think it would work better adjusted in another; but the long and short of it is that we're not the owners.
I for one, am just thankful that I have a place that isn't facebook or reddit to pursue my hobby. I'm very explicitly not implying that you or anyone else is not, but what I am emphasising that I do personally value what the owners policies and opinions have shaped over time. Is it to my ideal? No, probably not quite, but then again, what is in this world?
You can say that it's impossible, but just to use my own experience - the other day I met a Literal flat-earther in the park. While my kids played on the playground, I listened to this person for an hour describing how he came to believe it, and some common answers to the very obvious questions I had about how he explained certain things. I found it fascinating. Why can't you listen to someone you disagree with? Why can't you try to engage them in a debate?
If you say they're posting in bad faith, as I can see many people here are, it's a fair statement and not much I personally think there is much to be done about (other than a "slow mode" to avoid someone dominating a conversation). But I'm tired of people shouting down others just because they disagree. The fact is, no one here is right about everything. An open space to talk about things would be awesome. If we can't handle it, we can't handle it... but I personally don't believe that. Maybe I'd have to drop the hammer, but my hope is we really could talk about examples like I gave above. We'll see...
Because the bad faith here wasn't ever designed to encourage a discussion. It was designed to rile people up, and dominate the conversation. If you maintain the same rules, with the same people, on the same subjects, you're going to get the same results. We've seen that for over two years now in the Wasteland alone. You're willing to draw an arbitrary line about civility, but not good faith participation which is the lifeblood of successful political discussions. I'm not sure if this is naivety or something else.
edit: I'm not blaming any mod in particular for these failings, but the mod team as a whole, including yakface. What they want is nice, but their method of attempting to get it is not working.
You are of course, entirely free to perceive that as being the case. Other people (including the mod team) will naturally agree, agree partially, or disagree with you.
But frankly put, that's entirely beside the point. This is how the owner wants his website run. There have been cases where he has prodded moderator action in one direction, reined it back in others, and he has generally laid out in very clear and precise terms to the mod team the specifics on how he wants business undertaken here. He's not involved on a day to day basis, and he tends only to keep half an eye on the forum more recently; but it's still his back yard, and his rules are still in force.
Politeness/civility. And miniature wargaming. That's what he wants. That's what he's structured Dakka to achieve. And by and large, it does. We have a thriving, coherent message board centred around miniature wargaming which functions in a mature, yet PG-13 format. That's certainly worth something, I think, especially as so many other forums have crashed and burned. You might think it would work better with some tweaks in one direction, I might think it would work better adjusted in another; but the long and short of it is that we're not the owners.
I for one, am just thankful that I have a place that isn't facebook or reddit to pursue my hobby. I'm not implying that you or anyone else is not, but what I am emphasising that I do personally value what the owners policies and opinions have shaped over time. Is it to my ideal? No, probably not quite, but then again, what is in this world?
And this has kind of evolved past yakface's dakkadakka, and is now more about RiT's hypothetical political forum at this point, but the same things apply to miniature wargaming. Bad faith isn't limited to just logical fallacies, it also includes, for example, people whining about how X didn't get a release in a thread devoted to Y getting a new release.
And this has kind of evolved past yakface's dakkadakka, and RiT's hypothetical political forum at this point, but the same things apply to miniature wargaming. Bad faith isn't limited to just logical fallacies, it's also includes, for example, people whining about how X didn't get a release in a thread devoted to Y getting a new release.
If you feel that the current (clearly delineated) policies laid out by the site owner to the forum members and moderation team are inadequate or generally faulty; that's entirely your prerogative. Likewise, you are entirely free to approach him and try to convince him that his rules (if this is what you are saying) promote the appearance of civility over the reality of it. He might even agree with you. Then again, he might not.
But until he does, I'm afraid that the status quo is how this website is going to function. He pays the bills. He makes the rules. To paraphrase a quote, 'this is Yakface's world, we all just live in it'.
And this has kind of evolved past yakface's dakkadakka, and RiT's hypothetical political forum at this point, but the same things apply to miniature wargaming. Bad faith isn't limited to just logical fallacies, it's also includes, for example, people whining about how X didn't get a release in a thread devoted to Y getting a new release.
If you feel that the current (clearly delineated) policies laid out by the site owner to the forum members and moderation team are inadequate or generally faulty; that's entirely your prerogative. Likewise, you are entirely free to approach him and try to convince him that his rules (if this is what you are saying) promote the appearance of civility over the reality of it. He might even agree with you. Then again, he might not.
But until he does, I'm afraid that the status quo is how this website is going to function. He pays the bills. He makes the rules. To paraphrase a quote, 'this is Yakface's world, we all just live in it'.
'
But the discussion isn't about Dakka per se, it's about a hypothetical separate forum for political discussion, whether that be the Wasteland or somewhere else. The fact that Yakface's rules apply on Dakka is wholly irrelevant, with Dakka only serving in this case as an example of what not to do on a board about politics.
But the discussion isn't about Dakka per se, it's about a hypothetical separate forum for political discussion, whether that be the Wasteland or somewhere else.
I think that there are sufficient mentions of Dakka's system and conflation of the two topics together on the previous page that isn't unreasonable to make a statement or two on the mechanics behind the system here. If my posts bore you, you can always skip them and continue addressing the alternative facet which interests you more.
Would it help if I made a separate thread? The idea kind of just came up in this one but obviously I can see why that's confusing!
One really good idea that I think comes up from the above discussion - we could have a separate section for, say, economics. Maybe a handful of sections with distinctions like that (obviously not too many or else there's not even traffic to support even a slow conversation of them).
Anyway, I could probably make a structural ideas thread in OT (I think it might get off the rails to discuss moderation in there, though). Thoughts?
But the discussion isn't about Dakka per se, it's about a hypothetical separate forum for political discussion, whether that be the Wasteland or somewhere else.
I think that there are sufficient mentions of Dakka's system and conflation of the two topics together on the previous page that isn't unreasonable to make a statement or two on the mechanics behind the system here. If my posts bore you, you can always skip them and continue addressing the alternative facet which interests you more.
Frankly, both your answer to wolfblade and the one I've just quoted read as complete non sequiturs to me. Wolfblade was clearly not arguing to change Dakka's policies in the present and I didn't give any indication that I was bored of anything (as far as I'm aware) so I'm struggling to see where that came from. I'm drawing a blank, could you help me out here? It's kidna coming across as "we're the mods, suck it up" which, while true, isn't exactly conductive to a meaningful discussion, especially when the discussion is about what the moderation should and should not look like.
But the discussion isn't about Dakka per se, it's about a hypothetical separate forum for political discussion, whether that be the Wasteland or somewhere else.
I think that there are sufficient mentions of Dakka's system and conflation of the two topics together on the previous page that isn't unreasonable to make a statement or two on the mechanics behind the system here. If my posts bore you, you can always skip them and continue addressing the alternative facet which interests you more.
Frankly, both your answer to wolfblade and the one I've just quoted read as complete non sequiturs to me. Wolfblade was clearly not arguing to change Dakka's policies in the present and I didn't give any indication that I was bored of anything (as far as I'm aware) so I'm struggling to see where that came from. I'm drawing a blank, could you help me out here? It's kidna coming across as "we're the mods, suck it up" which, while true, isn't exactly conductive to a meaningful discussion, especially when the discussion is about what the moderation should and should not look like.
Just to take a single quote from the prior page from Wolfblade:-
TL;DR: We're not looking for arbiters of truth. We're not asking you to read minds or be omniscient. We're saying that when you (as in, the mod team) see a consistent pattern of bad faith behavior from a user, you (as in, the entire mod team) take some form of action. I cannot figure out a better, more direct way to express this. It's great if it happens now, but it certainly didn't fething happen enough back when the politics thread was around.
Clearly about Dakka, clearly about moderation policy. I've also been really quite clear that existing Dakka policy in that regard (civility/politeness as opposed to 'good faith') is really ultimately not down to what the mods want 'so suck it up' (as you put it), but rather the owner's desires and wishes on his own web forum. Not sure how I could be more explicit in that regard.
I could quote more from the prior page, but really, having to justify the existence of my post is dragging the entire thread well off topic now. So it's the last I'll say on it.
I do think it's probably asking a bit much of Dakka to have a debate about how to moderate the space in that thread, since we'll inevitably get into exactly the things we're generally not allowed to talk about in here. But I'd love ideas on how to make the space most effectively, if anyone is willing to share on the logistics!
I posted in there, but just to note here as well - I'd likely step down as a mod when launching the space, just to make it truly clear it really is a separate thing and not official in any way. Again, really appreciate any input over there on the structure... cheers guys
You can say that it's impossible, but just to use my own experience - the other day I met a Literal flat-earther in the park. While my kids played on the playground, I listened to this person for an hour describing how he came to believe it, and some common answers to the very obvious questions I had about how he explained certain things. I found it fascinating. Why can't you listen to someone you disagree with? Why can't you try to engage them in a debate?
And yet, there was this exchange between you and Walrus just a page or two back:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If I want to argue for the extermination of all Danes, would that be fine as long as I do so in a civil manner? As long as I treat any Danes that are part of the debate in a professional and friendly manner? I imagine such a view would be unpopular, but as long as I'm civil we're all Gucci, right?
RiTides wrote: No. You'd be removed for such an argument, as I think you would be in any similar setting.
As demonstrated, some beliefs/opinions really are just straight up wrong and cannot be reasoned with. I've said it before in previous politics threads: politics is religion for some people, in which people believe without proof, and you cannot reason with such people. I think that's going to be one of your biggest stumbling blocks in any political discussion, is separating the political zealots from those who act rationally.
It's also worth noting that the nature of the person I disagree with determines whether or not I can listen and engage with them. I can handle opposing viewpoints, but I cannot handle someone who is dishonest, dishonorable, and amoral, which are the traits precisely displayed by someone who is on my ignore list both here and on the Wasteland. So it is the person I ignore, not their viewpoints.
TL;DR: We're not looking for arbiters of truth. We're not asking you to read minds or be omniscient. We're saying that when you (as in, the mod team) see a consistent pattern of bad faith behavior from a user, you (as in, the entire mod team) take some form of action. I cannot figure out a better, more direct way to express this. It's great if it happens now, but it certainly didn't fething happen enough back when the politics thread was around.
Clearly about Dakka, clearly about moderation policy. I've also been really quite clear that existing Dakka policy in that regard (civility/politeness as opposed to 'good faith') is really ultimately not down to what the mods want 'so suck it up' (as you put it), but rather the owner's desires and wishes on his own web forum. Not sure how I could be more explicit in that regard.
I could quote more from the prior page, but really, having to justify the existence of my post is dragging the entire thread well off topic now. So it's the last I'll say on it.
That specifically, was in response to a mod making hyperbolic statements, and I will admit I have been jumping back and forth a bit between dakka and the hypothetical forum seem to be about to use the exact same ruleset which will not work as demonstrated in the past. I'd argue they barely work now if that, but I understand it's not your system per say.
Tannhauser42 wrote: As demonstrated, some beliefs/opinions really are just straight up wrong and cannot be reasoned with. I've said it before in previous politics threads: politics is religion for some people, in which people believe without proof, and you cannot reason with such people. I think that's going to be one of your biggest stumbling blocks in any political discussion, is separating the political zealots from those who act rationally.
It's also worth noting that the nature of the person I disagree with determines whether or not I can listen and engage with them. I can handle opposing viewpoints, but I cannot handle someone who is dishonest, dishonorable, and amoral, which are the traits precisely displayed by someone who is on my ignore list both here and on the Wasteland. So it is the person I ignore, not their viewpoints.
This is a great point, Tannhauser. To be honest, we've got a lot of "zealots" currently, which is part of the reason it's so hard to have a discussion... things quickly go to the extreme (there's "Godwin's Law" about how long a discussion takes to go to Nazis... and the one you quoted above went there pretty much instantly!).
I think your comment about the nature of the person is also important (but also the hardest thing to judge/moderate from the outside). If people are willing to entertain a different view, but just don't like the way it's being made, that to me is quite different than not being willing to entertain that view at all. But I have seen quite a lot of the latter recently, and it's a reason I want to at least try making a space for this. But I'll be honest, I haven't been thrilled about how things went on Dakka for this, and I would certainly be open to doing them differently depending on how things go. It's kind of impossible for me to predict at this moment, though... so part of it I will have to figure out by doing, I think.
This is also to Wolfblade's point - I don't want to have the exact same ruleset, that's part of the reason I want to make my own space! Maybe my first draft of rules wasn't nearly complete enough... I'll be thinking about it a heck of a lot between now and launching, and if I need to make changes after launching, I'll do that, too.
Finally, I want to say a word about yakface here, since it came up above - I think in no way is the current politics policy indicative of what he wanted, but more simply that he has a lot of responsibility (both career and family) and Dakka has in some ways taken a backseat to that. He took the moderator team's suggestions regarding the current politics ban - he did not suggest it. He basically has not been involved very much on that front at all recently, and so shouldn't be blamed other than for, perhaps, not having time to deal with this kind of thing which is completely understandable, imo. Anyway, just wanted to add that!
On the point of advocating violence not being allowed. How do you square that with the fact that one side of the political aisle in the US had violence perpetrated by the state against people as a core policy?
If you are unsure what I am referring to then it is the child separation policy of the Trump administration. Don't know about you but I'd class a country's government forcibly separating children from their mothers and fathers, locking them in cages without basic supplies such as soap and toothbrushes, and then deporting their parents with no plan as to how to reunite them with their children as violence.
There's so much dishonesty in your statement but rather than get into a political back and forth that isn't supposed to be happening on this forum I'll point out that technically any time a government is enforcing its laws it involves violence or at least the threat of violence.
Malus - A national policy like that would likely be something we'd want to allow discussion of, I think. I.e. it would be very useful and germane to the purpose of the site. With such an incendiary topic, obviously that would be one I'd keep a close eye on. However, I think there's an important distinction to be made there - despite debating that issue (in-person) with quite a few Republicans, I actually didn't come across anyone who directly supported that implementation. In the debates I've seen, it was mostly used as a stick by opponents - basically, if you're in favor of tough immigration rules you must be in favor of that implementation, to which the other person would say "No."
All that to say, for important things like that I would want to allow as much discussion as possible and avoid labeling it was equivalent to the example of exterminating a people group above (which would, obviously, result in an instant ban). I want conservatives in there, and I want them to be able to post freely and have a robust debate - and they would absolutely need to deal with the fact that that was the implementation of policy under this administration, but discussing such a thing would not put them in danger of being banned. Does that make sense? I think a similar sentiment would apply to war... technically, it is the absolute largest form of violence, but it's the kind of thing we need to be able to discuss. Most people would make a clear distinction between the example given by Almighty Walrus above, and these, I think.
In the end, you want these discussions. Obviously, we can't have them here, that's the whole point of my wanting to set up a place for it. But it's the exact kind of thing we'd want to be talking about over there.
A Town Called Malus wrote: On the point of advocating violence not being allowed. How do you square that with the fact that one side of the political aisle in the US had violence perpetrated by the state against people as a core policy?
If you are unsure what I am referring to then it is the child separation policy of the Trump administration. Don't know about you but I'd class a country's government forcibly separating children from their mothers and fathers, locking them in cages without basic supplies such as soap and toothbrushes, and then deporting their parents with no plan as to how to reunite them with their children as violence.
How is this even applicable to a policy regarding posters advocating violence in a discussion thread? This type of extreme guilt by association is another reason why political discussion is so difficult currently. I don't want to start a tangent on US immigration policy from previous and current administrations, I'm just using this example because it was posted. Having strong negative opinions for the child separation policy is a valid defensible position to hold and I have no problem with people who feel that way but I don't see how that opinion connects to dakka posters advocating violence. I highly doubt anyone on dakka is in a position in the DoJ or Homeland Security or presidential administration to dictate immigration policy. It is extremely unproductive to take extreme examples of bad policies and hold them up as defining political positions of people even tangentially supportive of a political party or politician. If a dakka poster voted for Trump would that mean that person also avidly supports violent child separation at the border? Does it make that poster a terrible person that shouldn't be allowed to post in political discussions? What about a poster that believes child separation policies are bad but not bad enough to dissuade that person from voting for Trump or considering the administration to be more good than bad? What about posters that just lean Republican? How strong does the connection have to be to make that person evil?
I don't mean for this to come across as an attack on Malus, I have no animosity towards Malus whatsoever. I also have strong negative opinions about federal polices and I've posted about them in the old politics threads. I vehemently oppose the extra judicial kill list of Americans that Obama had and murdered with drone attacks, the no fly list is a clear violation of constitutional rights to due process, and I also posted about how I believed Trump's immigration policies were ineffective, hypocritical and dumb. I'm happy to discuss policies on an internet forum. I believe you can support a politician or administration without supporting everything they do. It's just internet discussion, I think we can enjoy the interaction without needing to otherize people or condemn them for opposing our own views.
One final note on advocating violence in discussion threads. In the final politics thread Peregrine and I had a discussion about whether or not it's ok to punch a Nazi which I think was a good discussion even if it pushed that envelope a little bit.
Prestor, I think Malus is using that as an example because there is, in fact, a current poster who is fully in support of that policy. Not tangentially or indirectly because they voted for the political party in question, but because the poster in question has specifically stated they support that policy.
ScarletRose wrote: I mean the thread may as well be locked at this point since we're at maximum mod-shrug.
There's obvious problem posters, multiple users can point them out, but since the problem posters are only trying to hijack a toy soldier forum to be a rightwing propaganda platform *politely* it's fine.
How about we ban future appeals of the politics ban rule? That way mods wouldn't have to bother retyping "we're not going to do our jobs" over and over.
No one is actually appealing the politics ban. Please take the time to actually read, if not the whole thread, at least the OP. Further, as the Mods have pointed out, they're actually working on the problem, and posting in this thread about what they're working on.
However, I believe this discussion is moving to another thread.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Prestor, I think Malus is using that as an example because there is, in fact, a current poster who is fully in support of that policy. Not tangentially or indirectly because they voted for the political party in question, but because the poster in question has specifically stated they support that policy.
Ok. Why would supporting a policy that they don't have any say in creating or enforcing be a reason for removing them from a thread about politics? The poster's approval or disapproval of the policy has no bearing on the policy itself or it's implementation. How do you attribute to that poster any actual responsibility for the violence to justify taking punitive action against them. I don't understand why political opinions disqualify people from discussing political opinions. What is the point of having a discussion if we're only allowing people who have the same opinion to participate in it?
This whole thread seems to be a growing list of minutia in regards to limiting the participation of people in RiTides' future website and what gets posted and how it gets posted. It all strikes me as excessive. Have an ignore function and encourage people to take personal responsibility to use as appropriate to avoid becoming obsessive rageaholics with an axe to grind. I realize we're all wargamers here but we really don't need to construct a detailed rulebook to govern the simple act of having a conversation.
Prestor Jon wrote: ]Prestor, I think Malus is using that as an example because there is, in fact, a current poster who is fully in support of that policy. Not tangentially or indirectly because they voted for the political party in question, but because the poster in question has specifically stated they support that policy.
Ok. Why would supporting a policy that they don't have any say in creating or enforcing be a reason for removing them from a thread about politics? The poster's approval or disapproval of the policy has no bearing on the policy itself or it's implementation. How do you attribute to that poster any actual responsibility for the violence to justify taking punitive action against them. I don't understand why political opinions disqualify people from discussing political opinions. What is the point of having a discussion if we're only allowing people who have the same opinion to participate in it?
For the same reason we shouldn't allow those pushing racism or sexism or any other form of bigotry or violence. The approval of the position is because it hurts those people.
This whole thread seems to be a growing list of minutia in regards to limiting the participation of people in RiTides' future website and what gets posted and how it gets posted. It all strikes me as excessive. Have an ignore function and encourage people to take personal responsibility to use as appropriate to avoid becoming obsessive rageaholics with an axe to grind.
Dakka tried that, and it failed miserably. Obviously, if the same people are going to participate, there needs to be a different rulebook or it too will fail.
You know the problem with having a political discussion with wargamers, too many of them are just as WAAC with political arguments as they are at the games themselves. So since you win a wargame by vanquishing your foes, you've got to have a rulebook that allows you do it, otherwise you cant win. Unless you're having a debate to get into office, people would be better served by using the political discussion to learn but I guess I'm just old school like that.
I use to belong to a large gaming board that had much more active moderators and a much more extensive set of rules than dakka. Disagreements became an experience in learning how close to the line you could get without going over and triggering your opponent to slip up and of course that line was drawn inconsistently. Got disgusted with it and left.
Appealing to higher powers to silence people who disagree with you is never a way to encourage discussion.
Jerram wrote: Appealing to higher powers to silence people who disagree with you is never a way to encourage discussion.
I believe you are confusing "silencing people who disagree with you" with "silencing people who are deliberately trying to stir gak/not engaging in good faith."
Ironically, you're currently being an example of bad faith. No one here has advocated silencing the other side solely because they're "the other side." Instead, people want bad faith punished.
To use the example before about the immigration policy, there's a discussion that could be had in good faith about the merits, or lack thereof, but there cannot be a discussion if the starting point is "I like it because it hurts people who are different than me."
ban anyone who supports the policy because "I like it because it hurts people who are different than me."
Save that though for ETC....
Bad faith has become a buzz word that people use to silence discussion they don't like. I've seen on this thread it be thrown around so much so broadly that no I truly do believe its just being used as an excuse by the usuals to silence others.
Wolfblade wrote: To use the example before about the immigration policy, there's a discussion that could be had in good faith about the merits, or lack thereof, but there cannot be a discussion if the starting point is "I like it because it hurts people who are different than me."
You preach on about certain posters commenting in bad faith... but what I just highlighted is the all-time-high of bad faith arguments as no one in that conversation articulated that, either here or in Wasteland.
I mean, it makes sense why you have such a visceral response to this topic, but it was coming from a flawed premise.
I can only hope in RiTides forum, the conversation can be teased so that both sides have clarity on each participant's positions.
ban anyone who supports the policy because "I like it because it hurts people who are different than me."
Save that though for ETC....
Bad faith has become a buzz word that people use to silence discussion they don't like. I've seen on this thread it be thrown around so much so broadly that no I truly do believe its just being used as an excuse by the usuals to silence others.
Someone else proposed the former, and I never stated I supported the former, I only stated (and supported) the latter, because a good-faith discussion could potentially change the mind of the former but you cannot have a reasonable discussion with the latter. Seriously, where would you even start if their basis is "I like and support X because it hurts people who are different"? What room is there for good-faith in a discussion like that?
And you're attempts misrepresenting me and what I've said, whether intentional or not, are examples of bad faith.
Wolfblade wrote: To use the example before about the immigration policy, there's a discussion that could be had in good faith about the merits, or lack thereof, but there cannot be a discussion if the starting point is "I like it because it hurts people who are different than me."
You preach on about certain posters commenting in bad faith... but what I just highlighted is the all-time-high of bad faith arguments as no one in that conversation articulated that, either here or in Wasteland.
You supported israel's border policy/defense tactics which includes gunning down civilians.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Prestor, I think Malus is using that as an example because there is, in fact, a current poster who is fully in support of that policy. Not tangentially or indirectly because they voted for the political party in question, but because the poster in question has specifically stated they support that policy.
Ok. Why would supporting a policy that they don't have any say in creating or enforcing be a reason for removing them from a thread about politics? The poster's approval or disapproval of the policy has no bearing on the policy itself or it's implementation. How do you attribute to that poster any actual responsibility for the violence to justify taking punitive action against them. I don't understand why political opinions disqualify people from discussing political opinions. What is the point of having a discussion if we're only allowing people who have the same opinion to participate in it?
For the same reason we shouldn't allow those pushing racism or sexism or any other form of bigotry or violence. The approval of the position is because it hurts those people.
This whole thread seems to be a growing list of minutia in regards to limiting the participation of people in RiTides' future website and what gets posted and how it gets posted. It all strikes me as excessive. Have an ignore function and encourage people to take personal responsibility to use as appropriate to avoid becoming obsessive rageaholics with an axe to grind.
Dakka tried that, and it failed miserably. Obviously, if the same people are going to participate, there needs to be a different rulebook or it too will fail.
How would that be pushing racism or sexism or bigotry or violence? If the poster has no influence over the creation or implementation of the policy nor the ability to correct or stop the policy then what is the problem with someone expressing an opinion on it on a message board? You're ascribing a level of power to that action that just doesn't exist. Somebody posts a favorable opinion about the child separation policy and dozens? if other posters read it and some maybe most maybe all of them disagree or don't like it but no one is actually harmed by it. You're not having a discussion of anything if your starting point is that there is only one correct allowable view on something. That is what wrecked the political discussion threads here, the need to turn the topic into either a source of affirmation of personal views or an arena for rhetorical combat to crush opposing views. There was never a time when an actual nuanced conversation about public education or foreign policy wasn't quickly buried under pages of partisan bickering. Every attempt to discuss root sources of national/political problems was met with a deluge of outrage over the "both sides" fallacy. Whenever RiTides gets his website we all know what's going to happen. The same people will post the same arguments, this time it will be about how evil Mitch McConnell (who is terrible that's true, the nicest thing I can say about Mitch is that he always seems to be professionally dressed while on the job) won't get out of the way to let Pelosi, Schumer and Biden implement their wonderful plan to fix everything. The fact that there is no plan to fix everything because everyone in Congress gains more political influence and monetary wealth from letting their constituents suffer won't ever be examined for more than a page or two before the thread gets distracted by a confirmation hearing fight or raising the debt ceiling/passing the budget or whembly will post something about Hunter Biden and compare it to Hillary's emails or the Clinton Foundation, etc. We all know this, it's been the same narrative in the OT politics threads for more than a decade.
The politics thread didn't get repeatedly locked because Dakka didn't have enough rules. The thread locks came because too many people chose to willfully violate rule #1, the primary rule for the owner of the sandbox nice enough to let us play in it, instead of using the ignore function or walking away. Dakka didn't make the politics thread be catnip for everybody's mean streak and there's no rule RiTides could write that would solve that problem at his website either.
How would that be pushing racism or sexism or bigotry or violence? If the poster has no influence over the creation or implementation of the policy nor the ability to correct or stop the policy then what is the problem with someone expressing an opinion on it on a message board? You're ascribing a level of power to that action that just doesn't exist. Somebody posts a favorable opinion about the child separation policy and dozens? if other posters read it and some maybe most maybe all of them disagree or don't like it but no one is actually harmed by it. You're not having a discussion of anything if your starting point is that there is only one correct allowable view on something. That is what wrecked the political discussion threads here, the need to turn the topic into either a source of affirmation of personal views or an arena for rhetorical combat to crush opposing views. There was never a time when an actual nuanced conversation about public education or foreign policy wasn't quickly buried under pages of partisan bickering. Every attempt to discuss root sources of national/political problems was met with a deluge of outrage over the "both sides" fallacy. Whenever RiTides gets his website we all know what's going to happen. The same people will post the same arguments, this time it will be about how evil Mitch McConnell (who is terrible that's true, the nicest thing I can say about Mitch is that he always seems to be professionally dressed while on the job) won't get out of the way to let Pelosi, Schumer and Biden implement their wonderful plan to fix everything. The fact that there is no plan to fix everything because everyone in Congress gains more political influence and monetary wealth from letting their constituents suffer won't ever be examined for more than a page or two before the thread gets distracted by a confirmation hearing fight or raising the debt ceiling/passing the budget or whembly will post something about Hunter Biden and compare it to Hillary's emails or the Clinton Foundation, etc. We all know this, it's been the same narrative in the OT politics threads for more than a decade.
The politics thread didn't get repeatedly locked because Dakka didn't have enough rules. The thread locks came because too many people chose to willfully violate rule #1, the primary rule for the owner of the sandbox nice enough to let us play in it, instead of using the ignore function or walking away. Dakka didn't make the politics thread be catnip for everybody's mean streak and there's no rule RiTides could write that would solve that problem at his website either.
(Prestor, it looks like your quotes are messed up, so I'll try and cut out what I think is your response, lemme know if I missed something.)
1. You don't need to be able to create policy or law to support and/or push violence or bigotry of any kind. And both of those are largely detrimental to a good-faith discussion.
2. Sometimes there is only one socially acceptable view. I mean, otherwise by your logic what's the harm in letting anyone say whatever racist stuff they want, or say they want all of X dead. Oh wait, that's how we get the likes of parler, 4chan, 8chan, etc.
3. I believe you're not reading what I've written correctly. You can support the immigration policy trump implemented, and you can even have a discussion based on what you (the hypothetical you) may believe its merits to be, or lack thereof. You cannot have a civil/good-faith discussion if, again, the starting point is "I like and support it because it hurts people"
4. Dakka's moderation of the politics thread was basically non-existent. Except, of course, to shut it down completely when it really went off the rails because, again, they didn't really moderate it, and maybe they didn't know what a successful political discussion moderation looked like or required. Either way, that's a failure right there in my eyes. A handful of people repeatedly stirred everyone else up, and even if someone stopped engaging with them, there was always someone else who would engage them, creating a never-ending cycle. If the mod team had stepped in and removed the problem posters who had been reported many times, the threads may have gone differently. And for the record, they could have absolutely banned them from just OT and let them participate on the rest of the site still.
Jerram wrote: Appealing to higher powers to silence people who disagree with you is never a way to encourage discussion.
I believe you are confusing "silencing people who disagree with you" with "silencing people who are deliberately trying to stir gak/not engaging in good faith."
Ironically, you're currently being an example of bad faith. No one here has advocated silencing the other side solely because they're "the other side." Instead, people want bad faith punished.
To use the example before about the immigration policy, there's a discussion that could be had in good faith about the merits, or lack thereof, but there cannot be a discussion if the starting point is "I like it because it hurts people who are different than me."
How is an honest and direct statement about if you support a government policy and why a bad faith argument? A bad faith argument is a negotiation tactic wherein one party deliberately misleads the other in order to gain an advantage or sabotage negotiations. If poster X writes a post that states "I believe policy Y is a good idea because I hate everyone who lives south of the US border." because that is an honest representation of poster X's view on the subject that is not bad faith. That's a true statement about their opinion on an issue. It may be a morally repugnant opinion but if it's true it's not bad faith.
Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another.[1] It is associated with hypocrisy, breach of contract, affectation, and lip service.[2] It is not to be confused with heresy (supposedly false religious faith). It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception.
BAD FAITH: A “Bad Faith” discussion is one in which one or both of the parties has
a hidden, unrevealed agenda—often to dominate or coerce the other individual into
compliance or acquiescence of some sort—or lacks basic respect for the rights, dignity,
or autonomy of the other party. Disrespect for the other party may include dishonesty. A
person engaged in bad faith does not accept the other person as s/he is, but demands
that s/he change in order to satisfy his/her requirements or to accept his/her will.
The politics thread didn't get repeatedly locked because Dakka didn't have enough rules. The thread locks came because too many people chose to willfully violate rule #1, the primary rule for the owner of the sandbox nice enough to let us play in it, instead of using the ignore function or walking away. Dakka didn't make the politics thread be catnip for everybody's mean streak and there's no rule RiTides could write that would solve that problem at his website either.
Wolfblade wrote: To use the example before about the immigration policy, there's a discussion that could be had in good faith about the merits, or lack thereof, but there cannot be a discussion if the starting point is "I like it because it hurts people who are different than me."
You preach on about certain posters commenting in bad faith... but what I just highlighted is the all-time-high of bad faith arguments as no one in that conversation articulated that, either here or in Wasteland.
You supported israel's border policy/defense tactics which includes gunning down civilians.
There were many reasons why I support it - it was a nuance position that I've tried to explain in detail, but we don't need to hash it out here. The point being it wasn't anything near the premise that you started with.
Hey guys, this has been a very useful discussion but we obviously can't really have a political debate in here given Dakka's rules. So just noting that if this keeps going, the thread will have to be locked here.
Hopefully most of this can just wait a few weeks and we can discuss on the alternate space I'm setting up. Thanks again for the feedback which has been extremely helpful on that front so far!
How would that be pushing racism or sexism or bigotry or violence? If the poster has no influence over the creation or implementation of the policy nor the ability to correct or stop the policy then what is the problem with someone expressing an opinion on it on a message board? You're ascribing a level of power to that action that just doesn't exist. Somebody posts a favorable opinion about the child separation policy and dozens? if other posters read it and some maybe most maybe all of them disagree or don't like it but no one is actually harmed by it. You're not having a discussion of anything if your starting point is that there is only one correct allowable view on something. That is what wrecked the political discussion threads here, the need to turn the topic into either a source of affirmation of personal views or an arena for rhetorical combat to crush opposing views. There was never a time when an actual nuanced conversation about public education or foreign policy wasn't quickly buried under pages of partisan bickering. Every attempt to discuss root sources of national/political problems was met with a deluge of outrage over the "both sides" fallacy. Whenever RiTides gets his website we all know what's going to happen. The same people will post the same arguments, this time it will be about how evil Mitch McConnell (who is terrible that's true, the nicest thing I can say about Mitch is that he always seems to be professionally dressed while on the job) won't get out of the way to let Pelosi, Schumer and Biden implement their wonderful plan to fix everything. The fact that there is no plan to fix everything because everyone in Congress gains more political influence and monetary wealth from letting their constituents suffer won't ever be examined for more than a page or two before the thread gets distracted by a confirmation hearing fight or raising the debt ceiling/passing the budget or whembly will post something about Hunter Biden and compare it to Hillary's emails or the Clinton Foundation, etc. We all know this, it's been the same narrative in the OT politics threads for more than a decade.
The politics thread didn't get repeatedly locked because Dakka didn't have enough rules. The thread locks came because too many people chose to willfully violate rule #1, the primary rule for the owner of the sandbox nice enough to let us play in it, instead of using the ignore function or walking away. Dakka didn't make the politics thread be catnip for everybody's mean streak and there's no rule RiTides could write that would solve that problem at his website either.
(Prestor, it looks like your quotes are messed up, so I'll try and cut out what I think is your response, lemme know if I missed something.)
1. You don't need to be able to create policy or law to support and/or push violence or bigotry of any kind. And both of those are largely detrimental to a good-faith discussion.
2. Sometimes there is only one socially acceptable view. I mean, otherwise by your logic what's the harm in letting anyone say whatever racist stuff they want, or say they want all of X dead. Oh wait, that's how we get the likes of parler, 4chan, 8chan, etc.
3. I believe you're not reading what I've written correctly. You can support the immigration policy trump implemented, and you can even have a discussion based on what you (the hypothetical you) may believe its merits to be, or lack thereof. You cannot have a civil/good-faith discussion if, again, the starting point is "I like and support it because it hurts people"
4. Dakka's moderation of the politics thread was basically non-existent. Except, of course, to shut it down completely when it really went off the rails because, again, they didn't really moderate it, and maybe they didn't know what a successful political discussion moderation looked like or required. Either way, that's a failure right there in my eyes. A handful of people repeatedly stirred everyone else up, and even if someone stopped engaging with them, there was always someone else who would engage them, creating a never-ending cycle. If the mod team had stepped in and removed the problem posters who had been reported many times, the threads may have gone differently. And for the record, they could have absolutely banned them from just OT and let them participate on the rest of the site still.
I personally place more value on the honesty of a statement than the content of it. If somebody supports a given policy because he/she is a bigoted racist I would prefer that they simply say so and be honest. That would be a good faith argument, there would be no deception (the hallmark of a bad faith argument). I would be disheartened to see a racist opinion but I would value the honesty. It would be fairly simple and straightforward, in my opinion, to dismantle an argument rooted in the irrational hatred of group X and I would welcome the opportunity to do so. If somebody tried to hide their racist rationale for supporting a policy through sophistry and other rhetorical tricks that would be a bad faith argument and a waste of time. I would much prefer an honest discussion about a policy and personal views on it regardless of whether or not such a discussion brought in racist or sexist or any other bigoted -ist views to a dishonest and futile discourse of sophistry and semantics and word salad just to avoid difficult realities like racism. I'd rather have that honest discussion than not have the discussion at all. There is an opportunity for positive effects from the conversation while there is nothing to be gained from not having it at all.
How is an honest and direct statement about if you support a government policy and why a bad faith argument? A bad faith argument is a negotiation tactic wherein one party deliberately misleads the other in order to gain an advantage or sabotage negotiations. If poster X writes a post that states "I believe policy Y is a good idea because I hate everyone who lives south of the US border." because that is an honest representation of poster X's view on the subject that is not bad faith. That's a true statement about their opinion on an issue. It may be a morally repugnant opinion but if it's true it's not bad faith.
Because there's nothing to have a good-faith discussion about, and the most that can be done is essentially insult the user because anything they say to support such a statement is most likely bigoted. If it's not promoting good faith, it's almost certainly bad-faith. By your overly literal and technical interpretation of the term "bad faith" using logical fallacies would be fine, so long as they truly believed what they were saying. But we know that isn't the case, and you even say so later. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article you linked even explains there's a lot more to bad faith than the snippet you linked. I also want to highlight from your quote from cato.org, bold mine:
BAD FAITH: A “Bad Faith” discussion is one in which one or both of the parties has
a hidden, unrevealed agenda—often to dominate or coerce the other individual into
compliance or acquiescence of some sort—or lacks basic respect for the rights, dignity,
or autonomy of the other party. Disrespect for the other party may include dishonesty. A
person engaged in bad faith does not accept the other person as s/he is, but demands
that s/he change in order to satisfy his/her requirements or to accept his/her will.
Again, bold mine. If, for example, person X is saying they hate everyone south of Y border and supports locking all of them up in inhumane conditions if they try to cross Y border, and person Z on the forum is openly from south of Y border, they cannot have a good-faith argument with each other. X has already stated indirectly that they hate Z, and cannot have a good-faith discussion with each other because X has already stated they do not respect their rights unless they conform to their standards.
Now, if they stated they supported and liked a policy of locking everyone up who tried to cross Y border because of N economic reasons, or something, then you could have a reasonable discussion with them based on merit and facts, assuming both sides are open to having their mind changed. (I mean, we are talking mostly hypothetically anyways)
And again, there are more reasons than just "bad-faith" to not want someone openly spouting or pushing bigoted or violent positions. It's how you get shitholes like 4chan and 8chan. Just because they may not be able to directly implement or change policy does not mean it's something that should be allowed.
Didn't we already establish that posters who called for the extermination of all Danes would be banned, even if they sincerely held that belief? The notion that someone should not be censured for arguing something abhorrent isn't true in the first place, so why are we arguing as though it is?
How is an honest and direct statement about if you support a government policy and why a bad faith argument? A bad faith argument is a negotiation tactic wherein one party deliberately misleads the other in order to gain an advantage or sabotage negotiations. If poster X writes a post that states "I believe policy Y is a good idea because I hate everyone who lives south of the US border." because that is an honest representation of poster X's view on the subject that is not bad faith. That's a true statement about their opinion on an issue. It may be a morally repugnant opinion but if it's true it's not bad faith.
Because there's nothing to have a good-faith discussion about, and the most that can be done is essentially insult the user because anything they say to support such a statement is most likely bigoted. If it's not promoting good faith, it's almost certainly bad-faith. By your overly literal and technical interpretation of the term "bad faith" using logical fallacies would be fine, so long as they truly believed what they were saying. But we know that isn't the case, and you even say so later. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article you linked even explains there's a lot more to bad faith than the snippet you linked. I also want to highlight from your quote from cato.org, bold mine:
BAD FAITH: A “Bad Faith” discussion is one in which one or both of the parties has
a hidden, unrevealed agenda—often to dominate or coerce the other individual into
compliance or acquiescence of some sort—or lacks basic respect for the rights, dignity,
or autonomy of the other party. Disrespect for the other party may include dishonesty. A
person engaged in bad faith does not accept the other person as s/he is, but demands
that s/he change in order to satisfy his/her requirements or to accept his/her will.
Again, bold mine. If, for example, person X is saying they hate everyone south of Y border and supports locking all of them up in inhumane conditions if they try to cross Y border, and person Z on the forum is openly from south of Y border, they cannot have a good-faith argument with each other. X has already stated indirectly that they hate Z, and cannot have a good-faith discussion with each other because X has already stated they do not respect their rights unless they conform to their standards.
Now, if they stated they supported and liked a policy of locking everyone up who tried to cross Y border because of N economic reasons, or something, then you could have a reasonable discussion with them based on merit and facts, assuming both sides are open to having their mind changed. (I mean, we are talking mostly hypothetically anyways)
And again, there are more reasons than just "bad-faith" to not want someone openly spouting or pushing bigoted or violent positions. It's how you get shitholes like 4chan and 8chan. Just because they may not be able to directly implement or change policy does not mean it's something that should be allowed.
Allowing more viewpoints and honest declarations of views and opinions benefits the discussion. Dismissing and marginalizing objectionable views merely gifts them with the secrecy they need to fester and metastasize. Abhorrent views should be challenged that’s how they can be changed. A famous example of this would be https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes" target="_new" rel="nofollow">Daryl Davis who has had a tremendously positive impact on hundreds of lives directly and even more lives through the ripple effect of those interactions that never would have taken place if he had deemed those people unworthy of engagement because of their racist views.
Of course that doesn’t mean that every discussion should be treated as a zero sum game of rhetorical combat. Discussions don’t have to change anyone’s minds to be positive worthwhile interactions.
Allowing more viewpoints and honest declarations of views and opinions benefits the discussion. Dismissing and marginalizing objectionable views merely gifts them with the secrecy they need to fester and metastasize. Abhorrent views should be challenged that’s how they can be changed. A famous example of this would be https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes" target="_new" rel="nofollow">Daryl Davis who has had a tremendously positive impact on hundreds of lives directly and even more lives through the ripple effect of those interactions that never would have taken place if he had deemed those people unworthy of engagement because of their racist views.
Of course that doesn’t mean that every discussion should be treated as a zero sum game of rhetorical combat. Discussions don’t have to change anyone’s minds to be positive worthwhile interactions.
To a certain point, if the person is open to their mind being changed, I'd agree. But that's clearly not a common thing. I mean your example, while a great thing to get people to give up and reject bigotry, has taken place over 30 years. That's roughly only 6-7 per year, by someone who is essentially a professional at it, and in what I can only assume were face-to-face interactions, which are FAR more personal than our mostly anonymous message board postings. On top of that, people in hate groups who interact with people they claim to hate (and know they are, unlike online interactions) are more likely to change their views too. Basically, it's not a great example, and you shouldn't expect anyone to de-radicalize via online interaction because everything that was there that helped someone reject their racist views just isn't there in an online forum. There's a reason that red-pilling is a mostly online thing. To radicalize someone, you usually only need something flashy that sounds good and appeals to the notion that they're under attack while deradicalizing them relies on a personal connection with that person to show them that the group they hate really isn't that awful and gets them to question their hate which can take years.
tl;dr: an online forum does not offer the same level of engagement and benefits that let Daryl Davis succeed in deradicalizing a little more than a handful of people per year.
Yeah a lot of people are not willing to be convinced. They will present a claim that will be 'dismissed' or 'marginalized' by a half dozen posters pointing out the logical flaws, providing evidence to the contrary, and revealing how the claim has no legitimacy whatsoever. And the person who made that claim will continue to make it, continue to insist they are right based on lies, and continually try to insert themselves into the conversation with their theory that was completely and utterly debunked. Then say they are being persecuted when others don't take them seriously anymore.
Politics got introduced to this debate, and look at how quickly things ended up back to the norm of the old politics. Yeah this is why I generally fight against any idea that it should come back at all.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Yeah a lot of people are not willing to be convinced. They will present a claim that will be 'dismissed' or 'marginalized' by a half dozen posters pointing out the logical flaws, providing evidence to the contrary, and revealing how the claim has no legitimacy whatsoever. And the person who made that claim will continue to make it, continue to insist they are right based on lies, and continually try to insert themselves into the conversation with their theory that was completely and utterly debunked. Then say they are being persecuted when others don't take them seriously anymore.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Yeah a lot of people are not willing to be convinced. They will present a claim that will be 'dismissed' or 'marginalized' by a half dozen posters pointing out the logical flaws, providing evidence to the contrary, and revealing how the claim has no legitimacy whatsoever. And the person who made that claim will continue to make it, continue to insist they are right based on lies, and continually try to insert themselves into the conversation with their theory that was completely and utterly debunked. Then say they are being persecuted when others don't take them seriously anymore.
In those situations it’s spawned more problems, it’s turned into spamming the thread and thread derailment/off topic problems. That occurs throughout the board whether it was politics or GW pricing or primaris releases or faction support etc. Those are the type of people that need to be put on ignore and be contacted by mods about their posting habits. Everyone deserves to be allowed to be heard and participate until they prove that they are unable or unwilling to do so. That is a behavior issue not a content issue. I bring up behavior vs content to tie this back to my discussion with wolf blade I realize it’s not relevant to musketeer’s post.
Wolfblade wrote: Or, by banning those who participate only in bad faith, it lets actual discussion flourish.
The problem, as discussed earlier, is recognising 'bad faith' posts. One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion. We even saw examples of that in action in this very thread.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I feel you. That was made all too clear in certain threads this year. But if you have fewer rules, people have no choice but to like it or lump it. The more rules, the more people can appeal to them when they need to cry to mods when someone hurts their pride/feelings...
Allowing people to be rude to each other would not solve the problem of people taking their grudges to other parts of the forum.
To make it very, very clear - having Dakka be an environment that encourages verbal free-for-alls is the exact opposite of what the site's owners want. That is not in any way a welcoming environment, and is not what the majority of forum-goers want. People come here because it's a place to discuss their hobby. That should be an enjoyable experience, not one where you should expect to be insulted because you have a different opinion to someone else.
Expecting people to display a modicum of common courtesy while they are here really shouldn't be a big ask.
I'm not pushing for anything. Its the boss(whoever runs the show here) trainset. I signed up, so I voluntarily put myself in the rule structure.(which I believe I have followed pretty well, even in the covid thread) I just believe In less intrusion in general, these are my principles.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Yeah a lot of people are not willing to be convinced. They will present a claim that will be 'dismissed' or 'marginalized' by a half dozen posters pointing out the logical flaws, providing evidence to the contrary, and revealing how the claim has no legitimacy whatsoever. And the person who made that claim will continue to make it, continue to insist they are right based on lies, and continually try to insert themselves into the conversation with their theory that was completely and utterly debunked. Then say they are being persecuted when others don't take them seriously anymore.
In those situations it’s spawned more problems, it’s turned into spamming the thread and thread derailment/off topic problems. That occurs throughout the board whether it was politics or GW pricing or primaris releases or faction support etc. Those are the type of people that need to be put on ignore and be contacted by mods about their posting habits. Everyone deserves to be allowed to be heard and participate until they prove that they are unable or unwilling to do so. That is a behavior issue not a content issue. I bring up behavior vs content to tie this back to my discussion with wolf blade I realize it’s not relevant to musketeer’s post.
I may have zoned out a bit during Wolfblade and your back and forth, but isn’t that what we’ve been saying from the start?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I noticed some of SolarCross’w posts went missing in the CT thread. Since politics and bad arguing don’t get deleted, what does?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Didn't we already establish that posters who called for the extermination of all Danes would be banned, even if they sincerely held that belief? The notion that someone should not be censured for arguing something abhorrent isn't true in the first place, so why are we arguing as though it is?
How would your example come up organically in a politics thread? I don’t see a person could fit that in, like if there was a discussion in EU fiscal policy and poster X wrote “Well we won’t have to worry about this issue after we exterminate all the Danes.” Excuse me what? What are you talking about? “The Danish menace. Surely you realize that the EU will never fulfill its glorious potential until we wipe out the vermin in our midst, the subhuman scum that reside in Denmark.”
Clearly such a person is suffering from severe problems IRL that aren’t going to be fixed by a message board. I would understand mods dealing with such a poster with at least a temp ban and an encouragement to seek help.
On the other hand if during a discussion on EU immigration and open borders within it poster X wrote “Why should EU countries give up control of their borders? What have the Danes contributes to European society beyond over rates breakfast pastry? Why should my country have to let them in just because?”
In such an instance the reputation of the wonderful people of Denmark has been impugned but I don’t think it’s really harmed the discussion. I think that instance calls for an eloquent defense of an open border policy and possibly a list of contributions from the Danish people but no disciplinary action beyond maybe a cautionary word.
Extreme behavior is obviously extreme but it’s also rare.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Didn't we already establish that posters who called for the extermination of all Danes would be banned, even if they sincerely held that belief? The notion that someone should not be censured for arguing something abhorrent isn't true in the first place, so why are we arguing as though it is?
How would your example come up organically in a politics thread?
Who cares how it shows up? That's totally beside the point of what happens if it comes up.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Yeah a lot of people are not willing to be convinced. They will present a claim that will be 'dismissed' or 'marginalized' by a half dozen posters pointing out the logical flaws, providing evidence to the contrary, and revealing how the claim has no legitimacy whatsoever. And the person who made that claim will continue to make it, continue to insist they are right based on lies, and continually try to insert themselves into the conversation with their theory that was completely and utterly debunked. Then say they are being persecuted when others don't take them seriously anymore.
In those situations it’s spawned more problems, it’s turned into spamming the thread and thread derailment/off topic problems. That occurs throughout the board whether it was politics or GW pricing or primaris releases or faction support etc. Those are the type of people that need to be put on ignore and be contacted by mods about their posting habits. Everyone deserves to be allowed to be heard and participate until they prove that they are unable or unwilling to do so. That is a behavior issue not a content issue. I bring up behavior vs content to tie this back to my discussion with wolf blade I realize it’s not relevant to musketeer’s post.
I may have zoned out a bit during Wolfblade and your back and forth, but isn’t that what we’ve been saying from the start?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I noticed some of SolarCross’w posts went missing in the CT thread. Since politics and bad arguing don’t get deleted, what does?
That might be what you meant but to me it came across a lot closer to preemptive band of specific people and zero tolerance for anyone who had the audacity to post a “bad faith argument.” I never migrated to the wasteland so I am ignorant of whatever transpired over there which seems to have created or exacerbated a lot of hard feelings. The thread just struck me as a lot of people coming on a little strong pushing for rules against this and that and it made me want to chime in and push back a little bit. That led to wolfblade and I engaging in what I think has been a civil and beneficial back and forth clarifying our personal views on it. If we’re working towards the same goal that’s awesome.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Didn't we already establish that posters who called for the extermination of all Danes would be banned, even if they sincerely held that belief? The notion that someone should not be censured for arguing something abhorrent isn't true in the first place, so why are we arguing as though it is?
How would your example come up organically in a politics thread?
Who cares how it shows up? That's totally beside the point of what happens if it comes up.
Why would be imperative to create a rule for a situation that is unlikely to ever occur?
Well, you may have phrased it better than the term “bad faith”, but that was what we were talking about. (And giving examples of users who posted like that enough to be a major hinderance to discussion.)
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Well, you may have phrased it better than the term “bad faith”, but that was what we were talking about. (And giving examples of users who posted like that enough to be a major hinderance to discussion.)
Yeah you guys are in agreement about not having a favorable view towards whembly’s posts. Unfortunately that’s set whembly up as the Littlefinger to RiTides’ Ned Stark. Don’t let whembly post his bad faith arguments RiTides! I am personally inviting whembly to please come post at my new politics discussion website.
I don’t know how it’s going to work out but I definitely need to buy more popcorn.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Well, you may have phrased it better than the term “bad faith”, but that was what we were talking about. (And giving examples of users who posted like that enough to be a major hinderance to discussion.)
The problem there is that relies on subjectivity, which will always be an issue
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Well, you may have phrased it better than the term “bad faith”, but that was what we were talking about. (And giving examples of users who posted like that enough to be a major hinderance to discussion.)
The problem there is that relies on subjectivity, which will always be an issue
It’s become abundantly clear that some people see much less or much more subjectivity there than others. Before creating a rule against bad faith arguments you’d need to first establish the definition of a bad faith argument. If creating such a definition is difficult than so will enforcing a rule against them.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Didn't we already establish that posters who called for the extermination of all Danes would be banned, even if they sincerely held that belief? The notion that someone should not be censured for arguing something abhorrent isn't true in the first place, so why are we arguing as though it is?
How would your example come up organically in a politics thread?
Who cares how it shows up? That's totally beside the point of what happens if it comes up.
Why would be imperative to create a rule for a situation that is unlikely to ever occur?
For the same reason you have any rule. In case it does come up, you have a pre-established procedure to deal with it, instead of trying to figure it out on the fly, and so everyone knows what is and is not allowed.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Well, you may have phrased it better than the term “bad faith”, but that was what we were talking about. (And giving examples of users who posted like that enough to be a major hinderance to discussion.)
The problem there is that relies on subjectivity, which will always be an issue
It’s become abundantly clear that some people see much less or much more subjectivity there than others. Before creating a rule against bad faith arguments you’d need to first establish the definition of a bad faith argument. If creating such a definition is difficult than so will enforcing a rule against them.
That's exactly what I was getting at, with a lot of people's definition is anyone who disagrees with them, but that has already been covered here.
Clearly such a person is suffering from severe problems IRL that aren’t going to be fixed by a message board.
That's completely subjective. Which is my entire point: you're already comfortable with making completely subjective judgments about banning subjects for the health of the discussion, you just disagree about where that line should be drawn.
Clearly such a person is suffering from severe problems IRL that aren’t going to be fixed by a message board.
That's completely subjective. Which is my entire point: you're already comfortable with making completely subjective judgments about banning subjects for the health of the discussion, you just disagree about where that line should be drawn.
That’s a valid point. The person detailing a thread with off topic posts about the need for genocidal programs may not be suffering from anything other than a different view of what is funny or appropriate. Regardless of the motivation blatant off topic detailing posts should be discouraged. The content of such posts is irrelevant beyond identifying them as non sequiturs to the thread topic. I don’t think that is a controversial or difficult to codify and enforce position to hold.
For what it's worth, you guys rather effectively shot down my simplistic / idealistic basic ruleset and made some good points about blanket, benign rules not really working. It is going to be subjective, and for better or worse, I'll be making the subject calls to start with (on my unofficial board set up for this - which is really all that's relevant at the moment since the discussion itself isn't happening on Dakka on these topics anymore).
I'm going to do my best to put forth an environment for a solid debate and useful discussion. I'm also really not going to take into account things that happened here in the past, or at the Wasteland, etc though - I feel like that both isn't fair and in some ways isn't feasible. If someone wants to turn over a new leaf and post in a constructive manner at the ETC (I think that name is going to stick now ) then they're going to have a chance to do that. But if they're drowning everyone else out with posts that are not adding to the discussion, then I'll hopefully have a slow-mode or other feature to address it.
I'm just not going to preemptively make use of that, or keep someone from joining, or assume because they support an argument it can be extrapolated that they are a certain kind of person. It's all going to be based on what they post, and I'll try to be as attentive and nimble at the beginning as possible to steer things in the right direction.
. But the Wasteland, while I was one of the main proponents of having people migrate that discussion over there early on, doesn't seem like the best fit to direct people to due to its majorly NSFW environment. Is there another good political discussion site someone could suggest?
...and I was unfortunate enough to stumble across one of those type of pics... definitely the kind of mental image worm you don't soon get rid of 
