Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2017/11/30 00:53:24
Subject: Re:Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I should have been more clear; I meant to give a tongue-in-cheek explanation as to why, not excuse the behavior.
No I understood you. It just agitates me personally. Years ago the quality of poster in that topic area feels like it was a tad higher, but as the politics itself became more bitter and childish, there was an ever increasing influx of, frankly, dumb posters completely lacking in original thought or critical thinking. At times it almost felt like people were reciting verbatim Huffington Post and Fox News lines that had long ago become tired and worn out. They'd drag any topic into the mud of righteous indignation, goal posts, straw men, and semantical nonsense and then bemoan how everyone was being "snide" to them. What did they expect?
Engage discourse like a bratty child, avoid meaningful discussion at all costs, and all that's really left is snide comments mocking the hilarity of childish behavior narcissistically demanding to be taken seriously. And I just don't think that's changed. I still see the same nonsense in other topics continuing. Even if US politics was formally unbanned, it would just go back to being soft banned in a matter of time. So why bother? I still think the mods need to be more strict in enforcing the ban than they are.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/30 00:58:49
BobtheInquisitor wrote: My wife works in a closely related field, and there's tons to talk about. From corruption to misappropriation, meetings about meeting to documents about documents, elected officials causing friction with employees to stodgy lifers preventing much-needed modernization, the whole thing plays out like a Douglas Adams take on a Kafka novel, or Idiocracy as a crime story.
Stop underselling your thrilling work life!
Good point. I think I'll start a thread on how introducing a second budget review only served to increase the length of time in which agencies are processing new budgets, and has actually interupted any real strategic review, the exact opposite of what was intended.
I only hope a topic that contraversial doesn't get banned. Hope everyone can stay polite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: From my perspective, the existing ban makes sense.
Thankyou for your perspective. It was enlightening and helps me understand the current ban.
I have to admit I never really thought of mod disinterest in US political debate playing a factor, both in moderation of those threads and the eventual ban on the subject.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/30 06:17:17
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2017/11/30 06:34:50
Subject: Re:Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
As someone who would enjoy tilting, at full tilt, when a bone of personal contention sprung up on the good old US Politics board, I can honestly say I don't miss it. I did for a while, but not so much anymore. Please don't misunderstand. I enjoy discussing politics, world news as it relates to my country, etc...but not here. Firstly, I've always found such conversations to be very dynamic and infinitely better suited for face-to-face exchanges that don't lose anything...or add anything...in the translation and that's important. Messaging just isn't the same or as effective, on a lot of levels. Also, for every interesting tete-a-tete I'd get involved in or watch, or for any time I'd be fortunate enough to pick up a perspective I'd not seen before, there was always the deluge of monotonous old ruts and predictability resurfacing on an overly regular basis to swallow otherwise interesting banter into the Sarlacc pit of "not this again".
Feth it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/30 06:35:36
2017/11/30 06:35:41
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
whembly wrote: Maybe folks will self-moderate better since we *know* a topic ban can happen.
The problem is a lot of people would be motivated by the opposite and happy to shut the conversation down. It would be possible to avoid those negative actors, but unless they were actively moderated eventually people would take the bait, no matter how much they tried to be on their best behaviour.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2017/11/30 16:29:55
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I don't know if this is possible, but I was wondering if dakka mods can ban caustic posters from specific threads or if the granularity of the system only allows bans from subforums? Might be a solution as a mod might be more willing to hand out the ban if it has a more limited impact and can allow the discussion to move forward.
We don't have that level of detail here, such as it is.
However, we CAN ban someone from the OT Forum entirely.
It *might* be worth lifting the ban and then if/when a user crosses the line in a US Politics thread, they're out of the OT Forum for good.
Worth thinking about...
Maybe something to trial in 2018.
-
2017/11/30 16:34:14
Subject: Re:Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
motyak wrote: This is pushing way too hard into a US Politics territory. Reef it back to talking about the +ves and -ves of net neutrality, not which party is doing what, or how entrenched the sides are, etc. That kind of chat will see this locked up right away and warnings issued.
What I want to see: Posts like the one Galas has right above mine
What I don't want to see: Most of the rest of the page above that.
What this really translates to is "don't discuss the subject at all". The positives and negatives of net neutrality is a dead question, it's blatantly obvious to anyone who looks at the question even superficially that net neutrality is a good policy for 99.99999999% of the world and only a tiny handful of the ultra-rich benefit in any way from removing it. The only interesting part of the subject is which party is doing what on the issue, what their motives are, how opposition to them should/could go post-repeal, etc. Take away the US politics element and you have a thread that is effectively "hay guys, water is wet, discuss".
This showcases ample reason for the US politics ban. If the reason behind starting the NN thread is to affirm that there is only 1 valid acceptable opinion to have on NN and to then move on to which US political party is right and which is wrong on the issue then the thread really isn't about NN at all. It's about staking out a position, dismissing any counter argument to the position, ascribing the right and wrong viewpoints to the appropriate political parties and then dogpiling on the party in the wrong in a thread that is intended to be an echo chamber for the "right" viewpoint. Once the thread becomes a succession of posts about how Party X is bad, should feel bad and anyone who supports Party X should feel bad it will inevitably lead to a dakkaite posting that he/she is member of Party X and he/she doesn't agree that he/she is part of the problem in fact it's Party Y that's the problem or Party Y and Party X are both equally to blame for the problems, which of course leads to personal attacks, warnings and thread lock.
If the point of the NN thread is to argue Party politics and not to discuss telecommunications regulation in the US, how ISPs currently fit under telcom regulations and how ISPs could/should be regulated as telcom entities then it isn't really a NN thread it's just a partisan bickering thread hidden under a veneer of NN in the beginning.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I don't know if this is possible, but I was wondering if dakka mods can ban caustic posters from specific threads or if the granularity of the system only allows bans from subforums? Might be a solution as a mod might be more willing to hand out the ban if it has a more limited impact and can allow the discussion to move forward.
We don't have that level of detail here, such as it is.
However, we CAN ban someone from the OT Forum entirely.
It *might* be worth lifting the ban and then if/when a user crosses the line in a US Politics thread, they're out of the OT Forum for good.
Worth thinking about...
Maybe something to trial in 2018.
Cool, just in time for the campaign season for 2020.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/30 16:47:56
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/11/30 16:51:58
Subject: Re:Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
You don't think that calling someone else's party a shelter for nazis, white supremacists, and child molester's was an insult? Then when someone calls you out on it, you come back with a snide comment.
Had you removed that section of your text, you would in fact have had a strictly objective argument. I am sure you knew that though.
Therein lies the problem. "Sweeping, generalized statements." I remember so many times in the US political election threads seeing the quote "Trump supporters are all idiots" or "Conservative voters represent the lesser educated voting population." Those are not arguments, those are insults.
Statement's such as "I do not agree with Trump's border policy as it would cost us billions" or "Hillary's open borders policy would better stimulate job growth through diversity" on the other hand are arguments, as they specify a policy and present an argument.
About a third of the political talk threads were composed of ridiculous sweeping statements, without purpose beyond venting hatred for the opposing party. I am perfectly fine with US politics being banned here. I'm tired of being called a racist and a nazi for not agreeing with certain groups. Again, calling people names isn't an argument.
That does highlight the problem quite neatly--like everybody else on the internet except actual trolls, I think that snark, hyperbole, glib dismissals, clever catchphrases and broad stereotyping are bad.....
....except when I do it.
After all, I'm right! And since I'm obviously right, nobody could possibly disagree with me in good faith. So when I use those posting habits, I'm just fighting fire with fire, or it's forgivable because I'm just responding to obvious provocation by someone who's being wilfully ignorant or arguing in bad faith (and probably stupid, to boot). And that's how threads turn into girlyellingatyak.jpg Because it's okay when I do it.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
2017/11/30 16:54:28
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
I think everyone would agree that a new thread on the Republican tax bill would get shut down, and the person who started probably warned. But how is that different to the net neutrality bill that is now in its fourth page? Both are partisan bills supported by the majority party and opposed by the minority party? Is it possible to have a thread on the tax bill that only looks at the policy and impact of the tax changes?
To be clear, I'm not actually arguing for a thread on the tax bill*, I'm just wondering if we could get some kind of clarity about where 'this can be discussed in terms of policy' ends and 'this is too political' begins.
I mean, the Mueller investigation would be too political, and North Korea is okay, those are easy ones. But where's the dividing line? I appears net neutrality is close to the line, but can we get more clarity than that - is there any way of articulating exactly where the line is?
*Even with the best intent by everyone to stick to the issues, there's no way that thread would get to a second page before someone said something to get it shut down. And there's a fair chance that comment would come from me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/01 01:51:52
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2017/12/01 07:53:59
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
sebster wrote: I think everyone would agree that a new thread on the Republican tax bill would get shut down, and the person who started probably warned. But how is that different to the net neutrality bill that is now in its fourth page? Both are partisan bills supported by the majority party and opposed by the minority party? Is it possible to have a thread on the tax bill that only looks at the policy and impact of the tax changes?
To be clear, I'm not actually arguing for a thread on the tax bill*, I'm just wondering if we could get some kind of clarity about where 'this can be discussed in terms of policy' ends and 'this is too political' begins.
I mean, the Mueller investigation would be too political, and North Korea is okay, those are easy ones. But where's the dividing line? I appears net neutrality is close to the line, but can we get more clarity than that - is there any way of articulating exactly where the line is?
*Even with the best intent by everyone to stick to the issues, there's no way that thread would get to a second page before someone said something to get it shut down. And there's a fair chance that comment would come from me.
At the end of the day, it's up to whether or not the mods can be arsed enforcing it, they're not getting paid so they'll just enforce it as they feel like it.
As I think I mentioned earlier, it's not that politics is some sort of special taboo subject that has caused it to be banned, it's that people can't play nice. If a thread goes off on a political tangent I don't think the mods give a crap until that political tangent starts breaking rule #1 and then the political ban gives a nice easy way to curbstomp the conversation instead of having to try and bring it back on track then having it go off the rails again 5 minutes and 2 pages of text later.
I for one am jealous to see the UK politics thread chugging along, and knowing that my countrymen in the US are not stiff upper lipped enough to keep talking about politics in a way that allows the thread to stay open. SAD!
Even though I loved the US Politics Thread, and frequently participated in it; I fully support it not returning. This is a site dedicated to common pursuits and community. The US Politics thread is too divisive for a "community-building" site.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2017/12/01 16:59:37
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
sebster wrote: I think everyone would agree that a new thread on the Republican tax bill would get shut down, and the person who started probably warned. But how is that different to the net neutrality bill that is now in its fourth page? Both are partisan bills supported by the majority party and opposed by the minority party? Is it possible to have a thread on the tax bill that only looks at the policy and impact of the tax changes?
To be clear, I'm not actually arguing for a thread on the tax bill*, I'm just wondering if we could get some kind of clarity about where 'this can be discussed in terms of policy' ends and 'this is too political' begins.
I mean, the Mueller investigation would be too political, and North Korea is okay, those are easy ones. But where's the dividing line? I appears net neutrality is close to the line, but can we get more clarity than that - is there any way of articulating exactly where the line is?
*Even with the best intent by everyone to stick to the issues, there's no way that thread would get to a second page before someone said something to get it shut down. And there's a fair chance that comment would come from me.
This raises an interesting idea; no generic US politics thread, but ones devoted to specific issues. When confined to a certain sub-topic rather than the free range of all US politics things have been (and are)much more civil.
So instead of one thread that degenerates to yelling matches, circular arguments, and tribalism before getting locked or back on track, the solution is multiple threads that do that? I doubt that will be likely.
I think the theoretical reason as to why the net neutrality thread wasn't locked was because it would have ramifications well beyond the US or US politics. Which, if given a minute's consideration, doesn't hold water considering how pretty much every major US political issue goes well beyond the US or US politics given the position of the US and how interconnected the world is today. The practical reason was because the mods found the discussion interesting and it didn't immediately devolve into something they had to take action on.
The thing I miss most about the thread isnt the advocacy or prostheletizing of a certain position or party (largely a fruitless endeavor on an Internet forum), but the political machination discussions that came up now and again. Essentially, it was like discussing a game, one that is real and actually matters. I think the reason it got so many responses and so heated, is because we here are all gamers at heart, and that's basically what politics is for an outside observer, a game. Just with the biggest stakes of any game ever made. In that sense, it's a wonder it was as civil as it was.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/01 19:09:43
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2017/12/01 20:00:30
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I don't know if this is possible, but I was wondering if dakka mods can ban caustic posters from specific threads or if the granularity of the system only allows bans from subforums? Might be a solution as a mod might be more willing to hand out the ban if it has a more limited impact and can allow the discussion to move forward.
We don't have that level of detail here, such as it is.
However, we CAN ban someone from the OT Forum entirely.
It *might* be worth lifting the ban and then if/when a user crosses the line in a US Politics thread, they're out of the OT Forum for good.
Worth thinking about...
Maybe something to trial in 2018.
I would think twice about that, just applying the excellent mantra of "if it aint broke don't fix it." While discussing politics can be fun for awhile, eventually someone says something snarky (usually by page two) and its waving a red flag at a bull for some members (I do not exclude myself here).
Personally I avoid political discussions whenever I can keep myself from getting involved. Typically it becomes one or two posters vs. a plethora of them and the insults start pretty quickly (go on Slate, or a gun board and try it). Dakka is better in that there is a wider range, but even here it can keep itself together for more than a few pages when politics come up (again I am not excluding myself here). I think the only one I've found thats moderately ok is IHE, but thats focused on higher ed and still gets snarky (even though posts have to be first approved before they are posted).
This still leaves open many actual policy discussions, which should be more interesting, and we've seen those here.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/12/01 20:07:57
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
The OT isn't the 'point' of this place, and if you can't behave in the OT (and I mean the general and not the specific 'you' there!), you won't be posting in the OT, at all.
Maybe.
You know, if we go with that in 2018.
-
2017/12/01 20:08:30
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
NinthMusketeer wrote: This raises an interesting idea; no generic US politics thread, but ones devoted to specific issues. When confined to a certain sub-topic rather than the free range of all US politics things have been (and are)much more civil.
Not really. The reason we had a single US politics thread in the first place was to confine the silliness to a single thread rather than having it take over OT, as it was doing previously.
2017/12/01 20:31:46
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
Yeah, it was to solve the problem with having a first page filled with threads that involve US politics. A generic Page 1 could have: Special Election in Alabama, Al Franken Ethics Investigation, Tillerson, Flynn, Trump Tweet Of The Day, US & UK relations, Tax Reform, Government Shutdown, Immigratiom, CHIP. That’s just the political topics that are in public conversations this week without thinking about it too hard.
2017/12/01 20:32:19
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
I don't know if I have faith that a civil and productive conversation would develop in the absence of the ban. Under the forum rules it is very easy to bait others with passive-aggressive comments or otherwise indirect or implied insults, and the person who responds directly to such baiting is usually the one who gets in trouble. That's easy enough to do in any topic, but US politics comes already supplied with generalizations and tribalistic notions that are designed from the ground up to shut down critical inquiry and divide everything into neat, black and white terms. The nation as a whole can't handle actual political discourse at this point in time, so I don't see how the OT board will be able to.
2017/12/01 20:52:33
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
I get that, and I am as susceptible to that as anyone (and the mods have been clear and responsive to my sundry faults) but even with those restrictions, I would rather allow the debate to go forward without me. My personal opinions, while important to me, don't amount to a hill of beans in the larger context that others should still be allowed to discuss what they want to discuss in a forum and with people they feel they want to discuss it with. I can still read what others have to say. My only point was I was thinking some moderators, out of an abundance of caution, were reluctant to ban if it meant the poster couldn't discuss other non political ideas in the ot forum.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/01 21:09:51
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2017/12/01 21:39:01
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
d-usa wrote: Yeah, it was to solve the problem with having a first page filled with threads that involve US politics. A generic Page 1 could have: Special Election in Alabama, Al Franken Ethics Investigation, Tillerson, Flynn, Trump Tweet Of The Day, US & UK relations, Tax Reform, Government Shutdown, Immigratiom, CHIP. That’s just the political topics that are in public conversations this week without thinking about it too hard.
I think we all know that the number topics it COULD be split into are not at all the same as what would actually happen.
NinthMusketeer wrote: This raises an interesting idea; no generic US politics thread, but ones devoted to specific issues. When confined to a certain sub-topic rather than the free range of all US politics things have been (and are)much more civil.
Not really. The reason we had a single US politics thread in the first place was to confine the silliness to a single thread rather than having it take over OT, as it was doing previously.
My theory is that the silliness was amplified when put into a single thread, a feedback loop that seems to be avoided when things are split among 2-3 topics of particular relevance currently. Simply put, confining things caused more toxicity than it prevented. Obviously not the only factor at hand, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/01 21:42:19
How does your theory hold up when looking pre central politics USA thread? In other words, I think it was put in place for a reason. One thing I have learned about this place is that it is slow to respond, by design. Sort of like US politics.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/01 21:58:22
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2017/12/01 22:01:19
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
I think the situation is much different now as opposed to even just a year ago. I should have phrased it as 'I think the silliness of the past year was amplified by being in a single thread'. The way I put it above is admittedly misleading as to what I actually meant.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the situation is much different now as opposed to even just a year ago. I should have phrased it as 'I think the silliness of the past year was amplified by being in a single thread'. The way I put it above is admittedly misleading as to what I actually meant.
Well now it will pretty obviously anti-Trump, I would guess. So yeah. But what do you want out of it, if it were to be reinstated? An echo chamber does you or no one else any favors. Unless you just want another forum to vent, but why? Use a pillow.
Oh god, now I'm sounding like my mom.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/01 22:44:30
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2017/12/01 23:03:34
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
d-usa wrote: I wonder how many people were around pre-megathread?
Do you think it would matter? Why?
One of the arguments is that having a single thread amplified the noise vs having individual threads dedicated to each political subtopic, as well as the argument that we might not end up with a page full of subtopics. I was around for both the many-topics approach and the megathread approach, and I didn’t see a difference in the amount of toxicity, but I did see a difference in having one thread vs 10 threads. So I was just wondering how many people were around who remember the pre-megathread times.
2017/12/01 23:13:46
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
Ah, I see. It was the magnification effefct...in effect. Thanks for that, I hadn't thought about it that way. But I don't think a diffusion system would work today.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/01 23:19:23
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2017/12/01 23:20:23
Subject: Why the US politics ban is absurd and needs to go:
d-usa wrote: I wonder how many people were around pre-megathread?
Do you think it would matter? Why?
One of the arguments is that having a single thread amplified the noise vs having individual threads dedicated to each political subtopic, as well as the argument that we might not end up with a page full of subtopics. I was around for both the many-topics approach and the megathread approach, and I didn’t see a difference in the amount of toxicity, but I did see a difference in having one thread vs 10 threads. So I was just wondering how many people were around who remember the pre-megathread times.
I remember the multiple topic days. I will say, one thing I liked about that arrangement was that I could avoid a topic easily if it didn't interest me, and engage in topics that did interest me more easily.
With the megathread you often had multiple discussions going on at once, so it was harder to stay on point, harder to keep up with a conversation if the thread had jumped a few pages and moved on to a new topic, and harder to avoid topics I wanted to avoid because they were all being discussed in one location.
Regarding toxicity, though, I didn't notice a change in either direction once the megathread was created. The only difference seemed to be knowing that the megathread was going to be rough, because there were so many heated topics being discussed. With individual sub-topics that wasn't always a guarantee.
It did seem like the US Politics thread was a self-fulfilling prophecy. It was created to keep all the "toxicity" in one area, and it was repeatedly stated as such, so much so I think that may have informed participants' behaviors in the thread. When regular users and mods all agree that a particular thread is for mudslinging, then that is what it becomes. A dirty fething mess.
Thousand Sons 
World Eaters
Imperial Fists 405th Company 
