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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/30 17:07:43
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
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.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/11/30 20:11:00
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/30 21:21:57
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!
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/01 01:13:37
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.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/01 02:03:24
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/01 02:08:44
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.
