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.

I'm not calling you a racist but you say racist things. How anyone can say that with a straight face is beyond me. Just because the monkeys are now flinging poo in the air so they hit the target from above instead of directly doesn't change the fact that the monkeys are still flinging poo.

Jerram wrote:
I'm not calling you a racist but you say racist things. How anyone can say that with a straight face is beyond me. Just because the monkeys are now flinging poo in the air so they hit the target from above instead of directly doesn't change the fact that the monkeys are still flinging poo.

The indirect insults are one of the things that drove me to the opinion that the political thread was better off dead, and part of the reason I'm glad it's still gone.

People wouldn't say "you're racist/stupid/a bad person", they'd say people who hold XYZ views or say XYZ are racist/stupid/a bad person, as if that was an less of an insult... but because it wasn't directed at a specific person the mods would rarely pick up on it, even when reported.

Any meaningful and constructive discussion was done in the first few posts of any given topic, and the rest was just poo flinging.

Whilst I did occasionally get drawn into the political thread, I'm mildly surprised people miss the political discussion, it was such a cesspit that was only moderately better than youtube comment sections.

Hey guys,

Hopefully we're not stretching the patience of the other mods here, but the pejoratives discussion is useful I think - and here are my thoughts on it:

1. You absolutely need to be able to talk about policies having, for instance, a racist effect (intentionally, unintentionally, etc) to be able to have certain discussions, so you cannot bar that language.

2. Using labels like that as an insult is obviously problematic for a useful discussion that doesn't immediately become incendiary.

3. It's possible for posters to support and argue for a policy without subscribing to the pejorative motivation. Voter ID laws was mentioned last page, and this seems like a good example of one that A) Has had racist motivation in the past, but that B) It would be relatively easy to argue for the need of without racist motivation.

So, this is another area that is subjective. I don't think you can bar the language if you want to have a useful discussion, you can't have people lobbing labels all over the place as insults, but you also need to consider the possibility of that type of motivation for certain policies.

I'll certainly be doing my best to find the right balance, and also craft some more specific rules that allow for the discussion, but keep things level enough to make having that discussion worthwhile (not just a "poo flinging contest" as several posters above mentioned). A lot of this would be trying to set the tone early and pointing to some guideline pages on the type of discussions we're looking for, as well as making use of a "slow mode" or other moderation feature that would discourage people from posting in a "poo flinging" way only and not really engaging. Certainly doesn't sound very easy but again, I think we might sell this community a little short in that this is likely one of the most likely slices of the internet to be able to actually have one of these discussions in a useful way, if done in an appropriate setting. Will certainly be aiming for that, and soliciting feedback as we go to see if we are hitting the mark or not.

Jeram, I feel you’re missing my point.

The point is not to insult the *person*, directly or indirectly.

One can argue the current benefit of a policy that may be rooted in racist origins. One can discuss the benefit of registered voting, and include discussing the best ways to avoid discriminatory implementation.

For an overall name, HERESY! seems appropriate to the 40k theme of the site, and would warn anyone of what's coming.

GBT,

Once again I don't really significantly disagree with what you meant. You should always look at the impacts policies will have as well as the impacts of any changes to that policy.


But that wasn't what was being asked by people you were agreeing with. "What are the racial impacts of this policy going forward" is different from "this policy has always been rooted in racism in the past"

One is intended to move the discussion forward and the other one is throwing a 50MT poo nuke. You don't throw nukes at people you're trying to have a discussion with. I could go in to trying to land a first strike VS MAD but really you just end up with a PA wasteland.

Jerram wrote:
GBT,
But that wasn't what was being asked by people you were agreeing with. "What are the racial impacts of this policy going forward" is different from "this policy has always been rooted in racism in the past"

I disagree, because there are very clear examples of policies where racism was a driving factor, and it's important to take that into account when discussing the policy, and its potential merits (or lack thereof) and/or the history of said policies. It's important to examine why a policy is harmful, just like it's important to examine why a policy might be helpful. Plus, laws and policies have been changed or ruled unconstitutional due to said racism (and sexism, and so on) and it's important to note that too.

Basically, it's all about factors that are very relevant to a policy. It's disingenuous to assume that pointing out a policy was created with racist intent as just "throwing a 50MT poo nuke."

 Wolfblade wrote:
I disagree, because there are very clear examples of policies where racism was a driving factor...

There's always a line though. If it's very clear, it probably doesn't bear mentioning, and if it's not very clear to the point it needs to be discussed, then chances are there'll be some people on the other side of the fence who disagree that racism/sexism/classism was a driving factor and it's very hard to have a conversation where you say a policy/opinion/ideal is driven by racism without the implication of that person being one of those dreaded -isms.

Not saying that those discussions don't need to be had on the appropriate platform, but when an internet forum is that platform, people rarely know where to draw the line without the insults flowing. Even when "intellectuals" discuss it on a controlled platform it so often goes south and observers just hear what they want to hear.

But I don't really care. I won't be partaking in a political forum because it seems unlikely that it ends in friendly and intelligent discourse once you get a few of the "usual suspects" in there (I'd say "you know who you are", but they probably don't ).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
I disagree, because there are very clear examples of policies where racism was a driving factor...

There's always a line though. If it's very clear, it probably doesn't bear mentioning, and if it's not very clear to the point it needs to be discussed, then chances are there'll be some people on the other side of the fence who disagree that racism/sexism/classism was a driving factor and it's very hard to have a conversation where you say a policy/opinion/ideal is driven by racism without the implication of that person being one of those dreaded -isms.

Not saying that those discussions don't need to be had on the appropriate platform, but when an internet forum is that platform, people rarely know where to draw the line without the insults flowing. Even when "intellectuals" discuss it on a controlled platform it so often goes south and observers just hear what they want to hear.

But I don't really care. I won't be partaking in a political forum because it seems unlikely that it ends in friendly and intelligent discourse once you get a few of the "usual suspects" in there (I'd say "you know who you are", but they probably don't ).

I mean, some of those "very clear examples" had people denying them here back when politics was around, i.e. voter ID, so I'd say regardless, it's a good thing to be allowed to bring up because it's relevant to the discussion of those things. And personally, if they feel they're being called racist because the policy they support is racist and provably so, then perhaps they should reconsider their support of said policy and examine what the actual issues, if any, are on the topic (or larger "parent" topic so-to-speak) being discussed (i.e. voter ID being a subset of voter fraud) instead of "don't point out racism because they might feel like they're being called racist." Either way, the RiTides has already ruled on what his rules will be regarding that.

See, in a debate proper, it’s not about the persons presenting.

So I can advance a Racist policy in a debate. You can describe the policy as having racially biased outcomes. I can reflect on this, and then agree that the policy as presented had racist outcomes and now work towards creating a policy that keeps the good while eliminating the bad.

I can present this idea from a position of ignorance, rather than malice. In countering the flaw in policy, rather than calling me a racist, you advance the creation / discussion of an inclusive policy. By calling me a racist, in this hypothetical scenario, you have made a logical fallacy, the presumption of correctness. Thus, by calling me a racist the arguer is false, their argument has no value, because it is based on falsehood.

This is the point I’m trying to drive. Any personal attack is, potentially, a logical fallacy. Because it requires inside knowledge of the attacked person that is not available, and ultimately unprovable. There is no way to establish credibility regarding the assertions of motivations of another.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Jerram wrote:
I'm not calling you a racist but you say racist things. How anyone can say that with a straight face is beyond me. Just because the monkeys are now flinging poo in the air so they hit the target from above instead of directly doesn't change the fact that the monkeys are still flinging poo.

The indirect insults are one of the things that drove me to the opinion that the political thread was better off dead, and part of the reason I'm glad it's still gone.

People wouldn't say "you're racist/stupid/a bad person", they'd say people who hold XYZ views or say XYZ are racist/stupid/a bad person, as if that was an less of an insult... but because it wasn't directed at a specific person the mods would rarely pick up on it, even when reported.

Any meaningful and constructive discussion was done in the first few posts of any given topic, and the rest was just poo flinging.

Whilst I did occasionally get drawn into the political thread, I'm mildly surprised people miss the political discussion, it was such a cesspit that was only moderately better than youtube comment sections.

I do miss the politics threads, because I find it interesting to talk about this stuff and, particularly over the past few years, cathartic given...everything...that has been going on in my areas of the world (I live in the UK and have family in the US). It also helps break the echo chamber, as here is a group of people from all walks of life, from all over the world, who have been brought together by a common interest (war gaming), regardless of political leaning. There were a lot of times when we had useful, polite discussion and I, and I think most people, went in with the attitude of “at the end of the day we’re all nerds who can go to other areas of the site and geek out of toy soldiers”. Unfortunately there were too many people who a) took things way too personally at times or b) just seem to enjoy flinging the flaming poop to see how big and stinky an inferno they could make for the threads to survive. Although I regret that they had to be closed, I can appreciate that the mods didn’t sign on for clearing up that gak and I agree with their decision.

I think you need to really think about your moderation strategy for type A’s on this new site. Type B’s are easy; kick ‘em, they’re trolls and bad faith posters. But someone who’s a little thin skinned or reactionary? That’s harder and, I would posit, possibly someone who would actually benefit from being realigned in positive debate.

It is unfortunate that political discourse these days, across all media, is devoted far more to declarations along the lines of “those people support that are idiots” instead of any motivation to inform or intellectual curiosity or legitimate debate. Snarky insults and gotchas are more valued than any substantive examination of the issues.

Political discourse has gotten to that level because there are people who get their "news" from echo chambers that are effectively state media in levels of bootlicking. There is literally no point in trying to argue facts with someone who decries something as "fake news!" or who is convinced that there's some kind of conspiracy to cover their points of view less when there are fluff pieces published in major newspapers trying to humanize vulgar ideas into "economic anxiety" or other silly concepts.

This is why dialogue should be done in a more 'socratic method' way, where definitions are established through mutual questioning, and the application of logic to the given situation, rather than trying to argue from a set position and finding facts to fit your view.

Prestor Jon wrote:
It is unfortunate that political discourse these days, across all media, is devoted far more to declarations along the lines of “those people support that are idiots” instead of any motivation to inform or intellectual curiosity or legitimate debate. Snarky insults and gotchas are more valued than any substantive examination of the issues.

Holy crap did a perfect example pop up fast.

People have to want to have discourse instead of being more concerned about winning an argument, based on what I've seen in these two threads Tides is going to need a miracle.

Jerram wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It is unfortunate that political discourse these days, across all media, is devoted far more to declarations along the lines of “those people support that are idiots” instead of any motivation to inform or intellectual curiosity or legitimate debate. Snarky insults and gotchas are more valued than any substantive examination of the issues.

Holy crap did a perfect example pop up fast.

People have to want to have discourse instead of being more concerned about winning an argument, based on what I've seen in these two threads Tides is going to need a miracle.

I'm going to assume you're taking a potshot at me, since I responded to Prestor Jon.

Bluntly? "Having a discourse" cannot be done when one side is constantly posting and reposting debunked stats or articles. That happened all. the. time. in the politics threads. One cannot fathom how frustrating it is to constantly see that crap up there and reporting it as misinformative/misrepresentative...only to see it left there.

So please, since you're apparently so well informed, explain how you actually have a discourse with that situation happening? When someone is knowingly reposting misinformation or debunked stats--what do you call that outside of a bad faith argument?

Call it "The burning house: A sociopolitical forum."

As the klingon Kang once said "Only a fool fights in a burning house."

And to be honest that's what my country reminds me of, two groups of fools fighting each other while an arsonist burns their house down around them to collect the insurance....

If its truly debunked then you can explain how instead of what normally happens where a poster just screams debunked or points to an op ed where someone claims its been debunked. However normally its used the same way you used "bad faith" in the other thread to shut down arguments that are nothing of the sort.

Jerram wrote:
If its truly debunked then you can explain how instead of what normally happens where a poster just screams debunked or points to an op ed where someone claims its been debunked. However normally its used the same way you used "bad faith" in the other thread to shut down arguments that are nothing of the sort.

A reasonable idea except that some people will claim any views not in line with their own have been debunked completely, and cite what can politely be called "Alternative facts" to support the claim.

I'm reminded of a quote by the late great isaac asimov:

Jerram wrote:
If its truly debunked then you can explain how instead of what normally happens where a poster just screams debunked or points to an op ed where someone claims its been debunked. However normally its used the same way you used "bad faith" in the other thread to shut down arguments that are nothing of the sort.

I believe you missed the part where they literally don't care it's been debunked and how they repeatedly bring up the same debunked "evidence" or proven misinformation over and over and pretending previous conversations never happened. There are plenty of examples in the previous political threads about this type of posting, and it's bad faith.

You scoff and act like there was no bad faith, but it just isn't true. Calling things "bad faith" isn't being used to shutdown the other side, it's being used to describe posters and/or posting habits that are detrimental to the discussion. If you REALLY don't believe something like this has happened, or happened so often, let me know in a DM and I can provide you links to some examples that I'm pretty sure I cannot post openly here.

Jerram wrote:
If its truly debunked then you can explain how instead of what normally happens where a poster just screams debunked or points to an op ed where someone claims its been debunked. However normally its used the same way you used "bad faith" in the other thread to shut down arguments that are nothing of the sort.

Cool, so if I posted an article that I know has been debunked repeatedly and is published by a website that has zero fact-checking and knows that it ran a bad article...I'm not arguing in bad faith? I'm just "engaging in discourse"?

Because no, I'm not. I would be purposely tainting the conversation. When people have to expend effort to tell me "Oh well that's not true! You should know it's not because we showed you before that it wasn't!", I've done exactly what others pointed out that was a common issue: someone chose to post an inaccurate or misleading article into a conversation and then would defend it time and time again making the "discourse" not about the topic at hand, but the motive of the poster as time would wear on. Because it WOULD be a thing that happened and it WOULD be a thing that would continue to happen unless certain rules get put forward about discussion and articles to be discussed. There are sources that should outright be banned because they contribute nothing outside of distractions to the actual discussions at hand--and the people who would continually post them either did not care that the information was inaccurate or they would claim that everyone else was wrong or "sheep".

probably worth having at least a suggestion that backwards and forwards posting of basically the same thing by arguing/debating posters shouldn't be done

either introduce something new supporting your view or refuting theirs when you post,

pages of longer and longer quotes of 'yes he did' 'no he didn't' 'yes he did' 'no he didn't' are incredibly frustrating

i'm sure it will happen, but if you ask posters to think about it hopefully some of the less involved can ask the two of them to agree to disagree and move on

One thing that has come up a lot is "repeatedly posting the same thing", although honestly that is true of a lot of forum discussions . But I definitely see the point of dealing with that and actually think it aligns well with what I want to do - I'd much rather reduce the frequency someone could post temporarily, rather than completely remove them.

As I said in the other thread, though, this would be a new space and thus anything would be judged solely on the merits of what is posted there. So the merits of why someone should, for example, have a slow-mode applied would have to be because of a contemporary reason.

Also not sure whether or not it would be helpful to have a "N&B" type section, since ours invariably turn into a "Discipline that guy!" type of discussion... which I really, really want to discourage. Does anyone have a suggestion on how I could get feedback without having that kind of dedicated space (which might result in just a lot of bickering not directly related to the topics we want to discuss)? The feedback in the N&B thread here, for example, was really helpful... but I'd like to at least start out the board trying to talk about issues, rather than talking about how we're talking about them

 RiTides wrote:
One thing that has come up a lot is "repeatedly posting the same thing", although honestly that is true of a lot of forum discussions . But I definitely see the point of dealing with that and actually think it aligns well with what I want to do - I'd much rather reduce the frequency someone could post temporarily, rather than completely remove them.

As I said in the other thread, though, this would be a new space and thus anything would be judged solely on the merits of what is posted there. So the merits of why someone should, for example, have a slow-mode applied would have to be because of a contemporary reason.

So, to be clear, you are not ok with the same person repeatedly bringing up the same topic with nothing new to add? I.E., the immigration policy debate here on dakka, or "but her emails!" and so on. I can provide examples of what I mean if I'm not being clear enough.

As for a NnBs section, absolutely. It's a decent place to give feedback that won't be lost in other threads especially when you are inevitably going to run into issues that whatever rules you have thought up are not enough. And that's not a slight against you, no one can plan for every single potential violation obviously.

Another idea I'd like to throw out is a regular locking and starting of a new thread after it hits X amount of pages/responses/time passed which can act as a reset point and while it can disrupt a good discussion, it also has the advantage of acting as a clean slate that could include a recap of some of the recent topics/news in the first post. Plus, it also makes it easier to dig through for older posts if you know they happened in say, "thread #2 pages x - y" or "thread #4 jan 1st 2021 - feb 28th 2021"

It's another one of those judgement calls - I'd only want to do something about it if it were disruptive and drowning out other points of view. To be quite honest, people probably wouldn't want this kind of thing strictly enforced in practice... there was quite a lot of repetition on this page already, for instance!

Like I said previously, I'm going to try to be very attentive and nimble to start with, but I actually want the debate to happen. I just don't want only one voice dominating it - no matter their point of view.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Another idea I'd like to throw out is a regular locking and starting of a new thread after it hits X amount of pages/responses/time passed which can act as a reset point and while it can disrupt a good discussion, it also has the advantage of acting as a clean slate that could include a recap of some of the recent topics/news in the first post. Plus, it also makes it easier to dig through for older posts if you know they happened in say, "thread #2 pages x - y" or "thread #4 jan 1st 2021 - feb 28th 2021"

I really like this idea! You really lose a lot of engagement once a thread gets past a certain length. Not sure what that length is... 10 pages? 20?

 RiTides wrote:
It's another one of those judgement calls - I'd only want to do something about it if it were disruptive and drowning out other points of view. To be quite honest, people probably wouldn't want this kind of thing strictly enforced in practice... there was quite a lot of repetition on this page already, for instance!

Like I said previously, I'm going to try to be very attentive and nimble to start with, but I actually want the debate to happen. I just don't want only one voice dominating it - no matter their point of view.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Another idea I'd like to throw out is a regular locking and starting of a new thread after it hits X amount of pages/responses/time passed which can act as a reset point and while it can disrupt a good discussion, it also has the advantage of acting as a clean slate that could include a recap of some of the recent topics/news in the first post. Plus, it also makes it easier to dig through for older posts if you know they happened in say, "thread #2 pages x - y" or "thread #4 jan 1st 2021 - feb 28th 2021"

I really like this idea! You really lose a lot of engagement once a thread gets past a certain length. Not sure what that length is... 10 pages? 20?

I'd say look for around 100 pages, though that's just an arbitrary number I picked based on how I've seen other forums moderate some of their topics, i.e. patch note discussion/etc. When it starts getting close, i.e. fewer than say, 10 posts within a day or something once it hits ~90-95 pages that'd be a good point to lock it and start fresh, and obviously once you see it hit page 101, lock it regardless unless people are actively posting within minutes of each other. Or you could just make it weekly/monthly based and refresh it on the first day of the week/month/moon cycle or whatever and that gives you a much more defined start and stop dates/times that everyone can predict. Usually, lack of engagement seems to be based on how often fresh news is brought in, and how hotly debated/interesting the news is.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jerram wrote:
If its truly debunked then you can explain how instead of what normally happens where a poster just screams debunked or points to an op ed where someone claims its been debunked. However normally its used the same way you used "bad faith" in the other thread to shut down arguments that are nothing of the sort.

Cool, so if I posted an article that I know has been debunked repeatedly and is published by a website that has zero fact-checking and knows that it ran a bad article...I'm not arguing in bad faith? I'm just "engaging in discourse"?

Because no, I'm not. I would be purposely tainting the conversation. When people have to expend effort to tell me "Oh well that's not true! You should know it's not because we showed you before that it wasn't!", I've done exactly what others pointed out that was a common issue: someone chose to post an inaccurate or misleading article into a conversation and then would defend it time and time again making the "discourse" not about the topic at hand, but the motive of the poster as time would wear on. Because it WOULD be a thing that happened and it WOULD be a thing that would continue to happen unless certain rules get put forward about discussion and articles to be discussed. There are sources that should outright be banned because they contribute nothing outside of distractions to the actual discussions at hand--and the people who would continually post them either did not care that the information was inaccurate or they would claim that everyone else was wrong or "sheep".

You keep making the same argument demanding the same set of rules that both Dakka and RiTides continue to explain that they don’t see things the same way. You never seem to accept this and just keep repeating your demands in multiple posts in multiple threads multiple times. I don’t think using more CAPITAL LETTERS and condescension is going to change minds. If you are only comfortable discussing politics within a very specific rigidly enforced set of parameters then you should find a lace like that or create one yourself. Getting angry and heavily emotionally invested in trying to bend others to your will really isn’t worth it for what is only a diversionary thought exercise to occupy free time. Maybe part of why one or two people engaged in the trolling behavior you describe was because you are very vocal about how it upsets you and RUINS EVERYTHING!!!111!!! Use the ignore function and move on.

Too many people turn political conversations into a stubborn game of chicken regardless of how negatively it impacts the entire situation. Nobody should enter into a discussion with the attitude of Michael Bolton in Office Space, “Why should I change my name? He’s the one who sucks.” It morphs every discussion into a version of the Ultimatum Game where the motivations have changed from acquiring mutual benefits to tearing down others out of spite. Don’t stay in an unpleasant situation just because you refuse to walk away letting that guy “win.” Personal happiness and health is worth a lot more than “winning” a meaningless argument on the internet.

Everything That Counts (ETC) is a fantastic name.

I agree with Tannhauser that (at least to begin with) there is no need for sub fora. The need may (or may not) emerge over time. It’s better to let things develop organically than try to impose a structure on something before it even begins.

One suggestion I have is to NOT use the quote feature we have here on DakkaDakka.

I am well aware of its many advantages.

BUT when it comes to a meaningful exchange of ideas, which I think is the goal here, that feature is really a stumbling block as it encourages/fosters replies that ignore the overall theme or idea of an argument in favor of taking constituent elements apart and examining them as if they were made as stand-alone arguments. This sort of “attack the premises” style is responsible for a lot of dead-end discussions. What is needed instead are replies that deal with an entire argument. To the extent that a reply needs to be structured point-by-point, it can be done thoughtfully with bullets or sub headings or just traditional rhetorical devices (“as to your point regarding XYZ, I disagree because ...”).

Over my decade as a mod here, I have noticed that the quote feature is strongly correlated to strawman-type replies, insults, and rants-disguised-as-replies.

When it comes to the sort of behavior that people talk about as “corrupting” the discussion, the truth of the matter is simple if also a bit hard to swallow:

People can say all kinds of things on the internet BUT AT THE SAME TIME ignoring people on the internet is also one of the easiest things anyone can do. The corollary principle is one of the oldest of all web truisms: feed not the trolls.

I notice the people who complain the loudest about the bad faith arguments and the bogus links and the uncited sources are the same ones who cannot seem to stop themselves from endlessly engaging with the posters they say they are destroying the world, one thread at a time. I know people who have stopped posting on DakkaDakka and other sites/formats because they wish that their thoughtful posts, which they spent so much time and effort on, got even a fraction of as much attention as the flame bait; when in fact no one or hardly anyone bothers to engage with them.

Once you have determined that someone has nothing valuable to contribute, just ignore them. It truly doesn’t matter whether they go away or not if no one is engaging them.

Manchu wrote:..||...

You make an excellent argument against the quote feature.

How do you pronounce that?