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 find the quote feature to be irritating as all get out.

I agree entirely that if you have to pick apart an argument line by line, you’re probably skipping the forest to chop down some trees. The forest typically continues to stand.

And reading through a quote war? Argh. It’s like watching a pissing contest, except you have to replay the pissing at each other before you get to the next point. Like, if American football had a play, then you had to rewatch the play before the second play, and then you had to rewatch the first and second plays before you could see the third... and so on.

If a quote feature didn’t show up on ETC, that would be nice.

RiTides; If you want N&B section that isn't used for poster complaints. Then have a N&B section and put a note at the top that says "Any poster using this section to complain about another poster will be sanctioned" Be explicit about what you want out of your site, then take actions consistent with that. If you haven't yet I encourage you to write down what you want out of the site and then keep it some place where you can bounce the rules and enforcement of the rules against it. It will help the big picture not get destroyed by the minutiae.

Manchu, that's an interesting idea. It wont always help but maybe in enough cases it will.

Another idea I really like ITT is a slow down sanction in place of temporary suspensions. Honestly, they amount to the same thing but the slow-down is less work and more directly addresses the problem, which is essentially getting disproportionately emotionally invested in a semi-anonymous internet argument. In fact, now that I think of it ...

Maybe “slow down” should be the default rather than a sanction?

Like, all users get to post in a given thread only once per (let’s say, arbitrarily) two hours. And I would package that along with a feature where, when a user pushes “post” what comes up is actually a post preview with the message “Are you done editing? Keep in mind, users may only make one post per thread every two hours.” Perhaps this would encourage posters to make longer and more thoughtful replies addressing multiple posters’ points at once, and therefore spend more time considering what it is really worth addressing and what can be let go.

Two hours is just a number I picked off the top of my head. Maybe ten minutes, fifteen minutes, thirty minutes, or an hour is more appropriate; but I think the point is worth considering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gosh how about a forum built entirely around the moderation philosophy of REWARDING self-reastraint, thoughtfulness, and good faith with no or virtually no negative sanctions like warnings and suspensions?

Bear with me, this will take some time to describe.

So the forum would have two sections and two types of posters: The two sections would be General Discussion and Contentious Discussion. The two account settings would be Unlimited and Limited.

Upon signing up, all accounts would be set to Unlimited by default. A user could change their account to Limited setting but this setting would remain in effect automatically for one month. While an account is set to Limited, a poster is only able to post in a given thread per X amount of time. Posters who set their accounts to be Limited would have access to both sections whereas accounts set to Unlimited would only have access to General Discussion.

All threads would begin by being posted in General Discussion. Threads could be moved to the Contentious Discussion board by X number of posters with Limited accounts voting to move them. Alternatively, only a moderator could move a thread to Contentious Discussion as a judgment call based on user alerts. In either case, posters with Limited accounts could also vote/petition the moderator to move a topic back to General from Contentious.

In this way, the community of the voluntarily self-restrained posters could decide for itself what topics need a slower, more deliberate, a d user-restricted approach and which are fine for free-for-all participation. This would also mean the site administrator/moderator would have much less work and could actually spend more time participating than dealing with the site “as a job” (which in my experience can make a mod NOT want to participate). This would also limit the potentially ideological element of a moderator’s duties.

Of course, all this would take some amount of coding which I can’t say is difficult or easy, but is certainly beyond my capacity. It also has some implications of limiting the ability to edit posts, which would have to be addressed.

You might have stumbled onto something Manchu.

As one of the people who'd prefer stronger measures against bad faith: if I didn't care, I wouldn't be part of the discussion in the first place. To me, taking part in a discussion which I did not care about would be rude to those that did. I do not find football interesting whatsoever, so I do not take part in discussions about football if I can avoid it. If I do find something interesting and wish to partake in a discussion on that subject, I expect my fellow discussants to care about the subject of the discussion enough to not waste people's time. Having someone come in with a wall of references in the way I've described earlier, for example, is a clear waste of everyone's time and a clear indication that the person in question either does not know how to have a civil discussion or does know but does not respect the fact that the rest of us care about the subject.

If I choose to ignore that person at that time the derailment caused by that person does not disappear. Me ignoring someone does not change the fact that they clog the thread up and contribute to it actively being made worse, just like ignoring a bully doesn't necessarily make them go away. This is the core of arguing in bad faith: taking the fact that someone cares about a subject and manipulating that to get enjoyment out of the ruination of that subject. "I don't care about this subject the way you do, so I'm gonna make you not care like I do! If I can't, at least I can make your caring pointless."

Telling people that care to just stop caring so much is capitulating to the bully. It is an abdication of the responsibility of a moderator. The problem isn't that we care, it's that there's a gakker trying to establish dominance by ruining something we enjoy. Yes, sometimes we really do need to step back and simply rethink whether there's a point to remaining in the discussion. At the same time, different things have different meaning to different people. I shouldn't mock people who passionately care about football and feverently support their favourite teams despite the fact that football culture seems ridiculous to me. Sometimes I do anyway and act like a right gakker, and need someone to tell me so.

You likely wouldn't accept someone in a public place jumping around you flailing their arms like a lunatic. The advice to someone in that situation certainly wouldn't be "just ignore the annoying gakhead".

Why is it that we are expected to put up with it?

let's face it, if someone makes an argument using scientifically verified facts, someone will say the argument is false because "My holy book says...!"

If you claim that his holy book isn't valid, verified data, he screams "Religious persecution!"

You know that happens.

Walrus - The answer is, because a text-based internet discussion is not at all like a face-to-face encounter. In real life, there really is a very limited sense in which you can ignore someone who is making a physical disturbance. But in a setting where everything is “equal” in the sense of being no more or less than a matter of text, ignoring things is the default. In a world of text, ignoring something takes no effort while reading something and engaging with it takes effort. In a world of text, you reward whatever content you spend the effort to engage with. If you decide to engage with irritating behavior, you are rewarding it, reinforcing it, cooperating with it.

But anyway in my proposed approach, there would also be the option for those who care enough about the discussion to voluntarily limit their own participation to also exert some control over who else can participate and on what terms.

Matt - whether there is any such thing as a “scientifically verified fact” is pretty questionable in itself (Popper reminds us that science falsifies rather than establishes) and ultimately that kind of statement is its own flavor of appeal to authority. I’m not saying this to start a discussion about fallacies but just to demonstrate that some set of values imposed externally (e.g., “science good, religion bad”) is not the way we should be thinking about the structure of productive communication.

Whether I engage or not the irritant has gotten what it wants. The very act of arguing in bad faith is the point. My response or lack thereof is largely irrelevant; the harm has been done. I'm forced to waste time and energy figuring out that my counterpart does not care. Further engagement with a bad faith argument after that does not help, of course, but simply ignoring the irritant will not make it go away. Slowing down the rate of response will do nothing to change this. Only being able to make one post every two hours does not prevent the message that "I don't respect that you care" from being shoved in my face.

Your proposal still seems like an interesting starting point to me though and I do think it would allow for a better discussion climate when people, including myself, could take it slower and take a step back. I'd argue that there still needs to be some mechanism in favour of those of us that "care" (used as shorthand for the stuff from my previous post) to counteract the above kind of "power play" though, just like I can see the use in making us chill out a little by not posting in the heat of the moment. Overall this is the first time I've actually felt some enthusiasm about the whole "new forum" thing.

On a related note, there is also the unfortunate fact that we tend to engage (and therefore reward) posts that we disagree with rather than ones we like and agree with. So for example, Great Big Tree made a post earlier that I fundamentally agree with but I haven’t engaged with at all until now. From his perspective, it feels like being ignored whereas in reality I read his post and noted to myself that he made what I consider to be insightful points. So maybe this is the value of a “like” button as an acknowledgement and encouragement even when one doesn’t have more to say than “agreed, good point.”

 Manchu wrote:
On a related note, there is also the unfortunate fact that we tend to engage (and therefore reward) posts that we disagree with rather than ones we do. So for example, Great Big Tree made a post earlier that I fundamentally agree with but I haven’t engaged with at all until now. From his perspective, it feels like being ignored whereas in reality I read his post and noted to myself that he made what I consider to be insightful points. So maybe this is the value of a “like” button as an acknowledgement and encouragement even when one doesn’t have more to say than “agreed, good point.”

I'm torn on the idea of a like system. On one hand, it's nice to know other people like your post, on the other it kinda creates a reddit culture where people may or may not worry about their digital internet points, and either strive for the biggest number (likes OR dislikes). I also briefly considered the idea that enough "dislikes" would hide a post (and you'd need to click a button to reveal it) but that doesn't solve anything. I personally still think there needs to be a solid definition of what constitutes bad faith (more than the dictionary definition obviously), and punish those who violate it. Obviously not like, straight to a ban as warnings would make more sense, followed by temporary bans/mutes and the potential to appeal the first permaban for bad faith.

Obviously there's more to the mod system than what I listed here, but the idea of "just ignore the poster" or "slow mode will make everyone think things out" is not going to solve anything. I'm also for a quoting system that automatically starts collapsed, or links you back to the original post they're quoting, but without it, it feels harder to respond to some's post, especially if they make several posts about different topics, or if you want to talk about a specific point that was missed further back.

Wolfblade, we have had the discussion about a “like” button behind the scenes here on Dakka Dakka and I have always been against it for the reason you describe. (We ended up with the “exalt” button, which is not very useful.) But I am just spitballing the counterargument here, in the context of the idea that a forum community could be largely self-organizing, based on the principle that engagement is rewarding.

 Manchu wrote:
Wolfblade, we have had the discussion about a “like” button behind the scenes here on Dakka Dakka and I have always been against it for the reason you describe. (We ended up with the “exalt” button, which is not very useful.) But I am just spitballing the counterargument here, in the context of the idea that a forum community could be largely self-organizing, based on the principle that engagement is rewarding.

I mean, I don't think it would be used that way though. It'd most likely just end up like every other forum that has ever implemented it.

Maybe an "award" system where you could say "this post is thoughtful/insightful/whatever" but that's really just changing what you call the like.

I’m sufficiently introverted as to rarely feel ignored. It’s my preferred state 90% of the time.

The resentment over someone “taking up the air” in an argument again focuses on the arguer, rather than the quality of the argument. If I am angry at a *person* for presenting a garbage argument, I’m not having a discussion. It’s not a debate.

I’m scoring points. And the frustration is the result of recognizing one is in a no-win scenario. I can’t score more points than that person, if they rehash the same argument over and over with someone new. They score the same 3 points over and over! And their points are bogus! They’re cheating! That’s not fair!

Which... if we only care about the value of the truths we seek... is irrelevant. It changes the objective from winning to arriving at a better understanding of the universe.

(Coincidentally, probably a key factor in why political discussion doesn’t work on Dakka. By our natures, we are drawn to the site through our shared competitive hobby. People that tend to like tactical games tend to like outplaying their opponents. I almost never play 40k for a material prize, but I relish a tough victory. I like to overcome my opponents.

And so we approach our political discussions. Traps, killboxes, feints, clever disengagements. Points to earn, victories to claim. I miss that Avian Arsewipe some days. That poster was a true master of that game. I miss them sometimes.)

I hope ETC becomes a place built on respect for each other. Not on competition, but a shared desire to learn and see from differing viewpoints. To test our ideas against each other to measure their merits, not to destroy but to explore. Will my ideas stand the tests of others? Are they structurally sound?

I very much understand the desire to destroy your opponents. To shred the defences of their arguments. To not hold back because the stakes are high. To tear and rip them apart as the very rightness of your mind pierces them like a spear of thought. I get it. I really do miss having someone to drop the gloves with. So fully demonized in my mind that the only holds barred are outright lies.

But a forum of that would implode. A forum needs to be built, not razed to the ground every day. So that’s why it shouldn’t be like that.

 greatbigtree wrote:
But a forum of that would implode. A forum needs to be built, not razed to the ground every day. So that’s why it shouldn’t be like that.

I believe allowing bad faith would do just what you fear though. Having diverse viewpoints for the sake of having diverse viewpoints adds nothing to the conversation if they can't be backed up in a manner conducive to a good-faith discussion. There's no problem if people having diverse viewpoints have a spirited discussion about the merits and flaws of something, there is a problem if only one side (or neither side I suppose) isn't engaging in that manner.

I understand what you want, but realistically, it probably isn't going to happen unless there are clear and strict rules on what is and is not allowed. I've seen some great and interesting posts in the dakka politics threads, but the posters almost always got wrapped up in debunking bad faith posts for the sake of the viewers who were not posting, and/or in an attempt to find some sort of good-faith discussion that just never happened and caused them to get burned out.

If you want it to be "built, not razed to the ground every day" you should look at the rules as a way to enforce a structure that supports that. In doing so, you make it easier for good posters and posts to get the attention they deserve in trying to make the conversation better and make it harder (or at least shorten the time) for bad posts and posters to take hold and drag the conversation down. If everyone is replying to one person debunking various parts of their argument based in bad faith. I agree that, suddenly, the conversation has changed from being about whatever the topic is to whatever the bad faith poster has said, but bad faith posts are like a splinter in the finger, or irresistible bait to those who do want to engage in a proper discussion, not always because it's "easy points" to score but because seeing misinformation (especially that spread on purpose) irks or frustrates that to no end.

To that end, you have to decide who the target audience is. Is it people looking for a good discussion? If not, who then? Fit the ruleset to support the type of users you want, and expecting users to change to make your dream ruleset to work will always fail. We saw that here on dakka. Because the goal was a relaxed and friendly environment with little-to-no moderation we ended up with a near free-for-all that was anything but relaxed or friendly. It's a bit ironic, but to have that relaxed and friendly environment the mods have to work hard to make sure there aren't users disrupting it by riling up other users*, and that other users aren't disrupting it by having a kneejerk reaction to "different bad" or whatever.

*Obviously we've covered the difference between a bad-faith and good-faith discussion to death here, and an unpopular position made or defended in good-faith is not grounds for "this user is riling others up, punish them!" I think everyone agrees the goal is not an echo chamber, but a place where different ideas can be discussed and debated to learn, or news analyzed, dissected, opinions given, and predictions made.

(At least, that's the gist I got from your post. Correct me if I'm wrong. And obviously, I'm using "you" as a general term, not you specifically as IIRC, RiTides said he'd be the only mod on the site for now.)

@RiTides, another small (but semi-important) rule you should consider if you haven't already is a "no alt accounts" rule for the obvious reason of trying to bypass a slow mode/mod actions/etc. I'm not sure what tools/experience you have in detecting alt accounts, but it should be something you should look into if you haven't. Also, you may want to consider a "moderator's topic" depending on how frequent thread recreation is done, as a way to spur discussion on ideas that are currently in the news or relevant for whatever reason.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Wolfblade, we have had the discussion about a “like” button behind the scenes here on Dakka Dakka and I have always been against it for the reason you describe. (We ended up with the “exalt” button, which is not very useful.) But I am just spitballing the counterargument here, in the context of the idea that a forum community could be largely self-organizing, based on the principle that engagement is rewarding.

I mean, I don't think it would be used that way though. It'd most likely just end up like every other forum that has ever implemented it.

Maybe an "award" system where you could say "this post is thoughtful/insightful/whatever" but that's really just changing what you call the like.

I have to say I really like the Exalt button (with no negative equivalent), as it feels more like a technical recognition than an opinion. I use it rarely and only when someone has said something very clever, funny or posted something amazing. I use it a lot less than the like buttons on other social media, because it has a subtle difference in my brain.

I think that if there is no quote button then you might want to consider putting the whole site on “slow” mode. The best utility of the quote button was being able to pull up the post you are replying to after it got buried under another 3 pages of posts overnight. Limit the speed of posting and it will be easier to understand what points you are responding to without quoting. Enforcing a speed limit on everyone should also help improve post quality and keep things on topic.

You might also want to consider if you want to either discourage people from venting/ranting at all or designate a separate forum for such things. It’s easy for people to get worked up over politics especially when all the social media companies use algorithms that promote things that outrage you because you still logged on engaged longer when you’re upset. While it’s an understandable impulse rants can be detrimental to the discourse and awkward to respond to.

I also believe that having an exalt button is a good idea.

You could always take Manchu's idea of a general and a contentious section and let the section itself control the posting speed.


To address another point, is there a quote tool that will only allow grabbing the whole post and not breaking it apart? It would address Prestor John's concern which was in the back of my mind yesterday but couldn't phrase as eloquently.

On the exalt/like button idea, why not just encourage the culture of having people reply to post they like by putting a line in the intro page that says something like " Poster are encourage to respond to post they like whether its as simple as a "I agree completely" or a detailed addendum to the original post" I think over time you'll start to see more of the second by encouraging the first and that would only make the site better.

Manchu wrote: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.

Agree that the name is a good one

Also on the score of limiting sub-sections of the forum initially. See what kind of traffic and subject themes come up, if a couple of threads are getting buried because of more prevalent topics then maybe split those other topics out into their own sub-section.

Guys, just wanted to say thanks for the extremely helpful suggestions and ideas on this page! I'm going to be using a paid service so will be mostly limited by what platform I can purchase to use, but will be trying to select that by next week (to go live at end of year) and will be using much of this as a "wishlist" guide when choosing. I'll keep you updated!

 Manchu wrote:
Wolfblade, we have had the discussion about a “like” button behind the scenes here on Dakka Dakka and I have always been against it for the reason you describe. (We ended up with the “exalt” button, which is not very useful.) But I am just spitballing the counterargument here, in the context of the idea that a forum community could be largely self-organizing, based on the principle that engagement is rewarding.

Just as an aside (about Dakkadakka) for whenever it comes up, I've always felt like the only real issue with the exalt button is that it's completely unclear what an exalt even does.

I also don't like 'dislike' options because I rarely see them used in a way that makes sense (user: asks basic questions because they're new, board: +100 dislikes because "we've answered this question already a hundred times waaaah"). The exalt feature is a cool idea. It's just baffling because it doesn't seem to do anything :/ A post is not marked as exalted, and I'm not even clear on what exalting a post actually does. It doesn't tell me the post is exalted. It doesn't tell the original poster. Does it push the topic to the "popular thread" thingie? That would be weird since it's the post that was exalted not the thread.

Exalting (and other similar mechanics) are cool and I like them, but on Dakkadakka it doesn't seem to actually do anything so it holds no real meaning.

RiTides could look at the kind of forum software that is employed by SpaceBattles and Sufficient Velocity. Both have pretty robust "like" functions and the very useful ability to thread mark specific posts or enable the maker of a thread very light 'moderation' powers (they can't ban, or kick or anything like that but are able to mark posts, and with the ability comes some means of 'directate' a thread without calling a full moderator onto it). A lot of those features were devised to support the fanfiction sections of the boards, but they could be useful for what RiTides is doing too.

When I'm on my phone I end up accidentally fat fingering the exalt when I go to use the quote function...

I don't know how anyone can use this forum on a phone without going blind!

Whatever tech Bolter and Chainsword and some other forums use seems to work well...

Another idea. There was a lot of comment in the other thread about 'bad faith' posting in the other thread. I think another way of describing this is 'gak stirring' (word for poop beginning with S as the first word there ). Someone posting a comment that they know will deliberately rile up other users. Perhaps not always done to try and get a rise out of people or be deliberately contrarian, but making those posts shoes a certain lack of sensitivity and the end result is the same.

Perhaps those users get an 'honourary' profile pic of a wooden spoon covered in some kind of brown material? Or even just someone stirring a pot?

A bit of fun (not humiliating) sometimes serves better than hard rhetoric, as quite often admonishments and even temporary bans just bounce off gak stirrers like summer rain, and at least would let other users know what to expect in responding to them.

There are two “exalt” functions on DakkaDakka. You can exalt a thread or a post. There is a “Thread Tools” drop down menu near the top of the page, under which you can find My Exalted Threads. So essentially that is kind of a bookmarks function. As for exalting a post, all that happens is there is an unseen counter that admins can access by running a report.

On some forums, the like button is packaged with the ability to see who liked the post. I think that is a good feature because it cuts against the impression of unanimous approval that can sometimes deter other posters from challenging seemingly popular opinions.

To be clear, I am not advocating for a dislike button.

@ Wolfblade:

My contrasting point regarding assigning a *person* as a bad faith poster is this.

In high school, I had classes with a guy that had been homeschooled in a (to me) hyper religious household. He was a decent guy. Held some strong right wing views, and I consider myself centrist with a bit of a left lean.

In the discussions we had, I think his views would have been what you would call bad faith arguments. Except, it was what he truly believed. It was how he was raised. The sources he was provided by the people he trusted were... I would call many of them inaccurate. But it was the information he had. He’d show me books “proving” his points.

He was an incredible insight for me. We could discus ideas. We were so far from “normal” to each other. It would have been false for either of us to have called the other “bad faith” in our arguments, but they definitely came from utterly alien perspectives.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I agree entirely that if you have to pick apart an argument line by line, you’re probably skipping the forest to chop down some trees. The forest typically continues to stand.

On the other hand, using quote to reply to just a part of a long post is handy if that's the only thing to you have anything to say about. People don't have to go through several paragraphs to see exactly what you're replying to. Besides, if you're replying to a central, big point it doesn't much matter that you didn't reply to any lesser points.

Lack of a quote function could just be worked around by CTL-V, CTL-C in such cases. The open question is whether that extra effort would result in fewer posters trying to chop down individual trees rather than addressing the forest and if some unknown "fewer" is worth the extra work for everyone else, such as in the case you brought up. Not sure of the answer myself

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Wolfblade:

My contrasting point regarding assigning a *person* as a bad faith poster is this.

In high school, I had classes with a guy that had been homeschooled in a (to me) hyper religious household. He was a decent guy. Held some strong right wing views, and I consider myself centrist with a bit of a left lean.

In the discussions we had, I think his views would have been what you would call bad faith arguments. Except, it was what he truly believed. It was how he was raised. The sources he was provided by the people he trusted were... I would call many of them inaccurate. But it was the information he had. He’d show me books “proving” his points.

He was an incredible insight for me. We could discus ideas. We were so far from “normal” to each other. It would have been false for either of us to have called the other “bad faith” in our arguments, but they definitely came from utterly alien perspectives.

I don't think holding the potential forum to high-school level standards is a good idea. I think we should aim for something higher and expect people to use critical thinking skills to examine their sources and positions.

Jerram, it’a not only the forest/trees issue with the quote function but also the quote wars issue GBT brought up where you have giant, multi-nested eye sores.

The main thing is just to structurally discourage tit-for-tat sniping. You will never get rid of it, but you can at least make it more tedious to engage in.

Wolfblade, GBT was using an example from his highschool days as an aspirational goal rather than a lower standard. I daresay that his example is exactly what we should aim for: giving one another the benefit of the doubt in the face of deep-rooted, paradigmatic disagreement. Surely, this is the very highest standard.

 Manchu wrote:
Jerram, it’a not only the forest/trees issue with the quote function but also the quote wars issue GBT brought up where you have giant, multi-nested eye sores.

The main thing is just to structurally discourage tit-for-tat sniping. You will never get rid of it, but you can at least make it more tedious to engage in.

Wolfblade, GBT was using an example from his highschool days as an aspirational goal rather than a lower standard. I daresay that his example is exactly what we should aim for: giving one another the benefit of the doubt in the face of deep-rooted, paradigmatic disagreement. Surely, this is the very highest standard.

Up to a certain point? Sure. But there's a huge difference between a discussion about religion and a discussion about policy in politics. Policy thrives on facts and logic, religion does not to put it politely.

So I was thinking about this some more and I suggest that the Code of Conduct for such a forum has to enumerate some key tenets of good faith discussion and enforce it actively or it turns into something potentially counter productive.
It probably starts with "By posting in this forum, you agree that" and ending with "recurring inability to post in accordance with these tenets" leads to time outs or bans from that forum.

The trick then is a good codification of those tenets. Some that comes to mind include:
-People come from diverse backgrounds and perspectives. These backgrounds may have different world views and truth claims, and these may conflict or contradict other views. The purpose of discussion here must not be to defame or disparage or suppress any particular view, but to explore differences with an aim toward understanding and evolution of thought, always reserving the right to disagree."

What does this intend? Take any regular internet example of forum purse swinging. Let's say Catholicism vs protestantism. Suppose the argument goes into "Lutherans are the disease from which all spiritual corruption has spread from the reformation", this is clearly unhelpful. Similarly, someone stating "Catholics are members of the synagogue of satan" is also in the wrong. Followed by someone saying "All religionists are delusional and should be denied any opportunity to serve government or teach children, even their own!" All of this kind of trash discussion is what much of the internet is made of, but I suggest it is not helping humanity.

The requirement to continue participating in a political form then is the maturity to evolve beyond this type of discourse to something that is not about explaining why others are wrong or evil, but rather in each person explaining what they believe, and why, and why they may have a challenge believing or acting as another. All the while respecting the right of others to be from other backgrounds and to hold radically different views.

It is rare to build or maintain such a space, but if you insist on it being that, and actively moderate it to that end, it might be a gem that differs much from so many political fighting arenas around the net.

Even if the forum is ultimately empty because none can behave themselves, that might be better than harboring a mosh pit of discord and outrage.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Jerram, it’a not only the forest/trees issue with the quote function but also the quote wars issue GBT brought up where you have giant, multi-nested eye sores.

The main thing is just to structurally discourage tit-for-tat sniping. You will never get rid of it, but you can at least make it more tedious to engage in.

Wolfblade, GBT was using an example from his highschool days as an aspirational goal rather than a lower standard. I daresay that his example is exactly what we should aim for: giving one another the benefit of the doubt in the face of deep-rooted, paradigmatic disagreement. Surely, this is the very highest standard.

Up to a certain point? Sure. But there's a huge difference between a discussion about religion and a discussion about policy in politics. Policy thrives on facts and logic, religion does not to put it politely.

It would be nice if policy was based on facts and logic. We’d certainly all be better off it that was true. However, what drives government policy is special interests/lobbying, popular misconceptions, perceived truths, political pandering and financial gain.