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.

On the user behaviour front, I will freely admit that every time I interacted with someone who was (in my view) being an intolerable eejit on this forum I did it because I on some level wanted to pick a fight with them.

I wanted some sort of justice, and I was never gonna get it. If political discussions were opened up here again, I would probably do it again at some point. It is just part of all of us.

I dunno, As soon as I saw certain names eventually I would just scroll on by. But that took years, honestly. So I dunno that we can get there because everyone is gonna be at different places in terms of how they want to engage, their mood that day, and their level of experience with that poster.

So then you try and design a system. You make it so there can only be a certain number of reports per day, you make it so that there is a dynamic moderation team with a clear set of guidelines, you put in a slow mode to allow people to reflect, and you have a series of hard and soft bans.

Well I 100% promise you someone will look at that system and figure out how to take advantage of it to be a pain in the backside to the rest of us. Even if no one sets out to do it because it is funny, someone will eventually stumble into it because of the unintentional systemic incentives and then use it to "win" at internet.

Like, if we could come up with a system that could really stop bad behaviour online, we should be friggin patenting that crap and retiring millionaires on top of a mountain of boutique resin miniatures.

 Da Boss wrote:
On the user behaviour front, I will freely admit that every time I interacted with someone who was (in my view) being an intolerable eejit on this forum I did it because I on some level wanted to pick a fight with them.

I wanted some sort of justice, and I was never gonna get it. If political discussions were opened up here again, I would probably do it again at some point. It is just part of all of us.

I pointed it out in the nuts and bolts.

Maybee it's just a different perspective because contrary to you i live in a democratic system in which my sole purpose as a citizen is not just electing every 4-5 years a bunch of hopefully not corrupt (i wish locally one got fined for dumping garbage in a lake....FFS) politicians and have actual influence upon policy itself.
The whole justice and picking a fight is something of a behaviour which i only see associated with representative systems ironically, and i still think that has to do with A matureity and B more importantly the enormous weight given to singular persons and parties in representative systems, which in turn forces people to conglomerate torwards parties, which in term forces people into corners because they feel the other is XYZ level of bad. Making debate about People and party instead of policy.
The former two are seriously subjective and highly emotionally unstable, dare i say the shitshow is preprogrammed. On the later you can have often a far more objective basis to argue from and with.

Not saying that it can't be also highly emotional but it tends to be far less namecalling inducing.

Hmmm, maybe you have a point, but the two places I am "from" (Ireland and Germany) have proportional representation, and Ireland has a lot of referenda for issues (not as many as you guys, admittedly).

I think it might have some impact, but I don't identify strongly with ANY political party in Ireland or Germany, at all. I would actually like it if I did, but I find all of them pretty deeply flawed in one way or another.

I mean, maybe no one from Switzerland picks fights or trolls online, but honestly that smells like exceptionalism to me.

 Da Boss wrote:
Hmmm, maybe you have a point, but the two places I am "from" (Ireland and Germany) have proportional representation, and Ireland has a lot of referenda for issues (not as many as you guys, admittedly).

I think it might have some impact, but I don't identify strongly with ANY political party in Ireland or Germany, at all. I would actually like it if I did, but I find all of them pretty deeply flawed in one way or another.

I mean, maybe no one from Switzerland picks fights or trolls online, but honestly that smells like exceptionalism to me.

hell no, we do pick fights, but there is a baseline understanding that when the people have spoken that you accept that. Which makes the whole atmossphere a lot less hostile.
Infact that was one of the main reasons as to why the system got implemented, propper representation of the people and for the people.

So no, picking fights and trolling still happen, but in combination with the slower system it leads to a lot less excesses.

Hence why i think the slow down system will allready filter a lot of the potential issues.
Further,since the system is policy centred, maybee forcing the discussion into policy and about policy might lower the issues associated with the representatives.

To see if this would work I propose people mentioning topic they would like to discuss on such a forum and seeing what the reactions are.

In my case I'll mention 2.

1. I believe it is necessary to split america into two countries as the divide between the right and left has been intentionally aggravated and inflamed to the point no reconciliation is possible.


2. (This is a topic i asked a mod about and he said it was a worthy topic but not suited to dakka dakka so it's a good example) How should society deal with sex offenders, especially ones who have violated children? Should they be locked up forever? Should they be sent to prison then after their sentence is done placed in "mental hospitals" (Prisons with fewer rights for the inmates) until they are cured or die? Should they be released but placed under such restrictions it is generally impossible for them to get a job, find a place to live and function in society?


If you want to post topics you'd like to see in a proposed political/societal forum please do, but please don't debate them here, just say whether or not you think they can be discussed without degenerating into flamewars .If we can't even have a reasonable debate on what topics would be fair to put in a new area of discussion then the whole thing is probably moot anyway.

All things being equal, I don't think that's a good idea. It's like pushing the envelope, it falls off eventually.

Every machine is a smoke machine, if you use it wrong enough.

Maybe just wait till the site opens?

I have a prediction of what will happen.

Immediately there will be Republican vs Democrat debates in which the Republicans will be immediately outnumbered. Most of the Republicans posters will leave the site, with only a few remaining out of sheer stubbornness.

Without the Republicans to serve as a convenient enemy, the Democrats will splinter in the different wings that make the party and will start the traditional left-wing circular firing squad, only uniting each time one of the remaining Republicans trolls them with their continued existence.

This prediction is based on what I have seen in other forums in which political debate is allowed.

 Tyran wrote:
I have a prediction of what will happen.

Immediately there will be Republican vs Democrat debates in which the Republicans will be immediately outnumbered. Most of the Republicans posters will leave the site, with only a few remaining out of sheer stubbornness.

Without the Republicans to serve as a convenient enemy, the Democrats will splinter in the different wings that make the party and will start the traditional left-wing circular firing squad, only uniting each time one of the remaining Republicans trolls them with their continued existence.

This prediction is based on what I have seen in other forums in which political debate is allowed.

That would probably depend on what you mean by 'Republican'. Most of the supposed 'Republicans' I've seen on this sort of site turned out to have IP addresses in Russia. And, as a Conservative myself, we can do without that sort of poster, no offense.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

That would probably depend on what you mean by 'Republican'. Most of the supposed 'Republicans' I've seen on this sort of site turned out to have IP addresses in Russia. And, as a Conservative myself, we can do without that sort of poster, no offense.

I mean a supporter of the current Republican party and of Trump. That of course excludes NeverTrumper Conservatives like the Lincoln Project, former Republicans that have left the party and any other Conservatives that for some reason or other are not aligned with the current Republican party.

The current primary division of American politics is one based on Party lines, it is not really a Left vs Right or Conservative vs Liberal.

 Tyran wrote:
I have a prediction of what will happen.

Immediately there will be Republican vs Democrat debates in which the Republicans will be immediately outnumbered. Most of the Republicans posters will leave the site, with only a few remaining out of sheer stubbornness.

Without the Republicans to serve as a convenient enemy, the Democrats will splinter in the different wings that make the party and will start the traditional left-wing circular firing squad, only uniting each time one of the remaining Republicans trolls them with their continued existence.

This prediction is based on what I have seen in other forums in which political debate is allowed.

Speaking as an american democrat (who uses an IP to avoid being tracked down by right wingers in america and possibly threatened or attacked) I have to say I agree with this post to an extant and am, not offended by it.

Wow, someone saying they're not offended. I'm glad I have an IP to hide behind or i'd have groups attacking me for offending them by implying it's possible not to be offended by everything.

But yes often you can see democrat pages and sites becoming warzones mostly over "I'm more woke than thou!"

So as a democrat i can say this post didn't offend me. it's a start towards showing some people can discuss some things reasonably.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Speaking as an american democrat (who uses an IP to avoid being tracked down by right wingers in america and possibly threatened or attacked) I have to say I agree with this post to an extant and am, not offended by it.

Wow, someone saying they're not offended. I'm glad I have an IP to hide behind or i'd have groups attacking me for offending them by implying it's possible not to be offended by everything.

But yes often you can see democrat pages and sites becoming warzones mostly over "I'm more woke than thou!"

So as a democrat i can say this post didn't offend me. it's a start towards showing some people can discuss some things reasonably.

I wasn't seeking to offend anyone, just a prediction and a recollection of current political debates on the internet.

 Tyran wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
Speaking as an american democrat (who uses an IP to avoid being tracked down by right wingers in america and possibly threatened or attacked) I have to say I agree with this post to an extant and am, not offended by it.

Wow, someone saying they're not offended. I'm glad I have an IP to hide behind or i'd have groups attacking me for offending them by implying it's possible not to be offended by everything.

But yes often you can see democrat pages and sites becoming warzones mostly over "I'm more woke than thou!"

So as a democrat i can say this post didn't offend me. it's a start towards showing some people can discuss some things reasonably.

I wasn't seeking to offend anyone, just a prediction and a recollection of current political debates on the internet.

yes i was saying as an american democrat was not offended. your post was fair, truthful and reasonable. people like you are ok to have discussions with.

 Tyran wrote:
I have a prediction of what will happen.

Immediately there will be Republican vs Democrat debates in which the Republicans will be immediately outnumbered. Most of the Republicans posters will leave the site, with only a few remaining out of sheer stubbornness.

Without the Republicans to serve as a convenient enemy, the Democrats will splinter in the different wings that make the party and will start the traditional left-wing circular firing squad, only uniting each time one of the remaining Republicans trolls them with their continued existence.

This prediction is based on what I have seen in other forums in which political debate is allowed.

That's definitely a danger.

Alot depends on the moderation, its one thing to be outnumbered its quite another to be outnumbered and feel like the powers that be are limiting your ability to make your case. I'm cautiously optimistic on this one.

The other heavy dependency I think is how many discussions are there that don't break along traditional "party" lines ? Do Matts Qs fall under this, I wonder

I guess the last heavy dependency is us, how much are we willing to call out our own side when they start making it an unwelcome environement for the other side ? (and yes that's a huge rabbit hole of a question)

The second two are the big question marks /shrug

Threads need a lifespan in politics. You can only talk about a topic so much before it becomes just a bunch of people grumping at each other over nothing.

Two Weeks then lock it. If some new information comes up it can be unlocked at the mods discretion. If people cant get in there and put their 2 cents for that amount of time, oh well.

Sticky topics for ongoing events like Covid-19 or Elections or any crisis. When those things are over, lock and drop them. Then start a new thread, a Post Covid-19/Election/Crisis thread with the two week lifespan.

Don't let people run wild in there. Random snark trolls need to be pruned and banned from the forum section. You should be more liberal with bans in this section and your bans should be more varied. 6 hour, 12 hour, 1 day, 3 day, 1 week. Build people up on things, figure out a system. If somebody gets hot, sit them out with a temp ban before they do something stupid.

Think of it as Hockey and everybody is trying to fight on the field. You are the umpire. Do what you gotta do. But let people know before they enter the forum that is how it is going to be with the mods and be that way. Don't halfass it or have one mod that is kinda strict and another that will hammer down on anything then another mod that likes to incite stupid activity. The mods have to be on the same page. You gotta work that defensive line. You cannot let them slam dunk on you.

That depends; if you’re talking about historical politics, political theory or speculative “how could things be done differently?”, then none of those needs a particular hard-stop.

Sorry for the radio silence guys - holidays, who knew . My target date is the first week of January... will keep you posted!

Jerram wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I have a prediction of what will happen.

Immediately there will be Republican vs Democrat debates in which the Republicans will be immediately outnumbered. Most of the Republicans posters will leave the site, with only a few remaining out of sheer stubbornness.

Without the Republicans to serve as a convenient enemy, the Democrats will splinter in the different wings that make the party and will start the traditional left-wing circular firing squad, only uniting each time one of the remaining Republicans trolls them with their continued existence.

This prediction is based on what I have seen in other forums in which political debate is allowed.

That's definitely a danger.

Why is this a "danger"? If the Republican posters in this example can't handle being outnumbered then there's never going to be a point of them being on the forum in the first place, assuming the mods keep people in line. If the point of the forum isn't to win but to learn and grow surely the Republican posters would be up for listening to people with a different point of view just like everyone else is expected to be, right?

I realize my post sounds like the usual passive-aggressive sniping, aimed at Republicans, but that's not my intention. If we're going to assume that the Republican part of the US posters are too thin-skinned to even handle diverging opinions then what's the point in trying to give a damn about them in the first place? Either we assume that Republicans will take part like anyone else, in which case we trust the mods to prevent abuse directed against them just like everyone else, or we assume they're not interested in honest discourse, in which case to hell with them. If someone doesn't like the discourse (assuming, again, that the mods do their job to prevent abuse) they don't have to participate.

One issue here is that in " 'murca" religion has become politics, so in any real political debate religion will get involved.

Basically people in " 'murca" believe that their views have extra importance because they're based on their religion and that their religious views give them a right to defy the law when they decide to.

So do you plan on dealing with religious issues on your forum?

RiTides has already acknowledged that religion plays a key part in American Politics and that extricating the two is likely impossible. So, yes, there will probably be people talking about how religion impacts US policies.

Of course, American Politics aren't the be-all, end-all of the proposed site. I'm interested in Canadian and world politics. Getting a better pulse of what's happening outside of US borders.

So, yeah... Just like in real life, if Murica wants to Murica, they can Murica in their own little corner of the world, while the rest of the world does their own thing.


PS: Wait for like, 4 weeks and you can see for yourself!

I'm hoping this opens as I would love to post questions to people outside 'murca about how their countries handles issues 'murca can't handle, doesn't handle or handles badly, like how does your society deal with sex criminals, especially pedophiles?

I'd like straight input directly from real people living in other countries unfiltered by talking heads, corporate media, etc.

Honestly, the media in 'murca tells the biggest lies about how tings are done in other countries, like the infamous recent one that universal healthcare leads to mass involuntary euthanasia in holland, with comic book villain level doctors lurking in every shadow, rubbing their hands together and cackling with glee as they looked for the slightest sniffle or limp in a person so they could leap out and race each other for the chance to euthanize him, and people had to wear big flashing neon "DON'T EUTHANIZE ME!!!" signs.

When people in holland and the netherlands openly refuted this nonsense the people pushing it as a way to kill universal healthcare in america so people who didn't want to die from treatable conditions kept on doing so in order to protect healthcare industry profits simply said "They're all lying." and kept pushing their horror stories.

You may think I'm exaggerating things but no, this is honestly my view on how that situation went and looked to me and that is pretty much how anti healthcare forces in my country were making things out to be in countries with healthcare.

So yes, I want this board to go online so I can talk with real people and get real people views without political or corporate input. I wish this effort success.

Well, considering that recently macron had to explain what the feth laïcité is and defend it against those proclaiming that the terrorism in france was stocked by the french themselves...
Which was infact reported by what is generally assumed to be "quality" media...

 Matt Swain wrote:

Speaking as an american democrat (who uses an IP to avoid being tracked down by right wingers in america and possibly threatened or attacked) I have to say I agree with this post to an extant and am, not offended by it.

As an American Republican, I can completely understand that, as I've been hunted down and threatened by Trump supporters as I refuse to support him.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Jerram wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I have a prediction of what will happen.

Immediately there will be Republican vs Democrat debates in which the Republicans will be immediately outnumbered. Most of the Republicans posters will leave the site, with only a few remaining out of sheer stubbornness.

Without the Republicans to serve as a convenient enemy, the Democrats will splinter in the different wings that make the party and will start the traditional left-wing circular firing squad, only uniting each time one of the remaining Republicans trolls them with their continued existence.

This prediction is based on what I have seen in other forums in which political debate is allowed.

That's definitely a danger.

Why is this a "danger"? If the Republican posters in this example can't handle being outnumbered then there's never going to be a point of them being on the forum in the first place, assuming the mods keep people in line. If the point of the forum isn't to win but to learn and grow surely the Republican posters would be up for listening to people with a different point of view just like everyone else is expected to be, right?

I realize my post sounds like the usual passive-aggressive sniping, aimed at Republicans, but that's not my intention. If we're going to assume that the Republican part of the US posters are too thin-skinned to even handle diverging opinions then what's the point in trying to give a damn about them in the first place? Either we assume that Republicans will take part like anyone else, in which case we trust the mods to prevent abuse directed against them just like everyone else, or we assume they're not interested in honest discourse, in which case to hell with them. If someone doesn't like the discourse (assuming, again, that the mods do their job to prevent abuse) they don't have to participate.

Hint, if something sounds like passive aggressive sniping it probably is. Now multiply that by a a factor of at least 10

To answer your initial question prior to the sniping, its a danger because there's already 100s of places that are left wing echo chambers and "warzones mostly over "I'm more woke than thou!"" as Matt put it. I don't think Tides wants to waste his time setting up another.

Jerram wrote:

To answer your initial question prior to the sniping, its a danger because there's already 100s of places that are left wing echo chambers and "warzones mostly over "I'm more woke than thou!"" as Matt put it. I don't think Tides wants to waste his time setting up another.

I think the issue is the existence of Echo Chambers of both sorts.

They're both equally useless, and both sides, at least on this front, are equally guilty, though certain right wing groups persecution complex does not help matters in this. If the only thing you want to hear is people agreeing with you, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

And that holds for both sides.

I think we can agree echo chambers are less than desirable as for the rest of your post I'll save that discussion for tides board but ill leave you with a thought

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me....

Jerram wrote:
To answer your initial question prior to the sniping, its a danger because there's already 100s of places that are left wing echo chambers and "warzones mostly over "I'm more woke than thou!"" as Matt put it. I don't think Tides wants to waste his time setting up another.

From all the online forums (or other social media) that I have read/seen/heard over the years it seems that time and time again the people who complain (about others being isolated in their echo chamber) seem to suffer from the actual issue the most. Their media diet tends to be very narrow and rather lacking of any nuanced understanding of alternatives (or as they call it: "the other side").

But Walrus' question is still relevant: What's exactly the danger here? Isn't the right side of the US political spectrum usually held up as the more pro free speech one? Shouldn't those proponents of more free speech (maybe they are even free speech absolutists) be able to handle some (written) opposition? What's so bad about (as already mentioned) civilised arguments that push back against your (the general "you", not you specifically) arguments? One shouldn't just label something an echo chamber because one doesn't understand it or is unwilling to engage with it but can't find a real argument against it.

To me echo chamber accusation seem to come more often with a implied/wanted chilling effect against the accused ones than with them actually suffering from it. As if the accuser wants to feel like a victim and/or curb speech without actually having to mention what it is that's causing issues (often because they can't). It's always just this echo chamber in general that makes it hard for them to discuss things, not that other participants are not giving in to their baseless arguments and showing them links with contrary evidence.

Maybe you (again: the general "you") are just not well informed on the topic you are trying to discuss with others and they are pushing back against bad data, information, or conclusions. That's not an echo chamber but a learning opportunity. But if your first reaction to any contrary opinion is to think they must be indoctrinated and live in an echo chamber then that sounds more like you (the general "you") are somebody who's actually living in an echo chamber and categorically unwilling to entertain other ideas as potentially having any value.

If people are already throwing around echo chamber worries before the forum is even online (while others have been asking about actual issues that previously caused disruption) then that feels more like they are looking to be protected against views they don't like than wanting an open discussion, which kinda loops back to paragraph one of this comment.

But I might be thinking a bit too much into this.

Again, though, if Republicans were to act as you've predicted and not participate because they'd be in a minority then the problem exists outside of the forum in that Republicans refuse to be part of the conversation unless they are in the majority or otherwise able to dictate the premises of the conversation.

Put it this way: we agree that echo chambers are bad. In the above prediction, an echo chamber would allegedly arise* because the Republicans would just up and leave. If this is true and Republicans only participate in discourse when they're in control of the discussion or otherwise pandered to then there is no point in even trying to set up the forum to include the Republican point-of-view in the first place. If there's another reason for Republicans leaving in this scenario, such as abuse or personal attacks, the moderators literally exist to stop that. The way it was phrased Republicans would be "ganged up on" for being in the minority and thus leave. Considering how it's apparently expected of us to just shrug off trolls and bad faith posting, why would it be reasonable to assume that Republicans would just leave?
Surely both Baron and whembly, far from each other though they might be, are proof that this assumption is not true?

In summary, I don't believe the idea that Republican or Conservative posters would leave is actually true, but even if it were the problem, as described, would be one side being unable to accept not being in control of the conversation. If this truly were the mindset of Republicans in general (and, again, I don't think this description is accurate) then there is no point in including them in the first place, because being part of the "echo chamber" in this case would be "can handle being in the minority on a subject".


*Notwithstanding the fact that there'd be significant heterogeneity in the views even without Republicans, but for the sake of argument.

In point of fact, we're where we are in the conversation as a result of a prediction republicans would vacate after being outnumbered, save for obstinate/intentionally obnoxious ones.

It wasn't made by a republican.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:

Speaking as an american democrat (who uses an IP to avoid being tracked down by right wingers in america and possibly threatened or attacked) I have to say I agree with this post to an extant and am, not offended by it.

As an American Republican, I can completely understand that, as I've been hunted down and threatened by Trump supporters as I refuse to support him.

To quote Ash from Alien...

 Scrabb wrote:
In point of fact, we're where we are in the conversation as a result of a prediction republicans would vacate after being outnumbered, save for obstinate/intentionally obnoxious ones.

It wasn't made by a republican.

We're where we are because I questioned why that was a "danger", given the previous debate about thick skin and shrugging things off.