It seems both sides of the political spectrum on this board have almost zero ability to discuss politics properly (much like cable news). 

Gross insulting over generalizations seem to plague every thread (Dems. are baby killers, Republicans are racists).

People are attacked, not the topics at hand.

I really don't see the point of a board like this if it's not going to have discussion that can rise above the single-sided partisan crap that fills every political blog on the web.  I refuse to read that crap on other sites, and I sure as hell don't want to read it here.

I've stickied this thread.  Suggest rules we can all live by, that make sense and maybe we can appoint someone to enforce those rules.  If it can't be done properly, it isn't really worth doing.

^ This pretty much sums it up.  No name-calling, no condescension, and an emphasis on real discussion rather than "you suck" :)

^ This pretty much sums it up.  No name-calling, no condescension, and an emphasis on real discussion rather than "you suck" :)


Well, you know, I thought I stated that in the rules, but maybe it's just not being properly enforced, or it's vague.

Well, you know, I thought I stated that in the rules, but maybe it's just not being properly enforced, or it's vague.


Nah...you know what happens when troll-ish members decide to spout off :P

Nah...you know what happens when troll-ish members decide to spout off :P


Kinda reminds me of the Exorcist.  Possibly just as vile. :)

I have seen things get out of hand here recently. I for one don't want to lose this board because I really enjoy the political discussion-when there is discussion in the mist of all the personal nastiness going on. Maybe with one of the mods (my vote would be for Red Ant-since he is more likely to post on here than Tam or Bobo) to closely watch things for awhile and maybe people will start really getting the hint that this stuff won't be tolerated.



Cat

I have seen things get out of hand here recently. I for one don't want to lose this board because I really enjoy the political discussion-when there is discussion in the mist of all the personal nastiness going on. Maybe with one of the mods (my vote would be for Red Ant-since he is more likely to post on here than Tam or Bobo) to closely watch things for awhile and maybe people will start really getting the hint that this stuff won't be tolerated.


Before I assign someone, I want to make sure we all know and agree on terminology to describe the environment of the board.  I don't want a mod to look like a tool because someone doesn't know the concept of "don't post retarded cliche stereotypes of political parties"

^ I think that's fair.  The reason most of the topics on this board degenerate is because people suffer from terrible cases of ferrous cranus and feel the need to indoctrinate the other side or else they suck.  If there's a greater emphasis on the "no name calling" rule that might help a lot to weed out all the crap. 

Although some people DO deserve to be called names every now and then :) 

I don't think there should be a "hard line" against language in general because it's hard to detect sarcasm and humor sometimes in the printed word.  But blatant stuff like "you commie pig" should be dealt with.

I'd volunteer but people already think I'm a tool :D

I also think what Chucky said was fair.  I especially agree with "don't post retarded cliche stereotypes of political parties".  I can't see what possible purpose doing that has. 



And Kin, you're not a tool.  :D

I believe someone (maybe Tam) had suggested that instead of engaging in all-out flame war, that a poster simply quote and report the offensive post and leave it at that.  That way, the offender looks stupid and the reporting member doesn't get into trouble, and it also reduces the amount of crap that has to be flushed.

And I would suggest that if somebody sees somebody starting to get "out of control", don't egg them on.

Quite often I see somebody lashing out for one reason or another, and 5-6 people then jump on them as well.  That is not going to calm things down, it will simply provoke them into making even harsher posts.

And I would suggest that if somebody sees somebody starting to get "out of control", don't egg them on.

Quite often I see somebody lashing out for one reason or another, and 5-6 people then jump on them as well.  That is not going to calm things down, it will simply provoke them into making even harsher posts.


Some of us tried to see the other parties point of view.  That isn't always well received.

Well, if we use the proper discourse, it would be like this:

A -- Statement

B -- Acknowledgement of statement + rebuttal

A -- Acknowledgement of rebuttal + counterpoint

Note the lack of "you suck" in this format :D

Well, if we use the proper discourse, it would be like this:

A -- Statement

B -- Acknowledgement of statement + rebuttal

A -- Acknowledgement of rebuttal + counterpoint

Note the lack of "you suck" in this format :D


Some people don't care to partake of the art of an L&D debate format. 

Hey Rice you were on the Debate team weren't you?

Some people don't care to partake of the art of an L&D debate format. 

Hey Rice you were on the Debate team weren't you?


Nah, but I have put myself in other people's shoes :)

Nah, but I have put myself in other people's shoes :)


Yeah, I debate and put myself in other people's shoes.  That's the kind of stuff that makes Republican and Democrats go for coffee together.

Yeah, I debate and put myself in other people's shoes.  That's the kind of stuff that makes Republican and Democrats go for coffee together.



It's fun to talk and even more fun to disagree constructively :)

Yeah, I debate and put myself in other people's shoes.  That's the kind of stuff that makes Republican and Democrats go for coffee together.


Personally, I love to "Debate".  I find it a challenging mental exercise, and as Rice said, it lets me put myself into somebody else's shoes.

Plus I enjoy playing "Devil's Advocate", as a way to give people in here somebody to debate (or argue) against.  When I see something basically being a "Let's all agree" fest, I often pop in and post something from the other point of view, just to get people talking and thinking.

As a good example, I am fairly neutral on the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" issue.  And I actually understand where both sides are comming from.  But since everybody seems to be agreeing on one side of the issue, I will continue to argue the opposite.  Not from any real passion about it, but to "show both points of view".

If anybody wants to try and sharpen your skills, just try doing that a few times.  It is amazing how it can broaden your mind.  In a non-chemical sort of way.   :D

Of course, I never claimed to be completely sane.

To me, there's a difference in posting the other point of view to get people talking and posting it because you don't want everyone agreeing on the issue and because you know an argument might ensue.


Not every thread needs to have a point-counterpoint.  Sometimes it's nice to have everyone agree on the same thing.

^ Agree on the same point, but disagree on the minor details...therein lies the divide!  :o

I have been on the cusp of ceasing to post on the politics board for a while now.  I consider myself part of the problem here.  I'm too often hot-headed about issues.  A few years ago Chucky and a consensus of board members decided to separate politics and other controversial topics from the 2000s board.  I think it was a good idea.

We live in a vile political climate.  When you've got FOX News and Air America setting the political tone in the media it tends to filter down to the rest of us.

Strife is inevitable in issues of consequence. Given all that is at stake nowadays, I think a degree of outrage is understandable.

HOWEVER--and this is the important part:

Chucky has made it clear several times inthe00s is not a politically oriented site.  At the time the political board was started, there were many members who wanted political topics vorboten. The politics board was a compromise.  If he now finds even a separate board to be too much trouble, I'm not going to protest if he decides to nix it.

I do think muzzling socio-political debate might be more trouble than it's worth.

Here are the difficulties:

Who gets to decide what is too controversial?  You can't really talk about popular culture without politics, religion, and social controversy because these are integral to popular culture itself.  For instance, if you talk about the '80s without mentioning the rise of the Christian Right, Iran-Contra, Jim & Tammy, Perestroika, Reaganomics, PMRC, etc., etc., you know what you wind up with?  VH-1's "I Love the '80s," and that's an awfully thin soup.  Sorry, Pac-Man and the Rubiks Cube are not what made the '80s the '80s.

That's just an example.

So how much time do moderators want to spend combing through posts and parsing the "too political" from the "not too polical"?

I think that this thread shows an obvious shortcoming of today's political stalemate.

A new political party needs to emerge.  We'll found it here and then spread it across the land.

It shall be called the "You Suck Party" and will be devoid of the usual PR and feigned social consiousness.  Its sole purpose will be to tear down any institution of value and to disparage any person of virtue. 

:D

I think that this thread shows an obvious shortcoming of today's political stalemate.

A new political party needs to emerge.  We'll found it here and then spread it across the land.

It shall be called the "You Suck Party" and will be devoid of the usual PR and feigned social consiousness.  Its sole purpose will be to tear down any institution of value and to disparage any person of virtue. 

:D


I kind of like that. ;D

So how much time do moderators want to spend combing through posts and parsing the "too political" from the "not too polical"?



The point is not to have censorship, as long as the topics can be discussed with an air of common courtesy without degenerating into "you suck" and "blow me".

http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/graphics/fullsize/skbl_lg.gif

I have to admit that sometimes this board sounds a bit like this:



Jane Curtin: Dan, only a reactionary ass such as yourself could oppose full diplomatic relations with China. As President Carter said, it is a simple recognition of reality. How can we ignore eight hundred million people? But, then again, I guess it's your habit to ignore reality. You're a paranoid schizophrenic, Dan, whose politics are obviously born out of some buried infantile trauma. You hide from reality, constructing a hostile world to justify your own incapacity for love and compassion. Go ahead, Dan, live in your dark, lonely world. The rest of us will extend our hands in friendship to eight hundred million human beings, saying, "Hi! You do exist. Let's be friends."

Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you ignorant slut. My personality profile is not at issue here, any more than is your inability to achieve orgasm. The issue is Taiwan. How can we expect to have the confidence of any free nation when we stab one of our most faithful allies in the back. I suppose you'd like to conduct our foreign policy the way you conduct your private life, hopping from bed to bed with anyone that can do you some good. Then what do you have? An old, dried-out scuzz that no decent man would be seen with. Is that what you want for America? It's too late for you, Jane, but our country still has some dignity left, you hosebag!




Cat

SNL is funny.  The stuff you're highlighting is not.

I have to admit that sometimes this board sounds a bit like this:



Jane Curtin: Dan, only a reactionary ass such as yourself could oppose full diplomatic relations with China. As President Carter said, it is a simple recognition of reality. How can we ignore eight hundred million people? But, then again, I guess it's your habit to ignore reality. You're a paranoid schizophrenic, Dan, whose politics are obviously born out of some buried infantile trauma. You hide from reality, constructing a hostile world to justify your own incapacity for love and compassion. Go ahead, Dan, live in your dark, lonely world. The rest of us will extend our hands in friendship to eight hundred million human beings, saying, "Hi! You do exist. Let's be friends."

Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you ignorant slut. My personality profile is not at issue here, any more than is your inability to achieve orgasm. The issue is Taiwan. How can we expect to have the confidence of any free nation when we stab one of our most faithful allies in the back. I suppose you'd like to conduct our foreign policy the way you conduct your private life, hopping from bed to bed with anyone that can do you some good. Then what do you have? An old, dried-out scuzz that no decent man would be seen with. Is that what you want for America? It's too late for you, Jane, but our country still has some dignity left, you hosebag!




Cat


Cat, how many Classic S.N.L. D.V.D.s do you have???
In some weird, unflattering way you're right.

Cat, how many Classic S.N.L. D.V.D.s do you have???
In some weird, unflattering way you're right.



Actually, none. I found a transcript on-line.



Cat

Actually, none. I found a transcript on-line.



Cat


GET SOME!!!

If I may add my 2 zincs in here.  ;)


I believe someone (maybe Tam) had suggested that instead of engaging in all-out flame war, that a poster simply quote and report the offensive post and leave it at that.  That way, the offender looks stupid and the reporting member doesn't get into trouble, and it also reduces the amount of crap that has to be flushed.


That was me. Ideally, that would be the way things are done so that it's clear to the mods what the problem is. I've received maybe 6 reports from this board since I became LM. There is obviously more going on here than what we're being made aware of.

The "etiquette" rules that are for this forum are in addition to the site rules, which have been revised recently.

Political board etiquette:

"The topics on this sub-board may be highly inflammatory.

In order to maintain a civil discussion, please be reminded of this forum rule in particular:


Harassment occurs when a user targets another individual to cause distress, embarrassment, unwanted attention, or other personal discomfort. We do not condone harassment in any form. While you may disagree with someone's point of view, personal attacks, or attacks based on a person's race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disablement or other such affiliation, are prohibited. If you have a disagreement with someone's point of view, address the subject, not the person."

The bolded sentence is still very important, and seems to be frequently ignored.


I don't want a mod to look like a tool because someone doesn't know the concept of "don't post retarded cliche stereotypes of political parties"


I knew coming on as LM that this board would be the most problematic due to the nature of the topics discussed here. Political topics generally get heated a bit, and many posts are often borderline rule-breakers. The rules are a bit vague in some respects though: as I see it, there is no rule that specifically says "Don't post lame stereotypes of political parties".

As a moderator, I try my best to remain neutral and interpret the existing rules as best I can, but too much mudslinging has occurred here recently. No one likes to see threads locked or removed, and I'm sure no one wants to get a warning from me or another mod for posting things that violate the guidelines.

Since the updated rules and their subsequent discussion were posted in PPP, some people who mainly post on the political boards may have missed them. Please read (or reread) this thread:

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=25468


I do think muzzling socio-political debate might be more trouble than it's worth.

Here are the difficulties:

Who gets to decide what is too controversial?  You can't really talk about popular culture without politics, religion, and social controversy because these are integral to popular culture itself.  For instance, if you talk about the '80s without mentioning the rise of the Christian Right, Iran-Contra, Jim & Tammy, Perestroika, Reaganomics, PMRC, etc., etc., you know what you wind up with?  VH-1's "I Love the '80s," and that's an awfully thin soup.  Sorry, Pac-Man and the Rubiks Cube are not what made the '80s the '80s.

That's just an example.

So how much time do moderators want to spend combing through posts and parsing the "too political" from the "not too polical"?


You bring up a lot of valid points, Max. I have spent a lot of time looking at posts here, and it's often a headache to decide which ones are "too political". I feel that any moderator is going to have roughly the same view as I. I also don't want to stifle free speech, but something needs to change, which is why ChuckyG made this thread.


The point is not to have censorship, as long as the topics can be discussed with an air of common courtesy without degenerating into "you suck" and "blow me".


Bingo!


If there's a greater emphasis on the "no name calling" rule that might help a lot to weed out all the crap. 

I don't think there should be a "hard line" against language in general because it's hard to detect sarcasm and humor sometimes in the printed word.  But blatant stuff like "you commie pig" should be dealt with.


Agreed.


I have seen things get out of hand here recently. I for one don't want to lose this board because I really enjoy the political discussion-when there is discussion in the mist of all the personal nastiness going on. Maybe with one of the mods (my vote would be for Red Ant-since he is more likely to post on here than Tam or Bobo) to closely watch things for awhile and maybe people will start really getting the hint that this stuff won't be tolerated.
Cat


Thanks Cat. I can do that, but it also means I'm going to be editing or wiping posts more often, and possibly sending warnings/banning members. I would feel like a tool to ban someone for basically saying "Board member XXXX sucks!" twice, but if that's how things have to be, then so be it.

I don't want to see this board go either. I have to partially credit it for getting me interested in political issues, and for bringing up things that news channels seem to never report.

For now though, and to address why this thread was started in the first place, here are my suggestions:

~Post the site rules and etiquette rules of this board on a thread which is stickied.

~In addition to what is already there, add (or bold):

~~NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.

~~Name calling of any form will not be tolerated. See above.

~~Refrain from using absolutes. If you belong to Party X, don't say that all members of Party Y are whatever. It's insulting, and it's usually incorrect.

*Although politics hasn't been one of my strong suits, it's been my observation that one is almost automatically wrong when using absolutes of any form when discussing politics, and their use is especially inflammatory when people say crap like "All Liberals are baby killers" and "All Conservatives are Bible-thumpers". Again, this goes to calling people names. See above.

~~Don't post stereotypes of political parties either.

~~Have some respect for other's viewpoints. Common courtesy is just that, and don't think that because you are posting over the Internet that your words will not have the same impact as conversing in person.

~~Sarcasm does not come across well in text form. We suggest you limit the amount of it you use, or only use it with those members who you feel will understand and/or appreciate it.

~~If you see a post that violates the guidelines, quote it and report it, but do not respond to it. Two wrongs do not make a right.  Moderators will delete your quoted post as well as the one in violation, but will take no actions against the member who quoted the post, provided they did not respond to it. To make it crystal clear: Do not respond to posts that violate the site rules!

~~Think for yourself. Inthe00s.com is not averse to discussing political issues, but that is not the primary focus of the site.  If you want to spew out party line rhetoric, join or make a blog. You'll be happier and so will we.

*This asterisked paragraph would not be included in any set of rules, it's just my own thought.

I welcome any and all comments, concerns, questions, changes, suggestions , etc. regarding the above.

Jack