The closing of the political threads is really becoming annoying

[RoboDad]

I think the biggest problem is when we type we hear it in our heads as how we would say it face to face, but this doesn't translate to typed phrases very often. People misunderstand and then the bad blood starts.

I wish everyone could be forced to read this one statement three times before posting ANYTHING in ANY online forum. I would bet that, for at least some people, it would cause them to hit the 'Back' button rather than the 'Submit' button much of the time. You have no idea how many posts I start on any given day, versus the number that actually get submitted.

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

I wish everyone could be forced to read this one statement three times before posting ANYTHING in ANY online forum. I would bet that, for at least some people, it would cause them to hit the 'Back' button rather than the 'Submit' button much of the time. You have no idea how many posts I start on any given day, versus the number that actually get submitted.

I do the same thing...

 

[barbelith]

The thing to take out of all the political threads that have been locked is that no one is happy with the partisan politics and that they all need to figure out a way to work together. We all tend to agree on this. Well lets do it here on this board in this community. Lets give them a working model...

We actually tried that in the last political thread to get locked and it basically killed off the thread, because the fact is most of the partisans simply aren't interested in trying to find middle ground. It's easier to just ask a moderator to ban people who disagree with you.

I think what would help enormously is moderation to remove all the posts that don't advance the conversation. Expressing unpopular or controversial opinions isn't the issue. Get rid of the non sequitur exclamations, the personal attacks, the posts that don't actually respond to the quoted text etc and the threads would be much more streamlined and productive. That would probably be a nightmare to moderate but the end result would be worth it.

Fair moderation would be nice but an expressed dictatorship is fine provided we own up to that and not pretend it's even handed. There have been a few blatant examples of moderation to support the moderator's personal politics over the last day or so which rather defeats the point of conversation.

I'd also like to propose the thread abstract. I've seen other forums with this tool and it really helps focus the conversation. The 9/11 thread is an example of poor retroactive moderation when it was decided the "purpose" of the thread was something that was by no means clear by the title or opening post. A thread abstract would have prevented Unauthorized Opinions from being posted in the first place.

At the end of the day I think we need to remember that most people are just regular guys and girls who are not trained to craft logical arguments for debate. They are not used to having to back up their positions in a reasoned and considered way and they are certainly not used to backing up their positions with actual facts rather than emotive response. Let's face it, the vast majority of people holding an opinion on a given issue have never bothered to actually research it. This is after all a country where 10% of the people believe Obama is a Muslim and 45% believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

I know I forget this fairly often, and when I remember that I'm probably dealing with someone who's never really been challenged to provide an intellectual and fact-based support for a political opinion it changes the way I react. We should probably all try to step back as RoboDad suggests and take a breath when conversations get heated.

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

We actually tried that in the last political thread to get locked and it basically killed off the thread, because the fact is most of the partisans simply aren't interested in trying to find middle ground. It's easier to just ask a moderator to ban people who disagree with you.

I think what would help enormously is moderation to remove all the posts that don't advance the conversation. Expressing unpopular or controversial opinions isn't the issue. Get rid of the non sequitur exclamations, the personal attacks, the posts that don't actually respond to the quoted text etc and the threads would be much more streamlined and productive. That would probably be a nightmare to moderate but the end result would be worth it.

Fair moderation would be nice but an expressed dictatorship is fine provided we own up to that and not pretend it's even handed. There have been a few blatant examples of moderation to support the moderator's personal politics over the last day or so which rather defeats the point of conversation.

I'd also like to propose the thread abstract. I've seen other forums with this tool and it really helps focus the conversation. The 9/11 thread is an example of poor retroactive moderation when it was decided the "purpose" of the thread was something that was by no means clear by the title or opening post. A thread abstract would have prevented Unauthorized Opinions from being posted in the first place.

At the end of the day I think we need to remember that most people are just regular guys and girls who are not trained to craft logical arguments for debate. They are not used to having to back up their positions in a reasoned and considered way and they are certainly not used to backing up their positions with actual facts rather than emotive response. Let's face it, the vast majority of people holding an opinion on a given issue have never bothered to actually research it. This is after all a country where 10% of the people believe Obama is a Muslim and 45% believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

I know I forget this fairly often, and when I remember that I'm probably dealing with someone who's never really been challenged to provide an intellectual and fact-based support for a political opinion it changes the way I react. We should probably all try to step back as RoboDad suggests and take a breath when conversations get heated.

Yes lets all take a step back like i said already but your post will more than likely offend a lot of people - whether it's true or not - no likes to be called ignorant, even the ignorant.

Your just adding flames to a fire by taking cheap shots, especially since we've spent the whole morning here saying not to do these kind of things.

 

[barbelith]

Your just adding flames to a fire by taking cheap shots, especially since we've spent the whole morning here saying not to do these kind of things.

I disagree. I haven't called anyone out by name. If people want to take offense at that then we really might as well close the threads for good.

 

[Mesa]

Fair moderation would be nice but an expressed dictatorship is fine provided we own up to that and not pretend it's even handed. There have been a few blatant examples of moderation to support the moderator's personal politics over the last day or so which rather defeats the point of conversation.

At the end of the day I think we need to remember that most people are just regular guys and girls who are not trained to craft logical arguments for debate. They are not used to having to back up their positions in a reasoned and considered way and they are certainly not used to backing up their positions with actual facts rather than emotive response. Let's face it, the vast majority of people holding an opinion on a given issue have never bothered to actually research it. This is after all a country where 10% of the people believe Obama is a Muslim and 45% believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Yes lets all take a step back like i said already but your post will more than likely offend a lot of people - whether it's true or not - no likes to be called ignorant, even the ignorant.

Your just adding flames to a fire by taking cheap shots, especially since we've spent the whole morning here saying not to do these kind of things.

agreed. offensive.

<--- looks for the arrogance emoticon and can't find one....

 

[Jen]

I vote for Pixletwin's idea - one infraction and you are out of the political threads. It does seem that it is often the same few who constantly are pushing these discussions over the edge into chaos. I would enjoy reading other's opinions on certain subject matters if the discussions could be civil and respectful, but the way things are going now - I've realized it's more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

I disagree. I haven't called anyone out by name. If people want to take offense at that then we really might as well close the threads for good.

You don't have to call out any names, we all know who you've been arguing with in all of these threads. So again back handed insults do nothing but fan the flames and lock threads.

 

[Darklord Dave]

I think we ALL know what, or more precisely who the common denominator is in all these banner threads. Get rid of him, and the problem goes away....

I think I know who you're referring to, and I would completely disagree. It's those that attack him that usually end up with the insults and name calling.

 

[barbelith]

You don't have to call out any names, we all know who you've been arguing with in all of these threads. So again back handed insults do nothing but fan the flames and lock threads.

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. The statistics I gave are true and they show how problematic any controversial discussion is going to be.

agreed. offensive.

Which part and why?

This is actually a good example for the thread. A post that just says "offensive" is unhelpful. A post that explains precisely why you are offended and seeks to discover if I meant personal offense is much more productive.

 

[RoboDad]

I think I know who you're referring to, and I would completely disagree. It's those that attack him that usually end up with the insults and name calling.

But aren't derogatory generalizations such as

They are not used to having to back up their positions in a reasoned and considered way and they are certainly not used to backing up their positions with actual facts rather than emotive response. Let's face it, the vast majority of people holding an opinion on a given issue have never bothered to actually research it.

also in that same category? That comment adds nothing of value to any discussion, and many people will take significant offense at it.

 

[Mesa]

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. The statistics I gave are true and they show how problematic any controversial discussion is going to be.



Which part and why?

This is actually a good example for the thread. A post that just says "offensive" is unhelpful. A post that explains precisely why you are offended and seeks to discover if I meant personal offense is much more productive.

I bolded that part that made you come off as arrogant. Go back and take a look.

 

[barbelith]

That comment adds nothing of value to any discussion, and many people will take significant offense at it.

I disagree. It's true that most people are not attorneys or former members of debate clubs. The construction of an argument is a skill. Why should we take offense to recognizing that? Especially when I wrote that as an example of why we need to step back and consider the situation before rashly posting?

 

[barbelith]

I bolded that part that made you come off as arrogant.

I saw that. But which part of that do you believe to be untrue and why? Do you think the statistics I provided are not germane to an examination of how discussions break down re emotive response vs fact?

 

[Darklord Dave]

I think what would help enormously is moderation to remove all the posts that don't advance the conversation. Expressing unpopular or controversial opinions isn't the issue. Get rid of the non sequitur exclamations, the personal attacks, the posts that don't actually respond to the quoted text etc and the threads would be much more streamlined and productive. That would probably be a nightmare to moderate but the end result would be worth it.

This is what I tried to do in the threads that ran for a few days. I wasn't quite that draconian in deleting everything that didn't advance the discussion. And asking me to do that would just get me accused of partisanship by both sides.

Personally I would like to allow more important discussion, as I've said many times recently - this the primary online community for me and many other members. It would be great if we could share information and opinions about anything.

However the ill will that develops in these threads tends to permeate the board and undermine that same sense of community, leading to alienation of some members.

It's a fine line - and I'm only human - sometimes I feel like walking it and sometimes I don't.

I know I forget this fairly often, and when I remember that I'm probably dealing with someone who's never really been challenged to provide an intellectual and fact-based support for a political opinion it changes the way I react. We should probably all try to step back as RoboDad suggests and take a breath when conversations get heated.

I don't find this statement offensive, it does seem that people sometimes do tend to respond to his posts with less reasoned argument and just abuse. I can understand how he could come to this conclusion from those responses.

 

[BadMoon]

 

[Mesa]

I saw that. But which part of that do you believe to be untrue and why? Do you think the statistics I provided are not germane to an examination of how discussions break down re emotive response vs fact?

I wont be pulled in. Done for now.

 

[ProgMatinee]

"facts" are pretty hard to substantiate in political discussions because the places that people get their information from differs in the spin.

For instance...is it a fact that Palin asked a librarian about banning books? It appears so, but whats not certain is whether it was merely to know procedures or was an agenda of hers. The "facts" seem to be depend on who you talk to.

Personally, when I'm talking to people on a toy board I'm looking for discussion weighted in opinion, because the stuff supposedly weighted on "fact" is probably bull^^^^ anyway.

 

[barbelith]

I wont be pulled in. Done for now.

But surely you can recognize this is part of the problem with the threads? You took the time to claim offense, but when asked to specifically explain why and counter my argument you decide to take off. How is that helpful?

For what it's worth, I genuinely did not intend to cause offense and I was not thinking of anyone in particular. I was criticizing the tendency (including my own flawed tendency) to forget that most of us are just regular people and not used to constructing an argument like a lawyer or debater. I didn't expect that to be any more controversial than pointing out that most of us aren't chemists. I'm sorry if you took offense - it was not implied.

 

[spartan]

...I don't find this statement offensive, it does seem that people sometimes do tend to respond to his posts with less reasoned argument and just abuse. I can understand how he could come to this conclusion from those responses...

Dave, my respect for you has seriously sky rocketed. This guy has took some serious trashing and beating cause folk have been angered by his opinions.