PDA

View Full Version : Political Discussions



Sea Ray
03-19-2011, 12:42 PM
The Non-Sports Chatter section is now littered with locked threads due to its bordering on being political. Without getting into a discussion of what's political and what isn't, why are politics such taboo around here? What is the basis for such a policy?

Boss-Hog
03-19-2011, 12:56 PM
You're asking moderators to a spend a large amount of their free time moderating discussions in which people are highly unlikely to change their minds on the topic. When we did previously allow these, the political threads were often threads that required the most moderation due to repeated rules violations. These threads often got very heated and it at times carried over to non-political threads. We only have a certain amount of time our moderators can voluntarily offer to the site and I'm not going to ask them to spend a good chunk of that time moderating topics that has nothing to do with the primary focus of this site. Primarily for that reason, political and religion-based threads have been moved off site for numerous years and we're not going back on that decision. Our stance on this has been very clear since it was implemented: no political or religion-based threads on this site.

Also see the stickied thread (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39719) in the Non-Baseball chatter forum on this very topic.

Kingspoint
03-19-2011, 10:17 PM
Why was the thread on the health hazards from what's going on in Japan closed?

The only person who tried to post political opinions was Dom Hefner. I asked him three times to stop going there because I figured that his repeated attempts to turn it political would close it. The rest of us would stay on the topic and he'd come along and throw out comments about people's political agendas. The rest of us were just trying to find out about the health risks of what's going on.

Now you've closed a good information thread that helps the general public just because one poster stuck his two cents in about his political feelings about nuclear energy. The rest of us didn't have an opinion one way or another and were sharing information about links that reported health risks/concerns and links that reported where we need not be worried about our health (at whatever particular times that the links were presented).

This is too important a topic to let one person ruin it for everyone else.

Brutus
03-20-2011, 01:28 AM
Kingspoint, you're more than welcome to start that topic again, provided the think-tank discussions and political meta-commentary about the media stay out of it. That's not just directed at you, but anyone that contributes.

The thread was closed because it was getting political and the discussion started venturing toward posters instead of the topic itself. Feel free to restart the topic and it won't be locked if it stays on track.

top6
03-20-2011, 01:57 PM
Why was the thread on the health hazards from what's going on in Japan closed?

The only person who tried to post political opinions was Dom Hefner. I asked him three times to stop going there because I figured that his repeated attempts to turn it political would close it. The rest of us would stay on the topic and he'd come along and throw out comments about people's political agendas. The rest of us were just trying to find out about the health risks of what's going on.

Now you've closed a good information thread that helps the general public just because one poster stuck his two cents in about his political feelings about nuclear energy. The rest of us didn't have an opinion one way or another and were sharing information about links that reported health risks/concerns and links that reported where we need not be worried about our health (at whatever particular times that the links were presented).

This is too important a topic to let one person ruin it for everyone else.

With all due respect, that thread, and your statement about Dom Hefner, and the insults directed at him in that thread, raise the precise problem I have seen in other threads. Specifically, one person posts their opinion on some topic, which is blatantly political. Then someone responds with a contrary opinion, and only the person who responds is accused of being political. In other words, people tend to believe that their opinions are not political, but that other, contradictory opinions on the same topic are.

Two posts above Dom Hefner's first post in that thread, Sea Ray posted this:


Let's look at the worst nuclear accident in this country, Three Mile Island. It too was overblown by the Press but in their defense, at the time we didn't know what the long term effects would be. We now know that it was really quite minimal. In fact Wiki said the following:


A variety of studies have been unable to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects.

This is stating a political view about an important policy issue: namely that people and the press generally overreact to anything that has to do with nuclear power, and that they specifically overreacted to the incident at Three Mile Island. As I said in another thread about a Sea Ray post (the teachers thread), there is nothing wrong with this per se. (And actually, unlike the teachers thread, I probably agree a little more with Sea Ray on this one.) But it puts someone who disagrees in an awkward position: either let something they believe is important and wrong stand unrebutted, or get dragged into a forbidden political discussion.

Just thinking about that thread in particular, there were links to a lot of "information" about nuclear safety. I don't know enough to have a dog in this fight, but surely that thread is not all that useful if someone can't chime in and say, "um, that information is from the Society For Increasing Nuclear Power in America, and therefore may not be all that reliable." And if someone is posting stuff from the Sierra Club or whatever, someone should be able to point that out as well, as potentially unreliable. Then, bam, we are in a political discussion again.

I think my point is that some topics are just always going to be political, and therefore people may just have to find some other place to talk about them than a Reds message board.

Sea Ray
03-20-2011, 03:18 PM
TOP6, there's absolutely nothing political in the post you referenced above. The quote I included was from Wiki. If that's a political website, I'm not aware of its leanings. It directly related to my point that the Press tends to over inflate stuff for ratings, hence the example of Three Mile Island which history has shown to not have caused health problems. My point was about the Press and its tendancy to go with the worst case scenario with the intent of getting ratings.

Your attempt to turn it into a pro or anti nuclear rant is misguided.

I never brought up the issue of nuclear power as it relates to policy, now did I?

top6
03-20-2011, 04:11 PM
TOP6, there's absolutely nothing political in the post you referenced above. The quote I included was from Wiki. If that's a political website, I'm not aware of its leanings. It directly related to my point that the Press tends to over inflate stuff for ratings, hence the example of Three Mile Island which history has shown to not have caused health problems. My point was about the Press and its tendancy to go with the worst case scenario with the intent of getting ratings.

Your attempt to turn it into a pro or anti nuclear rant is misguided.

I never brought up the issue of nuclear power as it relates to policy, now did I?

Well it seems to me that most - if not all - of Dom Hefner's posts were devoted to disagreeing with your statement and similar statements. So how are his posts political if yours are not?

Of course, you are not the one saying his posts were political, so that is really more aimed at Kingspoint than you.

Rojo
03-20-2011, 04:26 PM
But it puts someone who disagrees in an awkward position: either let something they believe is important and wrong stand unrebutted, or get dragged into a forbidden political discussion.

Exactly, thank you.


Sea Ray, you link was to a right-wing radio station, featuring a well-known flak for nuclear energy. To say that you're just trying to "inform" is completely disengenous.

But, if it were up to me, you'd be allowed to do so. And I'd be allowed to respond it kind.

But it's not my board, so if politics isn't allowed then that link should've been removed.

What happened is that link was allowed to stand while my comments about it's credibility, or lack thereof, was removed. That's inconsistent.

Brutus
03-20-2011, 04:53 PM
Linking to a media outlet, whether it be known for being "left-wing" or "right-wing" is not a political discussion. If it's a media outlet, there's nothing wrong with linking to it if it's actual news and tangent to the discussion.

Making political comments because of the link is going into a political realm.

It's really grasping at straws to object to a link to a news station because they are deemed to lean one direction or another. By that logic, we should never allow links to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, GlennBeck.com or any other media outlet because someone will always have a view that it's a left-wing or right-wing outlet.

If it's legitimately a news organization, there's nothing wrong with posting a link provided it's tangent to the subject. The mods don't see a problem with linking to news stations, nor do we want to get into a situation where we have to decipher the reputation of such outlet. But when a political comment is made, it's much easier to nip it in the bud because there's not too much to assume once that happens.

Sea Ray
03-20-2011, 05:00 PM
Well it seems to me that most - if not all - of Dom Hefner's posts were devoted to disagreeing with your statement and similar statements. So how are his posts political if yours are not?

Of course, you are not the one saying his posts were political, so that is really more aimed at Kingspoint than you.

It's got nothing to do with Dom or KP. You accused me of being political and I'm asking you to show me where.

Sea Ray
03-20-2011, 05:15 PM
Exactly, thank you.


Sea Ray, you link was to a right-wing radio station, featuring a well-known flak for nuclear energy. To say that you're just trying to "inform" is completely disengenous.

But, if it were up to me, you'd be allowed to do so. And I'd be allowed to respond it kind.

But it's not my board, so if politics isn't allowed then that link should've been removed.

What happened is that link was allowed to stand while my comments about it's credibility, or lack thereof, was removed. That's inconsistent.

My link was to a quote from an expert in nuclear energy that came from the ABC affiliate in Chicago. Your attempts to label it and the expert are to put it mildly, "weak". If you don't think he's qualified then say so; better yet, put your own expert up and tell us why he's more qualified.

To call Jay Lehr "a Flak" is inflammatory at best and does nothing to help your cause. You may think he's well known but I had never heard of him until after this Japan incident. Maybe I've been under a rock but I've never heard him speak at a GOP convention or seen him in the news politically or otherwise before last week. For you to accuse me of cherry picking someone based on his politics was unfounded on your part. I had/have no idea of his political leanings. I heard him speak about the Japan issue during an interview on CNN and that's the first I'd ever seen or heard of him.

top6
03-20-2011, 05:20 PM
It's got nothing to do with Dom or KP. You accused me of being political and I'm asking you to show me where.

Your views on how the press reacts to things generally, and how they react to issues involving nuclear power, are political (in my opinion). Dom Hefner disagreed with your views, and stated an opinion contrary to your views, and was accused of being political, but for some reason you are not. So I think in the context of this thread Dom and KP have a lot to do with it.

If I say something like, "the press grossly misreports that facts about the invasion of Iraq and functions largely as a proganda machine devoted to supporting U.S. foreign policy," I have not explicitly stated my views on U.S. foreign policy or our invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, I wouldn't make that statement on a board that prohibited political discussion.

Rojo
03-20-2011, 05:24 PM
It's really grasping at straws to object to a link to a news station because they are deemed to lean one direction or another. By that logic, we should never allow links to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, GlennBeck.com or any other media outlet because someone will always have a view that it's a left-wing or right-wing outlet.

Can you really not tell the difference between an AP lede and a long-winded commentary from an energy company think-tank shill?

Brutus
03-20-2011, 05:32 PM
Can you really not tell the difference between an AP lede and a long-winded commentary from an energy company think-tank shill?

Let me answer a question with a question... can't you debate the merits of his points without regard for whether you think he's a "shill" or "right-wing" think-tanker?

What he thinks is irrelevant to his politics. It was a legitimate newsworthy event that shouldn't have been political. If you disagree with his points, debate them, challenge them or ignore them. His perceived political background, which was not mentioned whatsoever (other than an affiliation with a think-tank organization), was not tangent to the discussion.

Rojo
03-20-2011, 05:36 PM
My link was to a quote from an expert in nuclear energy that came from the ABC affiliate in Chicago.

First of all, the "expert" claim is dubious. He's not a nuclear engineer, he has a Geological Engineering degree from Princeton and PhD in Environmental Science, whatever that is, from the University of Arizona. He's a noted AGW denier

Second, characterizing WLS as an "ABC affiliate" is a dodge. The station features Rush, Hannity and Mark Levine. It's political orientation is clear.

Third, the idea that you just went searching for some facts and came away with Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute is pretty hard to believe.

Rojo
03-20-2011, 05:46 PM
Let me answer a question with a question... can't you debate the merits of his points without regard for whether you think he's a "shill" or "right-wing" think-tanker?

Most of the time, yes. On here, I don't know. It's hard to imagine going down that road without it "turning political". I think the link's heavy political bias was worth noting. I did so and was prepared to move on.

Check out this exchange:

Cincrazy: I don't know that I agree with this. Just because it hasn't blown yet doesn't met it's not going to. The last of the workers have been evacuated from the place, what's that tell us? Not good.

KingsPoint: Read the post directly above yours. There's a couple of links to more information than anyone could possibly read. In the end you'll be better informed than you were before. You sound very interested. You should find the information fascinating.

In answer to yours and Rojo's question of why are people getting evacuated and what are the current risks, this article (one of many from that link I gave you and Rojo) provides specific information to help you answer that question: (the update of this article is Updated: 2011-03-16 08:00)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/20...t_12177086.htm

Cincrazy: Hey, thanks for the information. Much appreciated.

An innocent poster has been propogandized with "information" because the challenge to the sources has been removed. That's a disservice.

Sea Ray
03-20-2011, 08:08 PM
Your views on how the press reacts to things generally, and how they react to issues involving nuclear power, are political (in my opinion). Dom Hefner disagreed with your views, and stated an opinion contrary to your views, and was accused of being political, but for some reason you are not .

There's a very good reason. It's because nothing I wrote was political. If you recall I clearly didn't address Dom's response to my comments and I made it clear that I wouldn't. Do you remember that post from me?





If I say something like, "the press grossly misreports that facts about the invasion of Iraq and functions largely as a proganda machine devoted to supporting U.S. foreign policy," I have not explicitly stated my views on U.S. foreign policy or our invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, I wouldn't make that statement on a board that prohibited political discussion.


If I say the above then we can discuss it but since I didn't it really has nothing to do with this issue at hand. I made a comment that the Press embellishes stories for ratings and this nuclear story in Japan was an example of that. Why? Because they kept giving the doomsday scenario as opposed to the most likely scenario. I said nothing about the pros and cons of nuclear power per se. If you think the above is political then that's on you...:nono:

Sea Ray
03-20-2011, 08:20 PM
First of all, the "expert" claim is dubious. He's not a nuclear engineer, he has a Geological Engineering degree from Princeton and PhD in Environmental Science, whatever that is, from the University of Arizona. .


Fine. Then state that you don't think his education qualifies him as an expert and tell us why. That leaves politics out of it.



Second, characterizing WLS as an "ABC affiliate" is a dodge. The station features Rush, Hannity and Mark Levine. It's political orientation is clear..

Once again, it's you needlessly bringing politics into this. Why go there? Regardless of whether a radio station employs Rush Limbaugh, you can refute Dr Lehr with an expert of your own and reasons why he/she should be believed over my expert. Once again, politics are avoided



Third, the idea that you just went searching for some facts and came away with Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute is pretty hard to believe.

Why do you care how I heard of Jay Lehr if not for your intention to instill politics into this? Not that it's any of your business but in the air of full disclosure I will tell you that I first saw Jay Lehr on CNN as an expert in this area and I thought what he said made sense. Not having access to a transcript I Googled him, hence the comment I posted here. Hence it was CNN who brought him on as a expert on energy, not me. And I hardly think CNN is a right wing organization.

If nothing else, we now can clearly see how politics were drawn into this thread. Thanks...:rolleyes:

Caveat Emperor
03-20-2011, 08:24 PM
Linking to a media outlet, whether it be known for being "left-wing" or "right-wing" is not a political discussion. If it's a media outlet, there's nothing wrong with linking to it if it's actual news and tangent to the discussion.

Making political comments because of the link is going into a political realm.

It's really grasping at straws to object to a link to a news station because they are deemed to lean one direction or another. By that logic, we should never allow links to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, GlennBeck.com or any other media outlet because someone will always have a view that it's a left-wing or right-wing outlet.

If you're trying to debate facts, and someone interjects a blatantly partisan or slanted link -- such as a link to GlennBeck.com or to DailyKos.com -- it's impossible to debate the merits of the point without acknowledging that the politics of the website contribute to the conclusions reached.

I don't even see how you can attempt to divorce the issue and have an honest debate.

Sea Ray
03-20-2011, 08:26 PM
Boss, I've had an epithany and I want to humbly apologize for ever starting this thread. :oops:I had other ideas of how it was going to go and honestly, it's changed my opinion on the subject.

I now fully understand your policy on politics. There are certain folks who will force politics into this stuff even where none is present and it's never been clearer than the examples given here in this thread the past day or so. With that in mind you do owe it to your staff to have a no tolerance policy towards politics...

Sea Ray
03-20-2011, 08:30 PM
If you're trying to debate facts, and someone interjects a blatantly partisan or slanted link -- such as a link to GlennBeck.com or to DailyKos.com -- it's impossible to debate the merits of the point without acknowledging that the politics of the website contribute to the conclusions reached.

I don't even see how you can attempt to divorce the issue and have an honest debate.

If it's a quote directly from Glenn Beck I'd agree with you but if it's quote from a guest on the show what does it matter that the guest was on his show when it was said?

The way to combat it is to prove how the quote was false or out of context. Just saying it's from Glenn Beck and leaving it at that does nothing to prove your point

top6
03-20-2011, 09:05 PM
There's a very good reason. It's because nothing I wrote was political. If you recall I clearly didn't address Dom's response to my comments and I made it clear that I wouldn't. Do you remember that post from me?


You simply saying something isn't political doesn't change anything. You stated an opinion on a subject. Dom stated a contrary opinion on precisely the same subject. Either both of those statements are political, or neither of them are. I am actually still not clear on whether you think Dom's posts were political or not. KP just specifically called out Dom's posts in this thread as inappropriate, and all I was really saying is that they were just a response to you.

But, yes, this thread does sort of answer the question you posed in the OP.

RBA
03-20-2011, 09:43 PM
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/scarjo_popcorn.gif

Brutus
03-20-2011, 09:46 PM
If you're trying to debate facts, and someone interjects a blatantly partisan or slanted link -- such as a link to GlennBeck.com or to DailyKos.com -- it's impossible to debate the merits of the point without acknowledging that the politics of the website contribute to the conclusions reached.

I don't even see how you can attempt to divorce the issue and have an honest debate.

What constitutes "blatantly partisan or slanted" to some won't be apparent to others. It's pretty simple: discuss the merits of the issue. If the issue is what constitutes health hazards of radiation from a possible meltdown, it's pretty simple to discuss the claims made by a presented expert. Either what the expert is saying is legitimate or it's not. If it's not, then a person should be able to discuss why those claims are not accurate.

Sea Ray
03-20-2011, 10:15 PM
You simply saying something isn't political doesn't change anything. You stated an opinion on a subject. Dom stated a contrary opinion on precisely the same subject. Either both of those statements are political, or neither of them are. I am actually still not clear on whether you think Dom's posts were political or not. KP just specifically called out Dom's posts in this thread as inappropriate, and all I was really saying is that they were just a response to you.

But, yes, this thread does sort of answer the question you posed in the OP.

I have clearly stated that my posts were not political and why. You've failed to show where I brought politics into it at all. If you thought I was arguing for more nuclear power in general then you misread what I wrote.

top6
03-20-2011, 10:40 PM
I have clearly stated that my posts were not political and why. You've failed to show where I brought politics into it at all. If you thought I was arguing for more nuclear power in general then you misread what I wrote.

I have clearly stated why I think your posts were political and why. I guess we disagree. Just because your point wasn't as simplistic as "more nuclear power" doesn't mean it wasn't political. As I said, I think you are correct, the media does a terrible job covering certain stories, and did a very bad job on this story in particular. There are very serious political ramifications of that opinion, though.

You still have not answered the question implied in my last post. Do you think Dom Hefner's posts in that thread were political? I think they are as well. KP clearly stated that DH's posts were political and yours were not. (Or KP just forgot about your posts.) That was the point I disagreed with and responded to.

Finally, I like your posts, even though I disagree with many of them. If I posted here more, I would probably be pushing the limit of what is political as much as I perceive you to be doing.

757690
03-20-2011, 11:00 PM
What constitutes "blatantly partisan or slanted" to some won't be apparent to others. It's pretty simple: discuss the merits of the issue. If the issue is what constitutes health hazards of radiation from a possible meltdown, it's pretty simple to discuss the claims made by a presented expert. Either what the expert is saying is legitimate or it's not. If it's not, then a person should be able to discuss why those claims are not accurate.


We are telling the American people to have patience, courage, resolve and determination.



Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.

These two quotes are pretty benign, and difficult to argue against... until you know who said them.

The first one is from Gaddafi about the current situation in Libya.
The second one is from Lenin about indoctrinating the children of Russia with Communism.

It would be great if we could discuss the merits of every argument without discussing the merits of the person who said it, but sometimes, that is impossible.

But this really gets to a far bigger point.

This argument in this thread is not itself political, it is about what is political. If you ban any particular type of discussion from a message board, you will constantly have to deal with this very issue... what defines it?

Nobody said anything in this thread or the one that was closed that was politically charged or that stated any political opinion. But individual's political views tinted their discussion, because that is impossible to avoid sometimes. And because politics are a banned subject, they were called out on it by other posters. You really can't blame anyone on this, as it is unavoidable when politics are banned.

I'm not saying banning politics on this board is a bad idea, just that this situation is going to come up over and over again as long as it is.

Plus Plus
03-20-2011, 11:52 PM
This is a reminder to the more politically inclined of us that we have sparsely moderated forums offsite that are perfect for any discussion on political, semi-political, or pseudo-political topics.

This thread should show to all who read or participated in it how easily something can be interpreted as political. The moderating staff is going to also be viewing this in a subjective manner, meaning that things that are posted that are not meant to be political could be interpreted as being political, leading to moderation taking place.

Another thing that I would like to say on my own end (and this may apply for other moderators as well): upon taking a position as a moderator here at Redszone, I did not anticipate having to spend such a huge amount of time reading through threads that have nothing to do with baseball and are of no interest to me at all. Currently, an enormous percentage of complaints and moderation occur in non-baseball threads. In my opinion, the easiest solution to all of this is to take any topic that could possibly be viewed as political in nature to the offsite board- this will lead to better depth of discussion between all of you and an easier time as moderators for myself and the others.

Unassisted
03-21-2011, 12:47 AM
I did not anticipate having to spend such a huge amount of time reading through threads that have nothing to do with baseball and are of no interest to me at all. Currently, an enormous percentage of complaints and moderation occur in non-baseball threads. In my opinion, the easiest solution to all of this is to take any topic that could possibly be viewed as political in nature to the offsite board-
Taking this feedback to heart, maybe the best thing to do would be to close down the non-sports section of the forum and move ALL of those discussions to the Peanut Gallery?

This suggestion isn't meant to be an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. If that section causes the most hard feelings among members, IMO, it might be time to consider the possibility that RedsZone has evolved to a point where a section discussing current events that aren't related to sports is no longer needed.

Plus Plus
03-21-2011, 02:15 AM
Taking this feedback to heart, maybe the best thing to do would be to close down the non-sports section of the forum and move ALL of those discussions to the Peanut Gallery?

This suggestion isn't meant to be an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. If that section causes the most hard feelings among members, IMO, it might be time to consider the possibility that RedsZone has evolved to a point where a section discussing current events that aren't related to sports is no longer needed.

That was not the sentiment that I meant to convey at all; I think that a number of the threads on the non-sports forum are very well done and constructive to the site. I am solely referencing a few threads that have caused extensive work for the moderating staff, all of which have (coincidentally) been in the non-sports forum.

Sea Ray
03-21-2011, 11:00 AM
I have clearly stated why I think your posts were political and why. I guess we disagree. Just because your point wasn't as simplistic as "more nuclear power" doesn't mean it wasn't political. As I said, I think you are correct, the media does a terrible job covering certain stories, and did a very bad job on this story in particular. There are very serious political ramifications of that opinion, though.

You still have not answered the question implied in my last post. Do you think Dom Hefner's posts in that thread were political? I think they are as well. KP clearly stated that DH's posts were political and yours were not. (Or KP just forgot about your posts.) That was the point I disagreed with and responded to.

Finally, I like your posts, even though I disagree with many of them. If I posted here more, I would probably be pushing the limit of what is political as much as I perceive you to be doing.

I will say this. I don't think Dom's comments were constructive. I would have much preferred he give countering arguments and sources instead of just basically saying "you're wrong" and leaving it at that. Posts like that either show that you have no argument or that you're lazy. Which was it?

I will also say that I would not have shut the thread down if it were up to me. You'll have to ask the MOD where he/she saw politics

Sea Ray
03-21-2011, 11:11 AM
This is a reminder to the more politically inclined of us that we have sparsely moderated forums offsite that are perfect for any discussion on political, semi-political, or pseudo-political topics.

This thread should show to all who read or participated in it how easily something can be interpreted as political. The moderating staff is going to also be viewing this in a subjective manner, meaning that things that are posted that are not meant to be political could be interpreted as being political, leading to moderation taking place.

Another thing that I would like to say on my own end (and this may apply for other moderators as well): upon taking a position as a moderator here at Redszone, I did not anticipate having to spend such a huge amount of time reading through threads that have nothing to do with baseball and are of no interest to me at all. Currently, an enormous percentage of complaints and moderation occur in non-baseball threads. In my opinion, the easiest solution to all of this is to take any topic that could possibly be viewed as political in nature to the offsite board- this will lead to better depth of discussion between all of you and an easier time as moderators for myself and the others.

A few issues with that:

1) If moderation takes that tact it empowers folks who don't like what's being said to take the issue political with the intention of getting it shut down. That's a lot easier than researching facts to counter said opinion

2) If you lock every provocative thread, then all you're left with are threads like "Wonder or Plastic Woman" or dating advice.

3) The Peanut Gallery is less open to varying political opinions than RZ. My experience is that if they don't like your political opinions they will ban you rather than counter it. Having said that, I don't think that site should affect how RZ is moderated. I do not think moderators should take Peanut Gallery into consideration one way or another, I'm just sayin'...:)

Plus Plus
03-21-2011, 01:10 PM
A few issues with that:

1) If moderation takes that tact it empowers folks who don't like what's being said to take the issue political with the intention of getting it shut down. That's a lot easier than researching facts to counter said opinion

2) If you lock every provocative thread, then all you're left with are threads like "Wonder or Plastic Woman" or dating advice.

3) The Peanut Gallery is less open to varying political opinions than RZ. My experience is that if they don't like your political opinions they will ban you rather than counter it. Having said that, I don't think that site should affect how RZ is moderated. I do not think moderators should take Peanut Gallery into consideration one way or another, I'm just sayin'...:)

1) If a user continually drives threads that he/she doesn't like into the political realm, the user will tally up a large number of infractions and bans in short order. This is not any course of action that I would anticipate happening.

2) To be honest, I'm fine with that. I have zero interest in reading threads about the current state of the economy or the nuclear repercussions of the Tohoku earthquake/tsunamis. While I may also have little interest in reading threads about "Wonder vs Plastic Woman," these threads don't require large amounts of moderation like the economy, tsunami, sex scandal, and circumcision threads did/do.

3) I was under the impression that the offsite boards were sparsely moderated and welcomed all kinds of discussion. I feel that if the users who have political interests moved the political discussions there, then the exact same discussion can occur without requiring a lot of the moderators' time and energy. As these boards are a part of Redszone, I feel that they are and should be a part of this discussion.

Rojo
03-21-2011, 01:38 PM
A few issues with that:1) If moderation takes that tact it empowers folks who don't like what's being said to take the issue political with the intention of getting it shut down. That's a lot easier than researching facts to counter said opinion

2) If you lock every provocative thread, then all you're left with are threads like "Wonder or Plastic Woman" or dating advice.

Well, on these two points we're in agreement.

3) The Peanut Gallery is less open to varying political opinions than RZ. My experience is that if they don't like your political opinions they will ban you rather than counter it.[/QUOTE]

This isn't true at all.

Kingspoint
03-21-2011, 02:17 PM
Kingspoint, you're more than welcome to start that topic again, provided the think-tank discussions and political meta-commentary about the media stay out of it. That's not just directed at you, but anyone that contributes.

The thread was closed because it was getting political and the discussion started venturing toward posters instead of the topic itself. Feel free to restart the topic and it won't be locked if it stays on track.

It seems rather difficult to do so.

I never posted one opinion of my own about nuclear energy (for Top-6, whether the press under-reports or over-reports a subject isn't a "political" topic, so I have no idea why you're trying to make it out to be one.), nuclear fallout, nuclear uses or any other political idea during that entire thread, yet it did get sabotaged by some who tried to turn it into one be trying to call out people who provided information as being too political to be trusted (whatever that means...I thought we were adults here and could think for ourselves and have the ability to read information and decipher it's usefullness to us or not).

Then you have a moderator, like Plus Plus, who misinterpret what he/she reads, who tries to turn posts that were attempting to steer posters away from political flaming to get back to the topic on hand and provide some information of what they know, so we can all get better informed on this serious subject.

It was as simple as this:

I posted a link to a serious subject that had other links to Federal Government links, Nuclear Energy links, information about a wide range of nuclear topics, none of which I had ever seen or heard of before. I thought this would be a vast source of information for anyone interested in what was going on to get background information, current information, and find sources where scientists collaborated on piecing together facts for public understanding.

Then out of Left Field, Dom chimes in with something to the effect of "that guy sucks! I'll sell you swamp land if you want to believe that malarky! Do you believe in the Easter Bunny, too?!" That was a political post, flaming, whatever you want to call it. Not acceptable!

He obviously had some information that he felt wouldn't be covered among the 100's of links that I provided, so I asked him to please give us some information. (I was highly concerned that there would be nuclear fallout coming to Oregon, and I wanted any and all information that anyone could provide on the topic, and nobody seemed more sure of himself than Hefner, so I asked him again after he responded with a more lengthy flaming post. I finally asked him a final time, as I really wanted to find out what was going on. This is a serious subject.)

As posted by, what seems to be, our only REDSZONE Science Editor who worked for the media, and won a National Award for his expertise, and who had experience dealing with nuclear incidents in the past, he stated that we WILL NOT GET accurate information from normal news sources. Our best bet is to find accurate information from other sources. This was my intention, and my posts and actions repeatedly showed this. Others decided insted to debate the merits of the sources of information rather than do the right thing and provide information on the subject. (It's always easier in life to attack someone's opinons than come up with your own.) Dom thought it was better for him to tell me how I feel and think about nuclear subjects rather than ask me (of which I wouldn't have told him and posted it as that would have been leaning the subject matter towards a political direction, so that's why I ignored his tauntings and instead asked him to share with us what he knew).

Chip R
03-21-2011, 02:41 PM
I'm not sure why this is such a hot point right now. It's not like political discussion was just banned last week. The policy has been in place for 5 years and people are all of a sudden having problems with it? :confused:

It also seems to me like people are trying to turn this thread into a discussion that would either be more in place on non-baseball (as long as it isn't political) or in the Peanut Gallery.

I think the topics for discussion have been fine. However - and I speak from experience here - a lot of the time, whenever there is a thread that skirts verboten topics, some mischevious posters attempt to turn the threads political. They know better but they still do it anyway. As the old saying goes, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.

Todd Gack
03-21-2011, 03:15 PM
Well, on these two points we're in agreement.

3) The Peanut Gallery is less open to varying political opinions than RZ. My experience is that if they don't like your political opinions they will ban you rather than counter it.

This isn't true at all.[/QUOTE]

That is true. If your opinion isn't on the same side as the majority of the folks over there, you just get knocked down by the ever-popular 'points system.'

RichRed
03-21-2011, 03:28 PM
This isn't true at all.


That is true. If your opinion isn't on the same side as the majority of the folks over there, you just get knocked down by the ever-popular 'points system.'
Yeah, but it's like "Whose Line Is It Anyway?": the points don't matter. I'm pretty sure negative rep points don't get you banned.

Sea Ray
03-21-2011, 03:30 PM
That is true. If your opinion isn't on the same side as the majority of the folks over there, you just get knocked down by the ever-popular 'points system.'


Well, on these two points we're in agreement.

3) The Peanut Gallery is less open to varying political opinions than RZ. My experience is that if they don't like your political opinions they will ban you rather than counter it.


This isn't true at all.

Since a moderator has given us the OK to discuss the Peanut Gallery here, I'll do exactly that.

I don't know about any points system but I tried posting over there a few years ago and noticed right away I was on an island but I didn't mind. I've never been the cheerleader type anyway. I had the facts and the sources to back me up. Well one day I found the site locked and the message "banned for obvious trolling". I wasn't banned for bashing anyone's religion, namecalling or personal attacks. No, just the coverall "trolling". I won't go into what's trolling and what isn't but such an act drips of close-mindedness. Someone obviously couldn't handle a provocative debate.

I laughed at the time and have been ever since. I've never gotten a more clear sign that I won a debate in my life but it didn't say much about the site itself.

pedro
03-21-2011, 04:12 PM
Since a moderator has given us the OK to discuss the Peanut Gallery here, I'll do exactly that.

I don't know about any points system but I tried posting over there a few years ago and noticed right away I was on an island but I didn't mind. I've never been the cheerleader type anyway. I had the facts and the sources to back me up. Well one day I found the site locked and the message "banned for obvious trolling". I wasn't banned for bashing anyone's religion, namecalling or personal attacks. No, just the coverall "trolling". I won't go into what's trolling and what isn't but such an act drips of close-mindedness. Someone obviously couldn't handle a provocative debate.

I laughed at the time and have been ever since. I've never gotten a more clear sign that I won a debate in my life but it didn't say much about the site itself.

It's been a while but the way I remember it is you got banned for being excessively rude. Now, if it was up to me I wouldn't have banned you, I thought reading your true opinions was quite humorous as the only "fact" you revealed IMO was your own character and extremely high opinion of yourself.

Sea Ray
03-21-2011, 04:27 PM
It's been a while but the way I remember it is you got banned for being excessively rude. Now, if it was up to me I wouldn't have banned you, I thought reading your true opinions was quite humorous as the only "fact" you revealed IMO was your own character and extremely high opinion of yourself.

I can assure you I didn't talk about myself. But you make my point. If that site doesn't like you, they'll ban you. As for being rude, I wasn't exactly treated with happiness and joy

pedro
03-21-2011, 04:34 PM
I can assure you I didn't talk about myself. But you make my point. If that site doesn't like you, they'll ban you. As for being rude, I wasn't exactly treated with happiness and joy

Like I said I don't think you should have been banned but please don't act like you took the high road over there because you most certainly did not from what I remember. I can also assure you, as can GAC as he is often the one expressing them, that there are divergent political opinions expressed over there. And yet far as I know you are the only poster ever banned.

pedro
03-21-2011, 06:04 PM
Actually now that my memory has been refreshed as to why you were banned Sea Ray I do think it was justified. I can also confirm that you are the only poster ever banned and that it was not for your political views.

Sea Ray
03-21-2011, 06:24 PM
Actually now that my memory has been refreshed as to why you were banned Sea Ray I do think it was justified. I can also confirm that you are the only poster ever banned and that it was not for your political views.

I would beg to differ. Unless you were the MOD, there's no way you'd know would you?

pedro
03-21-2011, 06:32 PM
I would beg to differ. Unless you were the MOD, there's no way you'd know would you?

I am not a mod there but I know who banned you and after he reminded me what led to your banning I can confirm that not only was it not for your political views it was not for being generally rude or nasty either. I'll elaborate specifically if you want me too, as I know exactly why you were banned, but otherwise I'll just leave it at that.

Plus Plus
03-21-2011, 06:34 PM
Pedro and Sea Ray, please take this commentary private. I'd like to leave this thread for discussion about the original topic.

Rojo
03-21-2011, 07:06 PM
he stated that we WILL NOT GET accurate information from normal news sources. Our best bet is to find accurate information from other sources.

Does this sound like "information"?

Hysterical, sarcastic, and scientifically illiterate comments are hardly appropriate at time of major disaster. The enormous earthquake in Japan has likely taken many, many lives and destroyed a nuclear power plant facility consisting of multiple reactors. The extremely capable Japanese are working rapidly to address their severe problems. Some "meltdown" of the reactor cores has likely occurred, but the crucial containment vessels are performing admirably.

Now, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but that sounds like ol' fashioned editorializin'.

But then again, I haven't crossed over into the land where reporting is propaganda and propaganda is information. Yep, mermaids and unicorns.

Rojo
03-21-2011, 07:10 PM
That is true. If your opinion isn't on the same side as the majority of the folks over there, you just get knocked down by the ever-popular 'points system.'

So popular, I forget about it til you mentioned it. I went over to check mine: negative 100. To-the-right-of-Reagan GAC is negative 94.

KronoRed
03-21-2011, 07:15 PM
Just a note, the "points system" on the Peanut Gallery board is cosmetic and really just a joke, the Admin of the board, Ochre, has a negative 65000 or so.

paintmered
03-21-2011, 07:41 PM
Just a note, the "points system" on the Peanut Gallery board is cosmetic and really just a joke, the Admin of the board, Ochre, has a negative 65000 or so.

Yes, it's been an inside joke since we moved the "Last person" thread over there.

Kingspoint
03-22-2011, 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingspoint
he stated that we WILL NOT GET accurate information from normal news sources. Our best bet is to find accurate information from other sources.

Does this sound like "information"?

Now, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but that sounds like ol' fashioned editorializin'.

But then again, I haven't crossed over into the land where reporting is propaganda and propaganda is information. Yep, mermaids and unicorns.

I really have no idea what you're trying to do here. It looks like you took a portion of a post from this thread (where I briefly surmised what a true expert said about news reporting and information of a nuclear nature) and are trying to imply that I wrote it at the thread on the Japan disaster.

Are you trying to say that the Redszone member who wrote it, Guacarock, is not qualified to speak on the issue of journalism reporting? Are you saying his being honored for an Associated Press Managing Editor's Award on science reporting focusing on nuclear-related topics, mostly bombs, but also energy generation, is not enough of a qualification to say what he said:
( http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88023&page=4 )?

I don't understand your intention of posting what you posted, but I think that compared to Guararock, most of us are amateurs here (or anywhere) when it comes to putting thoughts on paper when compared to this person, someone whom I've never met or seen before. But, I know a very respected award when I see one, and that one he received is one that's very difficult to obtain and shouldn't be disrespected, especially by those of us who aren't in the journalism business.

As far as your other quote from the gentleman's post who offered the links to federal sites, praise to the japanese people, empathy over the disaster that has taken place, better reporting avenues for what was going on along with better explanations into the science and terms that were being heard at the time, along with a couple of words in response to what some poster at "oregonlive" had said (that's why I gave the source, so you, as a responsible reader, can use whenever you're curious about the "context" of something you see, and his "Hysterical, sarcastic, and scientifically illiterate comments are hardly appropriate at time of major disaster" comment was directed towards their posts, not anyone at redszone), along with countless links where you and I can help the Japanese people,....I really have no idea what you're attempting to say. If you find all of those links to be propaganda, then I just don't understand what world you're living in. To give to the Red Cross and the United States Agency for International Development ( http://www.usaid.gov/ ), two of the links on the site, is generally considered to be humanitarian gestures.

So, yes....that is considered good information to give to others.

top6
03-22-2011, 12:36 PM
I really have no idea what you're trying to do here. It looks like you took a portion of a post from this thread (where I briefly surmised what a true expert said about news reporting and information of a nuclear nature) and are trying to imply that I wrote it at the thread on the Japan disaster.

Are you trying to say that the Redszone member who wrote it, Guacarock, is not qualified to speak on the issue of journalism reporting? Are you saying his being honored for an Associated Press Managing Editor's Award on science reporting focusing on nuclear-related topics, mostly bombs, but also energy generation, is not enough of a qualification to say what he said:
( http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88023&page=4 )?

I don't understand your intention of posting what you posted, but I think that compared to Guararock, most of us are amateurs here (or anywhere) when it comes to putting thoughts on paper when compared to this person, someone whom I've never met or seen before. But, I know a very respected award when I see one, and that one he received is one that's very difficult to obtain and shouldn't be disrespected, especially by those of us who aren't in the journalism business.

As far as your other quote from the gentleman's post who offered the links to federal sites, praise to the japanese people, empathy over the disaster that has taken place, better reporting avenues for what was going on along with better explanations into the science and terms that were being heard at the time, along with a couple of words in response to what some poster at "oregonlive" had said (that's why I gave the source, so you, as a responsible reader, can use whenever you're curious about the "context" of something you see, and his "Hysterical, sarcastic, and scientifically illiterate comments are hardly appropriate at time of major disaster" comment was directed towards their posts, not anyone at redszone), along with countless links where you and I can help the Japanese people,....I really have no idea what you're attempting to say. If you find all of those links to be propaganda, then I just don't understand what world you're living in. To give to the Red Cross and the United States Agency for International Development ( http://www.usaid.gov/ ), two of the links on the site, is generally considered to be humanitarian gestures.

So, yes....that is considered good information to give to others.

And all Dom Hefner was saying, as I interpreted it, was that the media reporting was probably accurate and/or that the people in some of the links cited were underacting. Again, just the opposite of the opinion you state above.

All of this raises a question to me though. Why must all of this information be shared on a Reds message board that prohibits political discussions? It is obvious that nuclear power is insanely controversial, and that at the very least some of the authors that people linked to were pushing political agendas. There are literally thousands of places on the internet where this can be discussed, without burdening Mods who are mostly here to talk about Reds baseball which is, I think, supposed to be a distraction from real life.

Rojo
03-22-2011, 12:49 PM
Wow, Kingspoint, dissemble much? Did I mention the Red Cross? Did I mention Guacarock? No.

I don't care about any of that other stuff. You posted commentary and then claimed your were just "informing" people.

Raisor
03-22-2011, 12:55 PM
Just a note, the "points system" on the Peanut Gallery board is cosmetic and really just a joke, the Admin of the board, Ochre, has a negative 65000 or so.

I always knew Ochre was a troublemaker.

You too Krono.

Boss-Hog
03-22-2011, 01:14 PM
All of this raises a question to me though. Why must all of this information be shared on a Reds message board that prohibits political discussions? It is obvious that nuclear power is insanely controversial, and that at the very least some of the authors that people linked to were pushing political agendas. There are literally thousands of places on the internet where this can be discussed, without burdening Mods who are mostly here to talk about Reds baseball which is, I think, supposed to be a distraction from real life.

That's the very same question I have and one that any people pro-politics on RedsZone have yet to adequately address.

Sea Ray
03-22-2011, 02:58 PM
That's the very same question I have and one that any people pro-politics on RedsZone have yet to adequately address.

I can't speak for KingsPoint but how can you discuss the Japanese situation and not talk about the nuclear threat? Seems to me it's inevitable.

In my opinion, discussing the dangers of this power plant is no more political than discussing the dangers of saccharine or drinking tap water.

In this case KP posted precious little opinion of his own and sought to inform what the dangers are including his own since he lives on the west coast.

Obviously the folks who want to talk Reds baseball and get away from real life will tend to hang out in forums other than the non baseball chatter.

Plus Plus
03-22-2011, 03:31 PM
I can't speak for KingsPoint but how can you discuss the Japanese situation and not talk about the nuclear threat? Seems to me it's inevitable.

In my opinion, discussing the dangers of this power plant is no more political than discussing the dangers of saccharine or drinking tap water.

In this case KP posted precious little opinion of his own and sought to inform what the dangers are including his own since he lives on the west coast.

Obviously the folks who want to talk Reds baseball and get away from real life will tend to hang out in forums other than the non baseball chatter.

I don't mean to speak for Boss-Hog, but it seems that his question is more "why is Redszone the location of choice to discuss the Japan tsunamis?" and less "is the Japan situation/discussion political in nature?"

Sea Ray
03-22-2011, 03:56 PM
I don't mean to speak for Boss-Hog, but it seems that his question is more "why is Redszone the location of choice to discuss the Japan tsunamis?" and less "is the Japan situation/discussion political in nature?"

That's my point as well. The problem stems from the original subject. Another example is the thread discussing a referendum on the ballot in SF. It all depends upon one's definition of political. IMO the Japan thread was not political in the least but the SF thread was very much so.

Plus Plus
03-22-2011, 04:00 PM
But why go to a Cincinnati Reds Baseball forum to discuss tsunamis, circumcision, or the economy?

Sea Ray
03-22-2011, 04:38 PM
But why go to a Cincinnati Reds Baseball forum to discuss tsunamis, circumcision, or the economy?

:confused: ...dunno

Why go to a Reds board to discuss Wonder Woman or American Idol?

With the workload of the MODs in mind, my suggestion would be to accept that a non sports chatter section will be everything under the sun and make it less restrictive rather than more so. If you're going to further limit subject matter then you'll only give MODs more to look out for and you'll end up with more locked threads. Put another way, most sites' non sports sections are not a burden on the MODs because they don't stretchout the definition of politics to extremes. They let a lot of that stuff go. The more limits you impose, the more work you make for the MODs

edabbs44
03-22-2011, 06:22 PM
But why go to a Cincinnati Reds Baseball forum to discuss tsunamis, circumcision, or the economy?

Maybe because the posters here aren't really "strangers", in the cyberworld sense. This is definitely the only place I post and only because of the Reds. I am much more likely to post here on random topics than anywhere else.

Not that I have any interest in political views on here but I think this translates to other subjects as well.

Brutus
03-22-2011, 06:40 PM
:confused: ...dunno

Why go to a Reds board to discuss Wonder Woman or American Idol?

With the workload of the MODs in mind, my suggestion would be to accept that a non sports chatter section will be everything under the sun and make it less restrictive rather than more so. If you're going to further limit subject matter then you'll only give MODs more to look out for and you'll end up with more locked threads. Put another way, most sites' non sports sections are not a burden on the MODs because they don't stretchout the definition of politics to extremes. They let a lot of that stuff go. The more limits you impose, the more work you make for the MODs

The only concern I have, and this is just really from my own personal experience, is that less moderation in controversial subjects leads to more hostility and more aggression. Sometimes that hostility carries over into the actual relevant discussions, as posters have more vendettas because of political issues. It makes it for a less pleasant forum when that happens, even if moderators enforce the rules as they normally would.

Boss-Hog
03-22-2011, 07:04 PM
That's a correct assumption. I'm certainly not questioning why there's interest in it - of course I know why people would want to discuss a devastating natural disaster that just took place. What I am questioning is this: why should we (the administrative staff here) just accept that these type of threads, that on the surface appear to be perfectly free from any type of political discussion that's been taboo here for six years, be given such priority on a baseball-themed site? Over the past two weeks, our moderating staff has spent far more time addressing this issue and the type of problems some (not all) of these threads have caused and I don't think that's fair for GIK and I to ask that the moderators spend the majority of the free time that they can offer the site moderating threads that have absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the site. There are thousands or probably millions of other places you can go to have these discussions and in many of those places, you can say and do nearly anything you want without worrying about breaking any rules. It just so happens that we have such a place linked on RedsZone's forum home page.


I don't mean to speak for Boss-Hog, but it seems that his question is more "why is Redszone the location of choice to discuss the Japan tsunamis?" and less "is the Japan situation/discussion political in nature?"

Kingspoint
03-22-2011, 07:07 PM
I just find it sad that there wasn't enough maturity around to discuss the dangers of the Japan disaster and what effect they might pose to people living in the United States.

I certainly understand how moderators don't have the time to read through the baseball-related posts, let alone the non-baseball-related posts. That's a lot of time that could be spent doing any number of other things in their lives.

Boss-Hog
03-22-2011, 07:08 PM
The only concern I have, and this is just really from my own personal experience, is that less moderation in controversial subjects leads to more hostility and more aggression. Sometimes that hostility carries over into the actual relevant discussions, as posters have more vendettas because of political issues. It makes it for a less pleasant forum when that happens, even if moderators enforce the rules as they normally would.
I would agree with this and can personally vouch for the fact that it happened when we did allow political/religion-based discussions.

Rojo
03-22-2011, 07:44 PM
Maybe because the posters here aren't really "strangers", in the cyberworld sense. This is definitely the only place I post and only because of the Reds. I am much more likely to post here on random topics than anywhere else.

This. Plus: I'm on a lot of political sites but most of them fall one way or another. I like that this site isn't an echo chamber.

Conflict is the soundtrack of the human experience - embrace it.

savafan
03-22-2011, 07:54 PM
This


:confused: ...dunno

Why go to a Reds board to discuss Wonder Woman or American Idol?

With the workload of the MODs in mind, my suggestion would be to accept that a non sports chatter section will be everything under the sun and make it less restrictive rather than more so. If you're going to further limit subject matter then you'll only give MODs more to look out for and you'll end up with more locked threads. Put another way, most sites' non sports sections are not a burden on the MODs because they don't stretchout the definition of politics to extremes. They let a lot of that stuff go. The more limits you impose, the more work you make for the MODs

Plus this


This. Plus: I'm on a lot of political sites but most of them fall one way or another. I like that this site isn't an echo chamber.

Conflict is the soundtrack of the human experience - embrace it.


There's only so much people can argue about VORP and WAR, and it's gotten pretty stale.

BuckeyeRed27
03-22-2011, 08:13 PM
That's a correct assumption. I'm certainly not questioning why there's interest in it - of course I know why people would want to discuss a devastating natural disaster that just took place. What I am questioning is this: why should we (the administrative staff here) just accept that these type of threads, that on the surface appear to be perfectly free from any type of political discussion that's been taboo here for six years, be given such priority on a baseball-themed site? Over the past two weeks, our moderating staff has spent far more time addressing this issue and the type of problems some (not all) of these threads have caused and I don't think that's fair for GIK and I to ask that the moderators spend the majority of the free time that they can offer the site moderating threads that have absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the site. There are thousands or probably millions of other places you can go to have these discussions and in many of those places, you can say and do nearly anything you want without worrying about breaking any rules. It just so happens that we have such a place linked on RedsZone's forum home page.


I think this problem stems from just how good of a message board this site really is. I know for me personally when I first started posting here probably 80% or more of my posts were strictly about baseball. Over time it has sort of evolved and the site has sort of grown up in some ways and now I probably only post about baseball maybe once or twice a year and the majority of my posts go in other forums. Another poster referenced it, but I think that comes for me from the community sense you have here.

It's like if you were able to listen to every conversation that took place in a sports bar or a tailgate party. Many of those conversations would be about the game or the team, but eventually you would have side conversations.

I actually like that there are some rules and restrictions on what the conversation in the other forums can be since I believe it keeps a level of civility that didn't exist before the rules were put in place. I do think that some mods can get a little over sensitive to things, but I'm not going to criticize since they are putting their free time into it and I haven't ever seen anything totally crazy blocked or deleted.

757690
03-22-2011, 09:11 PM
I just find it sad that there wasn't enough maturity around to discuss the dangers of the Japan disaster and what effect they might pose to people living in the United States.

I certainly understand how moderators don't have the time to read through the baseball-related posts, let alone the non-baseball-related posts. That's a lot of time that could be spent doing any number of other things in their lives.

I can't imagine a discussion about anything involving the word "nuclear" that isn't highly political and decisive. it's right up there with "guns" and "religion."

jojo
03-22-2011, 09:26 PM
But why go to a Cincinnati Reds Baseball forum to discuss tsunamis, circumcision, or the economy?

The answer is pretty simple IMHO...redszone has a critical mass of members and it's a moderated forum.

That's a different question than why should content that falls outside of the mission of redszone be allowed to eat up resources.

The answer to that one IMHO is that it shouldn't in a perfect world (then again there should never be a need for moderation in the ORG in a perfect world either). But my hunch is that if the non-sports chatter and Tavern forums were closed down, it would decrease the traffic to the baseball-related forums.

Boss-Hog
03-22-2011, 09:41 PM
Even though this is, has always been and will always be a Reds themed site, I get that over the past 11 years, we've long past grown to where people want to discuss non-baseball related topics with other members and honestly, I think that's a cool thing. What I don't agree with, though, is the expectation some have that we should devote so much of our fairly limited moderating resources to a topic (politics) that is inherently controversial and historically, has led to unnecessary work for admins and moderators and spawned arguments that bled into the baseball-related threads.

By the way, I'm not in any way suggesting we shut down the Non-Baseball Chatter or Tavern forums because even with the problems we've encountered with the political discussions over the past couple of weeks, the vast majority of the threads in those forums require no moderation and are healthy for the betterment of the board. That being said, based on what I've seen on this very site in the past, there's no way I can honestly say the same about political discussions.

Sea Ray
03-22-2011, 10:05 PM
If nothing else I think we'll have less non-baseball talk after the season gets going next week. Opening Day is just about here! :party:

top6
03-23-2011, 12:28 AM
If nothing else I think we'll have less non-baseball talk after the season gets going next week. Opening Day is just about here! :party:

Good call, we are probably all just going a little crazy without baseball. Espeically with the last season being so great, but ending so terribly and suddenly. LET'S START BASEBALL ALREADY.

Rojo
03-23-2011, 03:49 AM
I guess I just don't understand why you need the moderation. Despite what the mainstream media says, moderate is over-rated. Let a thousand flowers bloom....and shake off those Sunday shoes.

http://wewanttobelieve.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/footloose.jpg

Redsfaithful
03-23-2011, 04:18 AM
If it bleeds over to the baseball side you could take a hard line stance and temporarily or permanently ban people, the same way I think you normally would handle someone being a jerk on that side of the board.

Political discussion on this board was at one point pretty interesting, because as Rojo says, the board is a melting pot. You actually don't get that in most areas of the internet. Most places for political discussion are either extremely left wing or right wing, and the places that aren't are more vicious because of a lack of common tie like we have here.

The peanut gallery isn't bad, but obviously it gets diminished traffic because many members here I don't think know it exists, and even a small hurdle like having to register for a different site will turn people off.

I understand the change, but Boss asked why political discussion was worth having here, and that's why I believe it is.

Boss-Hog
03-23-2011, 08:07 AM
I guess I just don't understand why you need the moderation. Despite what the mainstream media says, moderate is over-rated. Let a thousand flowers bloom....and shake off those Sunday shoes.

http://wewanttobelieve.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/footloose.jpg
Based on years of past experience, moderation in those threads is absolutely necessary if you have any intention of maintaining a civil board with the number of posters we had participating in those threads here. The continued problems we've had recently where a few people made an attempt to dance around these rules and still get into politics until furthers that point. If you want to be able to post just about anything you want without any regards to the site's rules, we've long endorsed that by providing a link to the Peanut Gallery.

Again, I'm not sure why the concept of having to make an extra click so that you can go somewhere else to discuss politics until your heart is content is a big deal.

Boss-Hog
03-23-2011, 08:11 AM
Also, I'd like to add that with the recent attempt to reestablish political discussions on this board, several admins and moderators have falsely been accused of handing down punishment based upon an alleged political lean of that admin/moderator. Honestly, I can safely say in 11 years of running this site, that's probably the biggest crock of crap I've ever read here. The people that have made these accusations have conveniently left out the fact that users who violate the rules that are on the "other" side of the political spectrum have been banned as much, if not more so, than the side they reside on. I'd be lying if I said I didn't lose some respect for the people that continually spout this baseless accusation as if it's gospel when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

In any event, that's yet another reason why political discussions aren't a good idea on this site, IMO.

nate
03-23-2011, 10:48 AM
Again, I'm not sure why the concept of having to make an extra click so that you can go somewhere else to discuss politics until your heart is content is a big deal.

It's one of the best things about Redszone. Personally, I can't imagine the purgatory that lies between an unwillingness to click over and register for the Peanut Gallery (or using that "Google" site to get one's non-baseball talk on) and lying awake at night wondering what Chip thinks of NAFTA or if GAC shot JFK.

Although, if one is in such a state, I've found a nice dram of Laphroaig can often take the edge right off.

High five for an excellent decision, Boss (et al.)!

dabvu2498
03-23-2011, 11:51 AM
...and lying awake at night wondering what Chip thinks of NAFTA or if GAC shot JFK. !

Why don't you roll over and ask them??? ;)

Chip R
03-23-2011, 12:12 PM
Why don't you roll over and ask them??? ;)

http://skreened.com/render-product/c/z/q/czqycewxgeqggkhcxygc/oh-snap-t-shirt.american-apparel-juniors-fitted-tee.lemon.w760h760.jpg

Boss-Hog
03-23-2011, 12:30 PM
Why don't you roll over and ask them??? ;)
:lol:

Rojo
03-23-2011, 02:25 PM
Again, I'm not sure why the concept of having to make an extra click so that you can go somewhere else to discuss politics until your heart is content is a big deal.

Turning that around, I'm not sure why it's necessary. But, ok.

westofyou
03-23-2011, 02:29 PM
The lack of a SSO (Single Sign On) is the death knell to site jumping in any arena.

Rojo
03-23-2011, 02:32 PM
I'd be lying if I said I didn't lose some respect for the people that continually spout this baseless accusation as if it's gospel when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Oh, gettin' personal. I don't go there but, hey, I'm a big boy, I can take it.

The Operator
03-23-2011, 02:33 PM
Why don't you roll over and ask them??? ;)

Boom, Roasted!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7b8s0YQev1qzugii.jpg

Jefferson24
03-23-2011, 04:45 PM
I am on another site (not sports related) that has an area for political posts. They just warn you ahead of time and state that the area is a Free-fire zone for politics, religion, and other heated subjects. Personal attacks will not be tolerated!

Is seems to work for them.

Boss-Hog
03-23-2011, 06:23 PM
It was made plenty personal when untrue accusations were made based on incomplete information.


Oh, gettin' personal. I don't go there but, hey, I'm a big boy, I can take it.

Boss-Hog
03-23-2011, 06:24 PM
Respectfully, I think I've made it pretty clear in this very thread why political discussions cause exponentially more problems than other non-baseball topics. You can even read my post from six years ago when we announced the ban on this subject and most, if not all, of that is still true today.


Turning that around, I'm not sure why it's necessary. But, ok.

Boss-Hog
03-23-2011, 06:25 PM
Well, we can't integrate your RedsZone sign on with a Peanut Gallery sign on, so if some people truly want to discuss politics as badly as their actions have indicated, they'll have to go through the pain of filling out a one time brief registration form over there.


The lack of a SSO (Single Sign On) is the death knell to site jumping in any arena.

Boss-Hog
03-23-2011, 06:27 PM
I am on another site (not sports related) that has an area for political posts. They just warn you ahead of time and state that the area is a Free-fire zone for politics, religion, and other heated subjects. Personal attacks will not be tolerated!

Is seems to work for them.
I don't necessarily have a problem with that idea except for what we've seen in the past when we did allow political discussions: those arguments often carried over into the non free-fire zones.

westofyou
03-23-2011, 06:30 PM
Well, we can't integrate your RedsZone sign on with a Peanut Gallery sign on, so if some people truly want to discuss politics as badly as their actions have indicated, they'll have to go through the pain of filling out a one time brief registration form over there.

Wouldn't expect you to either, it would just be another tool you'd have to monitor and fix.

In short it would be more of a headache than you'd want to deal with, and believe me it is a MAJOR headache to deal with. (10 different systems, different business rules and authorization scenarios are a windmill in my world right now)

Rojo
03-23-2011, 08:08 PM
It was made plenty personal when untrue accusations were made based on incomplete information.

If you say so.

frenetic wave
03-23-2011, 08:09 PM
If moderation resources are an important factor, I think temporarily banning individual posters who make political/personal attacks in non-political threads would take way less moderation than corralling a huge forum of threads & users on a daily basis looking for both vaguely & explicitly political sentences.

But I also understand if it's as simple as "we've had bad experiences with political discussion & just don't want it, regardless if there can be a new/helpful approach". That is totally valid but just a bit different than it being a moderator resource/lack-of-a-working-model reason.

The Operator
03-23-2011, 08:19 PM
If moderation resources are an important factor, I think temporarily banning individual posters who make political/personal attacks in non-political threads would take way less moderation than corralling a huge forum of threads & users on a daily basis looking for both vaguely & explicitly political sentences.I can't say for sure, but I have a feeling that was tried in the past.

frenetic wave
03-23-2011, 08:39 PM
This is all theoretical so perhaps it has been tried in the past with poor results. Are there posters who have been temporarily banned for an infraction, whether it was political related or not, and then continued to violate the same rules once they were re-instated? Temporary banning seems harsh but it also seems like something that (for most sensible people) would have a lasting impact in their behavior on the site.

An automatic temporary ban for inflammatory political discussion/comments in baseball threads seems like a super easy, clear rule to enforce, and just to cover all bases, there could be an automatic post delete for all unintentional/non-inflammatory political posts in baseball threads- in the event that someone makes an innocent political analogy or reference when discussing baseball to illustrate a point but not to purposefully goat anyone.

Boss-Hog
03-23-2011, 09:04 PM
This is all theoretical so perhaps it has been tried in the past with poor results. Are there posters who have been temporarily banned for an infraction, whether it was political related or not, and then continued to violate the same rules once they were re-instated? Temporary banning seems harsh but it also seems like something that (for most sensible people) would have a lasting impact in their behavior on the site.

An automatic temporary ban for inflammatory political discussion/comments in baseball threads seems like a super easy, clear rule to enforce, and just to cover all bases, there could be an automatic post delete for all unintentional/non-inflammatory political posts in baseball threads- in the event that someone makes an innocent political analogy or reference when discussing baseball to illustrate a point but not to purposefully goat anyone.
It's a good idea, but I do want to point out one difference: most of the time, the inflammatory comments made in baseball threads were not politically-based comments, but insults, rudeness, etc. that stemmed from often heated disagreements with the same user(s) in the political threads.

757690
03-23-2011, 09:09 PM
Well, we can't integrate your RedsZone sign on with a Peanut Gallery sign on, so if some people truly want to discuss politics as badly as their actions have indicated, they'll have to go through the pain of filling out a one time brief registration form over there.

This actually gets to the heart of the problem concerning the Peanut Gallery. It only has those who want to discuss politics so badly that they are willing to leave the main site and sign on again.

The most essential and most shared criteria for all successful local businesses is free and easy parking. People are lazy. It may seem like just a simple step, but it's like asking customers of your electronics store to go to the building next door to get printers and have everything else in your own store. Only those who really need a printer make the effort to get one.

I've visited the Peanut Gallery a few times, but found I was discussing the same issues with the same handful of people, broken up into two very polarizing camps. Basically, it is just like any other political site, which makes it rather useless for me... no offense to those on it.

What is attractive about Redszone, as has been stated earlier, is that there is such a diverse group of posters, that I learn a lot whenever I am on it, and the discussions are very rich and engaging. It would be a nice plus if we could discuss more serious issues there too.

I completely understand that Boss and GIK want to keep this site dedicated to a higher level of discussion and free from name calling and personal attacks. It probably is the main reason why the site is so popular. But if this is the goal, this will require heavy moderation, no matter what rules you impose and how you enforce them.

This is a discussion board. Discussions are by nature messy and unpredictable, and no matter the subject, people's personal political views are going to come through, though no fault of their own. It's unavoidable.

Banning certain topics might decrease the level of moderation necessary, but I'm not sure by how much, as moderators will have to spend almost as much time making sure the banned topics aren't breached, as they will moderating the mess that occurs when they are. You probably are finding this to be the case.

nate
03-23-2011, 10:50 PM
Why don't you roll over and ask them??? ;)

High five!

top6
03-24-2011, 02:19 PM
OK, I don't post here very much, so I'm not going to continually get involved in how the board is run, but with all due respect I do not understand how Caveat Emptor's streetcar thread is permissible.

He writes:


Looks like the Cincinnati Streetcar is finally getting sidetracked for good. Good riddance.

The street car is probably one the most controversial issues in Cincinnati right now. CE is stating his opinion about it. This is a more blatant example of what I mentioned earlier. Someone has posted a thread about a controversial issue, and clearly has an opinion that they want to advance.

This would be very frustrating to me if I was supporter of the street car. How could I respond to this? As I said earlier, I either have to let it go unrebutted, or engage in a political discussion. It seems to me that, if this is so, the thread was political from the beginning.

I am not in the business of trying to get threads closed down, so I won't make any more posts on this topic that refer to specific threads.

Fortunately for me, I think CE is 100% right on this issue, so no skin off my back.

EDITED TO ADD: If there's any doubt that the post was political, I refer you to the article (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110323/NEWS01/103240337/Panel-decision-clouds-streetcar-s-future?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE) that CE linked to.

The following Individuals are quoted or mentioned in the article: Charlie Winburn; Todd Portune; Ken Prendergas (executive director of a passenger rail advocacy group); Chris Finney (one of the streetcar's vocal opponents); John Kasich; Jerry Wray (Kasich's transportation director ); William Brennan of Toledo; Sen. Shannon Jones, R-Springboro; Sen. Bill Seitz, R-Green Township; Councilman Chris Bortz; Councilman Wayne Lippert; and Ronald Reagan. In other words, this is an article about politicians, and political figures, and their opinions on a political issues.

(Note, including Ronald Reagan was a joke. There was a traffic report about Ronald Reagan Highway at the bottom.)

Kingspoint
03-24-2011, 02:56 PM
Top6, you would turn "talking about the weather" into a political topic.

You're just not old enough to understand what constitutes a political topic. Leave it at that.

RedFanAlways1966
03-24-2011, 03:06 PM
I used to get involved in a lot of "debates" here when political discussions were allowed. I think the site is better without political/religious discussions.

pedro
03-24-2011, 03:40 PM
Top6, you would turn "talking about the weather" into a political topic.

You're just not old enough to understand what constitutes a political topic. Leave it at that.

Kingspoint, I think being that you live in Portland you would understand that discussions about public transportation issues are quite often political in nature.

And we're both old enough to understand that.

I'll leave it at that.

Kingspoint
03-24-2011, 04:05 PM
Kingspoint, I think being that you live in Portland you would understand that discussions about public transportation issues are quite often political in nature.

And we're both old enough to understand that.

I'll leave it at that.

If one sticks to the topic and doesn't "derail" the issue, then it won't ever enter into any political realm. If you don't have the abilities to discuss the pros and cons of a topic without bringing up left/right/liberal/conservative/republican/democrat/etc., then just stay out of the topic until you learn to do so.

Politics does not cover as wide of an area as some people are trying to force it to become. If I'm politicking that Travis Wood should be starting on Opening Day, is that now off subject because I've stated an opinion on something? Of course not. Opinions aren't politics. Political discussions are when you bring up definite political parties and their ideaologies, and most people can't even agree on what those are. To some, baseball is a religion. Do we ban baseball because a few people think that it's a religion? Nor should we ban a certain topic because a few misguided people want to throw everything under the bus into the category of "politics". It's not a broad topic, unless you try to forcibly make it out to be. Every subject on Earth has a backer in Washington, D.C. supporting it or denouncing it. It doesn't make it a political topic, though. Some common sense needs to be used here. Stick to the information being exchanged and don't turn a thread into the views of left/right/liberal/conservative/republican/democrat and the rest should take care of itself. It's obvious when something is going that direction.

(FYI...and this is for everyone...."sources" aren't political in and of themselves, only the information can be. Otherwise, this is a political site, because it's owners have political leanings one way or the other, and every possible link to anything has political leanings by it's owner one way or another. Deal only with the information, and quit worrying about the source. Use your noggin' to disseminate the information for yourself. That's why we walk on two legs instead of four.)

The weakest argument in the world has always been one where someone doesn't have the ability to debate a topic, so they spew out the "politics" card and try to attack a source rather than debate the information. That in itself is the nature of good old politics. Picture some fat politician, someone like Boss Tweed, and rather than debate the pros and cons of whether it's good for New York to be allowing all of the Irish immigrants into the country, that he insteads starts name-calling the Irishmen, calling them lazy, shiftless, criminal, etc.; or, when a politician is accused of something, he attacks the accuser instead of rebutting the information. That is politics. There was more politics being done by the users here than there was being issued through any links or posts of information.

pedro
03-24-2011, 04:25 PM
If one sticks to the topic and doesn't "derail" the issue, then it won't ever enter into any political realm. If you don't have the abilities to discuss the pros and cons of a topic without bringing up left/right/liberal/conservative/republican/democrat/etc., then just stay out of the topic until you learn to do so.

Politics does not cover as wide of an area as some people are trying to force it to become. If I'm politicking that Travis Wood should be starting on Opening Day, is that now off subject because I've stated an opinion on something? Of course not. Opinions aren't politics. Political discussions are when you bring up definite political parties and their ideaologies, and most people can't even agree on what those are. To some, baseball is a religion. Do we ban baseball because a few people think that it's a religion? Nor should we ban a certain topic because a few misguided people want to throw everything under the bus into the category of "politics". It's not a broad topic, unless you try to forcibly make it out to be. Every subject on Earth has a backer in Washington, D.C. supporting it or denouncing it. It doesn't make it a political topic, though. Some common sense needs to be used here. Stick to the information being exchanged and don't turn a thread into the views of left/right/liberal/conservative/republican/democrat and the rest should take care of itself. It's obvious when something is going that direction.

(FYI...and this is for everyone...."sources" aren't political in and of themselves, only the information can be. Otherwise, this is a political site, because it's owners have political leanings one way or the other, and every possible link to anything has political leanings by it's owner one way or another. Deal only with the information, and quit worrying about the source. Use your noggin' to disseminate the information for yourself. That's why we walk on two legs instead of four.)


That may all be well and true but the central question of whether or not the government should invest in public transportation is inherently political whether we like it or not. There's really no way around that IMO.

Kingspoint
03-24-2011, 04:41 PM
That may all be well and true but the central question of whether or not the government should invest in public transportation is inherently political whether we like it or not. There's really no way around that IMO.

Why is it inherently Democrat or Republican (or Libertarian or whatever)?

Isn't it about (the role of government) whether it's beneficial to the public or not? What could possibly twist that into a political direction? Again, one must consciously force a subject into a political one for it to be political, whether intentional, or unintentional (they just don't know how to discuss something without making it political and lack a lot of debating skills).

757690
03-24-2011, 05:19 PM
Why is it inherently Democrat or Republican (or Libertarian or whatever)?

Isn't it about (the role of government) whether it's beneficial to the public or not? What could possibly twist that into a political direction? Again, one must consciously force a subject into a political one for it to be political, whether intentional, or unintentional (they just don't know how to discuss something without making it political and lack a lot of debating skills).

The singular most defining element of the difference between Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian political philosophies is the role of government in individual lives. Conservatives want less, Liberals want more, and Libertarian want none.

A debate about if and how the local government should invest in public transportation has been probably the most political issue in the history of civilization, going all the way back to the Greeks and Romans.

That said, I think the Streetcar thread is being kept open, because so far it has been a very civil discussion, just like the economy thread, which is just as political. Not to speak for the mods, but I have a feeling that either thread will be shut down the moment it ceases to be civil.

Roy Tucker
03-24-2011, 05:22 PM
Why is it inherently Democrat or Republican (or Libertarian or whatever)?

Isn't it about (the role of government) whether it's beneficial to the public or not? What could possibly twist that into a political direction? Again, one must consciously force a subject into a political one for it to be political, whether intentional, or unintentional (they just don't know how to discuss something without making it political and lack a lot of debating skills).

I think, after debating whether or not it is beneficial to the public, the second question is how its funded. And political ideologies come into play there. So I don't think its a twisting or forcing thing. I think it natually happens.

Having said all that, I think its possible to have polite yet meaningful dialogues about these things. In a perfect world we could do that. I do it fairly regularly.

But all it takes is for one person to pee in the pool and then all heck breaks loose. And that happens more often than not. Unfortunately. The RZ population follows a bell-shaped curve and we have our outliers.

Rojo
03-24-2011, 05:46 PM
Isn't it about (the role of government) whether it's beneficial to the public or not? What could possibly twist that into a political direction?

Hah?

Rojo
03-24-2011, 05:48 PM
A debate about if and how the local government should invest in public transportation has been probably the most political issue in the history of civilization, going all the way back to the Greeks and Romans.

Yes.


The singular most defining element of the difference between Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian political philosophies is the role of government in individual lives. Conservatives want less, Liberals want more, and Libertarian want none.

No.

top6
03-24-2011, 05:57 PM
Top6, you would turn "talking about the weather" into a political topic.

You're just not old enough to understand what constitutes a political topic. Leave it at that.

I might have felt compelled to spend time responding to this, so I was relieved to see that later in the thread you demonstrated that you in fact have no clue what a political topic is.

757690
03-24-2011, 06:01 PM
Originally Posted by 757690: The singular most defining element of the difference between Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian political philosophies is the role of government in individual lives. Conservatives want less, Liberals want more, and Libertarian want none.

No.

I'm just quoting what I was taught the first day of my PoliSci 101 class in college. That was 27 years ago, however.

top6
03-24-2011, 06:07 PM
I think, after debating whether or not it is beneficial to the public, the second question is how its funded. And political ideologies come into play there. So I don't think its a twisting or forcing thing. I think it natually happens.

Having said all that, I think its possible to have polite yet meaningful dialogues about these things. In a perfect world we could do that. I do it fairly regularly.

But all it takes is for one person to pee in the pool and then all heck breaks loose. And that happens more often than not. Unfortunately. The RZ population follows a bell-shaped curve and we have our outliers.

But from what I gather the rule we are discussing is not the civility rule, but the rule against political discussions. Of course we should all be civil (but see-- my last post). The issue is that people seem to start threads that are plainly, obviously (in my opinion) advancing a political argument-- for example, saying "the streetcar was a bad idea." For some reason, it seems to be the view of some that the thread doesn't become political until someone disagrees. And my point has always been that this is just very frustrating for someone who disagrees with the opinion being advanced, because he or she feels like they cannot respond.

FWIW, I would echo a poster from much earlier who stated that part of the problem here is that Redszone is, in a sense, a victim of its own success and the fine work of its moderators. The discussions here are so good, and the board so well run, that people naturally want to discuss political topics. So I do see why people continually push and sometimes cross the line. It just seems that some of us disagree about who is crossing the line.

So unless anyone else is going to directly suggest I am too dumb or young to understand what politics is, I'll try to stop being too involved in this argument. Boss et al. have done a great job running this board for years. Not only is it their right to do so, but most the decisions they've made have proven correct over the years.

reds1869
03-24-2011, 06:20 PM
Having said all that, I think its possible to have polite yet meaningful dialogues about these things. In a perfect world we could do that. I do it fairly regularly.

Indeed. I lean pretty hard to one side of the spectrum, and it is definitely not the dominant side here in The Queen City. On top of that I am an active member of a minor party that has broken with the rest of "my side" on the streetcar issue. Despite these facts I have meaningful, productive political discussions with my friends who hold differing viewpoints all the time.

I enjoy political debate in person but find it tends to infuriate me on the internet. The veil of anonymity makes people very comfortable with spewing acid they would never dream of when looking their fellow human in the eye. I like RZ's general prohibition on blatantly political threads. I think topics like the streetcar can stay out of purely political turf but it is difficult. I've posted in that particular thread and tried to avoid any particular political statement. So far discussion has been civil but as you said it only takes one person to ruin it for everyone!

Boss-Hog
03-24-2011, 07:12 PM
At least for the time being, until if and when we decide on the best way to address this issue from a moderation standpoint, that's an accurate statement, as far as I'm concerned.


That said, I think the Streetcar thread is being kept open, because so far it has been a very civil discussion, just like the economy thread, which is just as political. Not to speak for the mods, but I have a feeling that either thread will be shut down the moment it ceases to be civil.

savafan
03-24-2011, 07:31 PM
Based on years of past experience, moderation in those threads is absolutely necessary if you have any intention of maintaining a civil board with the number of posters we had participating in those threads here. The continued problems we've had recently where a few people made an attempt to dance around these rules and still get into politics until furthers that point. If you want to be able to post just about anything you want without any regards to the site's rules, we've long endorsed that by providing a link to the Peanut Gallery.

Again, I'm not sure why the concept of having to make an extra click so that you can go somewhere else to discuss politics until your heart is content is a big deal.

I guess I don't understand why if technically, The Peanut Gallery "is a part of Redszone" there exists a need for it to be on a different website from Redszone. To add, if we have the Peanut Gallery as "a part of Redszone" and people from this site post there, where is the proof that having the political discussion at a different url prevents things from spilling over to the baseball discussion?

savafan
03-24-2011, 07:34 PM
It's a good idea, but I do want to point out one difference: most of the time, the inflammatory comments made in baseball threads were not politically-based comments, but insults, rudeness, etc. that stemmed from often heated disagreements with the same user(s) in the political threads.

Where is the proof that the insults and rudeness were based on heated disagreements from the political threads? Does the same thing not happen just as easily in threads (damn near all of them anymore) where the discussion turns to old school vs. new school stats?

RBA
03-24-2011, 07:45 PM
The singular most defining element of the difference between Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian political philosophies is the role of government in individual lives. Conservatives want less, Liberals want more, and Libertarian want none.


Not correct. I took Pol Sci 101 also.

westofyou
03-24-2011, 07:49 PM
I guess I don't understand why if technically, The Peanut Gallery "is a part of Redszone" there exists a need for it to be on a different website from Redszone. To add, if we have the Peanut Gallery as "a part of Redszone" and people from this site post there, where is the proof that having the political discussion at a different url prevents things from spilling over to the baseball discussion?

It's not part of RZ, it's a private site run by Ochre and offered up to RZ as a place to also chat.

savafan
03-24-2011, 07:52 PM
It's not part of RZ, it's a private site run by Ochre and offered up to RZ as a place to also chat.

Yes, but it is always referred to as "part of Redszone" and is even linked on the forums page.

frenetic wave
03-24-2011, 08:33 PM
Like most political issues, I think there is a solution that exists where political discussion can be allowed with little moderation and have little negative effect and everyone can benefit, however, I believe it will take a lot of work, abstract thought/planning, and also a bit of agreement & faith from a large group of people with vastly different personalities, ideas and investment about the issue. So, with that said, I don't think this particular makeup of people who are both in charge & volunteering input can achieve the solution. Even if we try, eventually, we'll reach an intellectual wall where we discover some folks, who previously offered insightful reasons why political discussion is not ideal, reveal that they simply want political discussion banned no matter if there is a solution.

That is a huge obstacle when you are dealing with finding solutions. If you find a solution that works for everyone, that means that there will inevitably be a group of people who were "wrong" about there being no solution. And when people feel like they're being labeled as "wrong", even if it's for the greater good of the main resolution, a lot of diplomacy and civility and logic can quickly dissipate, and it can turn into a very emotional and illogical argument that sabotages the goodwill and good work that has been built. Then everyone gets split into two camps- angry/emotional and tired/frustrated, and instead of the problems being blamed on angry people who want to be right, it gets labeled as "THIS is why politics ruin everything."

savafan
03-24-2011, 08:40 PM
Like most political issues, I think there is a solution that exists where political discussion can be allowed with little moderation and have little negative effect and everyone can benefit, however, I believe it will take a lot of work, abstract thought/planning, and also a bit of agreement & faith from a large group of people with vastly different personalities, ideas and investment about the issue. So, with that said, I don't think this particular makeup of people who are both in charge & volunteering input can achieve the solution. Even if we try, eventually, we'll reach an intellectual wall where we discover some folks, who previously offered insightful reasons why political discussion is not ideal, reveal that they simply want political discussion banned no matter if there is a solution.

That is a huge obstacle when you are dealing with finding solutions. If you find a solution that works for everyone, that means that there will inevitably be a group of people who were "wrong" about there being no solution. And when people feel like they're being labeled as "wrong", even if it's for the greater good of the main resolution, a lot of diplomacy and civility and logic can quickly dissipate, and it can turn into a very emotional and illogical argument that sabotages the goodwill and good work that has been built. Then everyone gets split into two camps- angry/emotional and tired/frustrated, and instead of the problems being blamed on angry people who want to be right, it gets labeled as "THIS is why politics ruin everything."

Wow, that's so true. Related: My head just exploded.

Boss-Hog
03-24-2011, 09:41 PM
Yes, but it is always referred to as "part of Redszone" and is even linked on the forums page.

It's not part of Redszone nor have you ever heard me refer to it that way. It's linked on our forum home as a courtesy to those that wish to discuss topics not designed for Redszone.

Boss-Hog
03-24-2011, 09:44 PM
Where is the proof that the insults and rudeness were based on heated disagreements from the political threads? Does the same thing not happen just as easily in threads (damn near all of them anymore) where the discussion turns to old school vs. new school stats?

Sava, I'm not going to look through threads from six plus years ago - I don't even know that we have posts dating that far back. You'll just have to take my word, as well as moderators' during that timeframe, that it was an issue.

Sea Ray
03-24-2011, 10:30 PM
The issue is that people seem to start threads that are plainly, obviously (in my opinion) advancing a political argument-- for example, saying "the streetcar was a bad idea."

I don't agree with your saying "the streetcar was a bad idea" is advancing a political argument because if it is then saying "it's a wonderful idea" would also be political. If you can't say either one then what's left to talk about?


For some reason, it seems to be the view of some that the thread doesn't become political until someone disagrees.

I agree with your point here. I'll give you another compliment in that I love how you give examples to illustrate your point rather than making a general statement and running away. :thumbup:

757690
03-24-2011, 11:16 PM
Not correct. I took Pol Sci 101 also.

Well, I am sure there is no universal consensus on this, but I know what I was taught, and I think it is accurate.

I'm not saying it is the most defining difference between Liberal and Conservative, as those two go beyond politics. It's the most defining difference between Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian political philosophies.

What do you think it is, if not what I said? Just curious.

pahster
03-24-2011, 11:41 PM
Well, I am sure there is no universal consensus on this, but I know what I was taught, and I think it is accurate.

I'm not saying it is the most defining difference between Liberal and Conservative, as those two go beyond politics. It's the most defining difference between Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian political philosophies.

What do you think it is, if not what I said? Just curious.

I think it depends on what you mean by "individual lives." I'd also be cautious about talking about what liberals and conservatives want because there aren't many people in the U.S. who know what those terms mean.

RBA
03-25-2011, 02:19 AM
I think it depends on what you mean by "individual lives." I'd also be cautious about talking about what liberals and conservatives want because there aren't many people in the U.S. who know what those terms mean.

I think you covered it. Getting into more would verge into political discussion as I would need to cite examples.

757690
03-25-2011, 02:46 AM
Thanks RBA and Phaster for the replies. I get your points.

Rojo
03-25-2011, 03:54 AM
I don't agree with your saying "the streetcar was a bad idea" is advancing a political argument because if it is then saying "it's a wonderful idea" would also be political.

Yes, saying "it's a wonderful idea" is political too. I think that's Top6's point. Banning political discussions means banning a lot of meaningful stuff.

Nearly everything's political, we're political animals. I don't know why Americans fear that so much.

But, if you want something not political, how about this: raisins suck! Always have, always will. And why must every oatmeal cookie contain them?

Fun? Maybe. Interesting? Not really. How many responses are we up to on the "non-political Japanese tsunami thread"?

Redsfaithful
03-25-2011, 05:21 AM
Kingspoint seems to be conflating political parties with politics itself, which is a bizarre take on things.

Rojo is right that almost everything interesting in day to day news (outside of sports and some entertainment news) that has any meat on it is going to tie into politics, even if only tangentially. So you're neutering a ton of discussion by banning politics, and I think it's a good way to make the site bland.

Also, raisins do suck. Why not just eat a grape?!? But so do oatmeal cookies.

BOOM, now what Rojo? The heat on that topic just got turned to 11.

Sea Ray
03-25-2011, 09:47 AM
Kingspoint seems to be conflating political parties with politics itself, which is a bizarre take on things.

Rojo is right that almost everything interesting in day to day news (outside of sports and some entertainment news) that has any meat on it is going to tie into politics, even if only tangentially. So you're neutering a ton of discussion by banning politics, and I think it's a good way to make the site bland.

Also, raisins do suck. Why not just eat a grape?!? But so do oatmeal cookies.

BOOM, now what Rojo? The heat on that topic just got turned to 11.

What makes talk of raisins in oatmeal cookies "political"? You guys really lost me there

Redsfan320
03-25-2011, 10:36 AM
What makes talk of raisins in oatmeal cookies "political"? You guys really lost me there

It was an example of a non-political topic, the poster's point being (I think) that those are often pretty lame discussions.

320

kaldaniels
03-25-2011, 10:39 AM
1) The reason why people like to discuss political things with people on this site is because this site has an awesome set of posters that I've never come close to seeing anywhere else. This is meant as a compliment to the board, not me trying to convince people that political discussion should be allowed.

2) I'm reminded of the old defintion of pornography...you know it when you see it. You guys are a smart crew...we know when we are dropping a political bomb into a thread (or for that matter twisting what someone says into a political bomb). If there is any doubt, take it to the Peanut Gallery.

* This comes from a non-Mod RZ freeloader so take it for what it's worth *

Sea Ray
03-25-2011, 11:00 AM
It was an example of a non-political topic, the poster's point being (I think) that those are often pretty lame discussions.

320

There I agree. I posted something interesting in that forum about the Zoo going green and it's been viewed 100s of times but only one response because it's not a compelling subject to discuss. That was my point earlier when I said that eliminating all provocative subjects leaves us with threads like Wonder Woman, Real or Plastic.

RBA
03-25-2011, 11:55 AM
Why the hate for the Wonder Woman thread?

Sea Ray
03-25-2011, 12:10 PM
Why the hate for the Wonder Woman thread?

Don't use inflammatory language like "hate". What's served by that? I don't hate it.

I think it's much more compelling to discuss controversial subjects. I don't consider a fictional character to be the least bit provocative

reds1869
03-25-2011, 12:46 PM
Don't use inflammatory language like "hate". What's served by that? I don't hate it.

I think it's much more compelling to discuss controversial subjects. I don't consider a fictional character to be the least bit provocative

I don't know, I find Wonder Woman to be pretty provocative myself. :D

I definitely agree controversy is more compelling. It is the fuel that makes message boards go. The problem comes when folks cross the line from debate to attack. One of the issues there is that different people draw that line in different places.

Rojo
03-25-2011, 02:54 PM
Kingspoint seems to be conflating political parties with politics itself, which is a bizarre take on things.

Here's why people hate the media and often hate politics. The big media outlets keep the political spectrum pretty short. Anyone, right or left, who questions, for example, NAFTA, is thrown out of the discussion. With little to debate, political passions are channeled into often meaningless Republicans vs. Democrats shouting matches.

I think it was Lenin who noted that bad blood actually increases the closer you are politically. It's not "polarization" that's the problem, it's the frustrating lack of choices. The Republicans/Democrat fight resembles a fight between the Socialist Workers of America vs. the American Socialist Workers (made those up.)


Also, raisins do suck. Why not just eat a grape?!?

Exactly. Why extend all the effort to turn something naturally good into something that sucks?


But so do oatmeal cookies.

BOOM, now what Rojo? The heat on that topic just got turned to 11.

Actually I have no idea if I like oatmeal cookies becuase they always have crappy raisins in them.

westofyou
03-25-2011, 02:59 PM
I have a giant bag of raisins in my desk drawer at work.

They are great mixed with salty peanuts.

reds1869
03-25-2011, 03:04 PM
HThe Republicans/Democrat fight resembles a fight between the Socialist Workers of America vs. the American Socialist Workers (made those up.)

"We're the People's Front of Judea, not the Judean People's Front!"

Redsfan320
03-25-2011, 03:53 PM
Exactly. Why extend all the effort to turn something naturally good into something that sucks?

Amen. And rojo, you must really look around and find some raisin-free oatmeal cookies, or make some yourself. They're awesome.

320

RBA
03-25-2011, 04:07 PM
I found some Chocolate Chip Cookies. I am going to have to make do with those.

reds1869
03-25-2011, 04:10 PM
I found some Chocolate Chip Cookies. I am going to have to make do with those.

Next time you are in Cincinnati, try the chocolate chip cookies at Green Dog Cafe on Columbia Parkway. They are spectacular.

westofyou
03-25-2011, 04:15 PM
Next time you are in Cincinnati, try the chocolate chip cookies at Green Dog Cafe on Columbia Parkway. They are spectacular.

Funny that that's there now, that area is where we would traverse to get 6% beer on Sunday, I also had friend who lived around the corner on Delta Ave 22 years ago and it was not a area that one would think about business types like the Green Dog.

Rojo
03-25-2011, 08:31 PM
"We're the People's Front of Judea, not the Judean People's Front!"

Yes, perfect example.

Dom Heffner
03-27-2011, 09:53 AM
Don't use inflammatory language like "hate". What's served by that? I don't hate it.

I think it's much more compelling to discuss controversial subjects. I don't consider a fictional character to be the least bit provocative

He's using it as a figure of speech- I don't think he's being literal there.

jojo
03-27-2011, 11:05 AM
This post is in NO WAY meant to evoke any discussion concerning political or religious views. Again, it in NO WAY is soliciting responses relating to any topic other than the issue of whether political threads should be allowed on redszone.

Ignoring the assertion from Boss that political discussions have tended in the past to give rise to poor behavior that increased the mod workload not only in the original thread but in unrelated threads as heated exchanges bled over to baseball discussion (and I think Boss' position is a correct one), this flow chart meant to demonstrate the necessary elements of a fertile discussion that could lead to a consensus of opinions (posted on The Book Blog by Tango) kind of sums up another fatal reason why political threads shouldn't be allowed IMHO:


http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart1.jpg

Concerning political topics, a majority of the time (regardless of the venue), it's pretty unlikely that the very first step in the proposed flow chart will be met...

If that's the case, then such a scenario fails to rise to the standard of the ORG as detailed on the "About Us" page...

Redsfaithful
03-27-2011, 11:31 AM
I've gotten PM's in the past when we had political discussion from people who had their minds changed by things I've posted. It happens.

Sea Ray
03-27-2011, 12:25 PM
I don't even think changed minds is necessary for a productive discussion. Sometimes just learning a new fact is all it takes. I often acknowledge that by saying "you make a good point" or "I understand where you're coming from".

jojo
03-27-2011, 12:34 PM
I've gotten PM's in the past when we had political discussion from people who had their minds changed by things I've posted. It happens.

It happens enough to make the effort worth the noise? That's kind of the point I think. BTW, I doubt there is a single person who would answer no to the first level of the flow chart and its the disconnect that is the problem.

westofyou
03-27-2011, 01:08 PM
Ohhh a chart.

This thread has now completed its journey

Redsfaithful
03-27-2011, 01:33 PM
It happens enough to make the effort worth the noise?

Nah, that's the bar you're setting, not me. I think the discourse is valuable because I think this was a neat environment for the conversation, for the reasons I laid out earlier. It's a unique setting to talk about politics and current events, most places are echo chambers, and the places that aren't are usually free for alls that devolve to lowest common denominator pretty quickly. I don't think that was true of RedsZone back in the day.

This isn't the hill I'm choosing to die on or anything, but I have experience moderating large communities (Red Reporter and others, the bulk of my day to day is with a site that receives 10 mil + page views a month) and it's only more work to allow controversial discussions if you let it be.

dabvu2498
03-27-2011, 06:09 PM
Ohhh a chart.

This thread has now completed its journey

For me, this is actually the kind of post that causes these discussions to break down.

muddie
03-27-2011, 08:14 PM
I think it is time for a fishbone diagram. Let's get to the root cause of this thing.

757690
03-27-2011, 11:27 PM
I don't even think changed minds is necessary for a productive discussion. Sometimes just learning a new fact is all it takes. I often acknowledge that by saying "you make a good point" or "I understand where you're coming from".

I completely agree.

In fact, I like Redszone because there are so many diverse opinions here that I find myself learning something in nearly every thread. But I never expect to convince others that I'm right, or expect others to change my mind.

Discussions are to be enlightening, not won.

savafan
03-28-2011, 06:54 PM
I've gotten PM's in the past when we had political discussion from people who had their minds changed by things I've posted. It happens.

I think I was one of those people.

Boss-Hog
03-28-2011, 07:07 PM
All,

Please see this (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88273) thread to read about a major change in our policy on political and religion-based topics. If you have any questions, please post them there.

RFS62
03-29-2011, 08:58 AM
I've gotten PM's in the past when we had political discussion from people who had their minds changed by things I've posted. It happens.



Just curious, but have you ever changed your mind because of someone of a more conservative point of view on here and told them so?

Puffy
03-29-2011, 11:58 AM
Just curious, but have you ever changed your mind because of someone of a more conservative point of view on here and told them so?

No - but thats because conservatives are wrong ;)

Redsfaithful
03-29-2011, 12:19 PM
Just curious, but have you ever changed your mind because of someone of a more conservative point of view on here and told them so?

I can't remember if anything posted ever changed my mind but no, I had never had a conversation like that. In fairness, I didn't mean to imply that it was a common thing that I received PM's like that. It happened twice, both times well after the related conversation after the person had time to think or events had transpired to make them see things differently, and it was a remarkable enough occurrence that I still remember it years later. But it did happen.

RFS62
03-29-2011, 12:39 PM
I can't remember if anything posted ever changed my mind but no, I had never had a conversation like that. In fairness, I didn't mean to imply that it was a common thing that I received PM's like that. It happened twice, both times well after the related conversation after the person had time to think or events had transpired to make them see things differently, and it was a remarkable enough occurrence that I still remember it years later. But it did happen.


So, if I understand you correctly, and certainly feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, after all the political and religious arguments that have occurred here over all these years, nothing any conservative ever said changed your mind about anything?

If that's the case, you might want to consider opening your mind a bit. In my opinion, prejudice is the most pure form of ignorance. My mind has been changed many times by conservatives and liberals alike. I relish the opportunity to test my beliefs and discuss things, even when I may not share the point of view of the people in the conversations.

And by prejudice, I mean "pre-judging". Now, perhaps you've heard all you need to on every topic out there and don't need to be bothered with the point of view of those who haven't attained your expansive life experience and knowledge of how the world works, I don't know.

Honestly, I'm not trying to provoke you. Just trying to get you to consider the possibility that your opinions might just not be the final end all and be all. I wonder, how much have you changed as a person in the past 5 years? The past 10? I've noticed that many young people think that where their sensibilities and opinions are right now in their life experience is done evolving and needs no more input from contrary opinions. Not saying this is you, but then again, maybe it is.

Redsfaithful
03-29-2011, 01:05 PM
Oh no, I was just saying I really don't remember. I mean it's been 5-6 years since RedsZone had political discussion hasn't it?

There are opinions I share with the Tea Party of all people, so I'd like to think if a belief makes sense I'm open to it, but I'm sure I'm as flawed as anyone.

Rojo
03-29-2011, 02:24 PM
Frankly, I don't trust people who change their minds readily. Most of us arrive at our politics after many years. If you flip on a dime, you probably didn't think too hard about your previous position.

RFS62
03-29-2011, 02:44 PM
Frankly, I don't trust people who change their minds readily. Most of us arrive at our politics after many years. If you flip on a dime, you probably didn't think too hard about your previous position.



By "readily" and "flip on a dime", I assume you mean "friviously", as in without much consideration.

In that context, I'd agree.

But unwillingness to listen to opposing viewpoints, and to modify your opinions, no matter how long standing, if convinced otherwise by an intelligent argument, that's ignorance in my opinion, regardless of which side of the aisle you fall politically.

Rojo
03-29-2011, 03:38 PM
But unwillingness to listen to opposing viewpoints, and to modify your opinions, no matter how long standing, if convinced otherwise by an intelligent argument, that's ignorance in my opinion

I'd say it's human nature. Studies have shown that when most people face a fact that contradicts their cherished narrative, they throw out the fact and keep the narrative.

I would of thougth the last few years would've challenged thos who subscribe to a laissez-faire market model. But Ayn Rand immediately became a best seller. People are going to find any way they can to make the facts "fit" their thesis.

Newport Red
03-29-2011, 05:24 PM
No - but thats because conservatives are wrong ;)

Conservatives are wrong.

Puffy's wrong.

Welcome to the dark side.:)

Sea Ray
10-11-2011, 04:03 PM
I've tried to deal with this privately but I've gotten no response so I'm going to go public with it. Simply put, why was this post allowed to go unchallenged by MODs in the political forum:


I would prefer you stay in your own threads, as this one is clearly limited to liberals. If you'd like, start a conservative thread and discuss your perceived intelligence and whatever else it is you talk about.

Are we now allowed to dictate who can post in a thread and who can't? It seems to me that we have social groups as a part of RZ would be a more appropriate way to limit participants in a discussion

RZ is a heavily moderated site yet this is allowed to stand? What gives?

pedro
10-11-2011, 04:26 PM
I have a hard time figuring out why you're so bent about this. He said he'd "prefer" it if conservatives didn't comment in that thread. So what?

If you want to start a thread to discuss conservative policies and ask the same consideration have at it.

Boss-Hog
10-11-2011, 06:37 PM
There is a reason we did not do anything in the specific post you mentioned, but that's a private matter that does not need to be discussed publicly. If you want to question our decision making, send me a PM and we can address it via that method. This forum is for site feedback: not for questioning why action was, or was not, taken about a reported post.