Political Discussions

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

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]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

It was made plenty personal when untrue accusations were made based on incomplete information.

If you say so.

[frenetic wave]

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]

Originally Posted by frenetic wave

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]

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]

Originally Posted by frenetic wave

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]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

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]

Originally Posted by dabvu2498

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

High five!

[top6]

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 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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

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]

Originally Posted by pedro

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]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

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]

Originally Posted by pedro

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).