Political Threads and Forum Behavior

Sure they did.

The 'cream' post did not get the 'racist' infraction, you know that and I know that. This idea that it did is pure, disingenuous bullshit. Do you want me to remind you of what post earned the racist infraction? I'd be happy to repost it for your memory.

If this is how you feel then fine. Also, an infraction is in no way a threaten. This is an abuse of language; and this coupled with the lying and/or disingenuous doesn't bode well for an 'adult' nature, does it.

 

I must admit that I can see my name subconsciously being brought up here even though it is never specifically mentioned.

While I will freely admit to being stubborn, pig-headed and prideful, (ask my wife.) I also do my best to maintain a certain level of decorum. That being said, nobody should ever call another member a derogatory name or you use foul language when speaking with a fellow member.

While this is a writing forum, I don't think that's relevant to the threads on current events. With all due respect, what bearing would the fact that this is a writing forum have on our discussions of non-writing topics?

I disagree with Cogito, as he seems to be saying that he's forced to read the political threads at the expense of the writing threads. This is not the case. Much like the RPG forums, you can just ignore the Lounge and focus on all the writing forums. I mean yes, we all love to write, but we also love to communicate our ideas, views and opinions through writing. The Lounge gives us an opportunity to do that.

A subforum would be good but I don't see the point in pushing the non-writing threads farther away from the writing forums. The Lounge is specifically for non-writing topics. If you do not wish to participate in non-writing topics, don't go there. It's not that complicated.

Finally, I have never reported a post for disagreeing with my position on a subject, but I could see how some people might get upset that someone else confronts their views and might report something that is simply opposing and not offensive.

Examples of inappropriate comments:
(These are comments that deserve infractions and/or moderator involvement.

Example of comments that are appropriate:
(These are comments that may be direct or bold, but do not require moderator involvement.)

These are just examples but we should all get the idea. Direct personal insults or personally demeaning another member is not something that should be allowed.

But we also must disconnect a viewpoint from a person. I may think that someones viewpoint is ridiculous, but they are not ridiculous.

Just my two cents.

~ J. J.

 

Reading this thread just now I am reminded of a quote, that I can't remember correctly, so this is a paraphrase:

'I may not agree in any way with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.'

As writers we will often need to engage in subjects that are controversial or contentious, so while I have sympathy for Cogito's position on this issue, I also feel for GingerCoffee's and others'. A sub forum for political and other contentious discussion would seem to make sense. But anyone using it would have to realise that they would be under close scrutiny for their behaviour, and may end up banned from it if they can't behave. Personally I'd probably never use it, as I came here for writing help, not subject help.

 

Posted by Cogito:

Posted by GingerCoffee:

If you go to the Forum, where many of these topics appear, you know you're getting into discussions that are not directly related to writing.

However, a problem arises when discussions that ARE directly related to writing suddenly turn political. These can become nasty, depending on the poster's ability to express themselves without rancor and personal attacks. It's difficult to know which threads are likely to 'turn' in that direction, and sometimes they turn without warning. Sometimes the original topic gets totally derailed. That's why it can become difficult to choose which threads to read beforehand.

I'm with Cogito on this one. I would have put it a little differently myself as regards chest-thumping prima-donnas , but in essence I agree with him. I would certainly support either a new 'political' category OR limiting political discussions to the Forum.

I would never want debate to be stifled, and writers certainly need to be able to defend their own political views and be aware of others. However, if every discussion on this forum turns into a polarised political debate, this can become discouraging to those of us who just want to discuss and read about writing issues at the time. It's not that we aren't political, it's just that there is a time and place...?

I would urge the people responding to a non-political thread to curtail the impulse to trade political views on that thread. Move the discussion to another thread if a debate starts to happen.

Otherwise, our moderators are going to end up gibbering in corners, crying out for their mothers, and folks like me will stop accessing the forum for writing-related help.

 

You say this after posting that picture? Retorts in the form of memes is far from what a "forum for adults" needs.

 

There is an ignore feature that one can use to put individual forum members on ignore.

There are going to be people that irritate other people whether the discussions are political or not.

Hijacked threads can be a problem. I can see where allowing certain discussions results in people bringing those same discussions up in other threads. Isn't hijacking already a rule violation already?

I don't have a problem ignoring threads and posts but I do hate seeing hijacked threads when it chases people away from a discussion. I'm in favor of making the line more clear where politics and ideological discussions are confined to. I do think that will help.

 

Having a separate subforum can help here as well, because it gives you a place to send those aspects of the discussion. Rather than have to give reminders in the thread about what is appropriate, you have a designated place for people who are interested in the political topic that has arisen out of the writing discussion to pursue that conversation further, and by removing it from the writing thread in that manner relatively quickly you can limit the negative effects in terms of users who don't want to engage those topics. It doesn't always work perfectly, of course, but it can work well and you'll often see users take it upon themselves to say they're going to address the political post in the politics subforum, and then take it upon themselves to move it there.

The only disadvantage to a dedicated subforum is if you really don't want those discussions on the site at all. Having a dedicated subforum invites people to post on those topics specifically, and you'll probably end up with more political posts overall than you would without the subforum. But they'll be contained a lot better and less likely to impact users who don't want to read them. It seems clear enough that the idea of forbidding the topic all together isn't favored, and so I think the subforum is the best bet.

 

If you drop the "ludicrous", I would agree with the first. The second is a disparaging dismissal. The third is just sarcasm. I wouldn't say either of those two promote discussion in any way.

 

Agreed, and frankly what is and is not acceptable is for the mods and Daniel to decide, not for one random person to delineate and dictate unsolicited. And, as pointed out to another member in this thread, infractable behavior can be cumulative, with no one individual act deserving of infraction, but the cumulative whole definitely warranting it.

 

Are they the Roles getting played? Might pop over myself.

I nominate [MENTION=53143]GingerCoffee[/MENTION] and [MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION] for mods - any seconds?

I'm sure people use it on me but I used that once on someone who thought she was a beaver or a squirrel or something. Every reply on a thread was, Beaver looks up and nibbles on a twig, beaver thinks yes, the comma is better than a period - that ignore button was perfect.


Personally I can enjoy two old journeymen boxers slug it out as long as they shake hands afterwards. After a heated debate, some can harbour grudges which spills over into the writing forum. Somebody mentioned this to me in a PM "I'm not critiquing his stuff, do you know what he said about Bush? Or what he said about abortion? Now that's bullshit!

 

I've lifted this from the thread wherein the announcement was made concerning change in the moderator policies. I do not in any way support the topic banning mentioned in this post, but I do find the prediction to be interesting to this topic here.

Posted on 6-12-13

 

Wreybies, sounds like the guy takes inspirational lessons from Stalin lol

I'm a member of this forum and so far haven't died of boredom from
the political discussions; and this is simply because I don't
click on those threads.

So the argument is false. It presupposes that all members feel
obliged to read all threads and therefore experience boredom.

It is not a good reason to suppress free speech. Especially on a writer's
forum.

 

Again, I only quoted it because it was predictive of the very discussion we are having. I was exceedingly careful to mention that I do not support banning topics, which seems to be the one thing the majority in this discussion does agree on.

 

I know, Wreybies. I was focusing on the quoted argument as opposed to
you personally.

I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Please forgive me.

 

No worries. I'm not bent out of shape. I should be the one extending an apology, which I do, please accept. If anything, I'm gun-shy. One of the things I think is being ignored in this discussion is that the nature and tone of discussion in these political threads is another major factor leaking over into other areas of the forum, tainting the ability to discuss matters in an additive way rather than a reductive one. [MENTION=18415]EdFromNY[/MENTION] started a thread not long ago asking why Fantasy seems to be a genre that attracts young writers so much more than other genres and the conversation got ridiculously heated for a question that did not warrant it. This is why I feel a separate sub-forum would be of value. These topics should not be banned, but they should be kept from tainting the manner of discourse in the rest of the forum.

 

I'm willing to take responsibility for that fiasco. It was my intention to discuss, but what I think happened there was a lack of ability to explain/ understand many of the points attempted to be made, at least from my side (it's not my agenda here to point fault at anyone other than myself.)

I bring this up mostly to explain some serious pitfalls in debate that lead to pointless bickering

I think ego can result in both unnecessary defensive and offensive reactions. If one takes an argument personally, they may feel inclined to act on emotion, which can 1) prevent that person from seeing and or actually trying to understand the other person's points and 2, cause that person to fling insults. On the defensive side, a person who might originally have been only suggesting an opinion, might find themselves backed up on the edge of a cliff, trying to champion a much larger stance than they initially bargained for. That's when things get ridiculous.

The second major issue with bad debates is lack of rigor. Learning is hard. If your intention of entering a debate is, "I actually want to learn something," you need to be committed enough to really check what the other person is saying and really try to apply it to your own reasoning. Too many times I see people responding to others without really addressing what the other has been said. This totally applies to real life, also. Teaching is just as hard. I would say that the bigger the point you're trying to make, the more exhaustive the argument should be. But this actually requires a lot of work from the writer, (more than I usually see here) in addition to the reader.

A third issue is difference in thought processes. For instance, I believe in trying to treat things on a case by case basis. One problem with this is that different people will make different connections, and while person A may think case C and D are relevant, someone else may not. How do you settle that?

I'm wondering how many times you've seen someone else, or yourself, make an argument with someone, drop it with a lowered head and nods, only to make that same argument the next day with another person. To avoid at least hostility, people need to ask themselves why they're entering a debate in the first place. Are you capable of learning from an opposing viewpoint, or is this going to end with tantrums when you discover your opponent is as rooted in their beliefs as you are? It's nice to want to teach, but you can't expect the other guy to learn if you won't.

 

This is in large part what leads to threads that ultimately disintegrate into insults or other behavior you don't want on the site. All I can say about it is that it takes some discipline on the part of the person making the initial argument as well, even if they are reasonable and willing to entertain opposing ideas. It isn't hard to see who is really giving thought to other viewpoints and who barely reads what the other person is saying because they can hardly wait to get to their next post about how the other person is wrong. You've got to be able to disengage from those people, in my view (not entirely, necessarily, but for that conversation). If someone has shown no desire or ability to consider what you're saying, just move on. Don't contribute to the degradation of the thread. Of course, when you get two people who are not really listening to one another but just hurrying to get to their own next post, then ultimately something may have to be said by moderators.

 

I must say that, at first blush, I find the political threads--in their tone, contentiousness and arguable irrelevance to the purpose of this forum--tiresome and distracting. However, I've learned to ignore them and that, to me, is the best answer--if I don't like it, I ignore it and focus on the elements of this forum that are valuable to me. While I do support the sensible moderation of political threads, or those in which contentious issues are debated, their prohibition makes little sense to me.

 

Exactly, hence the second of part of the paragraph you quoted,

"Teaching is just as hard. I would say that the bigger the point you're trying to make, the more exhaustive the argument should be. But this actually requires a lot of work from the writer, (more than I usually see here) in addition to the reader."

 

Yes, neutral moderators could try to get both parties o address the points of their opposition, at the expense of people being babied.

 

Just for me personally, I see no reason to have non-writing discussions on a writing forum. I'm on a couple forums where they do and animosities and derails seem to bleed through to writing discussions. Suddenly one finds themself in the middle of some battle with no idea where it came from or what the 'combatants' are referring to. And when one does get involved in non-writing discussions - simply because the OP sounded interesting - it gets tiresome to suddenly run into someone immovable, sarcastic, or dismissive. Then it can easily become a matter of "Hey, wait - I'm not stupid just because you see things differently!" - and the battle's on.

Another forum I'm on recently got rid of any and all debates. They're not allowed. There are still arguments about writing and writing theory, but the personal belief systems aren't included. It's nice. Very nice. The focus stays on writing - and that's what I'm there for.

 

But I also see it as a learning experience. You can't moderate how people debate, unless it's insulting. You need to learn who to interact or communicate with people who don't correctly debate. That's part of the learning experience.

The last thing we need is moderators that micro-manage every post, they don't have the time or energy for that.

It's perfectly acceptable to allow two people to 'duke it out' as long as they are not resorting to name-calling or degradation.

I found a website that gives 5 tips to winning any debate and I think they are applicable:

[HR][/HR]

1. Always respect your opponent
   
   You will never persuade your opponent to agree with your position. Logicians who happen to be watching your debate could prove with absolute certainty that your opponent's position is completely fallacious by every known rule of human logic, and your opponent won't budge. Like you, people are set in their ways and have heard years of biased opinions to cement their own worldview. They may change their minds eventually, but it will certainly not happen during your debate.
   
   Respect this reality. You can only hope to persuade your audience, and you should strive to do so. Resist the urge to insult, disparage, or otherwise malign your opponent or any other person.
   
   
2. Find common ground, and stake a claim on it
   
   You should make every effort to base your arguments off of commonly-shared viewpoints. This not only persuades a greater number of your audience, but also damages your opponents' arguments more severely.
   
   Finding common ground enhances your persuasive power. Your audience is more likely to agree with your reasoning when it is based off of commonly-held beliefs, and your opponent will be categorically denied the ability to accuse you of not caring.
   
   
3. Concede well-reasoned points
   
   Many issues in public policy have intelligent positions on both sides, and you will need to offer a compelling case why your position is more relevant and beneficial than your opponent's. If your points are argued well enough, they should be able to stand down any of your opponent's points, even without directly attacking his. Such concessions not only fail to hurt you, but they also improve your standing in the eyes of your audience. It is a skilled debater who can graciously concede his opponent's point without skipping a beat.
   
   
4. Don't confuse passion with hatred
   
   It is easy to agree with the first point about respecting one's opponent. The easiest way to respect someone's viewpoint that you disagree with is to shut up and not say anything about it. But debating is necessary for the health of American democracy, and those in a debate might likewise find it difficult to passionately advocate a position without seeming too harsh on its supporters.
   
   Your denunciation of your opponent's position should be as passionate as necessary, as long as it doesn't denounce the person directly. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the stupidity or ignorance of a policy, especially if you can prove it. Respecting your opponent does not mean respecting what he believes or what he promotes.
   
   No matter what the subject matter or contentiousness of the debate, remain positive in your speech and steer the conversation toward commonalities and possible solutions.
   
   
5. Sometimes, the best debating technique is not to debate at all

Read the full article here.

[HR][/HR]

I think we are mature enough to handle debates on public policy here on these forums. The fact that we are writers makes us more intelligent and thought-provoking than if we were say, a video game forum.

So it is the position of the maderators to allow the threads to flow, and make the distinction between passion and hatred.

 

No offense, but if I walk into Sears, and I am looking for a sweater I'm not forced to browse the jewelry. We have writing forums, click them.

Look, sometimes I stay away from the lounge for weeks and only go in the writing forums, but sometimes I feel like taking a break from writing to get my grey-matter buzzing. I can either go to another forum and have discussions with strangers or I can stay here and have a lively discussion with my friends.

 

But, as I mentioned, the animosities generated in the non-writing discussions still bleed through. And, like with the RPG thing, people have to page through to find the actual writing discussions, or go to each individual area and see what new posts are there - time waster. Why not go to other forums for political discussions? After all, everyone who joins a forum is dealing with strangers at first, including here.

 

About half the people here are inspired by video games...