Political Threads and Forum Behavior

Are you sure it's not the US that loves a Latin dictator.

Remind me to tell you some day about my time in Nicaragua when Somoza lived in his cement bunker.

 

People simply need to control their need to get personal, and likewise, to take things personally. "You" should probably be used as little as possible.

 

I think guidelines need to be there for new members so they don't go into the forum thinking it's some kind of big free-for-all. It's also a way to control the backlash of handing out infractions. You got infraction B) because you violated the rules clearly stated here.. *points to the blackboard*

 

Exactly, and Ginger is really smart when it comes to digging up sources, due to her medical background. I bet she could write a fantastic resource for proper resource citing.

 

That should be enough to scare away the children.

 

[MENTION=53403]KaTrian[/MENTION]:

Like Wreybies said, there could be wild orgies going on in the RPG room for all I know

Jeez I wish.....I really do.

SIGH!

 

"Digging up sources"? You mean supporting my beliefs and claims with evidence?

And for the record, my interest in critical thinking, though I believe I've always had a natural tendency to think logically, came after I became a nurse practitioner, not because of it.

 

You certainly have trouble taking compliments!

 

I kinda thought you were being snide too until I read your previous post where you suggested a guideline for citing. It's all good.. it's all good..

 

I read nuance quite well, thank you.

There is a big difference between "digging up sources" and "supporting one's claims with evidence". Perhaps you can't see the difference. There is significance in how one frames one's messages. A good communicator should have a thorough understanding of framing. You might want to concern yourself with framing if you are using it without recognizing that you are. Framing can persuade but it can also reveal things like true intent that you may not want revealed.

 

I apologize for my poor usage of vernacular. I didn't mean to insult you. in fact, I have respect for you in regard to how thorough you 'support you claims with evidence.'

 

I can imagine it must be a thankless task, moderating such discussions. But I think the team is doing a wonderful job, and the forum has blossomed intellectually and creatively, under the more relaxed, reasonable rules

 

This must be where I'm going wrong - I've never in my life read a sticky!

kettles, pots...

Oh do you now?

Remind me to remind you, I'd love to hear that too, also the time you spent in Iran under the Shah

Who asked you?

Do you mean taking arguments from one forum and copying and pasting into this one?

Enough grovelling, we know you want the gig

I still think this is the best thread ever, I hope you've had a giggle on my replies and not taking anything I've said seriously. This is just hilarious, vying for position in the not yet created job market, getting digs in wherever possible - one or two below the belt, sarcasm at it's greatest, non-adhesive stickies - yep, this forum has definitely blossomed love you all

 

My parents lived in Iran for a year just before the Shaw was ousted, not me.

Do you mean copying something I posted to more than one thread? Or are you claiming you think I plagiarized someone else's material from another forum? You do know I post in more than one forum, right?

I meant exactly what I said, if I make claims I try to cite the basis of said claims rather than just asserting by decree. As for pot/kettle, I do try to teach by example. And I've not posted any wall of how to debate rules that I know of. If someone uses a particular tactic, such as a straw man, then I point out the flaw in the argument. That's not a list of rules. When it was suggested science was unreliable because one can find studies to support multiple positions, I defended science by explaining how one can separate the chaff out and find a reliable scientific process underneath.

 

[MENTION=52161]erebh[/MENTION]: I thought the mods joke was a joke. Please let it be a joke...

But seriously, I agree, there's been quite a lot of histrionics but also, a lot of excellent information and opinions. Not when the discussions get aggressive and ridiculous, but when everyone actually cares what other people think, and they listen to more than just the sound of their own voice. And I'd say that's the majority

 

of course - just trying to lighten the mood

 

(I only read through the first four pages, so apologies if this has since been discussed)

One problem I haven't seen mentioned is political discussion injected into non-political topics. I find such thread derailment particularly annoying, since I avoid political topics like the plague. Unfortunately, when they are injected into non-political topics, it becomes impossible to avoid. I wish the people doing this were, at the very least, warned.

While everyone here probably agrees with what I just wrote, the several times I have seen this occur in the forums, the instigators were not subject to any moderator action whatsoever.

The worst example was this topic being sidetracked into political talk by this post.

It was also a shame that a topic about a movie based on a science fiction classic descended into a silly squabble about gay marriage filled with comical exaggerations. (Including opponents of gay marriage likened to Hitler!) Eventually, the mods had to close the thread, and I don't blame them. Where did this derailment begin?

With this post.

Was the author of that post given an infraction or even warned? Nope.

 

We mods can't do anything if a political discussion is injected into a non-political thread. If you have a problem with spesific post please report them for mods like me to see. I would actually very much like to take a look at those Hilter posts, I must have missed them. No one is above board in that respect.

There is a freedom of speech here, but we mods do step in if things get nasty. That is the only requirement for me, and you are free to criticise me all you like. I have a pretty thick skin, but if you send me nastiness do expect it back. This wolf has claws.

 

Wildly off-topic posts don't have to be tolerated in a thread. Offenders can be warned the first time, infracted if they persist, and the off topic posts can be deleted.

Freedom of speech is not absolute, nor is this a government-operated site. It is a private site, and posting restrictions can be enforced.

Those who open threads to get answers have the right not to see the thread hijacked from under them.

 

[MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION] That thread did go astray and I agree with the closure decision but,

I'm not sure it's off topic to discuss the socio-political views of an author when the book being discussed has a socio-political theme. It would have been more useful if the discussion had kept to the author and the book, however, and instead it became about individual member views.

Sometimes people are inadvertently offensive, like me when I'm too confident of a conclusion or belief for someone else's taste and I neglect to put the socially polite PC qualifiers in the post. But I think a lot of people, especially on a forum which naturally lacks the personal connection to the people one is replying to, can't help but get their hackles up when their beliefs are disagreed with.

Members would do well to remember the world is full of people that disagree with their beliefs/conclusions. There is no sense in emotionally reacting to such disagreeing people on an individual basis. Address the issues, yes, but don't do it in anger.


People have an emotional need to be believed and that includes a need to have their expertise or knowledge trusted.

I am reminded of a little joke my son and I have between ourselves about people who assert a story told to them is true by claiming they personally know the person the unlikely story happened to. "It happened to my cousin" is our way of saying the person is lying about who told them the anecdote. A person hears some fantastic story and they accept it as true. Then when they pass the story on, they are vulnerable to being told they were silly to believe it. Often people will falsely attribute some personal knowledge about the truth of the story like, "I know it happened because it happened to my cousin". I've always been curious about why that is.

Why should we care that a story or a truth we believe is believed by others? There is the obvious, one doesn't want to feel stupid. But I think there is more to it than that. And it's that 'something more', an emotional something, which results in people becoming angry instead of simply disagreeing.

I have to constantly remind myself of that when I react to some button pushing people. And I slip here and there. But most of the time it does work for me to consciously edit anger out of a reply before hitting submit.

 

I agree with [MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION] and [MENTION=53143]GingerCoffee[/MENTION]... sort of. While I agree that members should have the right to object to to an author based on their beliefs, I think the problem with that thread was a very simple one. Vitriol.

Instead of saying, 'I don't think I will see the movie because I don't agree with the author's views on homosexuality.' the member went on an insulting, hateful, vitriolic tirade that was more emotion than substance. I believe this was the poison pill that derailed the thread.

I will freely admit that I connect with my favorite authors personally, even though I have never met them and most of the time, don't really know much about them. There is a certain kinship with the author that happens when you read a great book. This person is the creator of all the characters that you loved, lost and cried with. So when someone comes along and not just disagrees, but insults and degrades another human being for their beliefs, I'm not surpised the claws came out.

It all comes down to decency, tolerance and respect. When those fail, the thread fails and I agree that Gigi should have been warned for the post only due to its lack of decency and respect.

 

The problem I see in this kind of public dragging through the mud of people who aren't here right now (such as Gigi) by ordinary members of the forum, and especially those who have been known to unleash their own kind of unreasonable and insulting tirades in the past is 1. hypocrisy and 2. it's not for you to decide. If you were a moderator, it would be, but you aren't. Every member here, pretty much, has a similar gripe with someone. Imagine what the forum would turn into if we all started to accuse publicly in threads, people we have an issue with.

Report button is there for a reason. Press the button and tell the mods your objection privately, and let them decide. If you are dissatisfied, you can always write to Daniel, but at some point you just have to suck it up and move on. This is just bitching, sorry to say guys, but it's what it is. Even though I can bet you'll vehemently disagree with me, as you always do. But such is life

 

The entire point of this thread is to have a discussion on how we can make the forum a better place for everyone. As you can see, this discussion includes most of the active moderation team.

This forum has always had a policy of members discussing and suggesting changes and improvements to the site. For you to carelessly brush that off and call these members out for whining is, I think, disrespectful.

Any specific examples that are cited are not meant to get anyone in trouble or retro-actively dicipline someone, but rather show how we can move forward to a better place.

As I said, it's about respect and decency.

 

[MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION]: Let me repeat it, in case you missed it:

 

Yes, yes... Everything is disrespectful, JJ. How strangely you pronounce that word, though. Somehow, every time you say it to someone it sounds like you're saying shut up. Unusual regional phonemes must be in play.

Perhaps mitigating your tone of misappropriated authority might suit your cause better. You hold no position greater in this forum than any other member yet anyone reading your proclamations would have to be forgiven if they mistook you for the site owner, which are not.