Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Having never modded before, I can only assume this is easier said than done.

It takes active mods who are engaged with the community and pay attention enough to notice when it's the usual suspects pulling the same old dishonesty. If you have mods that just enjoy having the power to ban people or are completely checked out and only pay attention if it's something obvious like using " " in a post you're going to have problems. But if your mods are active members of the community it will usually be pretty obvious when someone isn't arguing in good faith. You'll see them parrot the same party-line propaganda, ignore everyone who fact checks them, quote people out of context, post a litany of fallacies, and then once the discussion moves on they'll post the same stuff a week later as if the previous discussion never happened. Or you'll see dog whistles, "I'm just playing devil's advocate and asking questions", etc, being used to express abhorrent beliefs in superficially polite terms so that technically they're staying within the rules. You'll see that when people are getting frustrated and crossing the line into rudeness or hostility it's often one of the usual suspects on the other end of it, and when you go back and read the exchange leading up to the offending post you'll see that they may have been superficially polite but they've been being infuriatingly dishonest and the hostility happened for very good reasons.

But TBH the main thing it takes is a moderation policy that being a polite is worse than calling someone a . Ban the 4chan Nazis, the trolls, etc, and if someone is a little too aggressive in responding to an obvious bad faith poster you let it slide because it's an understandable reaction.

And how apropos of QAR to demonstrate:

It can't be done. Look at ETC. The progressives will run off anyone who doesn't explicitly agree with them or moderate their expressions so as not to offend them until, I assume, it merely becomes another circle jerk of varying degrees of progressivism. However it was useful in one aspect.They educated me on the matter being simply one of power, not debate or compromise.

with an edgy announcement that they signed up to the jackboot and red armband club. It's a statement that's "polite" on the surface because it contains no swear words, but is clearly just bait hoping for the sort of emotional reaction that the caricature of their political opponents might provide. The post adds nothing to any discussion about politics.

 ScarletRose wrote:
And how apropos of QAR to demonstrate:

I am shocked that someone making a provocative drive-by post about his grievances with "progressives" would be lying about the incident and have been banned for bad behavior by one of his fellow conservatives.

I think there are a lot good poitns in this thread, and they kind of boil down to two keys:

1) there needs to be at least some common ground. I think a lot of places try to acknowledge this by banning openly racist or bigoted speech, but I think a better way to phrase it would be to simply state certain facts or premises that have to be agreed to for a conversation to move forward. You cannot discuss the best ways to regulate meatpacking with somebody who thinks meat is murder, nor can you debate tax policy with somebody who thinks taxation is theft.

2) You absolutely need to remove disruptive voices. these can be people who want to argue the stated common ground from rule 1, or these can be people who are simply there to troll, but allowing disruptive voices to run amuck will simply drive away people that don't want to endure a flame war.

the hard part, of course, is agreeing on how to do these things. This is one reason that productive politics forums tend to have at least some sort of shared ideology or principles.

I think that if you're looking for nuts and bolts ideas on how to start a political forum, I would do the following:
1) as admins, define your Overton window. Basically, state the range of political views that are open to discussion. so, for example, you might say that any discussions about gun rights in the US have to acknowledge that there is both a broad right to own guns, and that at least some restrictions on that are legal. Nothing is gained by people fronting about banning all guns or claiming that they have the right to own un registered machine guns.

2) select mods that represent at least some of the range of viewpoints you want to encourage, but be very careful no mods want to open the window further. a lot of political forums run into problems either because mods openly push one set of view points, or the mod team allows different members to allow toxic stuff to sneak in. So, lets say you set one common ground rule to be that LGTBQ rights are to be respected, but one mod thinks homosexuality is sinful and a danger to society. There's a good chance discussions around homosexuality are going to get spicy, because one of the mods doesn't agree to the ground rules.

3) define trolling, but trust mods to make the call. even if mods are a touch too strict, it's better to accidentally shut down a borderline troll than let them continue to be disruptive.

4) consider limited posting. for example, only two replies per thread per day. while this may stifle some conversations, it also cuts way down on bickering.

5) do not rely on people not responding to bait/trolls. IN a small, intimate community you can do that, especially if the troll is part of the package. In a larger group, somebody will respond to troll posts. troll posts aren't accidents, even though the trolls will say they are. Human nature is what it is.

You definitely need to try to define Bad Faith Arguments.

For instance, if someone is quote mining or cherry picking, or refusing to read countering evidence? Then it becomes clear they’re not that open to discussion.

Likewise you may find posters simply repeating buzzwords and phrases, but bringing nothing to the table. No I’m not going to offer specific examples here for fear of derailing, and no it’s not something I’m levelling exclusively at those on the opposing side of the political spectrum to myself, because everyone can be as bad as the other.

Perhaps one way to do it is to have Nominated Debates to kick things off. The Mods pick a subject, and invite speakers to debate. Debate done, and theoretically better informed or at least more versed in the arguments, the other members can then discuss from there?

One can also find videos on YouTube of existing debates, have folk watch them or watch critiques of them and discuss from there. The critiques in particular can be a good way of getting people to understand when a debate has been worthwhile, and when one or both parties have just been there to make noise.

Non-political example? Flat Earther Nathan Oakley, host of a daily “debate” show. Many many examples of his technique. Which is to simply mute his opponent and spout insults and invective. As soon as he’s involved in a debate outside of his own channel, and doesn’t have his mute button? He folds like a cheap suit, every single time. Folk can PM me for links, as even though it’s Flat Earth I’m mindful of derailing.

 Polonius wrote:
1) as admins, define your Overton window. Basically, state the range of political views that are open to discussion. so, for example, you might say that any discussions about gun rights in the US have to acknowledge that there is both a broad right to own guns, and that at least some restrictions on that are legal. Nothing is gained by people fronting about banning all guns or claiming that they have the right to own un registered machine guns.

I'd be very wary of this. Yeah, you need to ban the 4chan Nazis and not tolerate "but maybe we should exterminate {minority group}" as a valid position to argue but you have to be very careful to not let bias, perceived or real, poison discussion before it even begins. To use your gun rights example: both of the positions you suggest excluding are valid positions that can be argued in good faith and are well within a reasonable Overton window. People advocating for a near-total ban can point to civilized and functioning countries where such bans exist as an argument that it's a reasonable goal to work towards, people advocating unregistered machine guns can point to the questionable ineffectiveness of registration laws and the low use of machine guns in crime even when you could buy them at your local hardware store. What you need to ban people for is when holding a good-faith position far to one side crosses into stuff like this:

A: "We should have a full ban like Japan, they live just fine without guns."
B: "SECOND AMENDMENT."
A: "Amendments can be changed if desired (see banning and then un-banning alcohol)."
B: "SECOND AMENDMENT."
A: "Why is this one amendment impossible to change while others aren't?"
B: "SECOND AMENDMENT."

or

A: "What kind of murderous lunatic needs a machine gun?"
B: "They're fun, and hardly anyone used them in crimes even when they were legal."
A: "Everyone who owns a machine gun is a murderer, science proves this."
B: "Here's data on gun usage in crimes that shows minimal use of machine guns and that if you want to target guns used in crimes you should target cheap handguns."
A: "MACHINE GUN IS MURDER."
A, a week later in the next gun debate: "Everyone who owns a machine gun is a murderer, science proves this."

And then you really get into problems where people who hold good-faith positions that are outside the permitted scope of discussion are encouraged to go right up to the line, imply their real beliefs, and fall back on "but I never said that, it's banned to say that" whenever anyone tries to call them on it. It's far better and less disruptive to let them speak honestly.

4) consider limited posting. for example, only two replies per thread per day. while this may stifle some conversations, it also cuts way down on bickering.

This is definitely not something you want to do. Limiting posts per day encourages Gish gallop tactics, where one person/side can throw out tons of arguments, rely on the post limit preventing people from addressing all of them, and then claim victory because nobody could prove them wrong. And it also encourages creating unwieldy mega-posts where a 5000 word novel addressing a dozen different people is still "one post".

I dunno. I think it's always easier to eventually widen the overton window than to try to narrow it. Maybe for an international audience, you'd want wider views of gun control, but I'll be honest, as an American I simply find the same handful of talking points exhausting. I just don't need to hear them anymore.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
. Limiting posts per day encourages Gish gallop tactics, where one person/side can throw out tons of arguments, rely on the post limit preventing people from addressing all of them, and then claim victory because nobody could prove them wrong. And it also encourages creating unwieldy mega-posts where a 5000 word novel addressing a dozen different people is still "one post".

I've experienced this A LOT. People think that if you don't live your life on a forum your opinion shouldn't be voiced.

I've had forums that are only of minor importance to me. I might be on once per week, and I might forget about it for a month. That doesn't mean I can't throw an opinion in. People stomp their feet when you can't devote all your free time writing a novel covering the minutiae of it. This is only multiplied when you have 6 guys all asking variations of the same question, all demanding your time and a detailed, individual reply.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
. Limiting posts per day encourages Gish gallop tactics, where one person/side can throw out tons of arguments, rely on the post limit preventing people from addressing all of them, and then claim victory because nobody could prove them wrong. And it also encourages creating unwieldy mega-posts where a 5000 word novel addressing a dozen different people is still "one post".

I've experienced this A LOT. People think that if you don't live your life on a forum your opinion shouldn't be voiced.

I've had forums that are only of minor importance to me. I might be on once per week, and I might forget about it for a month. That doesn't mean I can't throw an opinion in. People stomp their feet when you can't devote all your free time writing a novel covering the minutiae of it. This is only multiplied when you have 6 guys all asking variations of the same question, all demanding your time and a detailed, individual reply.

There is quite a difference between writing a "novel" and writing short, poorly thought-through posts and then falling off the face of the Earth, only to do it again a week later. There's no reason not to expect you to put some basic effort in when you feel the need to share your opinion on something.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
If you say.It would've maybe been ok were the same standards applied to others... You know who I mean.

I do have to thank you for educating me though, that amongst some other things that happened in 2021. I think my views now might be far too upsetting to those guys if they couldn't handle some moderate normiecon centrist cringe back then...

Didn't you leave in a huff after being asked not to use anti-trans slurs? That's not what I'd have called moderate normie centrist, but then maybe I'm wrong.

We do miss you though, you should come back and join in within the framework of the rules.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
[
. There's no reason not to expect you to put some basic effort in when you feel the need to share your opinion on something.

When the average post in the forum is little more than a short, poorly thought-through post it can seem like tribal nitpicking.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
[
. There's no reason not to expect you to put some basic effort in when you feel the need to share your opinion on something.

When the average post in the forum is little more than a short, poorly thought-through post it can seem like tribal nitpicking.

Unless you're referring to your own posts here, this is blatantly unfair. People point out flaws, lies, falsehoods, and so on within your posts constantly. And most of the time you refuse to acknowledge them or simply never respond afterwards. You'll make a very obviously false claim, then ignore most of the criticism pointing out what you said was factually untrue with evidence to support their assertions (i.e. your most recent set of posts), and simply refuse to respond to anyone and pretend everyone else is being unfair.

IMO, it boils down to what's the "Prime Directive" of the website.

If it isn't about politics, then I wouldn't allow that topic on the site. (same with Religion).

At first, I was bummed that Dakka banned Political topics as it took away my playground. But, I absolutely understand why the mods/owner of this site banned the topic, due to the bad blood spilling to the other, more legit, sub-forums.

This is a tabletop gaming/hobby website, not a place where politics should be the main driver this website's traffic. There are near infinite political websites on the 'Net to get your political fix.

Having said that, besides some general "do's / don'ts" rules on such a forum, the two biggest aspect that a political forum needs in order to survive is:
1) Learn to have tougher skin. In almost in every case, the discussion devolves into poo-flinging contest because the participants simply cannot hold their emotions in check.

2) Learn to 'Agree to Disagree' and move on. The goal of these forums is to engage in spirited debates to try to convince the participants and if they remain unconvinced , then there is a point where the debate ought to naturally end.

Otherwise, you may find yourself in this meme:

 whembly wrote:
Having said that, besides some general "do's / don'ts" rules on such a forum, the two biggest aspect that a political forum needs in order to survive is:
1) Learn to have tougher skin. In almost in every case, the discussion devolves into poo-flinging contest because the participants simply cannot hold their emotions in check.

2) Learn to 'Agree to Disagree' and move on. The goal of these forums is to engage in spirited debates to try to convince the participants and if they remain unconvinced , then there is a point where the debate ought to naturally end.

I disagree with the nature of this. You say that people should be more passive and just accept nasty/unfair things if they're said. I say that those *saying* the problematic comments are the ones at fault, and that calling those out is the responsibility of anyone on that forum.

Instead of "have tougher skin", I would say that "be more kind and respectful to others" should be the first priority, and that those who are incapable of showing respect or empathy should be the ones who need to change.

"Learn to disagree" should be replaced with "learn to have empathy". Some things simply aren't "disagreeable" - civil rights and suchlike - and so "agree to disagree" fundamentally doesn't work when one person is advocating for things that are simply beyond any realm of "reasonable".

Instead, forums need to be able to identify and enforce what is and is not permissible, because not everything should be handwaved with a "agree to disagree", and some things need hard lines.

 whembly wrote:
Otherwise, you may find yourself in this meme:

Spoiler:

I'm morbidly curious - why use an inferior copy, rather than the original?

The older I get the more I realize that arguing politics on the internet is a worthless endeavor.

Sgt,

I think we'll find that we're reasonably close here.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Having said that, besides some general "do's / don'ts" rules on such a forum, the two biggest aspect that a political forum needs in order to survive is:
1) Learn to have tougher skin. In almost in every case, the discussion devolves into poo-flinging contest because the participants simply cannot hold their emotions in check.

2) Learn to 'Agree to Disagree' and move on. The goal of these forums is to engage in spirited debates to try to convince the participants and if they remain unconvinced , then there is a point where the debate ought to naturally end.

I disagree with the nature of this. You say that people should be more passive and just accept nasty/unfair things if they're said. I say that those *saying* the problematic comments are the ones at fault, and that calling those out is the responsibility of anyone on that forum.

I didn't say "people should be more passive and just accept nasty/unfair things if they're said."

I'd like to point out, that this is why having a discussion on a forum, especially over hot topics like politics is very difficult. You, unintentionally I'm sure, are putting words in my mouth that I didn't articulate. This tactic when employed during a political debate can be one of the reasons why debates devolves in poo flinging contest.

Instead of "have tougher skin", I would say that "be more kind and respectful to others" should be the first priority, and that those who are incapable of showing respect or empathy should be the ones who need to change.

Being "more kind and respectful to others" should absolutely be one of the tenets of said political discussion board. But, my premise here is that participants need to learn to have tougher skin so that emotions don't dominate and dictate the forum.

"Learn to disagree" should be replaced with "learn to have empathy". Some things simply aren't "disagreeable" - civil rights and suchlike - and so "agree to disagree" fundamentally doesn't work when one person is advocating for things that are simply beyond any realm of "reasonable".

Vehemently disagree here. One can learn to have empathy, but also learn to agree to disagree. Life isn't always black and white. It's a permutation of greys, along with some absolute black and white truths. It's the grey areas of such subjects, I've found, that are hotly contested.

Instead, forums need to be able to identify and enforce what is and is not permissible, because not everything should be handwaved with a "agree to disagree", and some things need hard lines.

"agree to disagree" and here's the most important part: Move on. On some subjects where there are stubborn malcontents, it's better to move on to a different topic (ie, mod close the thread) than to continually belabor the issue. As to whether or not those malcontents can still participate in the forum, really, that's up to the mods and owner's determination. If you, as a participant, don't like it. Take your valuable engagement to a different site.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Otherwise, you may find yourself in this meme:

Spoiler:

I'm morbidly curious - why use an inferior copy, rather than the original?

:shrug:

It's the first one on my google search.

 Wolfblade wrote:


Unless you're referring to your own posts here, this is blatantly unfair. People point out flaws, lies, falsehoods, and so on within your posts constantly. And most of the time you refuse to acknowledge them or simply never respond afterwards. You'll make a very obviously false claim, then ignore most of the criticism pointing out what you said was factually untrue with evidence to support their assertions (i.e. your most recent set of posts), and simply refuse to respond to anyone and pretend everyone else is being unfair.

Let's discuss "unfair depictions". When some of the people posting at me are on an ignore list, AND I've let that be known, no I don't respond. When many of my posts are proclaimed to be false, but later clearly verified, it's been met with either dead silence or smack talk. Remember your times trying to (mis)interpret laws?

Having someone demand sources, getting six of them from major media sites, then being insulted when asked for their own sources. Literally saying that sources aren't needed for commonly known "facts", even if it's shown those "facts" are actually false.

How about the case of the 1-hour Mod? I post, check the rest of the site, go to work, then come back to a flood of PM's and forum posts saying what a POS I am. For not replying in the previous 9 hours. According to the times stamps, the first reply to my post was made 16 minutes later, first PM made 22 minutes after my post. Mod PM 68 minutes after my post saying my post was flagged for nonresponse, 74 minutes after my post a mod is berating me in the forums.

That's right, 58 minutes after someone posts at me I have multiple harassing PM's, and a Mod berating me for not replying to a post while offline

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:


Unless you're referring to your own posts here, this is blatantly unfair. People point out flaws, lies, falsehoods, and so on within your posts constantly. And most of the time you refuse to acknowledge them or simply never respond afterwards. You'll make a very obviously false claim, then ignore most of the criticism pointing out what you said was factually untrue with evidence to support their assertions (i.e. your most recent set of posts), and simply refuse to respond to anyone and pretend everyone else is being unfair.

Let's discuss "unfair depictions". When some of the people posting at me are on an ignore list, AND I've let that be known, no I don't respond. When many of my posts are proclaimed to be false, but later clearly verified, it's been met with either dead silence or smack talk. Remember your times trying to (mis)interpret laws?

Having someone demand sources, getting six of them from major media sites, then being insulted when asked for their own sources. Literally saying that sources aren't needed for commonly known "facts", even if it's shown those "facts" are actually false.

How about the case of the 1-hour Mod? I post, check the rest of the site, go to work, then come back to a flood of PM's and forum posts saying what a POS I am. For not replying in the previous 9 hours. According to the times stamps, the first reply to my post was made 16 minutes later, first PM made 22 minutes after my post. Mod PM 68 minutes after my post saying my post was flagged for nonresponse, 74 minutes after my post a mod is berating me in the forums.

That's right, 58 minutes after someone posts at me I have multiple harassing PM's, and a Mod berating me for not replying to a post while offline

I'm not discussing or privy to any of the mod action. What I'm talking about is your blatant lies like Hunter Biden's laptop being "proven" or "trump declassified the documents he took." Things that are objectively untrue and easily proven false. Both of which you also haven't responded to still despite several others and several days since posting about them at the very least. Which is why the mod wasn't berating you, but pointing out your habit of just not responding the moment you're confronted with a fact check.

That's what I'm talking about. Your posts are often... what was it? Short, and poorly thought-through (and often with little to no evidence backing them up.) Let's not give people here an unfair and biased view of your activity on the forum like you're some kind of martyr.

And this is why we don't allow political discussion here, keep your drama on its own forum.