I am inclined to agree with the two Nicks here - the politics forum is different, and little should change. That's not to say I'm altogether happy with the tenor of the forum. I have been bothered by what is said at times by opponents and allies alike, even admittedly by myself. But I think that focusing on the 'bad language' misses bigger problems, and perhaps the true source of the problem, which I will address later in this post. I also agree with Vinyl that it seems incongruous to object to the use of 'adult' language given the general focus and overall context of the site. At what point does sanitizing the verbiage begin to emasculate the discussion - and who will be the objective arbiter? I fear that attempts to tone down the rhetoric will be misplaced and very likely discourage many of the more valuable, well-informed, interesting and passionate members from participating. What you may end up with is 'politics lite', dominated by neophytes and ideologues, not very interesting at all. I would also point out that the language I've seen in other forums, e.g. Women's Issues, while perhaps not so riddled with expletives, can be every bit as personal and meanspirited, sometimes more so.
I am bemused by users devoid of distinct political views who enter the forum only to suggest that we don't 'need' a political forum on the site. As I have pointed out to them, politics (and religion) are bound to creep in somewhere sooner or later, even on a sex site. Is it not better to have a dedicated forum, if for no other reason to serve as a safety valve and keep it out of other forums? As I have also pointed out, no one is drug in there and forced to participate. I myself was surprised by the heat of the exchange the first time I ventured in, a thread on racism no less, but it wasn't long before I was participating and fully engaged - and I survived. Incidentally, I was advised by a preeminent Moderator early on that "you enter the politics forum at your own risk". Like Nick8, there are many forums I am not interested in, some I only drop into occasionally when a new post title intriques me. Does everything have to be everyone's cup of tea? I should hope not, and it's impossible anyway.
One problem I see involves users who take their personal vendettas out of the political forum to harass and attack users in other forums. I speak from personal experience, but I still don't have an answer for this. I am not one to hit the report button in such instances, though I know I have been reported many times for alleged "attacks" - or for simply responding in kind - depending on your point of view or personal bias. More than once I was criticized and held to account by other users for the behavior of the little posse trailing me, though I obviously had no control over them. It got to a point where I avoided posting in other forums for fear they would show up and disrupt the thread. I suppose I could have withdrawn from the board completely. So contrary to what some previous posters have said, I strongly disagree that a member should be expected to just ignore such personal attacks, or that the instigators and responders should be equally censured. That to me is fundamentally unfair, and one should be allowed to defend oneself in my opinion. I've made this point already with the mods, so 'nuff said.
That bigger problem I referred to earlier in this post concerns posters who continually disrupt thread after thread with the same baseless irrelevant talking points. Though to the casual reader they often appear to be speaking reasonably in 'nice' language, they nonetheless interrupt and enflame the discussion with the content of their posts. This is not a matter of differing views, rather they ignore the topic, apparently thinking every thread is a platform for their repetitive ideological ramblings. Innocuous as it may seem to the less politically astute, it is in fact the root of most of the rancor in the forum and instigates much vitriol there. What they do may not seem that incendiary on the surface or to an outside observer, but it is pure trolling as I understand it. I have spoken about this many times; rather than repeat myself I will quote from what was incidentally one of my last posts before my recent . . . um . . . sabbatical. I hope it will be appreciated that I have carefully removed any references to particular users. The full post can be found
here.
. . . These are not matters of simple disagreement. There are posters . . . . who habitually and repeatedly post the same uninformed, frequently absurd statements, empty platitudes and mindless talking points . . . over and over in thread after thread regardless of the topic. . . . It becomes very annoying and tiresome after awhile, and it is as disruptive to serious discussion as any other bad behavior. Left to their own devices they will completely dominate the 'discussion' with this repetitive drivel. . . .
Typically when challenged, these posters will ignore the challenge to their position, deflect, distract, dissemble and continue to spout more inane pronouncements. . . . When the challenges become too overwhelming and obvious to ignore, they typically abandon that thread and pop up in another to start the whole process over again from scratch. . . .
A few . . . are very good at appearing good natured and reasonable in the face of opposition, because they've figured out this shields them from being shot down so quickly or so thoroughly. They are good at appearing like innocent victims . . . and making their challengers look like jerks. . . it's passive/aggressive . . . . Forgive me if I don't fall for it. Just because [they put] a 'who, me?' smiley face of innocence on [their] statements does not make them any more palatable, nor does it make [them] any less disingenuous. It may make [them] more insidious. . . .
It's natural that this forum would be a reflection of the national political discourse, both in style and substance. Politics has always been a blood sport, and that was never truer than it is today. I think most Americans find the rancor and vitriol apalling, as do I, as I have said here on many occasions. I have also seen what happens when reasonable people try to maintan a reasonable 'debate' with an opposition that doesn't play by the same rules - an opposition that will use any trick in the book to dominate the discussion, gain political advantage and move the subject off track. . . .
My formula for change is simple. Users who demonstrate a repeated pattern of the above described behavior would be subject to appropriate censure. Some of those same users also tend to start a lot of similar threads, sometimes several in the same day. As one way to address this I would suggest limiting the number of threads that can be started by a user in the forum, say one per day, three or four per week max? I also agree with TPA's suggestion that posting rules for new threads should be established, and that could require some citation and link to an outside independent source of information, at least as a point of departure - not just baseless political talking points or a recitation of one's personal opinions and "feelings". I don't agree with the idea that new threads should pass pre-approval by a mod. Likely or not, the possibilty of censorship is there. Rather, if a new thread does not meet whatever criteria are established, it could be subject to prompt deletion, as I believe happened recently.
I think that if these simple rules were implemented, and if we all take responsibility for our postings, you will find the language will naturally modulate to a more moderate level. There are enough smart no-nonsense users of the forum who are capable and should be allowed to police it themselves.
If there is any change in the way it is moderated, I think those moderating the forum should
only be those who have the political interest and sophistication to see past the superficial language and the left vs.right rhetoric - to truly grasp what constitutes instigating vs.what is merely responding and/or challenging. If not, they should recuse themselves. Likewise, and it should go without saying, I think moderators who cannot set aside their personal political biases, or allegiances with or dislike for certain members, should recuse themselves from decisions, or otherwise cease to serve. Not that I am suggesting that is the case - as I have repeatedly affirmed, I respect and appreciate the job that the moderators do, and I do not envy you.
Finally, anyone who can prove with indisputable measurement pics that they have an 8" x 6" cock or better should be allowed to do any GD thing they want. :icon10:
