Fixed Re: Summarily closed political threads...

[PoetJC]

It seems that most all political threads started on TAZ devolves into argument and is summarily closed... with the exception of the currently running British political threads that is. They are generally closed when folks who have strong points of view dig deep into debate mode, posting their points of view to the dismay of others who don't subscribe to the same ideologies, or to the horror of those who simply have zero respect for difference of opinions.

It's soooo frustrating coming back from a wee bit of a hiatus, seeing someone has quoted you and you can no longer respond. To alleviate frustration and since the threads are generally closed anyway - Why not make it a site-wide rule that

1. political discussions are simply no longer allowed on TAZ OR BETTER YET...
2. allow political discussion threads to remain open, thread-banning all who engage in personal attacks.

Those are my suggestions, the former being a horrible one IMO. But honestly - it's no more horrible than the frustration of seeing

Spoiler: this... ((sigh...))

Thoughts?

J.

 

[s.molinari]

I'd love an individual user thread banning policy. Do you remember this kind of punishment for bad behavior?





Scott

 

[Steve]

political discussions are simply no longer allowed on TAZ OR BETTER YET...

Not something we want to do, at least not at this time. Simply put, if people can keep personal attacks, name calling and otherwise verbal abuse out of the political threads and have a sane discussion, have at it.

When it begins to go in circles and fingers start getting pointed and beliefs shoved in others faces then we start to have issues. Remain respectful of others opinions and views then we can start having a mature discussion on politics.

allow political discussion threads to remain open, thread-banning all who engage in personal attacks.

This, does not work. The offender will take to profile posts and other avenues to showcase their disgust with the thread ban basically creating more work for moderators.

 

[PoetJC]

I'd love an individual user thread banning policy. Do you remember this kind of punishment for bad behavior?

View attachment 40720



Scott

My Mama didn't play any of that 'go sit in the corner - you're grounded' foolishness LOL. I don't know whether fortunate or unfortunate for my brothers and I. We got our butts whooped for bad behavior. After years of looking back on that as opposed to the time-outs young kids receive now-a-days... I tend to agree with the spare the rod - spoil the child sentiment. Can't do that on TAZ though - so a thread ban seems appropriate imo.

J.

 

[s.molinari]

This, does not work. The offender will take to profile posts and other avenues to showcase their disgust with the thread ban basically creating more work for moderators.

Really? If it came to that, then I'd say, you've found a user, who you'd not want to have on your site at all anyway.

Scott

 

[s.molinari]

so a thread ban seems appropriate imo

To me, "the rod" would be a general ban. The "go to the corner until you can behave" is the thread ban.

Scott

 

[PoetJC]

This, does not work. The offender will take to profile posts and other avenues to showcase their disgust with the thread ban basically creating more work for moderators.

Hmmm. That could definitely happen. But en masse? IDK about that... I posted a profile comment on my own page a couple days ago. First time I've done such a thing because of a locked thread. When someone calls someone else a "spineless shadow of a man" -- that cannot go unchallenged LOL

Really? If it came to that, then I'd say, you've found a user, who you'd not want to have on your site at all anyway.

Scott

Uh oh... That would be me hehe.. See example above.
Naw. Not really. But the distinction *could* be made that if someone is simply trying to instigate **** via a profile posts, as opposed to posting in a thoughtful and considerate way... That may be the person who you'd not want to have on your site anyway...

J.

 

[Steve]

Really? If it came to that, then I'd say, you've found a user, who you'd not want to have on your site at all anyway.

Scott

A user participating in a political thread on an admin site that generally is a good, sharing user gets caught up in a heated debate. Happens, has happened and will most likely continue. So the user goes on a tirade because their political beliefs were challenged, not something that can't be solved by cooling off a bit. A thread ban, in most cases, seems to only enrage them more.

"spineless shadow of a man"

This is exactly what I mean..There is absolutely no need for it. I distanced myself from the political threads the other day, I simply do not have the time to keep up with everything as much as I would love to. The UK thread shows great restraint for being a calm collective discussion, productive. US politics seems to just spawn hate. No one can be right if they do not agree with your views (Not yours in particular PoetJC , just in general). We are Americans, wanting generally the same things (I think) so we should really, really, start finding some common ground to build on even in it's smallest form (here on TAZ even).

 

[Shimei]

To me, "the rod" would be a general ban. The "go to the corner until you can behave" is the thread ban.

Scott

Dude, there was no proverbial saying or metaphorical rod or time out while I was growing up. I literally, and physically had objects broken over my head and stripes across my back. One broken arm and a concussion later, I realized then it was better to refrain from emotional outbursts than to suffer the consequences. Seriously though, I don't find it amusing when some cannot separate their own emotion from the topic or subject. As Steve implied, ever notice how so much emphasis shifts on the "YOU" "YOU" "YOU" when people lose composure? The finger pointing and ad homs need to cease.

I really like the people in this forum, but I am amazed how so many are unaware of how political or religious views reflect upon a deeper moral character, which I find beautiful in some, and downright ugly in others. I try to keep it superficial and to myself, but when exploring deeper discussions, people seemingly are unaware of how much they're revealing about themselves. And that is where I find it interesting, some are so superficial they'd much rather keep it that way.

 

[Shimei]

Actually... it can... it's the feeling of the need to challenge the other party that ends up with those threads locked.

Is it competitive pride?

 

[Shimei]

I look at it as a "mine is bigger than yours" willy wagging contest. Makes for an entertaining read.. and I admit I've done my share of pot-stirring just for the entertainment that some of the respondents give.

Well I must admit, I find your posts very entertaining and your persona easy to approach and well worth engaging. Hope you don't mind a compliment.

Enjoy,
William

 

[s.molinari]

Dude, there was no proverbial saying or metaphorical rod or time out while I was growing up. I literally, and physically had objects broken over my head and stripes across my back. One broken arm and a concussion later, I realized then it was better to refrain from emotional outbursts than to suffer the consequences. Seriously though, I don't find it amusing when some cannot separate their own emotion from the topic or subject. As Steve implied, ever notice how so much emphasis shifts on the "YOU" "YOU" "YOU" when people lose composure? The finger pointing and ad homs need to cease.

I really like the people in this forum, but I am amazed how so many are unaware of how political or religious views reflect upon a deeper moral character, which I find beautiful in some, and downright ugly in others. I try to keep it superficial and to myself, but when exploring deeper discussions, people seemingly are unaware of how much they're revealing about themselves. And that is where I find it interesting, some are so superficial they'd much rather keep it that way.

You rated my comment "paranoid" and then wrote this. I am not sure what to make of it. Just letting you know, I don't understand your position to what I said at all. You can clarify it, if you want. I'd be interested if you did. But, it isn't necessary.

Scott

 

[Shimei]

You rated my comment "paranoid" and then wrote this. I am not sure what to make of it. Just letting you know, I don't understand your position to what I said at all. You can clarify it, if you want. I'd be interested if you did. But, it isn't necessary.

Scott

I actually reflected upon your post as me being paranoid. Recalling my own childhood. And the consequences of ill behavior. Nothing more. And you see, this is why Scott I listed you as one of my favorite members here in TAZ. You could of slammed me by what you perceived as a negative, but instead, you asked for clarification.

Enjoy,
William

 

[s.molinari]

So the user goes on a tirade because their political beliefs were challenged, not something that can't be solved by cooling off a bit. A thread ban, in most cases, seems to only enrage them more.

Why? If someone gets into a position where they are told they are breaking rules and then goes off and breaks some more, to me, that is clearly a user that you just don't want in your community.

The issue here is setting the rules, making judgement on them and enforcing punishments. To me, these things are needed and shouldn't be avoided in any great community. It is what weeds out the good from the bad. It is also a tool to teach everyone else what behavior and participation in the community is accepted and what isn't.

Or, you can let the bad continue to be part of the community and just avoid the situations, or cut them off, where they can become or have been bad. That is the weaker choice, in my opinion.

I have one particular ideology, when it comes to community involvement. The greater goal is always to become better as a group. Without rules, proper judgements and fair punishments, there is no real chance to become better.

Scott

 

[Shimei]

Maybe a lesson on proper net etiquette will help members? There are so many people from different backgrounds and life experiences which usually contribute or influence a person in the way they respond or interact with others. The greats lived by certain rules like George Washington: http://www.foundationsmag.com/civility.html

I think rules becoming of a TAZ member in a positive way would inspire people. Just a suggestion.

Enjoy,
William

 

[mysiteguy]

I'm not sure why Poet left out the fact that the spineless remark (which I made) was about a politician and not a user, but doing so makes the context of the remark seem entirely different than it was.

I'm fine with not calling a politician spineless here in the future. While we are at it let's have a consistent standard and disallow the race card, as well as numerous other negative expressions in political threads. That would pretty much rule out 99% of political discussion! Hah

 

[Shimei]

I'm fine with not calling a politician spineless here in the future. While we are at it let's have a consistent standard and disallow the race card, as well as numerous other negative expressions in political threads. That would pretty much rule out 99% of political discussion! Hah

Yeah, I agree with you mysiteguy. You're only asking people to abandon any relativistic or superficial compass, and to submit to an absolute standard. That would pretty much rule out one political party and cease debating.

 

[PoetJC]

I'm not sure why Poet left out the fact that the spineless remark (which I made) was about a politician and not a user, but doing so makes the context of the remark seem entirely different than it was.

I'm fine with not calling a politician spineless here in the future. While we are at it let's have a consistent standard and disallow the race card, as well as numerous other negative expressions in political threads. That would pretty much rule out 99% of political discussion! Hah

You did make the spineless shadow of a man comment. My post was not at all about your comment though per se. It was about the profile post I made and am speaking on in reply to Steve saying, "The offender will take to profile posts and other avenues to showcase their disgust with the thread ban basically creating more work for moderators." --- There was absolutely no need to qualify who made the post as it was not about you. Your suggestion that I was speaking about a member-to-member insult is quite paranoid.

And where 'the race card' comes into play... I really am quite sure I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll need to take that up with folks like Tracy or, rather, sit in quiet contemplation after reading the Post piece I've just linked in my TAZ signature: https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ve-what-blacks-go-through-theyre-not-friends/

Furthermore - the suggestion I've made is in regards to the TAZ membership beating each other a'top the head like you actually did do when referring to Senator Sanders as a spineless shadow of a man. A shame it wasn't a TAZ member you were speaking to. Several seem to fit the bill as far as I can tell. But then again - with the relative anonymity of being able to shout each other down behind a keyboard .... It's a bit difficult telling. Meh. 3rd suggestion of the day ==> Please allow the meh rating for all sections of TAZ Then perhaps instead of engaging debate -we can simply forego our competitive pride as dude said earlier and simply respond with the ol' tried-and-true Meh rating.

J.

 

[s.molinari]

I'm fine with not calling a politician spineless here in the future.

Actually, it is perfectly ok to say what you did. There should be no rule against your opinion. However, the courtesy rule I was taught was, or rather the question you should always ask yourself is, "Would you say it to him (or her) in person too?" If you say yes to that question, and can stand by what you say, then yes, you should say it.

Though, the words you have used are also a personal insult.

You could probably come up with a number of better ways to get your point across, without being insulting, even indirectly.

Scott

 

[Shimei]

“Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates:
At the first gate, ask yourself “Is it true?”
At the second gate ask, “Is it necessary?”
At the third gate ask, “Is it kind?”
~ Rumi​

If your speech passes through these three gates, then speak confidently without fear of consequence.

Sorry, just a poem I was reminded of.

Enjoy,
William