Some Proposals

[Ethereal]

I think most can agree that there is something wrong with how the forum is operating lately. What most cannot agree on is why this is happening or how to solve it. I will present a few simple proposals that, if implemented, will go a long way in promoting mature, topical, and respectful discussion of politics.

1. Discuss the post, not the poster.

This is a very simple and effective way to keep discussions respectful and topical. You may characterize another poster's argument or opinion however you want. What you cannot do is talk about the poster themselves. For example, if Poster A says, "Trump is an idiot," it would be acceptable for Poster B to respond with "That statement is idiotic." However, it would not be acceptable for Poster B to respond with "No, you're an idiot." In fact, no discussion of the other poster should be allowed, period. The only exceptions to this rule would be in threads that are intended to be a discussion of our personal lives or when another poster introduces their personal life into a thread. For example, if someone starts a thread about their garden or what they had for dinner that night, then clearly it would be acceptable to for other posters to talk about the poster, so long as it was respectful. As another example, if someone introduces their personal information into a political discussion, like, say, their military service, then it would be acceptable for other posters to discuss it, so long as it was respectful and narrowly tailored to the proffered information.

2. Strictly enforce discussions of the thread topic.

Going off topic is a HUGE problem on this forum, second only to incessant personal attacks and grudges. It is ridiculous that a thread topic about US policy in North Korea can suddenly turn into an endless argument over which members is the bigger hypocrite. Granted, there is always going to be some ambiguity as it pertains to what constitutes "topical" posting, but I think most people can agree that personalized bickering is not what most people come to a political forum to read. If the thread is about US policy in North Korea, then posters should be required to discuss - GASP! - US policy in North Korea! Generally speaking, it should be largely at the discretion of the person who started the thread to determine what constitutes "off topic" posting, with the MODS acting as final decision-makers. Obviously, there will be instances where someone feels that their posts are being unfairly labeled as "off topic". However, the solution is exceedingly simple: Just start your own thread and continue the discussion there. This will actually encourage MORE thread creation and therefore more discussion.

Although I have some other thoughts about how to improve the forum, I believe these two proposals are more than adequate to the task of fixing the situation. Naturally, some people will object to them simply because I'm the one making the proposals, but I think if you view them objectively and dispassionately, then you will see that I am right.

[Chris]

I think most can agree that there is something wrong with how the forum is operating lately. What most cannot agree on is why this is happening or how to solve it. I will present a few simple proposals that, if implemented, will go a long way in promoting mature, topical, and respectful discussion of politics.

1. Discuss the post, not the poster.

This is a very simple and effective way to keep discussions respectful and topical. You may characterize another poster's argument or opinion however you want. What you cannot do is talk about the poster themselves. For example, if Poster A says, "Trump is an idiot," it would be acceptable for Poster B to respond with "That statement is idiotic." However, it would not be acceptable for Poster B to respond with "No, you're an idiot." In fact, no discussion of the other poster should be allowed, period. The only exceptions to this rule would be in threads that are intended to be a discussion of our personal lives or when another poster introduces their personal life into a thread. For example, if someone starts a thread about their garden or what they had for dinner that night, then clearly it would be acceptable to for other posters to talk about the poster, so long as it was respectful. As another example, if someone introduces their personal information into a political discussion, like, say, their military service, then it would be acceptable for other posters to discuss it, so long as it was respectful and narrowly tailored to the proffered information.

2. Strictly enforce discussions of the thread topic.

Going off topic is a HUGE problem on this forum, second only to incessant personal attacks and grudges. It is ridiculous that a thread topic about US policy in North Korea can suddenly turn into an endless argument over which members is the bigger hypocrite. Granted, there is always going to be some ambiguity as it pertains to what constitutes "topical" posting, but I think most people can agree that personalized bickering is not what most people come to a political forum to read. If the thread is about US policy in North Korea, then posters should be required to discuss - GASP! - US policy in North Korea! Generally speaking, it should be largely at the discretion of the person who started the thread to determine what constitutes "off topic" posting, with the MODS acting as final decision-makers. Obviously, there will be instances where someone feels that their posts are being unfairly labeled as "off topic". However, the solution is exceedingly simple: Just start your own thread and continue the discussion there. This will actually encourage MORE thread creation and therefore more discussion.

Although I have some other thoughts about how to improve the forum, I believe these two proposals are more than adequate to the task of fixing the situation. Naturally, some people will object to them simply because I'm the one making the proposals, but I think if you view them objectively and dispassionately, then you will see that I am right.

3 Consistency in assessing and enforcing that.

I've argued your two points for years but there are those who refuse or are incapable of distinguishing post from poster, who, when you say that post is stupid, cry because you said they were stupid. Sticking to the topic is a bit more complicated because commenting on and criticizing posts is fair game but may lead to a natural drift in the topic. Here too there are those who refuse or are incapable of understanding what a topic is.

Because of member mix ups about these aspects of discussion, you need moderation, but moderation that communicates their understanding of 1 and 2 and are consistent with enforcing it.


Is this member-driven town hall # 2?

[Ethereal]

3 Consistency in assessing and enforcing that.

I've argued your two points for years but there are those who refuse or are incapable of distinguishing post from poster, who, when you say that post is stupid, cry because you said they were stupid. Sticking to the topic is a bit more complicated because commenting on and criticizing posts is fair game but may lead to a natural drift in the topic. Here too there are those who refuse or are incapable of understanding what a topic is.

Because of member mix ups about these aspects of discussion, you need moderation, but moderation that communicates their understanding of 1 and 2 and are consistent with enforcing it.

There is no perfect solution, so any policy framework will be flawed in some way, shape, or form. Any proposals, therefore, should be judged on a comparative basis with other policy frameworks.

So the question becomes: Is the current paradigm better or worse than the paradigm I just proposed? Specifically, is erring on the side of "drift" a better policy than erring on the side of "topical" posting? I would contend that it is not. However, the only way we can find out for sure is by actually trying the latter policy. We can always go back to the old way of doing it if the new way turns out to be worse.

[Mister D]

I sometimes violate #2 but it's usually not intended as a diversion.

[DGUtley]

Hypothetically, what should the violation penalty be? Immediate TB?

[Chris]

There is no perfect solution, so any policy framework will be flawed in some way, shape, or form. Any proposals, therefore, should be judged on a comparative basis with other policy frameworks.

So the question becomes: Is the current paradigm better or worse than the paradigm I just proposed? Specifically, is erring on the side of "drift" a better policy than erring on the side of "topical" posting? I would contend that it is not. However, the only way we can find out for sure is by actually trying the latter policy. We can always go back to the old way of doing it if the new way turns out to be worse.

Agree, there's no perfect solution. I guess I'm kind of Hayekian on this, you make some general rules, you communicate what they mean, you enforce them consistently. Members will then, like it or not, learn the rules and work within them. Those who don't can be shown the door.

So should sticking to the topic be strictly or loosely enforced? Pick one and that's the rule, enforce it consistently.

Maybe, since this is a member-driven forum, allow the OP input on enforcement. That's what is supposed to happen in threads On the Serious Side, the OP's reports on personal attacks and off-topic posts should be given extra weight in enforcement.

[Safety]

From the OP:

1. Discuss the post, not the poster.

This is a very simple and effective way to keep discussions respectful and topical. You may characterize another poster's argument or opinion however you want. What you cannot do is talk about the poster themselves. For example, if Poster A says, "Trump is an idiot," it would be acceptable for Poster B to respond with "That statement is idiotic." However, it would not be acceptable for Poster B to respond with "No, you're an idiot." In fact, no discussion of the other poster should be allowed, period. The only exceptions to this rule would be in threads that are intended to be a discussion of our personal lives or when another poster introduces their personal life into a thread. For example, if someone starts a thread about their garden or what they had for dinner that night, then clearly it would be acceptable to for other posters to talk about the poster, so long as it was respectful. As another example, if someone introduces their personal information into a political discussion, like, say, their military service, then it would be acceptable for other posters to discuss it, so long as it was respectful and narrowly tailored to the proffered information.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...=1#post2220641
http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...=1#post2220643

[Ethereal]

Hypothetically, what should the violation penalty be? Immediate TB?

Start with a warning and if they fail to heed it, then a thread ban would be entirely appropriate.

[Ethereal]

From the OP:



http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...=1#post2220641
http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...=1#post2220643

I fully admit that I have not adhered perfectly to the policies I am proposing, but that does not make them bad policies.

[Ethereal]

So should sticking to the topic be strictly or loosely enforced?

We've tried loose enforcement. I think it's time to try something different.