Politcal forum rule changes, asking for input.

[Ksandra]

We are looking into changing the rules and upping the moderation focus on this section. I wanted to bring this to the posters for two reasons:

1. I want to give you guys an idea of what is coming so this isn't a sudden, BAN ALL THE THINGS on one day.

2. I want input because I have always believed a forum is a balance between what the staff wants and what the members want.

3. Tyven had one job.

Here is what we are thinking so far: (from neogaf)

1. If you're not seriously interested in discussing the issue, don't post. This is a general rule, but it will be moderated sternly in this section.

2. Don't drop a link and say, "That's how I feel!" If you can't be bothered to put your opinions into your own words, don't post.

3. Substantiate your claims. If you claim there's a conspiracy, you better have evidence. And not "Ah, but they all started writing about this at the same time!" circumstantial evidence, but actual evidence of collusion and impropriety.

4. Don't link to stuff you aren't willing to support. If you post it, you posted it. If it contains something that would get a ban, you're going to take that ban.

5. Attempt to be kind to one another. If you can't manage that, be civil.



This is obviously going to come with a lot of heavy moderation. We have changed the section to members only, so you can only access this section if you are logged in. We are reserve the right to Leeroy you out of the section if you can't behave.



Feminist/poopdeck threads will also get rebooted once rule changes are made. (possibly other threads, but I think these are the two major issue ones.)

Please leave input. over-the-top bullshittery will be ignored and it won't be a good way to get what you want.

[Priran]

1. If you're not seriously interested in discussing the issue, don't post. This is a general rule, but it will be moderated sternly in this section.

2. Don't drop a link and say, "That's how I feel!" If you can't be bothered to put your opinions into your own words, don't post.

These are good rules

3. Substantiate your claims...And not circumstantial evidence but actual evidence...

This isn't a criminal trial. Something in the ballpark of nobody is going to follow this rule, and the only posts that are going to get hit by this are opinions the mods dislike.

4. Don't link to stuff you aren't willing to support. If you post it, you posted it. If it contains something that would get a ban, you're going to take that ban.

"Hitler never said that!"
"Here he is saying that! [link to hitler speech]"
"Wow nice Hitler support. mods plz ban this neonazi fuckbag"


I guess my biggest question is why the rules changes all of a sudden and why of all places would you model the rules for this section after Neogafistan?

[Gredival]

This isn't a criminal trial. Something in the ballpark of nobody is going to follow this rule, and the only posts that are going to get hit by this are opinions the mods dislike.

Trust me, the staff has vigorous debates regarding the standards for infracting someone and we attempt to distinguish moderating behavior from content. The Isladar Civil War was waged for this very reason.

There is of course a point where an opinion reaches the point of hostility that it cannot help but be infractible. But such cases are few and far between/

What we mean by evidence is basically not to have a situation where someone is spewing from the wrong orifice and being non-responsive.

"Hitler never said that!"
"Here he is saying that! [link to hitler speech]"
"Wow nice Hitler support. mods plz ban this neonazi fuckbag"

This is to prevent people from dodging an argument by simply burying people in random links. If you are going to debate, the onus is on you to pick out the relevant warrants that support your argument vs. link dumping en masse.

Obviously in your example, the link is provided for the purpose of verifying a statement, not to offload argumentative burden.

[Ksandra]

I guess my biggest question is why the rules changes all of a sudden and why of all places would you model the rules for this section after Neogafistan?

Because anytime the section has been brought up in the staff section it's been followed by "I want to nuke it into orbit." So, I finally wanted to start a discussion on why they kept saying it and what they wanted from the section. As you may have noticed, I am like the only staff member now who posts in the section. No one wants to touch it with a ten foot pole. I want to correct that.

As for where the rules come from I really couldn't give a shit. It was presented from another member and the general consensus was positive that they would fit with what we want from the section, so it doesn't really matter if we got those rules from neogaf, fox news, or the Pope. If it fits, it fits.

[Correction]

Would be nice if threads were kept relatively focused and on topic. Over time the one size fits all megathreads get toxic with the same 2-3 people playing games with each other and not really discussing a subject where problems are honestly identified and questions are answered. That's definitely been a problem in the 'feminism' thread. It absolutely happened in the past with the Sarah Palin thread.

[Ksandra]

Would be nice if threads were kept relatively focused and on topic. Over time the one size fits all megathreads get toxic with the same 2-3 people playing games with each other and not really discussing a subject where problems are honestly identified and questions are answered. That's definitely been a problem in the 'feminism' thread. It absolutely happened in the past with the Sarah Palin thread.

This is a good point, I hadn't really thought about it. Thank you.

I think we can definitely institute a rule that topics must be specific (e.g. Feminism in the workplace vs. a general feminist thread). And require derails to be moved to a new thread or removed.

[Priran]

There is of course a point where an opinion reaches the point of hostility that it cannot help but be infractible. But such cases are few and far between.

How are you defining a "hostile opinion"? Is that an opinion delivered with hostility or an opinion you deem too fringe and offensive? And it doesn't mean anything that the frequency of infractions is rare, opinions that prompt silencing are rarely widely held.

What we mean by evidence is basically not to have a situation where someone is spewing from the wrong orifice and being non-responsive.

I'd just like to point out that "no circumstantial evidence" is literally a higher bar than that of a criminal trial in the US. "Circumstantial" does not mean "invalid".

This is to prevent people from dodging an argument by simply burying people in random links. If you are going to debate, the onus is on you to pick out the relevant warrants that support your argument vs. link dumping en masse.

Obviously in your example, the link is provided for the purpose of verifying a statement, not to offload argumentative burden.

Fair enough that there should be a rule about that, but the rule as written should reflect that intent. The rule in OP is that if I link to something I am unequivocally assumed to support it and am responsible for its content, which seems to be a rule of an entirely different and frankly, weirdly punitive kind.

[BaneTheBrawler]

can we still crack jokes?

[Gredival]

How are you defining a "hostile opinion"? Is that an opinion delivered with hostility or an opinion you deem too fringe and offensive? And it doesn't mean anything that the frequency of infractions is rare, opinions that prompt silencing are rarely widely held.

It means an opinion which is inherently and naturally belligerent such that civil discourse becomes an impossibility. For example, if someone were to ardently argue for the genocidal extermination of a minority and to state that they will continue to voice this opinion but they refuse to respond to the rebuttals of another poster because that poster is of an inferior bloodline and has no right to address them as a matter of natural order.

For the most part an opinion incites a hostile response due to its offensiveness is not sufficiently hostile to be infractible in and of itself. That of course doesn't mean anything if the OP degrades into similar hostility.

I'd just like to point out that "no circumstantial evidence" is literally a higher bar than that of a criminal trial in the US. "Circumstantial" does not mean "invalid".

Proffered text was copy pasta from somewhere else that I don't even know. The point wasn't so much the language as the idea.

[Ksandra]

can we still crack jokes?

something definitely worth discussing.

I am leaning towards no, but remember this would just be for the poli section. I think a lot of jokes get made which ends up being more like trolling at other people's expense for having a different opinion which just pisses people off.


Feel free to try and convince me otherwise or what rules you would like to have added to handle it.

[archibaldcrane]

Wait, I'm sorry - we're talking about a separate political forum, or are we talking about this youtube comments section?

Either way:

This is obviously going to come with a lot of heavy moderation.

sounds terrible

[Ksandra]

youtube comments section.

[BaneTheBrawler]

jokes are entertaining; the endless cycle of BG arguments are not.

and what are youtube comments for if not entertainment?

[Headspace]

No Plows Allowed

[Ezek]

Please don't turn this subforum into some kind of Neogaf monstrosity. It would ruin my reading material.

[Ksandra]

Please don't turn this subforum into some kind of Neogaf monstrosity. It would ruin my reading material.

I actually have no idea what neogaf is (honest truth, i swear). So, you would have to be more specific than that, otherwise comments like this mean nothing.

[Correction]

can we still crack jokes?

Why not? Jokes are fun.

[tyven]

this all sounds like a terrible idea

[Acevalefor]

this all sounds like a terrible idea

This.
If this turns into a supermoderated butthurt everywhere subforum, it will remove a large part of my reason for checking these forums. I enjoy the politiforum and do not want to see it heavily moderated like you guys seem to be talking about. If you can't get a moderator to touch this forum, make me a moderator and I will do it. It's really not a bad place.

The only thing I would like to see is a little less circular threads and more focused discussion.

[Salodin]

I blame kuyas OP Gamergate post for this.