Politcal forum rule changes, asking for input.

[Gokku]

Why not start with rules 1/2/5?
Those alone would clear up alot of the issues in some of the larger threads.

I mean as funny as its been to read I regret ever bringing anita up in that thread. now that I realize that even logical and legit criticism of her is meet with blind fanatics to defend her. The whole threads devolved into "someone posts something absurd and someone else white Knights it harder than neph with a video of a cop shooting a little colored kid, Neph at least backs his stuff up.

[NynJa]

What I have learned in this thread is that I really upset heterosexual male feminists, regardless of skin colour.

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

I'd like to point out that this is already in the rules.

http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/109...itiforum-rules

Go after the idea, not the person.

[hey]

can you give an example?

'cause my inital thought is that wouldn't necessarily be a derail. If someone had a thread about women and the workplace, they could still discuss feminism as a whole while tying it into women in the workplace. That wouldn't be a derail.

But they couldn't tie women in the workplace back into feminism as a whole. Splintering a single discussion off into multiple threads that are just referring back to each other is annoying, confusing, and bound to cause issues when people don't read all of them.

[Charismatic]

I enjoy going after both the most.

[Ksandra]

But they couldn't tie women in the workplace back into feminism as a whole.

says who?

No one said there couldn't be overlap.

I have been on debate forums that do something similar. And this has never been a problem.

[kuronosan]

Sorry, it just seems like overhead that doesn't really need to be there.

[hey]

says who?

No one said there couldn't be overlap.

I have been on debate forums that do something similar. And this has never been a problem.

Okay, then what is the point? Doesn't sound like it changes anything.

[ringthree]

says who?

No one said there couldn't be overlap.

I have been on debate forums that do something similar. And this has never been a problem.

Ksandra could you maybe illustrate a few posts that would be excluded from the new rules.

I don't really care about the rules either way, as I don't feel like I would ever violate them, but it may help in understanding what you think is out of bounds.

[RKenshin]

So because your opinion differs from mine, its trollbait.

And this right here is also why heavy moderation in a section like this, again:

sounds like a terrible way to eventually turn this into a stuffy circlejerk of like-minded opinions.

The few that have opinions different from the masses are alienated pretty quickly here (as most places), whether they truly 'deserve/ask for it' or not.

Too much of these new rules would be based on subjective opinions of whether or not someone broke the rule of 'seriously discussing the issue', or not backing their sources properly, or not making a strong enough argument, etc... which is far too easy of a case to make against anyone that you disagree with.

[Ksandra]

Ksandra could you maybe illustrate a few posts that would be excluded from the new rules.

I don't really care about the rules either way, as I don't feel like I would ever violate them, but it may help in understanding what you think is out of bounds.

pussy

What are you plow or some gay shit?

Are a couple of posts that need to stop.

Aside from that, the general circlejerking.

I have seen people try to start new topics in regards to feminism, but they get ignored/buried in w/e shitfest is currently going on.

I could probably post that some dude just murdered 200 women, and people would still be arguing about the woman walking in NYC vid.

[hey]

Are a couple of posts that need to stop.

Aside from that, the general circlejerking.

These are already against the existing rules though. The very first one, in fact. If you want to start enforcing the existing rules a bit more, i don't think that's a problem.

I have seen people try to start new topics in regards to feminism, but they get ignored/buried in w/e shitfest is currently going on.

I could probably post that some dude just murdered 200 women, and people would still be arguing about the woman walking in NYC vid.

If it's not getting attention in a general thread, then a new one can be started. If people don't want to talk about something, then they don't want to talk about it. Making new rules because you don't like what people want to talk about is a really bad idea.

[Pirian]

I could probably post that some dude just murdered 200 women, and people would still be arguing about the woman walking in NYC vid.

If that's what they want to talk about then that's what they want to talk about, though. If they want to go in circles with each other then wasn't that the entire reason this sub forum was created?

Why not simply make a new thread if you don't want it to get lost in the megathreads? Or is that what you are saying? If you mean they want to start new topics about feminism then they should create a new thread with their specific topic, unless they don't mind it getting some quick attention before it gets back to the normal back-and-forth. I don't see a reason to moderate content as long as it's civil (taking out things like what you brought as examples)

While the mods probably don't want to touch this area, it's still a very active sub forum, which seems to indicate that people want to talk about these things, so I don't really see the problem in letting them have at it.

[Ksandra]

Making new rules because you don't like what people want to talk about is a really bad idea.

making threads more topic-specific isn't doing that at all.

[notorious bum]

People love avoiding actual topics and discussing semantics or, in other words, copying what they see on corporate media news outlets. Take away their cheap form of entertainment (trolling, straw-manning, trivializing serious topics, etc.) and maybe the political forum will be seen as more inviting to outsiders who have never posted before.

[BerenTebogo]

Hey now, the last thing we need is more people with more opinions than sense.

You've seen the rest of the people who post on BG. I'll take Nynja over half of them.

[hey]

making threads more topic-specific isn't doing that at all.

It is if you're enforcing it through rules...?

If you want to encourage people to make new threads, go ahead. But if that's not what people want, then why force it?

[Ksandra]

It is if you're enforcing it through rules...?

If you want to encourage people to make new threads, go ahead. But if that's not what people want, then why force it?

because locking a megathread is going to do a lot more stifling a convo than just locking a specific one.

If we have rules that topics that run their course get locked it let's posters know the can still talk about the same general idea, they just have to come up with some new actual info.

[Salodin]

BG is hardly the bastion of political science, why are we trying so hard with this? there are already rules pertaining to trolling, the mods just hate to enforce them. Why are we now trying to take these steps when they can't enforce the simpler ones on file?

[BaneTheBrawler]

re: notorious bum: not a chance in hell. There hasn't been an original post in this subforum in a long time, not counting jokes and the posts introducing new events. Of all the posters here, maybe 2-3 have ever changed their mind or admitted they were wrong. The rest of it has been the same people spewing the same bullshit over and over again.

[Mazmaz]

Basically what I gathered from all this is that poopdeck isn't entertaining enough for mods, so we have to change it to make it more entertaining for them. THEN they can start caring whether people are contributing or just popping into threads to yell "WHITE KNIGHT WHITE KNIGHT"