[Dragon]

Since it seems that Political Discussions board is here to stay, allow me to give a few suggestions regarding enforcement of forum guidelines in the new board. More than any other, this board will be prone to generating heated discussion and may contain opinions which are not necessarily palatable to everyone. It will also produce a lot of emotional content and, undoubtedly, some ad hominem attacks. Nonetheless, it is vital, (again, more than on any other board) that freedom of opinion is not infringed in the course of maintaining order. There is a lot of ways this can happen, from simple mistakes, clouded judgement right up to deliberate abuses of power by a member of the moderation team. Thus I wanted to suggest a way that would help alleviate this issue.

1. The guidelines thread should be pinned in the Political Discussions board. The guidelines should be formulated very clearly, with no room for varying interpretation. This would not only help non-native speakers be on the same page as the moderators, but prevent personal opinions and biases from interfering with actual moderation. The focus of the rules should be based on ensuring civilized and logical discussion, enforcing mutual respect and preserving one's right to express and defend one's opinion.

2. Enforcement rules and punishments should be based on a clear algorithm and posted in a thread for all to see. Wiggle room should be very limited in order to prevent anyone from feeling unjustly persecuted. This would serve to ensure there is no favorism (perceived or actual) on the part of moderators. The enforcement rules should also be formulated in a way that is clear, unambiguous and understandable to anyone with a decent grasp of English.

3. Anyone offended by someone else's opinion should have the option of not participating in discussion and not seeing the offending posts. However, as long as this person does not infringe on other rules, he or she should be entitled to defend this opinion. Enforcing political correctness is not something that is conductive to constructive discussion of controversial issues, quite the contrary.

I hope that those ideas will at least be considered. I have seen cases of injustice, personal attacks, abusive language and outright censorship in GD, on both moderators and regular users' part. I hope that with the creation of a new board, new guidelines could be devised to ensure fair enforcement and productive discussion. The general guidelines for the whole forum have not been sufficient, as everyone has seen, for neither ensuring civil discussion nor preventing abuse.

[karajorma]

2 is never going to happen because people are just going to use it to attempt to rules-lawyer themselves out of situations where they deserve punishment for their behaviour.

Don't be a dick and you won't get kicked out of the political subforum. If you don't know how to do that, there are already guidelines for behaviour on HLP, if those still aren't enough, then all the additional rules in the world won't help you.

[Mongoose]

Seriously, it's not complicated.  If what you're posting doesn't hit the level of basic courtesy you'd exhibit while sitting face-to-face over a pint, then don't post it.

[Dragon]

2 is never going to happen because people are just going to use it to attempt to rules-lawyer themselves out of situations where they deserve punishment for their behaviour.

If the rules are formulated comprehensively, this will not happen for the simple reason that if they really do deserve punishment, then it'll be covered by the rules, and if they don't, it won't be. The intention is precisely to settle the question "does that person deserve punishment" with clear-cut rules understood and agreed for (as a precondition for posting in that forum) by everyone, as opposed to gut feelings and personal standards (which can be biased).

I don't expect the rules to stay static, either. Even the best thinkers can miss something. However, they should not be amended willy-nilly, but require a team-wide consensus. If the moderation team can't form a consensus on whether something should not be allowed, then the person who did that probably does not deserve punishment after all. The controversial nature of those discussions makes it especially important to err to the side of caution, rather than infringe on freedom of opinion (which would be counterproductive to discussion).

Don't be a dick and you won't get kicked out of the political subforum. If you don't know how to do that, there are already guidelines for behaviour on HLP, if those still aren't enough, then all the additional rules in the world won't help you.

Was I being a dick when I posted about Trump (not even about monarchy) in a Brexit thread? This is just one example. The fluidity of what constitutes "being a dick" to some people is one of the reasons for the problems I want to propose a solution for.

Seriously, it's not complicated.  If what you're posting doesn't hit the level of basic courtesy you'd exhibit while sitting face-to-face over a pint, then don't post it.

I really wish it worked like that. I really do. But I've been kicked out enough times over things that were said courteously, but didn't fit into someone's Overton window. I routinely say things I say here to peoples' faces (in fact, I actually get worse responses here). Not over a pint because I'm not exactly a pub goer, but a nice cup of tea works for that just as well. I would say those exact same things from a pulpit in a meeting hall, if I was called to do that.

[Neptune]

I have seen cases of injustice, personal attacks, abusive language and outright censorship in GD, on both moderators and regular users' part.
The general guidelines for the whole forum have not been sufficient, as everyone has seen, for neither ensuring civil discussion nor preventing abuse.

As a newer user/long time lurker I avoid that place like the plague because of those cases you've identified. I see no reason to even go in GD, as much as I might want to discuss some of the topics that i've seen. The attitude of that subforum is unpleasant and even an innocent post can sometimes start a huge flame war.

I won't comment on censorship, however, since I haven't actually stuck around in there long enough to see edits or whatever (If I stumble in there I find my way out pretty quickly). I think the fact that such a dramatic thing is brought up is indicative of the whole situation of that board.

I agree totally with Mongoose's statement here:

Seriously, it's not complicated.  If what you're posting doesn't hit the level of basic courtesy you'd exhibit while sitting face-to-face over a pint, then don't post it.

However, it's the internet. Realistically that's not going to happen.

Just my two cents.

[karajorma]

Seriously Dragon, we're not going to spend hours coming up with a bunch of rules that you're going to ignore anyway.

[666maslo666]

Seriously, it's not complicated.  If what you're posting doesn't hit the level of basic courtesy you'd exhibit while sitting face-to-face over a pint, then don't post it.

Thats a very subjective and unspecific rule and as such its open for quite a lot of disagreements and abuse. A lot of pub fights happen because people disagree what can/cannot be said "over a pint". Extremely subjective or generalized forum rules are not much better than no rules at all, since different people WILL interpret them very differently. Imagine if a country had only one law - "dont be a dick". Such a country will descend into anarchy (or autocracy of those who subjectively decide who is a dick) quite fast, since such a law has very little of specific substance, to constrain both the normal citizens and the judges from personal whims.

I am not saying you cant run a forum like that, just dont expect any improvement over the status quo (beyond containing the more controversial discussions into their own subforum, that is a good idea).

[Grizzly]

Unlike the pub, moderators and admins do have the monopoly on violence. And yes, any such rule is always going to be subjective, just like any social situation is fluid and dynamic. This is not actually a bad thing, it's just the logical consequence of the way humans are build.

Treat people like they want to be treated. This isn't difficult, it simply requires a little empathy and a willingness to negotiate a mutual boundary. If that doesn't work out, that's what the mods are for. If the mods come to a conclusion you disagree with, you'll just have to suck it up just like you would in any situation where you have to respect somebody else's boundaries even though, in your heart, you don't.

But, again, this isn't fundamentally different from how you would conduct yourself away from a keyboard.

[General Battuta]

How many pints are we talking exactly

[Phantom Hoover]

take a sip every time ttuta double posts, down it if it's a triple

[MP-Ryan]

How many pints are we talking exactly

As I don't drink beer, I vote for 0 pints.  Tequila shots and/or rum+cokes negotiable.

[Grizzly]

I used not to drink beer untill somebody handed me some Belgian vintage (Duvel). Might be worth a shot!

[General Battuta]

Tequila shots

No, no, no, guysh, I said I wouldn't again — anything but tequila — **** — **** — okay but you gotta make sure I get home — ready — UGHhhhhhhnnnnn

[Dragon]

Treat people like they want to be treated. This isn't difficult, it simply requires a little empathy and a willingness to negotiate a mutual boundary. If that doesn't work out, that's what the mods are for. If the mods come to a conclusion you disagree with, you'll just have to suck it up just like you would in any situation where you have to respect somebody else's boundaries even though, in your heart, you don't.

But, again, this isn't fundamentally different from how you would conduct yourself away from a keyboard.

I agree with what you say. However, the problem is that mods don't only participate in the discussion as mods. As such, their conclusion is not necessarily based on your conduct. For example, if a moderator hates someone (for example, because he disagrees with him, but keeps losing arguments against him), he can come up with an excuse and ban the person he hates. In that situation, sucking it up is the exactly the wrong thing to do - an injustice has been done and it should be protested. IRL, a lot of work goes to ensure that there is no conflict of interest in cases the authorities need to step in, but on a small forum, with everyone personally engaged in the very discussion that they have to moderate, this is an unrealistic expectation.

My suggestion calls for introducing rules that would not only bind regular users, but also moderators, in order to prevent the situation like the above from arising, despite the conflict of interest. Under the current system, the monopoly on violence on the part of moderation team leaves room for abuse from which is very hard to defend oneself against. In all cases that I've seen, even if the verdict was eventually overturned (and I only remember a single case like that), no compensation or apology of any kind was offered to the victim.

Seriously Dragon, we're not going to spend hours coming up with a bunch of rules that you're going to ignore anyway.

You are not, and that's fine by me. In fact, I'd prefer someone like Goober to come up with them (pretty sure it wouldn't take him hours, either). You are the person who, after giving a warning about posting about monarchy and seeing three off-topic posts, one about monarchy and two about Trump, banned the people who posted the latter two. I'm sorry, but your action is a particularly explicit example of a situation I'm looking to prevent. This is not exactly a mark of being qualified to come up with those rules, don't you think? Neither is condescending behavior is an otherwise respectful discussion.

For the record, if the rules were clear and just, I would have no problem complying with them. I have no problem being civil, avoiding personal attacks or anything like that. As long as you don't forbid being anti-democratic, for example, and I wouldn't have any problems. I wouldn't be asking other people to follow them if I had no intention of following them myself.

[General Battuta]

Everyone who posts more about posting than posts posts should be autobanned

[karajorma]

You are not, and that's fine by me. In fact, I'd prefer someone like Goober to come up with them (pretty sure it wouldn't take him hours, either). You are the person who, after giving a warning about posting about monarchy and seeing three off-topic posts, one about monarchy and two about Trump, banned the people who posted the latter two. I'm sorry, but your action is a particularly explicit example of a situation I'm looking to prevent. This is not exactly a mark of being qualified to come up with those rules, don't you think? Neither is condescending behavior is an otherwise respectful discussion.

And finally the truth of why you posted this topic comes out (not that everyone on the moderation staff couldn't see it already). This is exactly what I mean about you trying to rules-lawyer your way around the problem. You're simply going to claim that "I was talking about Trump not monarchies and so was Maslo but MP-Ryan was talking about monarchies so he should be banned too/instead of me!" and ignore the fact that MP-Ryan was making a joke that he didn't intend to cause any further off-topic while you were continuing a discussion that obviously was off-topic. And was obviously about the difference between monarchies and democracies despite what you claim.

You are deliberately attempting to use the letter of what was said to undermine the spirit of what was said. And you would do that regardless of who makes up the rules you want made up. It's is nothing but self-serving bull**** diguised as an attempt to try to make fair rules for everyone on the forum and since you've finally come clean about why you posted this thread I'm closing it.