Hard Light Productions Forums
Site Management => Site Support / Feedback => Topic started by: Grizzly on October 30, 2020, 02:47:34 am
-
Also just ban political discussion of current events in general, as it is on discord.
-
I suspect that would just result in things moving back to gen discuss.
More importantly, what happened was a symptom of a deeper problem with HLP. And I honestly feel it would have happened even without political discussions.
I'll leave this thread open but I suspect that even discussions of whether or not we should have a political board will prove my point.
-
I agree on both points, but consider:
Political discussion is only as good as its moderation. Even without trolling admins actively making the situation worse, you end up in situation where moderators can't actually moderate effectively because their peers have already been involved in it.
I'd argue that the only reason HLP still puts so much weight on political discussions is because it celebrates a culture of heated arguments over everything else. I think trying to adhere to this culture over everything else will just bring more people to ruin.
-
MP-Ryan has already stated that it is his desire to see a change to that culture and make Political Discussion into a place where civilised discussion about politics can be had. Given the sheer number of people who are mostly on HLP because they find it a good place to talk about what is going on in the world, I'd definitely be loath to remove it when it might actually result in us losing lots of members.
-
MP-Ryan has already stated that it is his desire to see a change to that culture and make Political Discussion into a place where civilised discussion about politics can be had.
I vaguely remember that was his goal three years ago. Did it work, was the effort worth it?
-
For the most part, I'd say yes. Look at what General Discussion was like 10 years ago.
I'd rather keep Pol Dis because it means that we keep a core of long term FS people around who would otherwise wander off. Which means that a cool mod or TC might make them play again. Hell, I might have wandered off myself if it wasn't for Pol Dis.
-
Pasted from the "What should HLP 2021 be?" thread:
yes, delete PolDisc. I don't think I need to get expansive on the reasons why. There are plenty of places on the internet to talk politics that are not HLP. If you really want to talk politics to people from HLP, there's a wonderful thing called Private Messages. We certainly don't need to know whether you want to cage immigrants or smoke pot in order to work together.
The counterargument was that you need a place for pol discussion to happen so it won't spill over the rest of the community - if you don't care about politics, just don't go there! I think the recent events (as well as much older discussions involving female pilots of the GTVA in places that were definitely not a politics board and resulted in the loss a valued community member) have definitely demonstrated that this experiment was a failure.
-
PolDisc has to be archived, IMO.
It serves no real purpose over here. And I'd enforce rules on topics which can be addressed in General Discussion too, just to make sure that things can settle down and prevent future drama. This community doesn't any flame wars caused by stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with FreeSpace.
-
I've been thinking about this a bit, and I think I'm with Matt here: Poldisc should die. The forums should, in this new constellation with discord included, act mostly as a repository of posts that require and deserve more permanence than discord can, by its design, afford: Release announcements, long-running and focussed discussions about new features or campaigns, tech support stuff, FAQs and such.
Discord can then act as a more fleeting outlet to facilitate actual, real-time discussions.
However, unlike Matt, I clearly recognize (at least within myself) a need for a venting place, a place to talk about off-topic ... errr ... topics and stuff that happens out there. This should be the Discord: as a more ephemeral medium, it is less likely to grow like a cancer. There are discords out there that can manage such discussions without them exploding all the time; I think we can too.
-
I should point out that quite a few users on HLP are here mainly because of general discussion and political discussion. Based on what I've heard this last month, we'd probably lose MP-Ryan for a start.
-
PolDisc is just one more avenue of expression, which allows insight into who is actually behind a nickname. You had exactly the same problems between members and their values before PolDisc and you will have them after if you delete it. PolDisc is not the actual problem. It is just another avenue for people to show their true colors.
Do we want to know what those colors are? We can still kind of see them even without political discussions. They are displayed in other forums from time to time over the years, in other subjects. But maybe it is better not to know. I don't think so personally, but the site is about modding, and any and all political discussion can be banned and moderated away from the forums entirely.
That said, the campaigns, the game. They entirely revolve around political issues. If the group as a whole cannot discuss politics, what does that say about the value of the content that they're making for the game?
-
I think this thread is redundant; please use kara's HLP 2021 (https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=97064) thread for this discussion.
-
PolDisc should stay, but only if moderation and enforcement of the rules is possible. If not, it needs to be closed down and political discussion banned. That said, it says a lot about a forum and its members if they are not deemed to be capable to discuss certain issues. It brings into question the value of what they're producing as a whole.
-
Actually I asked people to use this thread for this discussion. To keep it out of the other thread.
-
Despite recent events, I still think that PolDisc has value. The failures of the recent event as relate to PolDisc were:
One, people were violating both the general Guidelines for Forum Conduct (https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87037.0), as well as the PolDisc-specific A Quick Note on Board Guidelines (https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=93403.0) post which is pinned at the top of the PolDisc board. Specifically, the guidelines about being respectful of other people, and debating their stances, not attacking them personally.
Two, the violations above should have been immediately reported to the highly-competent moderating staff to handle. This was not done in a timely fashion; instead, an attempt was made to resolve the situation via negotiation first. Given the already-inflammatory mood in the thread, this failed miserably.
The solutions to both points of failure is obvious. One, people should obey the forum guidelines. Two, when encountered with violations of the guidelines, report the post to a moderator and don't continue the debate with the violator.
-
I've made my views on PolDisc partially in another topic already, but to summarize and expand, the following:
1) For there to be a "Political Discussions" board, there needs to be an actionable definition of what "political" means.
For some people, as a matter of cultural background, "political" may just refer to matters I would describe as "high politics" - the actions and statements of parties, governments, statespersons and the matters of ideology - a definition I do not find to have a high utility as it promotes nothing but a view that allows yourself and your action to be put at distance or in contrast. I will spare you the tedious and preaching follow-up...
Achieving such a definition while keeping it accessible would be real time investments (there is an interconnected field of linguistics and political science in which dozens of people make their careers of this); and it is up to the staff to make a determination if they want do it or not.
2a) Discussion of matters of complexity can only go so far as the open communication channels allow.
Not all forms of communication are created equal - in the social sciences there is a model to break down communication forms by what "channels" they allow information to flow through; even enhanced with iconographic representations to signify how a line of text is to be read, mostly text based interactions have only a low number of channels open and even then depend highly on literacy (as in not just the basic skill to read and write text, but also interpret layers beyond the pure text) of the recipient.
If the discussion of some matters cuts deep it may not always be able to fully express some of that depth in pure text – especially if you are hitting matters close to a person’s self-image and identity, where the rational quickly gives way to more immediately responsive avenues of reaction.
2b) On the disparity of time investment
One of the problems of that can pre-form any discussion space detrimentally is that of disparate amounts of time to invest and how it forms a problematic power dynamic; basically how do you stop the people who have the time and energy to argue from keeping raising the entry level to a discussion or from just by volume drown out voices more deliberate, less bold or just with less time to spare.
This is one of the major problem in organizing political discussion anywhere, not just online – and it quite often bleeds into the make-up of representative bodies working on legislation. Trying to solve it usually takes measures which on the surface look like the opposite of what they are trying to promote, e.g. prioritizing new entries into a discussion, and requires a committed group to enforce.
2c) On “Closing” Arguments
One of the things that is great about having political discussions in an in-person, time-limited format (or connected to a process that will eventually has to end) is that all participants have to eventually make a closing argument; these can not only serve as statements of position but can also as an evaluation how the discussion is progressed.
While working this angle may seems technically high achievable (limiting the lifetime of each topic and force a new one to be opened if the need for discussion persists), I am not so sure if it will gain acceptance.
3) On utility beyond discussion
Having the opportunity to interrogate the past public posts of someone can be a tremendous help besides confronting that person outright. How you want to approach a person and on what subjects can easily be informed by having a look into situations when that person is “out in the wilds”.
I hear the argument that “making these arguments private” but I find it missing this point – It assumes that every member of community has the time to invest and the boldness to actually do that.
Entering all these points into consideration, and also accounting for the presence of a more responsive medium in the Discord, shutting PolDisc down might be the most prudent course of action at this time, as a reform would require additional staff to enforce. Point 3 can be served by lurking in the Discord as well – even if some restriction apply there as well.
-
wrt point 1, I would like to point out that if you shut down political discussion wholesale, you still have to determine what is considered political and what isn't. In the end, I'd say it's just up to the moderators to read a thread as it gets out of hand, decide "Do I want to moderate this?" and if the answer is no, to lock the thread.
-
The funny thing is, -Joshua-, I think by far these days and for years the one who uses Pol Disc and creates the most new threads in there is you. 8/24 threads on the first page and 10/25 on the second were created by you. If you were to swear off Pol Disc it would have a big effect.
For years I've wanted a split into Pol and Gen Disc, and as you know, this happened a few years ago. I had hoped that this would allow interesting and nice apolitical topics to pop up in Gen Disc, where we could be friendly with each other, but Gen Disc is kind of dead. Pol Disc is slowly dying as people are driven away from it. I think hiding it from the general public was a great move as it greatly reduced the strategic value of it in the culture war people have been fighting in there.
I've not been on discord to know if people are friendly with each other there, but we've rarely had threads like that here as long as I can remember.
There is too much bad blood between people. Something that has stuck in my mind is something I saw from #BP. You would think having things in common would be a path to reconciliation. Phantom Hoover despises Dragon. He has a keen interest in mathematics, and when he found Dragon might also have one, rather than it be a good thing, he was genuinely disturbed by this and hoped he didn't. I don't understand this at all, but under such conditions, reconciliation is impossible. Only eternal conflict.
There is just way too much bad blood. Way too many people who revel in hurting people. The culture must change so people just won't put up with it. Refuse to engage with hostility. Every person who doesn't want hostility would have to draw a line in the sand and just not engage with it. Ignore these people and post around them.
Question for staff. Is it wrong for people to beat Goober over the head with the doomsday thing all the time in totally unrelated threads? It's been going on for over three years. Of course, you're free to believe that it disqualifies him from anything he says being relevant, but if it was me thinking that, I just wouldn't talk to the guy. But it's not enough for them to make such a personal choice (indeed, they don't make it, as they keep talking to him.) The goal is to tarnish his name and drive him away, like so many others before him.
Civil political discussion is impossible on Hard Light. Most of the people who participate don't want it, they want to fight and win. They want to pwn. They want people to get banned. I'm rarely on the same side as these people, but even when I am, they're insufferable, I'm there trying to have a civil discussion with someone and they're there in attack mode putting that person on the defensive, making it impossible.
I know -Joshua- isn't in there for destroying people. You won't get what you want, so you might as well leave Pol Disc.
-
The funny thing is, -Joshua-, I think by far these days and for years the one who uses Pol Disc and creates the most new threads in there is you. 8/24 threads on the first page and 10/25 on the second were created by you. If you were to swear off Pol Disc it would have a big effect.
It's true, I actively enjoy political discussions (right up until the point someone threatens to sue me over it :P ). But there is sometimes very little point. I love this little line from one of the admins at the time, as it's the most begrudging compliment I've ever received:
I have noticed that, despite your political views, you tend to be a little more sane and a little less foaming-at-the-mouth than certain other people.
If that's the level of a contempt that an admin has for the people he's having political discussions with, and he's not getting pushback for it, how can you even have a good conversation? It sets the tone for the entire forum.
Question for staff. Is it wrong for people to beat Goober over the head with the doomsday thing all the time in totally unrelated threads? It's been going on for over three years. Of course, you're free to believe that it disqualifies him from anything he says being relevant, but if it was me thinking that, I just wouldn't talk to the guy. But it's not enough for them to make such a personal choice (indeed, they don't make it, as they keep talking to him.) The goal is to tarnish his name and drive him away, like so many others before him.
Having been active in that thread and it actively dropping my respect for Goober like a stone, I can safely say that the goal is not so much to "hit him over the head with it". It's not that he made a prediction that turned out to be wrong. It's how he conducted himself in the thread itself, belittling people who disagreed with him as not seeing the obvious truth, praising himself as rational in a thread full of hysterical comments from others, and doubling down even after the projected date had passed. The issue is not that Goober will make nonsensensical predictions or say silly things. It's that he will not, ever, admit he's wrong even in a situation where it was absolutely 100%, without a doubt, clear that he was wrong. In a pile of situations where Goober has picked a pit to die in, predicting the rapture is simply the most obvious one.
Up until this month. But the pattern was the same.
-
The funny thing is, -Joshua-, I think by far these days and for years the one who uses Pol Disc and creates the most new threads in there is you. 8/24 threads on the first page and 10/25 on the second were created by you. If you were to swear off Pol Disc it would have a big effect.
It's true, I actively enjoy political discussions (right up until the point someone threatens to sue me over it :P ). But there is sometimes very little point. I love this little line from one of the admins at the time, as it's the most begrudging compliment I've ever received:
I have noticed that, despite your political views, you tend to be a little more sane and a little less foaming-at-the-mouth than certain other people.
If that's the level of a contempt that an admin has for the people he's having political discussions with, and he's not getting pushback for it, how can you even have a good conversation? It sets the tone for the entire forum.
Question for staff. Is it wrong for people to beat Goober over the head with the doomsday thing all the time in totally unrelated threads? It's been going on for over three years. Of course, you're free to believe that it disqualifies him from anything he says being relevant, but if it was me thinking that, I just wouldn't talk to the guy. But it's not enough for them to make such a personal choice (indeed, they don't make it, as they keep talking to him.) The goal is to tarnish his name and drive him away, like so many others before him.
Having been active in that thread and it actively dropping my respect for Goober like a stone, I can safely say that the goal is not so much to "hit him over the head with it". It's not that he made a prediction that turned out to be wrong. It's how he conducted himself in the thread itself, belittling people who disagreed with him as not seeing the obvious truth, praising himself as rational in a thread full of hysterical comments from others, and doubling down even after the projected date had passed. The issue is not that Goober will make nonsensensical predictions or say silly things. It's that he will not, ever, admit he's wrong even in a situation where it was absolutely 100%, without a doubt, clear that he was wrong. In a pile of situations where Goober has picked a pit to die in, predicting the rapture is simply the most obvious one.
Up until this month. But the pattern was the same.
He's not wrong though. He's identified what those people are like, and he's identified that you are different. Goober is usually civil. I remember him having a good gloat about Trump winning, but usually, he doesn't do that stuff. I don't think you and he would have a problem discussing politics.
But he did admit he was wrong:
https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=93654.msg1856400#msg1856400
-
He's not wrong though. He's identified what those people are like, and he's identified that you are different.
This is entirely incorrect. I am no different to various other people who were also in that thread. Goober frequently dismissed MP-Ryan as a raging leftie despite the man being quite a bit more right wing then I'll ever be, and the man being far more reasonable then I'll ever be.
Goober is usually civil. I remember him having a good gloat about Trump winning, but usually, he doesn't do that stuff. I don't think you and he would have a problem discussing politics.
But we did talk, and I ended up having issues. Because Goober isn't interested in actually having discussions. He's interested in being right.
But he did admit he was wrong:
The posts afterwards are the issue for me there.
-
He's not wrong though. He's identified what those people are like, and he's identified that you are different.
This is entirely incorrect. I am no different to various other people who were also in that thread. Goober frequently dismissed MP-Ryan as a raging leftie despite the man being quite a bit more right wing then I'll ever be, and the man being far more reasonable then I'll ever be.
Goober is usually civil. I remember him having a good gloat about Trump winning, but usually, he doesn't do that stuff. I don't think you and he would have a problem discussing politics.
But we did talk, and I ended up having issues. Because Goober isn't interested in actually having discussions. He's interested in being right.
But he did admit he was wrong:
The posts afterwards are the issue for me there.
Where did he dismiss Ryan as a raging leftie?
I guess I stand corrected about how you'd feel about Goober. But he did admit he was wrong, even if you don't like what came after.
-
tbh we have derailed this thread long enough
-
I say: Kill it.
It generates absolutely nothing, but ****storms. I see some people, who write mostly there and nowhere else or there and gendisc. Apparently poldisc also attracts just generic noisemakers. If one wants to talk politics, he/she can do it anywhere else... But this forum is about FS. Whole off-topic section is just obvious attachment to rest of the forums, but apparently it's the very purpose of being here for some users.
Imho forums should be moderated like Discord. When somebody starts talking politics, the discussion is almost immediately cut off by some mod/admin. Unless some mod/admin take the bait and continue. Otherwise it will eventually escalate into another drama, like it did very many ****ing times.
-
If it does get killed, don't delete it. Make it like the Classics board (another dead board now) with all topics locked and no one can post there. Political threads that spawn elsewhere can be dropped in.
-
However, unlike Matt, I clearly recognize (at least within myself) a need for a venting place, a place to talk about off-topic ... errr ... topics and stuff that happens out there. This should be the Discord: as a more ephemeral medium, it is less likely to grow like a cancer. There are discords out there that can manage such discussions without them exploding all the time; I think we can too.
And why should we have to put up with your venting? It seems you'd be better served venting into an echo chamber somewhere, where you won't get pushback on it.
-
HLP certainly isn't alone in facing this problem. Bimmerpost, for instance, quite recently went through the same thing and eded up dumping their politics and religion board:
(https://i.imgur.com/84byRgJ.png)
Even something as inncouous as Townsends - a channel about cooking 18th century food - has had to deal with this political crap:
To me the Bimmerpost admin says it well:
This community is at its core united by passion for BMW and many of us enjoy the forums specifically because it stands apart from the issues that may divide us -- political/religious or otherwise, that may exist elsewhere.
I'm sure we all have strong views on politics or religion, but nobody visiting a site about imaginary spaceships really needs to hear them. Let's instead focus on a common interest and not on politics and religion.
Thanks for listening....
-
I'm sure we all have strong views on politics or religion, but nobody visiting a site about imaginary spaceships really needs to hear them. Let's instead focus on a common interest and not on politics and religion.
I'm honestly torn. I can certainly see the need for a place where folks here can discuss the biggest current events in real life - politics, Brexit, Covid, the US election or whatever else.
BUT I agree with that bit of yours that I just quoted. This site was made to be for ___spaceships___ and should not forget that.
It would be bad optics if someone new comes in and sees a dozen dead spaceships board and people at each other's throats over Trump or the EU or whatever.
Some compromise here is important - or way of ensuring steam can be released safely from this engine so it doesn't blow under too much pressure.
-
And why should we have to put up with your venting? It seems you'd be better served venting into an echo chamber somewhere, where you won't get pushback on it.
There are topics that are, in my opinion, simply too big to contain. Covid, Brexit, the rise of far-right extremism, those are all topics that I don't think should be banned from discussion here; If you do not want to "put up" with those discussions, noone is forcing you to. You are not required to follow or participate in them.
One of the reasons why I do think that our community should have a place to discuss these things (as well as any number of other topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with modding FreeSpace) is that this is a community - There are viewpoints here that, although I may not share them, I'm still interested in hearing about to avoid the echo chamber effect.
-
And why should we have to put up with your venting? It seems you'd be better served venting into an echo chamber somewhere, where you won't get pushback on it.
There are topics that are, in my opinion, simply too big to contain. Covid, Brexit, the rise of far-right extremism, those are all topics that I don't think should be banned from discussion here; If you do not want to "put up" with those discussions, noone is forcing you to. You are not required to follow or participate in them.
One of the reasons why I do think that our community should have a place to discuss these things (as well as any number of other topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with modding FreeSpace) is that this is a community - There are viewpoints here that, although I may not share them, I'm still interested in hearing about to avoid the echo chamber effect.
Yes, but there's a difference in needing to vent vs desiring to talk. If you need to vent, then you're already coming in pumped up with aggression / emotion. And any pushback is only going to inflame that further.
Like Fineus, I too am torn. In the past I've always said it should remain, but now I'm not sure.
-
One of the reasons why I do think that our community should have a place to discuss these things (as well as any number of other topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with modding FreeSpace) is that this is a community - There are viewpoints here that, although I may not share them, I'm still interested in hearing about to avoid the echo chamber effect.
That is the whole point of that particular forum, and I completely understand this, but the issue here seems to be whether this social benefit weighs more or less than the harm that it has caused and is causing to the community. I see Nictaeus only gathers the negatives, which may well be due to his more recent exposure to it, which since Trump has become a thing only skyrocketed, while you (and I) have fonder memories of it.
Everyone in here sems to have a different relationship to these kinds of discussions, and while I find those differences fascinating, they also seem to have broken the community, which is uncool. I do come here time to time mostly because of GenDisc and Pol these days, although I love to watch with care all the works many talented modders put out here, but I wouldn't mind if the forum would have a trial of gutting Pol for a while and then reach a better idea of whether it has been a positive or negative experience, if it should be made permanent, etc.
It could even inspire more people to start "venting" in a more creative manner, through actual FreeSpace discussions, you know, actual canon and non-canon conversations about FS universe. I still remember when War in Heaven was heavily discussed, how that Universe and others work, how all of these things intersect, what themes, etc. Nowadays, everything is about Trump, which is a sign of times I guess, but it's so tiresome.
I say, give it a trial.
-
I have been on plenty of communities who have attempted to ban contentious discussions. Know what happens? Proxy discussions. Discussion that go to less-moderated places like Discord where real-time communication makes moderation *exceptionally* difficult. Bleed-through, with allusions instead of direct points. And - inevitably - more bans when people do bring up something political or contentious, because that's the only real way to enforce something like that long-term.
Containment is a better approach than trying to stamp it out. Containing it to registered users who have to actively log in to see it works even better (as we have done).
That said, there are a couple things I'd like to see happen.
1. A name change. Political Discussions doesn't really cover what should be encapsulated there, and frankly anything contentious should land there, not just politics (there was some debate about the infamous end-of-the-world thread being relocated there, as an example). Aligning with the space combat theme of the forums, my first thought is "Disputed Territory" with a subtext "A place for discussion of current events, politics, and other matters likely to cause dinner-table arguments."
2. A rules re-write for the entire board, and a specific and explicit set of rules for that board. Board-wide rules to focus on polite exchange of ideas around modding and gaming; rules for that board to specify 'rules of engagement' if you want to participate in more contentious discussions, with specific explanations of how subjective personal attacks [which is the root cause of the latest drama] will be determined and resolved. Furthermore, a requirement that "Disputed Territory" allegations and statements of fact be accompanied with some kind of sourcing for those facts (this alone will help minimize bull****).
3. A general policy that *all* matters of contention be placed in that sub-board. While the coronavirus thread has largely been kept tame-ish after early intervention, I agreed only with returning it to GenDisc because it had died down a bit. In the future, I'd like to see ALL discussions of current events where there is any contention relocated to a board where it is clear there are different rules of engagement.
To sum up: the problem with taking current events and politics to Discord is it makes discord more likely to become a cesspool and it's FAR harder to moderate and maintain without a literal army of moderators. I don't wish that on the people running Discord. PolDisc has largely been an effective containment of nonsense since its inception, and it was a fairly extraordinary collision of circumstances (and some longstanding personal conflicts) that brought us to this latest. I think there's a very good argument for attempting real reform before killing it entirely, because personally I have ZERO desire to trying to police the passive-aggressive slippery slope that GenDisc will become if we do kill it.
-
I say, give it a trial.
The problem with turning off Pol Dis is that you won't get back the people who will leave if it's turned off. Given that we've already lost Axem this week, I'm loathe to take actions that might cause others to leave.
I'll also point out that last time I was nearly tempted to leave this place because of the actions of a staff member it had nothing to do with politics. So I don't think that politics was the cause of this issue either.
-
I say, give it a trial.
The problem with turning off Pol Dis is that you won't get back the people who will leave if it's turned off. Given that we've already lost Axem this week, I'm loathe to take actions that might cause others to leave.
I'll also point out that last time I was nearly tempted to leave this place because of the actions of a staff member it had nothing to do with politics. So I don't think that politics was the cause of this issue either.
What is the value of having people here if they only want to engage in Pol Disc wars and have no interest in Freespace?
-
Activity. People are far more likely to look at what the newest FreeSpace mods are when they actually log into the board somewhat frequently. Take a good look at how many active users there actually are. A completely dead board is a good way never to attract more people and just let the entire site fade out - and I've seen it happen to other places.
-
I have been on plenty of communities who have attempted to ban contentious discussions. Know what happens? Proxy discussions. Discussion that go to less-moderated places like Discord where real-time communication makes moderation *exceptionally* difficult. Bleed-through, with allusions instead of direct points. And - inevitably - more bans when people do bring up something political or contentious, because that's the only real way to enforce something like that long-term.
Containment is a better approach than trying to stamp it out. Containing it to registered users who have to actively log in to see it works even better (as we have done).
That said, there are a couple things I'd like to see happen.
1. A name change. Political Discussions doesn't really cover what should be encapsulated there, and frankly anything contentious should land there, not just politics (there was some debate about the infamous end-of-the-world thread being relocated there, as an example). Aligning with the space combat theme of the forums, my first thought is "Disputed Territory" with a subtext "A place for discussion of current events, politics, and other matters likely to cause dinner-table arguments."
2. A rules re-write for the entire board, and a specific and explicit set of rules for that board. Board-wide rules to focus on polite exchange of ideas around modding and gaming; rules for that board to specify 'rules of engagement' if you want to participate in more contentious discussions, with specific explanations of how subjective personal attacks [which is the root cause of the latest drama] will be determined and resolved. Furthermore, a requirement that "Disputed Territory" allegations and statements of fact be accompanied with some kind of sourcing for those facts (this alone will help minimize bull****).
3. A general policy that *all* matters of contention be placed in that sub-board. While the coronavirus thread has largely been kept tame-ish after early intervention, I agreed only with returning it to GenDisc because it had died down a bit. In the future, I'd like to see ALL discussions of current events where there is any contention relocated to a board where it is clear there are different rules of engagement.
To sum up: the problem with taking current events and politics to Discord is it makes discord more likely to become a cesspool and it's FAR harder to moderate and maintain without a literal army of moderators. I don't wish that on the people running Discord. PolDisc has largely been an effective containment of nonsense since its inception, and it was a fairly extraordinary collision of circumstances (and some longstanding personal conflicts) that brought us to this latest. I think there's a very good argument for attempting real reform before killing it entirely, because personally I have ZERO desire to trying to police the passive-aggressive slippery slope that GenDisc will become if we do kill it.
It's embarrassing we need to go to such lengths because grown men can't talk to each other properly. We're not even talking mostly young men.
I'm okay with the general idea, but I don't like the idea that someone like me, who doesn't want the conflict, would have to get dragged into this lion's den forum and jump into the mud if my thread got contentious. People who don't want that could be silenced by people changing the tone of the thread.
-
Radical out of the box idea:
www.freespaceopen.com resolves to the on topic fora with an FSO branding.
www.hard-light.net resolves to the off topic fora with the current Hard Light branding.
These sister sites can be linked, and then perhaps the off topic stuff can be expanded by the people not interested in spaceships.
No idea if this board software supports something that, but perhaps it could be possible to put a bit more separation between those who want to continue to create and consume freespace related content, and those who are no longer interested in that to the benefit of both.
-
Activity. People are far more likely to look at what the newest FreeSpace mods are when they actually log into the board somewhat frequently. Take a good look at how many active users there actually are. A completely dead board is a good way never to attract more people and just let the entire site fade out - and I've seen it happen to other places.
It's not going to pull new people though when they can't see the activity unless they join. And said activity after they see it could push them away!
-
Gets my vote. Kill poldisc with fire and save ourselves the hassle of having to deal with a repeat of recent events. If members want to discuss politics with HLP members privately then fine - that's what PMs are for. If they want to discuss politics openly with a wider community there are more appropriate places to do so.
-
Radical out of the box idea:
www.freespaceopen.com resolves to the on topic fora with an FSO branding.
www.hard-light.net resolves to the off topic fora with the current Hard Light branding.
These sister sites can be linked, and then perhaps the off topic stuff can be expanded by the people not interested in spaceships.
No idea if this board software supports something that, but perhaps it could be possible to put a bit more separation between those who want to continue to create and consume freespace related content, and those who are no longer interested in that to the benefit of both.
Activity. People are far more likely to look at what the newest FreeSpace mods are when they actually log into the board somewhat frequently. Take a good look at how many active users there actually are. A completely dead board is a good way never to attract more people and just let the entire site fade out - and I've seen it happen to other places.
It's not going to pull new people though when they can't see the activity unless they join. And said activity after they see it could push them away!
The drawback to both of these is this: a person who logs in to wander through the Off-Topic out of habit will see updates and news as they browse the site and be more likely to poke their head into those boards and check out latest developments. If the latest developments are completely separate from the Off-Topic, you don't get that click-through benefit from either direction. The issue with new people is people are far less inclined to join dead boards. You need the existing userbase and content creation derived from it to drive new user registrations to the site. Without activity by the former, you don't get registrations from the latter. Extrapolating, you're not going to maintain existing userbase logins in the long-term without some kind of Off-Topic discussion, and if Off-Topic is confined to strict "no contentious subjects" rules, you get the problem I outlined earlier.
HLP is remarkable for existing in active state for ~20 years. This is extremely uncommon.
-
*content*
I'd argue instead for a very short, to the point rules guideline for the entire board, with no exceptions made for particular boards. As an example
Hard Light strives towards a friendly and constructive forum atmosphere. Please strive to make all your posts either friendly or constructive, and preferably both. Posts that aren't either will be subject to moderator action at their discretion.
Behaviour that we do see as friendly and constructive:
- Commenting on mods you have played
- Welcoming new members into our community
- Providing tech support for members with issues
- Insightful, well-sourced arguments that people can learn from
- Basically anything that would make people feel warm and fuzzy inside
Behaviour that we don't see as friendly nor constructive:
- Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and various other forms of hate speech.
- All of the slurs
- Bashing a mod purely on the basis of it being an art style you don't like
- actively discouraging people from creating mods
- Arguing that another poster's opinion is disqualified due to hysteria, ignorance, brainwashing or in general just not being "rational" enough
- Other things not listed here - we put our trust in you as a HLP forum member that you're socially mature enough to get the gist of it
And I'd leave it at that.
-
- Other things not listed here - we put our trust in you as a HLP forum member that you're socially mature enough to get the gist of it
Oh sweet summer child...
We can't have such vague rules. We need tight, specific rules as much for the staff as the members.
-
That's a pretty good starting point Joshua =)
There are slight differences to rules of engagement around contentious discussions, namely the issue of personal attacks. Pretty easy to enforce personal attacks outside of those discussions as it's a lot clearer what is and isn't. Quite a few more shades of grey in current events, as we recently witnessed (and given that you had a hand in explaining some of that nuanced distinction recently, it's pretty clear there's room for it).
Specifically, your fourth point leaves a lot of room for subjective interpretation by moderators. In the interest of consistency and transparency, I'd prefer to take more of the discretion of the moderation staff out of the equation.
-
In the interest of consistency and transparency, I'd prefer to take more of the discretion of the moderation staff out of the equation.
Transparency, consistency and accountability. The more, the better.
I wonder if there's any way we could consign the whole "benevolent dictators" thing to the dustbin of history in a more meaningful way than just not saying it anymore.
-
That's a pretty good starting point Joshua =)
There are slight differences to rules of engagement around contentious discussions, namely the issue of personal attacks. Pretty easy to enforce personal attacks outside of those discussions as it's a lot clearer what is and isn't. Quite a few more shades of grey in current events, as we recently witnessed (and given that you had a hand in explaining some of that nuanced distinction recently, it's pretty clear there's room for it).
Specifically, your fourth point leaves a lot of room for subjective interpretation by moderators. In the interest of consistency and transparency, I'd prefer to take more of the discretion of the moderation staff out of the equation.
The point of the final point is to leave moderator discretion as a factor for them to explain as they see fit. This isn't The Law. Moderation is a people's job, and the current situation is in part the result of two people in particular trying to use the letter of the law against the spirit of the law. By emphasizing that the list is non-exhaustive, you avoid this. And this doesn't have to be set in stone either: The lovelyness of a bullet point list is that you can just add things you like or don't like that keep propping u0p (in fact, I did just that just now).
And I generally do have enough faith in the moderation staff to put trust in their discretion. You and Kara made some decent points about how the current situation was actually going quite well aside from, well, Goober. In general, mods have been excellent at explaining their reasoning for intervention.
There's obviously a question about making a rule list for staff conduct, but I'd think that's mostly just down to following a certain procedure. Am not going to tell you how to do your jobs. If you can explain your reasoning to eachother as well as you've done that to us, you ought to be fine.
-
Oh you will be fine, -Joshua-. I'm sure you will enjoy a lot of favouritism and protection.
-
My guess is that fourth point is not a precise guideline, but a subjective nudge to everyone new to what kind of thing we should be striving for. Mods should be gunning for what commentators are doing wrong, not what they are doing right, anyways.
Oh you will be fine, -Joshua-. I'm sure you will enjoy a lot of favouritism and protection.
Lorric, stop that. I don't remember Joshua ever benefitting from any perceived "favouritism" or "protection" or any other things. Let's keep our paranoias in check, ok?
-
My guess is that fourth point is not a precise guideline, but a subjective nudge to everyone new to what kind of thing we should be striving for. Mods should be gunning for what commentators are doing wrong, not what they are doing right, anyways.
Oh you will be fine, -Joshua-. I'm sure you will enjoy a lot of favouritism and protection.
Lorric, stop that. I don't remember Joshua ever benefitting from any perceived "favouritism" or "protection" or any other things. Let's keep our paranoias in check, ok?
It isn't paranoia, but might be better suited to the other thread about HLP going forward.
It's funny it's you. Don't you remember when I got permabanned from gen disc (it eventually got overturned) and you were concerned about it? I was talking to -Joshua- at the time.
-
I think the main difference between you and me here lorric is that if a moderator tells me to shut up, I listen.
-
I think the main difference between you and me here lorric is that if a moderator tells me to shut up, I listen.
I do too. It doesn't go like that. I got bans with no warnings.
-
Enough bickering you two, or I'll find you chores to do /dadmode
-
Enough bickering you two, or I'll find you chores to do /dadmode
Okaaaay. :)
I don't have anything against you, -Joshua-.
-
I know, but you do have a chip on your shoulder.
-
So in order to solve the problem of moderating PolDisc (which is the root issue that caused everything to go nucking futs) your idea is to nuke all of PolDisc from orbit? Seems like you're shooting pretty wide of the actual problem.
-
So in order to solve the problem of moderating PolDisc (which is the root issue that caused everything to go nucking futs) your idea is to nuke all of PolDisc from orbit? Seems like you're shooting pretty wide of the actual problem.
I've since walked back from that a bit! I wouldn't even argue that the moderation of poldisc was the problem, just a minor subset of admins operating on a very different ruleset then everybody else.
In general though, I feel like if you can't moderate a thing, be it a comment section or a forum for political discussion, you shouldn't be having it at all. You'd have to take a strong look at how much mental energy you're expending towards something and whether or not it's worth it.
However, in my discussion with Ryan I have concluded that he is in fact a headstrong fool that will bring himself to ruin for the sake of his political discussion safe space fantasy perfectly willing to expend that mental energy for a cause that may help the site, so I won't question him on that.
-
...just wondering why you crossed out the accurate descriptor portion of that...
-
...just wondering why you crossed out the accurate descriptor portion of that...
If there's anything that Greek mythology has taught me, it is that one should not oppose the Fates. If you want to push a boulder up the mountain for all eternity, feel free! :P
-
It is a shame MP-Ryan was not able to be a moderator a lot of years ago. There is no one on HLP I hold in higher regard.
-
kill it.
basically i agree with everything nyct said on the matter.
if we lose members over it so be it. poldisc drives away as many members as it retains, it seems, and if losing it drives away the members that were only here for poldisc in the first place and nothing else, it is of my opinion that nothing of value would be lost in the first place; as compared to poldisc existing causing drama driving away people that are actually here for more than political ****flinging
-
See, but PolDisc has existed for a long time without causing drama outside of itself. Ya'll are taking one instance that was long-brewing due to things outside of PolDisc anyway and using that instance to take a swing at the issue with all the nuance of a tire iron. Most of you weren't involved and don't visit the board in the first pace... so go in to your profile and do the thing that makes PolDisc disappear.
-
kill it.
basically i agree with everything nyct said on the matter.
if we lose members over it so be it. poldisc drives away as many members as it retains, it seems, and if losing it drives away the members that were only here for poldisc in the first place and nothing else, it is of my opinion that nothing of value would be lost in the first place; as compared to poldisc existing causing drama driving away people that are actually here for more than political ****flinging
Yes, I don't know enough about forums and what drives traffic to them and retains it to respond to MP-Ryan's post back there about why we should retain Pol Disc, I can only trust he knows what he's talking about as he usually does and seems confident, but it's a meat grinder. People go in and dead meat comes out (people leaving.)
It's telling that there isn't one post here speaking of the value of Pol Disc in terms of gaining pleasure or insight out of it. And the thread was started by the most avid Pol Disc poster.
-
I value PolDisc. I gain insight into other goings on in the world that as a US citizen I don't always notice. I enjoy the well thought out posts from people like The_E, Karajorma, Mongoose, etc.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong... but Mongoose was a long-time GenDisc/PolDisc only person until this year when he finally decided to install FSO again because he saw things going on in the rest of the board.
-
I find poldisc a lot of fun but I don't want to be ruining other people's fun.
It's all fun and games until somebody gets sued
-
If it weren't for pol dis, I'd have probably stopped checking HLP every day long ago. As for it causing problems, again, this is mostly a case of people remembering the old days. Do you know how many official warnings that forum has generated in the last two years?
Zero. Not a single one.
-
I'd argue it should've. There's been plenty of trolling going on in there, some of them by now-former admins!
-
I do find some value in reading Pol Disc threads, but not participating.
-
I have never and have no intention of ever touching PolDisc with a 10-foot pole, but I think it's fine to stay. I don't think the recent fallout was specifically a political thing.
-
Poldisc is a ok place to get peoples thoughts about what's going on in the world without the endless social media echo chamber / slap fight, like, compared to the rest of the internet this place is "usually" tame.
Plus I value the opinions of people I work/mod with.
I don't feel to strong about it either way, but I do agree that pol talk is gonna happen anyway so it's better to contain it then stop it.
-
I would be vehemently against getting rid of PolDisc, but very much in favor of rebranding it and strongly clarifying the rules that apply to it. As others have noted, there are certain topics that are going to come up no matter how hard you try to stamp them out, and it's far better to have them directed to the proper channels than to attempt to put out wildfires springing up all over the place. Make it the place for anything that's potentially contentious, and put clear standards of conduct in place for it. What happened over this past month was spurred on by a political topic, but its root cause went far beyond politics.
More broadly, some people have questioned why a modding site needs any sort of off-topic section. I don't remember who it was exactly, but one of the other staff members said it best recently: it's about fostering a community, especially during those dry periods between major content releases. There are people around here who don't play much (if any) FS anymore, who maybe don't have much left to discuss about a 20-year-old game. I'm arguably one of them, as I haven't played much at all over the past few years--not because I love the game any less, but because there are 500 other entertainment options pulling at me. So why am I still here? Because it's home. Because I've been a member for nearly half my life, and almost all of my Internet life, and I enjoy talking with people here. I can't "go somewhere else" to have these discussions, because they wouldn't BE these discussions without the people I know.
So please, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Edit:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong... but Mongoose was a long-time GenDisc/PolDisc only person until this year when he finally decided to install FSO again because he saw things going on in the rest of the board.
I wouldn't say only, because I'd usually poke my head in some of the modding boards to generally keep up with things, but it's definitely where I spent most of my time, and still do. And even if I still haven't gotten myself to play much, seeing all of the crazy FSU work over the past year or two was what got me to get on the Knossos train and make an up-to-date install, so that it's there waiting for me when I next get the itch.
-
I value PolDisc. I gain insight into other goings on in the world that as a US citizen I don't always notice. I enjoy the well thought out posts from people like The_E, Karajorma, Mongoose, etc.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong... but Mongoose was a long-time GenDisc/PolDisc only person until this year when he finally decided to install FSO again because he saw things going on in the rest of the board.
Personally I think that you guys who actually like talking to each other about politics on HLP are better off doing so in an environment that you can moderate yourself to keep the participants friendly (that could even maybe still be PolDisc). The reason PolDisc got so ugly, in my opinion, was a fetishisation of 'neutral civil discourse' that said it was basically fine to have a board with thread after thread of Goober calling everyone else brainwashed leftist liars and everyone else calling him a Trump-loving loon, and looking in it was clear that this was insanely, pointlessly toxic for everyone involved and the board hosting it. If PolDisc is going to stick around it needs to be a place for discussion of current events and non-confrontational sharing of views where people have enough sense to avoid idiotic fight club threads where they try to own each over other irreconcilable ideological differences.
-
If PolDisc is going to stick around it needs to be a place for discussion of current events and non-confrontational sharing of views where people have enough sense to avoid idiotic fight club threads where they try to own each over other irreconcilable ideological differences.
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BackNimbleCrab-max-1mb.gif)
-
Yall should consider that Goober, a COVID-enabler "main stream media" denier young earth creationist, was not a good fit for a forum about discussing reality. Maybe with him out of a position of power things will work just fine.
There's been much complaining and mourning that the "politics" side of the forum has stirred up so much drama in the "modding" side of the forum. The distinction is artificial. Goober's attitudes towards women were espoused in a thread about voice acting a campaign. He'd prematurely lock modding threads and shut down conversations if they offended his personal sense of propriety.
There is no neutral ground or place of objectivity to retreat to. We are constantly deciding which opinions and viewpoints are tolerable in our communities, and which aren't. People pretend that some of these decisions are invisible and unanimous and 'objective' while others are controversial and 'political', but it's just a matter of degree. Like sliders in some Bethesda-ass character creator, we change the face of our communities by deciding what we accept and what we reject.
Even the subject of what is 'nonpolitical' is a choice. What if a user strongly preferred they/them pronouns? Would it be political for moderators to punish disregard for that preference? Twenty years ago people would have laughed at that request and called it crazy. Five years ago there'd have been screaming about SJWs. Today the request might be considered common decency. The definition of what is 'political' and what is simply human decency has changed.
The 'anti drama' stance is as political as any other; it is an argument for acceptance of the status quo.
HLP is a tiny community. Attempts to govern it by legalism and tabulated rules are futile, because it runs mostly on interpersonal dynamics. It's so small that individual users set the tone. Naturally the people who obsess the most over Posting have the most to say about it.
I don't care about PolDisc in particular because there are much larger and more informative places on the internet to have conversations about politics, but if it's a nice place for a few posters to hang out and chill and talk about, I dunno, missile emplacements in the South China Sea, why not let 'em have it.
Personally I don't care what yall do as long as I can post more BP if it gets made.
e:
If PolDisc is going to stick around it needs to be a place for discussion of current events and non-confrontational sharing of views where people have enough sense to avoid idiotic fight club threads where they try to own each over other irreconcilable ideological differences.
Brutal owns are actually the best things to come out of politics threads
-
I find that looking at change over time is a good way to avoid the trap of 'neutrality.' Sixty years ago, the question of the civil right movement would have been incendiary and political. Today, we'd consider anyone who opposes that movement a lunatic regressive. Ten years ago, gay marriage was a controversial topic in the US. Today, only the furthest right sees it as anything but a done deal. Fifteen years ago, we had arguments over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; today we can see how those turned out (not well).
There are topics in serious contention today that will be settled matters in fifteen years. (Climate change is almost certainly one of them!) We can preach the value of moderation and rational discourse, but in the end, one side is going to be right. Don't fetishize detachment and disregard. There are subjects on which reasonable disagreement is possible, but there are also subjects which history shows us end up having a right side and a wrong side.
-
Well, you might as well burn pol disc to the ground then if there's a RIGHT way and a WRONG way. What's the point in talking about it if it's already been decided, apart from pwning the wrongthinkers.
-
I think the upshot of all of this, really, is... can we just leave PolDisc as it is for a while? Because now that Goober's out it's a small, deliberately hidden annex full of people who generally seem to get along. Not really sure what's left is menacing enough to burn down.
-
Yeah.
I will also say, years ago I got kicked out of global mods for being a depressed angry teenager, and for ****ing with someone else's posts. It was the right call, I was a bad mod. I got over it. I kept making stuff for FS.
There's no intrinsic reason this needs to be any different.
Except the COVID denialism, that's ****ed up.
-
There are topics in serious contention today that will be settled matters in fifteen years. (Climate change is almost certainly one of them!) We can preach the value of moderation and rational discourse, but in the end, one side is going to be right. Don't fetishize detachment and disregard. There are subjects on which reasonable disagreement is possible, but there are also subjects which history shows us end up having a right side and a wrong side.
My only remark here is to say that while fighting and debating for the righteous cause is something of a moral duty to many people here, and I would definitely include you in this characterization, many times I feel that some people lack a sense of proportion in all of these discussions, as if the state of the world is at our hands. Our community is small, as you have said before, and thus I do find myself consistently baffled at the way people treat big disagreements as the most terrible offensive things that could have ever been put into place in this planet.
I do hope that the de-admin of certain people will be enough to tame certain... huhh.... fervors. But I do suspect that the mere existence of the disagreement itself is enough to rile people up into incredible levels. To give an example, I am still baffled to this day at the manner to which NGTM got out of HLP, blaming everyone in the forum for having facilitated Trump's rise to power (by being critical of Hillary, etc.).
I do not think that these discussions will suddenly change the beliefs of many people in here, and thus, despite all the "love" that certain elements have for "PWNAGE", perhaps a simple sense of proportion and scale and respect for the size of this community would endear all of us into a state of more respect towards each other.
I, for one, am terribly unconvinced that PWNING people online has ever changed the world for the better. As far as I am concerned, that stuff is also part of the online culture that has *brought* the current state of affairs.
-
I think the main thing that needs to change is potential, not actual: when the hypothetical next guy barges in to tell everyone that redheads should be surgically sterilised and all the posts that disagree are committing the logical fallacy of felis ardens sum, the mods don't tell the entire sane population of the forum that they're breaking the rules by not calmly continuing civil discourse.
-
I think the upshot of all of this, really, is... can we just leave PolDisc as it is for a while? Because now that Goober's out it's a small, deliberately hidden annex full of people who generally seem to get along. Not really sure what's left is menacing enough to burn down.
I Agree 100%.
I can post more BP if it gets made.
And I Agree with this as well. :P
-
Here is why rational well-informed people become angry ****posters
A better analogy would be if someone walks into a championship tournament, says "GEE I THINK I MAY HAVE TRANSCENDED THE UNDERSTANDING OF SOME OF YOU GRANDMASTERS HERE, WANT TO JOIN MY NEW SCHOOL OF CHESS STRATEGY?", then loses by scholar's mate twice in the first round.
This person then refuses to leave his seat, claiming that he needs additional proof that the queen in f7 actually ontologically exists before he will admit defeat, and that the rules of the CHESS ESTABLISHMENT were unfairly biased against him by disallowing the possibility of his king being able to leapfrog pieces.
Then he pulls out an ancient shopping list from 1905 and claims that "1. Eggs" means 'The King', "2. Butter" means 'can', and "3. Milk" means 'leapfrog'. This is admissible evidence for his case because he has lived according to the dictates of this list since he was a teenager, and it has drastically improved his quality of life. When the referees tell him that this makes no ****ing sense, he drags them into a three hour debate over the precise meaning of the words 'makes', 'no', '****ing', and 'sense'.
When people point out that there is more than enough evidence to suggest his list is just a scrap of paper from some long-dead housewife's purse, he rather proudly points out how close-minded they are in dismissing outright the possibility that the list was in fact a secret coded message on the best way to live life, originally formulated by Atlanteans and passed down through the ages disguised as everyday documents. After all, if one starts with the presupposition that such a document exists, then it would be very fair to argue that it is indeed in the form of his shopping list.
Never mind that his previous interpretations of the list led to three convictions and time served for robbery, hate crimes, and murder. These were just unfortunate misinterpretations on his part of the list's true intentions, he says. The list itself is blameless. In fact, the Atlanteans deliberately obfuscated the true meaning of the list in this way, so that it would require multiple failed misinterpretations before one would happen across its TRUE meaning, and in doing so appreciate it all the more.
In fact, he does have some evidence to back up his claims. Why, just last week during his daily meditation on the list, he felt it telling him that something good was about to happen in his future. And yesterday, wouldn't you know it, he found a twenty dollar note on the sidewalk! Evidence of the list's prophetic powers if I ever saw one. And believe him, he has many more stories where that came from.
By now, the debate has splintered off into innumerable tangents, with the one man against literally every other player and referee present at the tournament. Finally, he graciously accepts the possibility of defeat in some of the myriad topics now being covered. OK, maybe the tallest player doesn't always get to go first. Fine, I will concede that there isn't much evidence to support my third-invisible-knight hypothesis. But that's all irrelevant. What he wants to concentrate on, and what nobody has yet been able to disprove, he adds, is the ability of the king to leapfrog over other pieces.
The argument drags on for weeks. Finally, one afternoon, the beet-faced referee exhausts his last reserves of decency and throws his arms up in frustration and despair. "YOU ****ING IDIOT, HOW CAN YOU LAY CLAIM TO KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT CHESS STRATEGY WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN GRASP THE MOST BASIC RULES!?" He shouts, just as a new entrant walks through the door. "I'm sorry," replies the man calmly, "I simply cannot discuss the rules of chess with such an 'official' if you insist on using such strong and uncouth language. Please retract your insults or I will be forced to plug my ears whenever you say anything from now on."
Seeing only this last exchange, the new entrant pipes up. "He's right, you know. If he did something wrong, then you as the referee have every right to tell him he is so, but it should be done with a patient and thorough explanation of the details of his error. Hurling ridicule at him solves nothing and won't change anyone's mind."
The lazy eye of the smooth-brained List-following, King-leapfrogging man twitches almost unnoticeably, as he cranes his head towards the source of this new voice. A welcoming smile cracks, inch by beaming inch, across his face. He licks his lips. He clears his throat.
"So glad to know decent people like you still value a polite discussion. Care for a game?"
-
Yeah, I recognize the problem, Battuta. You are treating conversations as zero-sum-games like Chess. No wonder you get riled up whenever someone starts acting silly.
May want to work on that?
-
Yeah, I recognize the problem, Battuta. You are treating conversations as zero-sum-games like Chess. No wonder you get riled up whenever someone starts acting silly.
May want to work on that?
It's actually about 'dialogue' with people who reject the existence of a consensus reality that contains objective facts, LUIS DIAS!!
-
I think the upshot of all of this, really, is... can we just leave PolDisc as it is for a while? Because now that Goober's out it's a small, deliberately hidden annex full of people who generally seem to get along. Not really sure what's left is menacing enough to burn down.
There's no need to discuss anything if all people there are already of the same opinion so you can just delete it
-
That's just a passive-aggressive way of saying you disagree with them.
-
I think the upshot of all of this, really, is... can we just leave PolDisc as it is for a while? Because now that Goober's out it's a small, deliberately hidden annex full of people who generally seem to get along. Not really sure what's left is menacing enough to burn down.
There's no need to discuss anything if all people there are already of the same opinion so you can just delete it
See, this mindset right here is a problem. Not every conversation is a debate or attempt to changes one's mind.
-
There's no need to discuss anything if all people there are already of the same opinion so you can just delete it
But they aren't of the same opinion.
-
So in order to solve the problem of moderating PolDisc (which is the root issue that caused everything to go nucking futs) your idea is to nuke all of PolDisc from orbit? Seems like you're shooting pretty wide of the actual problem.
The reason PolDisc got so ugly, in my opinion, was a fetishisation of 'neutral civil discourse' that said it was basically fine to have a board with thread after thread of Goober calling everyone else brainwashed leftist liars and everyone else calling him a Trump-loving loon, and looking in it was clear that this was insanely, pointlessly toxic for everyone involved and the board hosting it. If PolDisc is going to stick around it needs to be a place for discussion of current events and non-confrontational sharing of views where people have enough sense to avoid idiotic fight club threads where they try to own each over other irreconcilable ideological differences.
Is it as odd for you as it is for me that I agree with both of you right now? I think it's because you're identifying the actual source of the problem we had. PH has it right: "Non-confrontational sharing of views" is certainly a major factor that needs to be adhered to. When that fails, mjn hit the nail on the head: "solve the problem of moderating."
I should point out that neither aspects are especially intrinsic to PolDisc. Are they more likely to happen there? Sure. But that's not PolDisc's fault per se. Don't blame the board for people's inability to obey the rules.
Everybody should be responsible for their own civility and respect toward others, no matter what board they're posting to. And when there's a violation of the rules of respect and civility (no matter the board), the matter should be dealt with, and if need be, the guilty parties should be held accountable.
We can preach the value of moderation and rational discourse, but in the end, one side is going to be right. Don't fetishize detachment and disregard. There are subjects on which reasonable disagreement is possible, but there are also subjects which history shows us end up having a right side and a wrong side.
For accuracy's sake, let's just say that with some of these things, there's one side that ends up the winner in a society, and one the loser. It's not all necessarily "right" vs "wrong". Eg. Civil rights? Sure, right/wrong. Gay marriage? Subject to individuals' freedom of beliefs, so let's call it winner/loser. Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan? Possibly a right/wrong situation, but we don't know what would have happened without those wars. Abortions? winner/loser. Climate change? Right/wrong. Covid-19? right/wrong. Pineapple on pizza? right/wrong (it's so, sooo right).
-
I say keep it, the only thing that's changed is its less prone to corrupt flights of topic adjustment.
It's a nice little heat sink to keep the rest of the board nicely chilled, and let's be honest here, if people don't like poldisc, they can....... Stay out.
-
I want to be clear that I don't think PolDisc should be about "respect for all views". If your views are entirely incompatible with objective reality and everyone else on the board then you should not be participating.
-
... Pineapple on pizza? right/wrong (it's so, sooo right).
I've been trying to stay out of this, but now someone has gone too far.
-
I've been trying to stay out of this, but now someone has gone too far.
I'm sorry, I have to step in and defend Sandwich on this. Not only is ham and pineapple pizza delicious, it's a Canadian invention.
-
At the very least, can we have the political discussions opt-in/opt-out actually work so that you can hide poldisc if you don't want to see it? I don't have the political discussions usergroup but I can still see it/post there.
-
I want to be clear that I don't think PolDisc should be about "respect for all views". If your views are entirely incompatible with objective reality and everyone else on the board then you should not be participating.
Not respect for all views necessarily, no, but basic human respect for the person themselves, and their right to have their own viewpoint, even if it is "wrong" (from your POV, or even from objective facts). Nobody ever convinced anybody to change their views through force, verbal assault, etc.
Let me give you a nice, simple, non-controversial example. :p I believe that homosexuality is wrong, that it's a sin. And yet, I also believe that homosexuals have the right to choose that way of life. It's as simple as that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
Some of the arguments in favor of keeping PolDisc are based on the supposed low frequency of major flames/issues occurring on that board compared to the number of threads and posts.
Frankly, it doesn't matter: it's still an intrinsically dangerous and destabilizing place for the community, and a low rate of major issues (1 in 2-3 years) is not enough to justify its presence, because when stuff happens over there, it's on a much larger scale compared to other "accidents" taking place elsewhere.
-
The main reason that Pol Disc has less incidents is less opposition to the dominant position. Nearly everyone has been driven out. Though hiding it from view of the public helped a lot too. If Freespace suddenly got popular somewhere that has a different point of view, and those people joined and started posting in Pol Disc, the flames would roar anew. It's like a dormant volcano right now.
-
At the very least, can we have the political discussions opt-in/opt-out actually work so that you can hide poldisc if you don't want to see it? I don't have the political discussions usergroup but I can still see it/post there.
The day PolDisc came out I went to my profile account settings and checked the box to ignore the board. I can still see it on the list of boards but i don't get notifications about new posts which makes it easy for me to forget it exists.
-
The notion that the purpose of discussing something is to convince others you're right is a flawed one.
I don't argue with people in order to change their minds. I argue with them to see if they can change mine. A discussion can help me refine and strengthen my position. The purpose is self-development. I don't much care if the person I'm arguing with agrees with me in the end.
-
If only hlp was a bastion of the far left, there would be a lot more drama and infighting.
-
I have just finished playing several hours of "Among Us" with friends and randoms, and whatever we do, all future disputes are to be settled by backstabbing and sabotaging on a spaceship because there really is no reason not to.
-
if we wanna do hardlight among us, I'm game
-
Let me give you a nice, simple, non-controversial example. :p I believe that homosexuality is wrong, that it's a sin. And yet, I also believe that homosexuals have the right to choose that way of life. It's as simple as that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is a great example of the "man who refuses to acknowledge the rules of chess" allegory. What if it were demonstrated to you, scientifically, that queer people do not get a choice*?
I ask this not because I want to have an argument about this topic but because, if you were suplexed into the rhetorical ground by fourteen other posters providing actual scientific evidence, you might plead that your POV was not being respected. Yet from an empirical point of view, it's not a matter of 'respect' or 'lack of respect'. It's a matter of you being wrong. There is an empirical truth and no amount of belief or disbelief will change it. You would not have equal ground to stand on.
Would you insist that your views need to be protected from the 'disrespect' of people refusing to entertain or tolerate them on the basis of scientific evidence?
*this is an entire complicated issue which is tangential to the actual point i'm making
-
We also have a bunch of young earth creationists here. Do we need to respect their right to have their own POV? Or does the ability to hold young earth creationist views imply an inability to engage in any kind of rational discourse based on a consensus reality?
What about flat earthers? If flat earthers want to complain that they're not respected and feel unwelcome, well...that's okay by me. They're not respected and not welcome.
What about people who believe they receive the code of right and wrong from three mystical dwarves? Do they need to feel respected and welcome? Do their contributions need to be acknowledged and engaged with?
We clearly draw the line somewhere.
-
The next question would be: why the hell would you discuss these subjects on a forum devoted to keeping alive a 20 years old game? Why would you ignite flames on such a website? See, everything leads back to the core of the issue we're debating. :p
-
In an ideal world there should be a general cordial conversational tone threshold that people would try and stay in.
Spin whatever dits you choose but if it gets argumentative then just lock it. Or maybe a three strike rule for the thread rather than the individual? It might not be fair to the masses but the fear of alienation via being a threadlocker might keep people from making rash comments?
-
We clearly draw the line somewhere.
You did, not "we".
Apart from that, the most relevant "line that needs to be drawn" here is what is working in terms of modding and what not.
-
The next question would be: why the hell would you discuss these subjects on a forum devoted to keeping alive a 20 years old game? Why would you ignite flames on such a website? See, everything leads back to the core of the issue we're debating. :p
All of the campaigns are political to some degree, but then that extends. Here's a hypothetical:
"In my campaign, the GTVA has executed all homosexuals because they belong in Hell, and there are no women pilots because they are inferior to men, and are on planets making babies, like Jesus Christ intended. Also, my campaign cannot staff any women, because that means they're working on a campaign, and are not in the kitchen making me food. Also, gays need not apply to work on my campaign, as I do not want my being tainted by their sins, XD"
See the issue?
I'd call it hyperbole, but we literally have people believing that here, who have done things according to some of those principles, outside of PolDisc.
-
The next question would be: why the hell would you discuss these subjects on a forum devoted to keeping alive a 20 years old game? Why would you ignite flames on such a website? See, everything leads back to the core of the issue we're debating. :p
Because when e.g. a pandemic breaks out and changes everyone's lives in a way unprecedented almost to the limit of living memory, people generally want to talk about it with those around them. Preferably without a minority of as few as one member loudly arguing with them that it's not actually real and everyone should be going to church as normal. People feel a basic need to talk to each other about the things that are important to them.
It might not be fair to the masses but the fear of alienation via being a threadlocker might keep people from making rash comments?
Honestly, man, it's been empirically proven on HLP alone that this is just not the case. Posters with fringe views that are incompatible with consensus reality have repeatedly proven that they're very happy to turn every vaguely relevant thread into an idiotic argument, and they'll take even-handed attempts at moderation that focus on locking threads as proof that they're not really the problem, it's the majority who are intolerant of their insane or inane views. I don't even know if HLP has any of these people left and I'm not sure we really need Big Reform to handle them at this point, but it's important to acknowledge that as a moderator you eventually must exercise some judgement and decide which side of an argument is right and which is wrong, and tell the wrong side to please stop posting about it.
-
But we've got to be impartial to be fair right?
-
Yeah, for all that I'm making Big Philosophical Points here I don't actually think HLP has much of a problem with political discourse. The general tone and discourse is a lot better than it was, say, eight years ago. A lot of that is because the moderation seems to genuinely give a **** about the users instead of sticking to legalistic "we cannot act until paragraph 8 section 2 has been violated" disinterest.
-
Nobody has mentioned hte paradox of tolerance yet and I am very dissapointed.
-
For example, I think a standard of good moderation is "posters who bring a lot of information and thought to the table should feel that their effort is worthwhile, and steps should be taken to retain them". This makes for a Good Posting Culture. An example of someone who does not always or even often agree with me but who has consistently been an interesting poster is Luis Dias.
-
Nobody has mentioned hte paradox of tolerance yet and I am very dissapointed.
Tolerance of intolerance? Someone should.
-
To people saying, "Why would you want to talk about topics like this on a forum about spaceships?" ...is that what things are like for you at work? Does everyone just talk strictly business with their co-workers, and nothing else ever comes up about life in general? Because that sounds like a ****ing miserable environment to me.
-
The next question would be: why the hell would you discuss these subjects on a forum devoted to keeping alive a 20 years old game? Why would you ignite flames on such a website? See, everything leads back to the core of the issue we're debating. :p
Because when e.g. a pandemic breaks out and changes everyone's lives in a way unprecedented almost to the limit of living memory, people generally want to talk about it with those around them. Preferably without a minority of as few as one member loudly arguing with them that it's not actually real and everyone should be going to church as normal. People feel a basic need to talk to each other about the things that are important to them.
To add to that, this is not just something that people want to do, sharing this kind of thing can help build community if handled well. Getting to know each other builds bonds. True, sometimes getting to know someone makes you realize they're someone you can't like, but in most cases there's a lot of ground between 'I don't like this person' and 'I can't coexist with this person on a modding forum'. And there are times when someone's interest in Freespace is at an ebb, and talking about light, harmless matters isn't enough to bring them around, but keeping up with the real matters of other people or sharing their own is.
But so many real things do overlap with politics. If a woman wants to share anger or seek advice about restrictions in women's rights in the world, or practically any other woman-specific issue, that may be an immediate life matter for them but a highly politically charged one. Just because chunks of their life experience have been politicized should they be denied the chance to talk about those things? The same goes for any other host of things, what is politics for you is life for others.
This is a somewhat unrefined thought, but to an extent I think people need to draw a distinction between political discussion and partisan discussion. Nearly any aspect of life can be political, because politics encompass how society makes collective decisions about those aspects of life. But when people start shouting at the other side of the discussion about which party or ideological camp they're on, then it's a lot harder to keep the conversation in a useful mode. I don't necessarily think discussion of governments and the political groups steering them should be banned either, as again that can be a real big deal for people's lives, but maybe an effort could be made to keep the streams more separate? I don't know what to do with this, honestly, I've just been thinking about it a lot lately and wanted to put it out there.
-
I've had some positively awful shouting matches with Luis Dias over the years (for which I apologize Luis!), I still respect the guy.
-
Well, shouting matches in PD, which to be honest I mostly glanced at in past years when I was still more completely in lurk mode so it could be off base for standard affairs now, gave me the impression of a place where the conversation was dominated by whoever got tired of shouting the slowest. As someone that gets tired of shouting very fast that makes it seem rather unwelcome to me personally. Consequently if I were in moderation it would be one of my goals to make that less the case, but I don't really have a succinct plan of action on how to accomplish that without major collateral damage in other important aspects of the space.
-
I didn't have those shouting matches in PD though, that predates all of this and mostly happened on Twitter.
-
To people saying, "Why would you want to talk about topics like this on a forum about spaceships?" ...is that what things are like for you at work? Does everyone just talk strictly business with their co-workers, and nothing else ever comes up about life in general? Because that sounds like a ****ing miserable environment to me.
It depends on the job.
There are jobs where the interaction with the public is pivotal (and by that I mean face-to-face interaction, not dealing with people using a phone or computer), and the topics which can be discussed by coworkers right in front of other people are in fact regulated by the company they work for. If you've ever been on a commercial flight for example, and I assume you have at least once in your lifetime, you may have noticed the crew discussing random stuff right in front of you and other passengers. That stuff is regulated by the airline and those who don't stick to the rules may be reported by other crewmembers.
Also, if I really have to be clear on the matter, when it comes to work I'd rather not join off-topic discussions started by my colleagues. I have friends for that, and in different environments. Some of my coworkers are fascists, others deny Covid-19 is a thing, and many others address topics which are far too ridiculous from my perspective to be worth debating (women spend hours talking about lipsticks and shoes, literally). And I don't think the environment is miserable at all.
Therefore, back on topic, I strongly believe it's 100% fine to have a "gray list" of topics we'd rather not discuss on HLP due to their potential of degenerating into flame wars.
-
Agreed
-
But we've got to be impartial to be fair right?
I'd rather you be compassionate.
-
It depends on the job.
There are jobs where the interaction with the public is pivotal (and by that I mean face-to-face interaction, not dealing with people using a phone or computer), and the topics which can be discussed by coworkers right in front of other people are in fact regulated by the company they work for. If you've ever been on a commercial flight for example, and I assume you have at least once in your lifetime, you may have noticed the crew discussing random stuff right in front of you and other passengers. That stuff is regulated by the airline and those who don't stick to the rules may be reported by other crewmembers.
Also, if I really have to be clear on the matter, when it comes to work I'd rather not join off-topic discussions started by my colleagues. I have friends for that, and in different environments. Some of my coworkers are fascists, others deny Covid-19 is a thing, and many others address topics which are far too ridiculous from my perspective to be worth debating (women spend hours talking about lipsticks and shoes, literally). And I don't think the environment is miserable at all.
Therefore, back on topic, I strongly believe it's 100% fine to have a "gray list" of topics we'd rather not discuss on HLP due to their potential of degenerating into flame wars.
Is HLP not a place where friendships can be made? To connect with someone beyond simple matters of a shared game, must you first reach out to negotiate other preferred channels of communication? Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but that's my main take away reading it. I don't think enforcing professional distancing is a way to promote bringing modders together, and I stand by the belief that banning political topics means banning large numbers of potential members from discussing important aspects of their lives and could contribute to alienating those members.
-
But we've got to be impartial to be fair right?
I'd rather you be compassionate.
They're not mutually exclusive buddy.
-
This is fair, but if you had to choose between the two at some point...
-
Is HLP not a place where friendships can be made? To connect with someone beyond simple matters of a shared game, must you first reach out to negotiate other preferred channels of communication? Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but that's my main take away reading it. I don't think enforcing professional distancing is a way to promote bringing modders together, and I stand by the belief that banning political topics means banning large numbers of potential members from discussing important aspects of their lives and could contribute to alienating those members.
It's a place where friendships can be made, of course, but it's also a place where people can get to offend each other for strong disagreements on subjects which are not related to the main topic of the board. The point is, do we need political discussions in order to drive friendships on HLP? Can't friendship be encouraged by pure FreeSpace discussions, or other unrelated topics which don't involve politics (and therefore pose a much lower risk of degeneration)?
-
This is fair, but if you had to choose between the two at some point...
I'd moderate based on behaviour and not the side of the subject fence.
-
It's mind boggling that people want to limit what other people can talk about. I have learned a lot about the world, society, and myself from PolDisc. If you don't want to read it, go turn it off. Then end. How hard is that?
Frikken thought police up in here...
-
Well this is not the best moment in HLP's history where one can possibly claim that such setting works.
Take a look at the recent chaos we've experienced. Did it happen because people were debating over the damage per second inflicted by a BGreen? I don't think so.
-
Tolerance of intolerance? Someone should.
*points to decades-old signature* (you'll need to expand it)
-
Well this is not the best moment in HLP's history where one can possibly claim that such setting works.
Take a look at the recent chaos we've experienced. Did it happen because people were debating over the damage per second inflicted by a BGreen? I don't think so.
The whole thing that happened was over moderation of the content, not the content itself. The guy in power couldn't control himself and needed to "win" the argument and abused his authority to silence and delete everything that offended him. Doesn't matter what the argument was. That was the behavior that caused everything.
If all this did happen over an argument about a BGreen would you be fighting to have all discussion of beams be banned?
-
Take a look at the recent chaos we've experienced. Did it happen because people were debating over the damage per second inflicted by a BGreen? I don't think so.
Should we also ban mods that include politically charged aspects to their story, or just ban any discussion of how those aspects are handled?
-
Tolerance of intolerance? Someone should.
*points to decades-old signature* (you'll need to expand it)
Hey that's not the Karl Popper quote!
-
Is HLP not a place where friendships can be made? To connect with someone beyond simple matters of a shared game, must you first reach out to negotiate other preferred channels of communication? Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but that's my main take away reading it. I don't think enforcing professional distancing is a way to promote bringing modders together, and I stand by the belief that banning political topics means banning large numbers of potential members from discussing important aspects of their lives and could contribute to alienating those members.
Exactly. My question earlier wasn't about employees who were actively "on-duty," but about co-workers shooting the **** on lunch break or at a Friday happy hour. That's exactly what the off-topic sections are for here. Mobius, I'm sorry you seem to have a bad situation with your co-workers, but that is definitely not the case for everyone, and some of us do enjoy chatting about all sorts of random topics in work downtime.
-
Tolerance of intolerance? Someone should.
*points to decades-old signature* (you'll need to expand it)
Actually I did a few days ago, right around the time I asked you about tolerating an anti-Semitic Stormer LARPING as a normal human being. It seemed incongruent to me you would be tolerant of that kind of intolerance, masquerading as a legitimate position.
That said, if I ask you where homosexuals end up after they die, I wonder if your answer would be tolerant, and what one ought to do to conform to your signature in that case.
-
Take a look at the recent chaos we've experienced. Did it happen because people were debating over the damage per second inflicted by a BGreen? I don't think so.
Should we also ban mods that include politically charged aspects to their story, or just ban any discussion of how those aspects are handled?
Mods are additions to a game and, as such, portray a different view on reality. You can do very uncomfortable stuff in a mod, such as killing refugees, and so far in over two decades of FreeSpace modding we haven't come out with truly controversial stuff that sparked major debates, AFAIK. Even if we did it though, it'd still be in the "soft context" of a game.
A political discussion addresses stuff that truly affects us, and it's a real subject that may lead to overreactions in many individuals. Comments on modding are not on the same scale as comments on political and social views: "offend" me over my favorite FreeSpace campaigns, and I'd be mostly fine with it; do the same with respect to my ideologies or political views, and I may overreact. Here's the difference between the different climate in different boards.
-
As has been said many, many times already. PolDisc was not the problem. It's where the problem occurred. Are you gonna acknowledge that ever, or just keep ignoring it?
-
PolDisc was the fertile soil where the root of the problem could grow up to the size it had at the very end.
This has to be acknowledged too, perhaps, or people will pretend it may have occurred literally anywhere on the forums.
-
PolDisc was the fertile soil where the root of the problem could grow up to the size it had at the very end.
This has to be acknowledged too, perhaps, or people will pretend it may have occurred literally anywhere on the forums.
Seeing as it was not the first time that said ex-admin abused his powers to try to win an argument, and that previous abuses of power did happen in on-topic subforums, YES, Mobius, it could have occurred literally anywhere on the forum.
-
It absolutely could have occurred literally anywhere on the forums...
But whatever. This is pointless. Without a shred of irony, you are needlessly prolonging the very drama you are trying to avoid. Why won't you just go turn off PolDisc in your account settings and then go mod something? Why do you gotta be runnin' in here to remove an area of discussion that others very much like?
It's mind boggling that people want to limit what other people can talk about. I have learned a lot about the world, society, and myself from PolDisc. If you don't want to read it, go turn it off. Then end. How hard is that?
Frikken thought police up in here...
-
Nope, it definitely wouldn't have happened the same way it did in PolDisc.
If you're referring to the mere act involving the lock and deletion of a thread, this can in fact happen literally anywhere, even on internal boards; however, most of the peculiar traits of the "accident" were rather specific to the PolDisc scenario and its remarkable potential at getting people angry.
-
You're wrong. Factually, objectively, wrong.
-
I stand by my statement*, and we agree to disagree. :)
*My opinion on the matter hasn't in fact diverged from this ever since the "petition" thread.
-
Have you guys seen all the drama coming out of Site Support/Feedback? That subforum is clearly a problem and has to go.
I make a motion to delete this subforum.
-
Seconded
-
Parliamentary procedure?
This should probably be moved to PolDisc.
-
It's mind boggling that people want to limit what other people can talk about. I have learned a lot about the world, society, and myself from PolDisc. If you don't want to read it, go turn it off. Then end. How hard is that?
The button to turn it off doesn't work.
-
Confirmed, it doesn't work. Not that I'm tempted in the slightest to click into any of the threads there, but, you know.
-
Yall should consider that Goober, a COVID-enabler "main stream media" denier young earth creationist, was not a good fit for a forum about discussing reality. Maybe with him out of a position of power things will work just fine.
There's been much complaining and mourning that the "politics" side of the forum has stirred up so much drama in the "modding" side of the forum. The distinction is artificial. Goober's attitudes towards women were espoused in a thread about voice acting a campaign. He'd prematurely lock modding threads and shut down conversations if they offended his personal sense of propriety.
There is no neutral ground or place of objectivity to retreat to. We are constantly deciding which opinions and viewpoints are tolerable in our communities, and which aren't. People pretend that some of these decisions are invisible and unanimous and 'objective' while others are controversial and 'political', but it's just a matter of degree. Like sliders in some Bethesda-ass character creator, we change the face of our communities by deciding what we accept and what we reject.
Even the subject of what is 'nonpolitical' is a choice. What if a user strongly preferred they/them pronouns? Would it be political for moderators to punish disregard for that preference? Twenty years ago people would have laughed at that request and called it crazy. Five years ago there'd have been screaming about SJWs. Today the request might be considered common decency. The definition of what is 'political' and what is simply human decency has changed.
The 'anti drama' stance is as political as any other; it is an argument for acceptance of the status quo.
HLP is a tiny community. Attempts to govern it by legalism and tabulated rules are futile, because it runs mostly on interpersonal dynamics. It's so small that individual users set the tone. Naturally the people who obsess the most over Posting have the most to say about it.
I don't care about PolDisc in particular because there are much larger and more informative places on the internet to have conversations about politics, but if it's a nice place for a few posters to hang out and chill and talk about, I dunno, missile emplacements in the South China Sea, why not let 'em have it.
Personally I don't care what yall do as long as I can post more BP if it gets made.
e:
If PolDisc is going to stick around it needs to be a place for discussion of current events and non-confrontational sharing of views where people have enough sense to avoid idiotic fight club threads where they try to own each over other irreconcilable ideological differences.
Brutal owns are actually the best things to come out of politics threads
Yeah, this? This right here. That's why I try to avoid Pol Disc. It's obnoxious.
All hail the masters of the universe... or not. :rolleyes:
EDIT to clarify, before I'm forced to write an apology: I'm referring to an attitude exemplified by a person, not the person themselves.
-
That said, if I ask you where homosexuals end up after they die, I wonder if your answer would be tolerant, and what one ought to do to conform to your signature in that case.
My answer ended up being way too long for this thread, so I made a new one: https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=97077.msg1904539#msg1904539
Parliamentary procedure?
This should probably be moved to PolDisc.
:lol:
-
Well this is not the best moment in HLP's history where one can possibly claim that such setting works.
Take a look at the recent chaos we've experienced. Did it happen because people were debating over the damage per second inflicted by a BGreen? I don't think so.
I keep pointing out that the last major problem I had with the way this site was run WAS over Freespace. So yes, this sort of thing absolutely can happen over something like that.
-
Have you guys seen all the drama coming out of Site Support/Feedback? That subforum is clearly a problem and has to go.
I make a motion to delete this subforum.
Except the Site Support/Feedback board serves a true purpose which is relevant to website management, and most threads in that board do in fact address important subjects.
PolDisc is different. It could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn't affect anything critical about this website.
-
This is fair, but if you had to choose between the two at some point...
I'd moderate based on behaviour and not the side of the subject fence.
This is exactly how it should be. However, how it really is, and has been since I've been here, is at best the staff stand back and stand by while the people who believe off topic should be cleansed of everything that doesn't fit their narrow worldview get to work making it a hostile environment, and at worst, the mods expedite this process with mod power, selectively punishing behaviour which the other side can engage in with impunity. And that's before we get to people in that group who are mods as well...
I've watched it go from really diverse to almost totally monolithic because of this. It was even more diverse if I go back in time to before I joined. Go check it out if you want to see what was lost.
-
I've been here 21 years at least. I've seen changes, I just don't often get to moderate because I'm not constantly on because (over the years) work, women, gym, army, beer, women, beer, work, bombs, near fatality, women, beer, work, marriage, kids, work, 1500 mile a week driving, kids, lack of sleep and missing beer... anything I notice has already had other moderator action and I am a massive advocate of not double handling.
-
21 years, eh? (https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=mlist;sort=registered;start=0) :p
-
Definitely pre millennial. Maybe my brain is lumping it all together from the Volition watch forums/archives and squad war days.
When did this start?
I wasn't too far behind
https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=224
And that's with my clan tags too 😂😘😜😜
-
Thunder (*cough cough*) registered on 2001-01-07.
You registered a week after I did. :cool:
But yeah, there was definitely a bit of time last millennia when the VBB, and then the VWBB, were the places to be.
Remember good ol' HemorrhoidFrogButt? :p
-
I registered on the 11rh of June same year??
-
So... the Hammer of HLP 0wnage was the 8th member of this community. It looks like the banhammer was required since the very beginning. :p
-
I registered on the 11rh of June same year??
Why is that framed like a question? :wtf:
-
So... the Hammer of HLP 0wnage was the 8th member of this community. It looks like the banhammer was required since the very beginning. :p
With the Squad War community after the Volition forums closed down?
Should've been the 0th member.
-
Naughty naughty first 7...
I registered on the 11rh of June same year??
Why is that framed like a question? :wtf:
Because I cant rememeber which way round HLP uses dates. USA style or English.
So... the Hammer of HLP 0wnage was the 8th member of this community. It looks like the banhammer was required since the very beginning. :p
With the Squad War community after the Volition forums closed down?
Should've been the 0th member.
Roughneck are all trouble.
-
I think what we should all do is commit ourselves to the divine, and do what has been proclaimed ages ago. (http://web.archive.org/web/20010407221330/vbb.volition-inc.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/013245.html)
-
Because I cant rememeber which way round HLP uses dates. USA style or English.
Ahhh... see, that's the advantage of YYYY-MM-DD: no confusion possible (unless you seriously think someone would write 2020-31-12 :lol: ). Yes, June 11th, 2001.
I think what we should all do is commit ourselves to the divine, and do what has been proclaimed ages ago. (http://web.archive.org/web/20010407221330/vbb.volition-inc.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/013245.html)
D'awww, it's Fattony! Wasn't he an0n? Or am I lumping those two together because of their behavior/attitudes?
-
He was. Or is, technically.
-
My own two cents on the topic:
1) I like PolDisc. I like posting technical explainers, when I have the time and energy to do so. I like ****posting, when an especially absurd topic pops up.
2) I think that PolDisc's reputation as an unmatched hive of scum and villainy is grossly overstated. Goob's doomsday thread was the last topic that really oozed out of the forum in any significant way, because it was such an over-the-top thread that it would have been right at home being archived in the Classics section. (The recent incident that sparked this discussion was primarily a moderation issue that would have--and should have--exploded, regardless of the forum in which it occurred.) Most of us get along quite well in there and generally give a lot of benefit of the doubt to new faces popping in.
And because I'm working too damn much overtime, which pays time-and-a-half:
3) Art is political. I don't do a lot of FRED'ing anymore, but my fiction writing has improved dramatically, since I started making an effort to be more conscious of the politics in the subtext. I think there is a potential benefit to having a place for campaign/mission authors to discuss and refine their personal politics, as it can lead to them writing more thoughtful and compelling works.
Does the value outweigh the costs? I leave that as an exercise for the reader to decide, but I do think that there is value to keeping PolDisc around.
-
Gooby thread was gendisc mind
-
Gooby thread was gendisc mind
The doomsday thread? He may have started it in GenDisc, but it got moved to PolDisc at some point during its life. It rests on the third page of the PolDisc archive.
-
*nodding solemnly* This is a political topic. After all, it has Christians in it.
-
I would still like to see not being in the political discussion usergroup actually hide the political discussion board from view or showing up in recent posts.
-
It is supposed to do that already. I'll take another look at the settings at some point soon then.
-
Putting the Doomsday thread into the Classics Section is a really good idea. It is a classic after all. Goober might not like it though.
-
Part of site history now. Classics seems appropriate.
-
It is supposed to do that already. I'll take another look at the settings at some point soon then.
Any update on this? Every single post in my recent posts feed is a political disucssion post and I do not, in fact, have the political discussions usergroup.
-
When I click 'show unread posts since last visit' I don't see any poldisc stuff. I don't see any in 'recent posts' either. But maybe nobody's posted in pol disc in the last ten pages of recent posts??
-
Good Lard, what is happening here? I was only away for half a year-ish! :O
EDIT: reading up. Oh Boy.
I have never been a fan of politics and religion in the context of message boards. This killed all media like Facebook, Reddit and their open source alternatives for me. The longer we allow politics/religious discussion, the longer we attract NNs and their ilk.
-
When I click 'show unread posts since last visit' I don't see any poldisc stuff. I don't see any in 'recent posts' either. But maybe nobody's posted in pol disc in the last ten pages of recent posts??
Before I posted this and you responded, literally every single post in "recent posts" at the bottom of the forum index was a poldisc post. I'm not sure what you did to get poldisc posts out of that list, but if you could share I would greatly appreciate it.
-
Click on Profile > Account settings. Then go to "Modify Profile" > Group Membership. Click on Political Discussion "Join Group" and then another time to leave it. Smh you need to join it first before you can get out again. You can still access the board but PolDisc posts shouldn't show up anymore.
-
What, no. Maybe that works.. sure. But you can also just go to the ignore boards settings and check the box for PolDisc. Easy Peezy.
Like.. Ignore Board Options is literally it's own section in Account Settings. How do you all miss that?
-
What, no. Maybe that works.. sure. But you can also just go to the ignore boards settings and check the box for PolDisc. Easy Peezy.
Like.. Ignore Board Options is literally it's own section in Account Settings. How do you all miss that?
Holy **** it actually works
-
Oh right I did that too :warp:
-
Okay, ignore board works, but what is that usergroup for then? Because I don't think that works at all.
-
I can confirm it works. No PolDisc content in "Recent Posts". :yes:
-
Okay, ignore board works, but what is that usergroup for then? Because I don't think that works at all.
Yeah it probably didn't work; only the ignore boards does.