[Grizzly]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Grizzly]

tbh we have derailed this thread long enough

[Nyctaeus]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Admiral Nelson]

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:



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....

[Fineus]

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.

[The E]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Lorric]

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?

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Admiral Nelson]

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.

[Lorric]

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!

[Iain Baker]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.