Comments/Questions on "Read This First"

[Elphaba]

A.) All Actions of Moderation will now be Public Displays, within thread, as a means of transparancy to the membership. This means if you step over a line, you will be made an example and treated as such. Understand we rarely take action alone, as virtually everything in this forum is discussed by multiple Mods and Admins before it is implemented.

I applaud the movement toward greater transparancy of the actions taken by the moderators. It provides the membership with a better understanding of what is or is not acceptable on a case by case basis.

B.) Personal attacks, not those directed toward a specific party, or affiliation, but a direct personal attack gets an automatic 3 day suspension. This will be noted in the thread, and when you get back a nice little PM wil be waiting for you, explaining how to avoid such action in the future. Attacks on General Affiliation, though expected, will be considered heavily in the context of the discussion. Use of the Report Post Button, is a great alternative to getting slapped for attacking someone.

I don't think any member would disagree with this policy, but I have a question regarding what constitutes a personal attack vs. a criticism of a person's post. Today a thread was locked because a mod viewed a response as a personal attack, whereas I read the same response as a criticism of a person's post and the conclusion he drew from his post. I agree that there will often be a fine line between the two, but I would appreciate some clarification.

C.) Any Post or thread, considered a troll or flame by the Moderators will be immediately closed without warning. A statement by the Mods will be placed explaining the closure, and a PM sent to the individual, repeated closures will result in further action.

I agree that threads started with the intention of creating a flame should be closed immediately. My question is whether a single post intended to be a flame within a legitimate thread will also cause the entire thread to be closed. It is my belief that some members intend to get a thread closed with a spurious post. Each of us must take personal responsibility for how we respond to an inflammatory post, but should a valid thread be closed by one inappropriate post?

D.) Those members considered to be an "Issue" will be given the incredible honor of their own thread, unfortunately they will not get to see the thread as it will be visble only to those deciding if this individual really wants to be here anymore. The well known Temp-Ban will still be used....but the lesser known Perma-Ban will become somewhat more well known in the future.

I can see the value of this if all members enter into TFP Politics today with a clean slate. Suspension of a previously held belief by a Mod regarding any particular member will be difficult in my opinion, but necessary.



Finally, my thanks to all of our Politics mods for making this a better place for all of us.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I applaud the movement toward greater transparancy of the actions taken by the moderators. It provides the membership with a better understanding of what is or is not acceptable on a case by case basis.



I don't think any member would disagree with this policy, but I have a question regarding what constitutes a personal attack vs. a criticism of a person's post. Today a thread was locked because a mod viewed a response as a personal attack, whereas I read the same response as a criticism of a person's post and the conclusion he drew from his post. I agree that there will often be a fine line between the two, but I would appreciate some clarification.

What YOU see as personal attack is irrelevant.



I agree that threads started with the intention of creating a flame should be closed immediately. My question is whether a single post intended to be a flame within a legitimate thread will also cause the entire thread to be closed. It is my belief that some members intend to get a thread closed with a spurious post. Each of us must take personal responsibility for how we respond to an inflammatory post, but should a valid thread be closed by one inappropriate post?

Yes...it will be closed.



I can see the value of this if all members enter into TFP Politics today with a clean slate. Suspension of a previously held belief by a Mod regarding any particular member will be difficult in my opinion, but necessary.

All members are equal at this point, unless Official warnings are on file.



Finally, my thanks to all of our Politics mods for making this a better place for all of us.

You are Welcome.

[Elphaba]

I don't think any member would disagree with this policy, but I have a question regarding what constitutes a personal attack vs. a criticism of a person's post. Today a thread was locked because a mod viewed a response as a personal attack, whereas I read the same response as a criticism of a person's post and the conclusion he drew from his post. I agree that there will often be a fine line between the two, but I would appreciate some clarification.

What YOU see as personal attack is irrelevant.

Agreed. My question is how do we as members walk that fine line between attacking the person vs. attacking the post?

Thank you for the feedback.

[Ace_O_Spades]

haha... I'm just reminded of a popular quote.

This is NOT a Democracy... this is a DICTATORSHIP!

Long live TFPolitics.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Agreed. My question is how do we as members walk that fine line between attacking the person vs. attacking the post?

Thank you for the feedback.

What I'm about to write is a comment on the future, not on what has happened in the past:

It is our hope that you will find that the line between rebutting a post and attacking a person is not so fine after all. It shouldn't be - this isn't a court of law, and character assassination through explicit claims or implication isn't acceptable. Tilted Politics is merely one part of TFP, and accordingly it should fit into the scheme of what TFP is. This is an internet community, not merely a political forum. The idea is that understanding can be fostered, people can grow together and maybe even learn from each other through the sorts of interactions that TFP allows. This is one reason that including your own original thoughts is a requisite for posting here - merely posting links or copied text is not in the spirit of this place, no matter how accurate or valuable that information is. This is the vision that Tecoyah, myself, and others wish to see reflected in this place. It's not really that tough to see when someone is contributing in a manner that is counterproductive to our community ideals or relationships - where the lines seem fine, please ask. Err on the side of good manners and polite discourse, and report posts and send PMs to moderating staff proactively... One of the reasons we have moderators is to ensure that our individual members do not have to become a vigilante force to ensure decency.

All of that said, this is a good place - I've gotten a lot from you guys over the years, and I'm looking forward to more years of growth and education.

[politicophile]

It is certainly no easy task differentiating between the following three types of events:

1. Posts attacking a TFP member.
2. Posts attacking a TFP member's argument.
3. Posts attacking a group to which another TFP member belongs.

The first category are personal attacks and should rightly be banned, as they are counterproductive to political debate. The second category is core political debate and should never, never be prohibited. The third category is one that I believe should be banned, but the moderators feel should be permitted.

Aside from a general caution about confusing the first two categories, I would just like to say that the third category is bad for discourse as well.

The moderators, presumably, would not allow members to say things like: "It is natural that you would advance an argument of that nature because you are a Jew. Jews live in an altered reality perpetuated by their cultural practices of exclusion and mutual ideological reinforcement. As a result, their comments are worth little more than anthropological value."

What confuses me is that you could probably say: "It is natural that you would advance an argument of that nature because you are a bleeding heart liberal. Liberals live in an altered reality perpetuated by their cultural practices of exclusion and mutual ideological reinforcement. As a result, their comments are worth little more than anthropological value."

I have complained many times in the past about the frustration I feel when moderators see no need to act against this kind of behavior. Insults against group membership can be just as powerful as insults against the individual, but the moderators treat them entirely differently. I believe that fairness would dictate that insults of ideologies and political parties be treated the same way as insults of race, gender, religion, etc.

[tecoyah]

Thus we have come to this new form of moderation, and new resolve. If you think we will consider it an attack.....dont post it, or rephrase it in such a way that you are more comfortable with your wording. Chances are if YOU think its bad, we will think its worse.
The hope is that people will begin to show respect for each other out of need, as a form of self preservation. Either that or they will need to find another forum that is more condusive to the form of debate they prefer.

[politicophile]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Thus we have come to this new form of moderation, and new resolve. If you think we will consider it an attack.....dont post it, or rephrase it in such a way that you are more comfortable with your wording. Chances are if YOU think its bad, we will think its worse.
The hope is that people will begin to show respect for each other out of need, as a form of self preservation. Either that or they will need to find another forum that is more condusive to the form of debate they prefer.

Self-restraint is clearly the first step to remaining in compliance with the rules. As you say, things have changed, so my past problems may now be moot. My point, though, was that in several past instances, I received responses that I thought were bad, but the moderators thought were just fine. My intent was to illustrate a category of insult that has been permitted in the past and, to my dismay, sounds like it may also be permitted in the future.

Neutrally applying the rules is important. However, it is also important that the rules be fair and comprehensive in the first place.

[martinguerre]

i tend to think that the problem this, and all such moves towards political "decency" is that they tend not to address the problem of people who draw fouls.

closure is not conflict resolving, it's conflict management or adjudication.

just saying...i don't know if y'all have a better option.

[tecoyah]

to Clarify then:

"It is natural that you would advance an argument of that nature because you are a Jew. Jews live in an altered reality perpetuated by their cultural practices of exclusion and mutual ideological reinforcement. As a result, their comments are worth little more than anthropological value."

Comment removed, Member warned in public for first offense

What confuses me is that you could probably say: "It is natural that you would advance an argument of that nature because you are a bleeding heart liberal. Liberals live in an altered reality perpetuated by their cultural practices of exclusion and mutual ideological reinforcement. As a result, their comments are worth little more than anthropological value."

Comment removed, Member warned in public for second offense documented in profile.


Now....lets say you wrote this:

"Its natural you would say that , you freakin stupid ass Liberal"

Comment removed, Member sent on a three day vacation

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by martinguerre

i tend to think that the problem this, and all such moves towards political "decency" is that they tend not to address the problem of people who draw fouls.

closure is not conflict resolving, it's conflict management or adjudication.

just saying...i don't know if y'all have a better option.

Those who draw the fouls, will eventually (perhaps sooner than expected) no longer have the opportunity to do so.

[Elphaba]

Tec, if the comment is removed how do the rest of us learn from the transgression?

[Ustwo]

C.) Any Post or thread, considered a troll or flame by the Moderators will be immediately closed without warning. A statement by the Mods will be placed explaining the closure, and a PM sent to the individual, repeated closures will result in further action.

You will have to excuse me if I feel this has the potential to be problematic.

If someone posts their own opinion which differs from other TFP'ers is it a troll?

If someone posts an article for discussion from an obviously biased and untrustworthy web site is it a troll?

Based on some past reactions to such posts, I have to wonder how well this will work out. If I posted my list on 'Why George W. Bush is the greatest President ever', not matter how well researched it would generate flames and therefore be a troll?

My past experience with this board is that any original thought, especially original conservative thought gets the 'troll' label very fast from our liberal majority. I hope I can be surprised and see the liberal moderators (which is all that seem to be active these days) see the difference, and not interpret poster reaction as an indication of a troll post.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Tec, if the comment is removed how do the rest of us learn from the transgression?

Perhaps..."Edited" would be a better term. As in...the word Jew removed from the above example.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If someone posts an article for discussion from an obviously biased and untrustworthy web site is it a troll?

I know we've been through this several times. It is bad form to dismiss an article or fact merely because of its source, whether that source is some partisan website or the NY Times. In fact, it verges on being a threadjack, unless the thread is about the trust-worthiness of the source in question (not to mention a COMPLETE fallacy). What I'm saying is that if someone posts something from truthout.org, address the facts, not your assumptions about the presentation. That's the only way we'll ever get anywhere.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I hope I can be surprised and see the liberal moderators (which is all that seem to be active these days) see the difference, and not interpret poster reaction as an indication of a troll post.

A troll is in the intent and possible result of an OP, not the enraged reaction of those who don't like the post. If you are posting reasonable material that looks like it is geared towards creating a respectful discussion, then an ensuing train-wreck would represent a breakdown in people's reactions. You'd be fine. If, on the other hand, you post material that is intended to inflame other people and inhibits discussion, you'll be seen as trolling. This extends to the commonly seen practice on this board of bating others into flaming.

As for your concerns about differing perceptions regarding flames, trolls, bating and the like, I agree that it is a touchy area. It can hardly be anything other than a judgment call. This is the exact reason that moderation happens by discussion and consensus. It is also the reason that Tecoyah wrote that you are welcome to PM an admin if you have a problem or concern with a moderator's actions. I hope you'll believe me when I tell you that we are extremely concerned with preserving respectful discourse, whatever the content of that discourse is. We're also probably not as biased as you think we are... A team like ours has all kinds of viewpoints represented.

It's best if moderation happens in concert with the community's input - please report posts proactively and PM moderation staff when you have concerns. We're trying to make big things happen, but it will take lots of little decisions and actions on everyone's part (including member's making respectful choices) to get there. It's a joint venture.

[roachboy]

interesting.

almost unsure what there is to say about all this---greater transparency, fine---reduction of snarky posts, fine---elimination of ad hominems--good, glad to see. but these are all positions that assume clear cut types of posts--but the policy is not always implemented in the context where things are clear-cut.


i was going to pm this to you gentlemen, but in the interest of helping to define what transparency in fact means, i'll do it here.

the transparency being outlined here operates with only one public side---it functiosn as a gloss on mod actions--it is good that the flip of that is a feedback loop for questions that can be posed to the mods---what is not so good is that the questions are confined to pms---why not have public space for questions about particular choices the mods make when they fall into grey areas?

are mod decisions irreversable? if so, why?

it seems to me you have a choice within the larger choices that you are making concerning transparency---the current mode is a kind of nice dad approach, within which decisions to shut down a thread are accompanied by a slight expansion of explanation--but the decisions themselves stand regardless.

a more community oriented mode would be to create a public space for meta-discussion about some of the decisions themselves, which would function (maybe) as a way to include the community itself in the generation of the discursive norms within which it operates. this present style is not really such a mode because it is not about the criteria that shape decisions, really--it is about modulating responses to them--the norms themselves are not being discussed here, only how those of us who post are to react.

it is very american, this split of debate away from questions of the actual exercize of Authority. kind of a recurrent quirk.

i think the torture in iraq thread that i started opens onto grey areas within this new regime.

let's review....

i had some difficulty working out how to present the ny times piece on section 6-26 as a generator of discussion---and i am not confident that i worked it out--but i thought the information in it important.

at the same time, i felt something kind of shift in my mind as i read it--i understood something of the attitude i was seeing in films about groups like baader-meinhof and other aspects of the mid 70s militant/"terrorist" left that i hadn't really understood before---what they saw, in effect, that motivated their actions. i also saw the enormity of their tactical mistake in choosing to go the direct action route, but that came a bit later, and did not make it into the thread because it was shut down. it probably would have come up at some point. no-one puts all their cards on the table in an op and so it goes.

i fully expected that folk from the right in particular would respond by trying to avoid the information one way or another, and so it went.

i wondered about tipping points, the places in which information reached a mass that caused problems for maintenance of positions, even in a messageboard format---the format is important because it tends to reduce almost to zero the possibility of folk changing their views based on any information. something about the distance in it, about the net format itself seems to play a role in this, but it is hard to work out exactly what functions in this way beyond that.

anyway, sure enough, dismiss-the-nyt-as-source came, and two very different responses to followed. it was pretty clear to me at least that this was a blip in a conversation that would probably be left behind, or could be if it was managed right--but the thread was shut down.

so what exactly do you folk see this reduction of polemical responses as entailing for threads that involve controversial information?

what seems to be taking shape here is a quick and easy way to get controversial threads shut down: if you dont like the information, post something facile dismissing it on arbitrary grounds but without any superficial features of an ad hominem. and this would be fine, within the rules.

what the new policy really effects is the ability of folk to react.

in this place, you get the same posts from the same folk over and over---there is no learning curve in some cases.

the positions that are advanced through this repetition are no more legitimate outside a particular frame of reference at the outset than they are at repetition 30---what are we to do about such situations?

if we cannot respond strongly, does that not de facto mean that these absurd posts are now to be understood as adequate intellectually?

why is it ok to continually post the same kind of thing, over and over, in the form of zippy one-liners?
for myself, i take this kind of thing as patronizing, as working on the assumption that i, as a reader and participant here, am being positioned as an idiot, not deserving of an actual argument.
why are these posts not themselves then understood as a personal attack?

further, i have said this before and i'll repeat it here: if you really want to manage snippiness in this forum, you might exert pressure on folk to raise the intellectual content of their posts.

[politicophile]

In the interest of seeing how the policy has changed, I have one final question for you, Tec. The following is the post that convinced me to leave TFP for a period of several months. After having told Tec (much earlier in the tread) that Host and I were having a civil debate that was not in need of moderation, this post was made and the mods continued to not interfere. My question: Under this new policy, if this post were made, without my having asked the mods not to intervene, would the person making the post face any sort of consequences?

ok, let's try it this way, then:

pretend for a moment that you are actually interested in persuading someone who does not already agree with you politically---which means that you have to explain you frame of reference rather than simply repeat it. i am sure you understand the distinction.

so let's adopt this fiction, shall we--that you are actually interested in talking to folk who do not share your intimate relationship with the conservative talking points of hte moment---think of it as evangelism, if you will----and then try sort this out logically, politicophile--go through the chain of events that resulted in the distorted intl presented to congress by teh administration--and perhaps presented as such from one office to another within the administration at one point or another---then to the congressional actions you are talking about---taking into account the fact of the unsc and information presented publically by the un and other international sources. and then explain to me how it is that your way of trying to frame what is "relevant" does not require so many assumptions behind to that it is functionally arbitrary.

repeating yourself is not answering, btw.
sometimes it seems like there has to be a rule or two.

[roachboy]

i hesitate to post now but....

politicophile: your basic claim in the above is that you object to being asked to outline the premises of your political committments, to treat them as the result of a deductive process.
you object to be treated as an intelligent person who arrived at thier positions via a logical process?
you object to being asked to explain that logic?
why?

to demonstrate your objection, you take a post of mine out of context--such that the tone is inexplicable----and copy it. you obviously hope to blur the question of tone into the content of the post itself, which leave no other conclusion open but that you find being asked why you think as you do to be in itself offensive.

further, what you object to from me, from the past, is fundamentally different from what i objected to in my post....because i have no problem---none--with laying out the premises of my arguments. as such, i do not treat you, as a reader, like a fool. i do not see you, as one posting here, as a fool--like i said earlier, i assume that you have reasons for thinking as you do and ask you to lay them out. that you refuse to do it--which i assume must have been the case in the context from which you snipped the post you quoted above--is for me problematic.

your politics are not Revealed Truth any more than mine are.

this gets directly into a fundamental question concerning politics disucussions themselves, their content and utility. frankly, if the kind of question you post above come to be understood as objectionable in itself, i will not continue to operate here in any way. at that point, there would cease to be any purpose in it. it would be a complete waste of my time. and i do, believe it or not, have other things going on that would in all probability benefit from my diverting the time i spend here to them.

[Daniel_]

The rules are clear, and relatively unambiguous.

We all have the opportunity to post according to them, just as we all have the opportunity to set up our own web based community and set our own rules.

I enjoy reading the politics forum, though I rarely post as so many of the threads are US-based, and I am British.

I hope that the existing posters are not put off by this clarification of the rules.

That's my £0.02

[tecoyah]

Excellent example both of you. The combined exchange is what we are attempting to get away from here....as it really comes down to personality conflict, not political debate. Would there be consequences....Likely not at this point, perhaps a small yellow post asking to watch the tone, but likely not even that.
The point is , far too much that takes place in this forum is based on hinted, and sarcastic personal jabs. We have tried many approaches to limit, if not remove this type of posting with very limited success. Fortunately the Idea behind TFP is evolution, and growth, which we hope the new direction in here will lead to.
Moderators generally do not act alone in here, as we all discuss actions whenever possible with our peers before acting. We have found this a great way to remove doubt about what we do...at least for ourselves, we will never remove the doubt from all of you. After being called Biased from both sides of the political fence on more occasions than I care to remember, in virtually equal portions it has become something of a Joke to see anymore and has become irrelevant.
This new direction for TFP requires no member input...the rules are there for you to read. The descisions of your Moderators should be considered the final word, though exceptions are a part of Moderation and Human Nature. By making the actions taken transparent, we hope to make this a place that does not feel closed to members, and clarify why we do.....what we do.

[Elphaba]

This new direction for TFP requires no member input...the rules are there for you to read. The descisions of your Moderators should be considered the final word, though exceptions are a part of Moderation and Human Nature. By making the actions taken transparent, we hope to make this a place that does not feel closed to members, and clarify why we do.....what we do.

By virtue of this thread, I believe that we as members have been given a vehicle for input to our moderators. Your clarifications in this thread are greatly appreciated by this politics junkie.

[roachboy]

tecoyah:

since we are clarifying the new rules----and i just read them again----maybe the point made at the end concerning moving the forum more toward debate would be good to clarify.

does this have any implications for how arguments are presented?

not at the level of personal attack---whichis obvious enough---but at the level of content without regard for political viewpoint.

in the post above---which i vacillated about posting, but decided to do because and only because i thought myself being attacked in what i saw as a basically unfair manner---but whatever, i understood this as a potentially problematic post and so it was.

underneath it, however, is a directly political question that is not reducable to trivial personality conflict.

if you want to encourage debate across political divisions, does it not make sense to encourage, if not require, folk post more reflexive types of arguments--that is, spell out what prompts them to come to a particular position, lay out the logic behind it, etc.?
if posts are entirely worded in political code that is particular to a given position, where is the debate to happen?
this seems particularly important in that much ideological conflict that unfolds these days in the states is about shaping/controlling how issues are framed---so it would follow that debate would only really happen if folk stepped back a little from framing that is in itself already politcal and presented positions.

i would expect that you would find much of the snarkiness you complain about and claim to be moving toward elimination would disappear on its own if all parties invovled understood that each was taking the others seriously enough to actually think out and explain not only what their positions are but how they are arrived at.

[pig]

Quick question: is sarcasm now off limits? I know I have a tendency to be somewhat sarcastic, and one of the things I enjoy about other sections of the boards is the occasional joke about other posters. You've gotten to know them over a period of months or years, and I see these type of comments all the time in other sections of the boards. It seems that those types of exchanges could easily be considered as personal attacks, but I think in some cases they're not meant in the spirit of belittling another poster, or undermining their position - but are more in the spirit of comraderie. I understand and support the direction that the rules are meant to encourage, but I just want to know what happens when I kid Alladin_sane about his absurdum argument concerning fucking horses and homosexuality, for example. I hope these rules don't remove the personality of the posters.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Excuse my extreme distrust for the discretion of the mods in regards to posts made. Even handedness has seemingly faltered in my eyes. It seems ambiguity and wordsmithing has been a get out of jail free card in the past, as seen by intent or mind numbing application of vernacular.

[Zyr]

Obviously this is where it is most necessary, but does this new policy extend in any way, outside of tilted politics?

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by roachboy

tecoyah:

since we are clarifying the new rules----and i just read them again----maybe the point made at the end concerning moving the forum more toward debate would be good to clarify.

does this have any implications for how arguments are presented?

Yes, It Does. Many supposed arguments in here were directed at individuals, rather than subject matter. This is something to avoid going forward.

not at the level of personal attack---whichis obvious enough---but at the level of content without regard for political viewpoint.

Well Now, if you are arguing political viewpoint.....this is the very definition of debate, and is what we should be doing in here. I recommend using common sense in this regard.

in the post above---which i vacillated about posting, but decided to do because and only because i thought myself being attacked in what i saw as a basically unfair manner---but whatever, i understood this as a potentially problematic post and so it was.

If any member feels they are attacked, repost the post and wait to reply. Allow the Mods to do the job for you.

underneath it, however, is a directly political question that is not reducable to trivial personality conflict.

There is indeed a valid subject hidden in the post......but, Why was it hidden?

if you want to encourage debate across political divisions, does it not make sense to encourage, if not require, folk post more reflexive types of arguments--that is, spell out what prompts them to come to a particular position, lay out the logic behind it, etc.?
if posts are entirely worded in political code that is particular to a given position, where is the debate to happen?
this seems particularly important in that much ideological conflict that unfolds these days in the states is about shaping/controlling how issues are framed---so it would follow that debate would only really happen if folk stepped back a little from framing that is in itself already politcal and presented positions.

i would expect that you would find much of the snarkiness you complain about and claim to be moving toward elimination would disappear on its own if all parties invovled understood that each was taking the others seriously enough to actually think out and explain not only what their positions are but how they are arrived at.

We are attempting to accomplish this direction change.....as should be relatively clear.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by pigglet

Quick question: is sarcasm now off limits? I know I have a tendency to be somewhat sarcastic, and one of the things I enjoy about other sections of the boards is the occasional joke about other posters. You've gotten to know them over a period of months or years, and I see these type of comments all the time in other sections of the boards. It seems that those types of exchanges could easily be considered as personal attacks, but I think in some cases they're not meant in the spirit of belittling another poster, or undermining their position - but are more in the spirit of comraderie. I understand and support the direction that the rules are meant to encourage, but I just want to know what happens when I kid Alladin_sane about his absurdum argument concerning fucking horses and homosexuality, for example. I hope these rules don't remove the personality of the posters.

I would Highly recommend you avoid doing so in this forum for awhile.....anywhere else it is your call, and part of community. In here its just not a good Idea at this time.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Excuse my extreme distrust for the discretion of the mods in regards to posts made. Even handedness has seemingly faltered in my eyes. It seems ambiguity and wordsmithing has been a get out of jail free card in the past, as seen by intent or mind numbing application of vernacular.

While I agree 100% with the skill many show at wordcrafting, and in fact that is one of the primary reasons for this change, the fairness of the Mods should not be an issue, as we have set in place the means of discussion within the ranks to avoid arbitrary actions. I have watched as certain members "Walked the Line" for quite some time, and been powerless to call them on it, we were given but one choice:


Move The Line

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Excuse my extreme distrust for the discretion of the mods in regards to posts made. Even handedness has seemingly faltered in my eyes. It seems ambiguity and wordsmithing has been a get out of jail free card in the past, as seen by intent or mind numbing application of vernacular.

Your distrust is excused, but moderation will remain a necessary part of this forum for a long time....

I appreciate this thread, because it seems to me that most posters are looking ahead towards the future and have genuine concern over finding ways to stay within the rules and post constructively. That's heartening.

Tecoyah's sticky is all about what will happen if you cross the lines. In terms of avoiding crossing those lines, simple is best. Don't attack each other, don't call each other names. Avoid generalizing about "the other side", and don't post or reply in the heat of anger. Use the report post button. In other words, post respectfully about issues and discuss why you hold certain views.

If this is impossible for someone, then their contributions have already ceased to have value for our community.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by Zyr

Obviously this is where it is most necessary, but does this new policy extend in any way, outside of tilted politics?

NO....this is a TFPolitics Exclusive

[politicophile]

Here is an example of the new policy in action. The response was swift, the punishment an effective deterrant without being excessive. My only regret is that a thread with some definite merit to it was shut down because of three words... On the whole, the response was very good, but I wish there had been a way around ending the conversation.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by politicophile

Here is an example of the new policy in action. The response was swift, the punishment an effective deterrant without being excessive. My only regret is that a thread with some definite merit to it was shut down because of three words... On the whole, the response was very good, but I wish there had been a way around ending the conversation.

Think of it as....incentive.

[Psycho Dad]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

NO....this is a TFPolitics Exclusive

What happens in the event that someone reposts a closed topic in General Discussion? Someone may post it not knowing that it has gone to shit in politics and yet another may use it as a loophole to recommence with the name calling, attacks, etc. Maybe it isn't always best to close these posts like this instead of dealing with a few who don't follow the rules. I'm just sayin'...

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Excuse my extreme distrust for the discretion of the mods in regards to posts made. Even handedness has seemingly faltered in my eyes. It seems ambiguity and wordsmithing has been a get out of jail free card in the past, as seen by intent or mind numbing application of vernacular.

I don't think this is gonna be as dire as some are making it out to be. The mods aren't saying they're going to ban all the republicans or democrats. They're saying they're going to ban people if they act like assholes.

Sure, in the past, some mods have been harder on the liberal side, and some have been harder on the conservative side. But the new policy seems to get around that. They're looking for stuff like personal attacks. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, they'll no longer let you be a jerk.

Works for me.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

What happens in the event that someone reposts a closed topic in General Discussion? Someone may post it not knowing that it has gone to shit in politics and yet another may use it as a loophole to recommence with the name calling, attacks, etc. Maybe it isn't always best to close these posts like this instead of dealing with a few who don't follow the rules. I'm just sayin'...

Good points. If a useful topic does get closed (and they will) feel free to revive the topic in a new thread. Be aware though, if the problem that caused the closure (person or text) continues, it will not result in a simple one day vacation.

[Aladdin Sane]

How about when Member Y claims a special insight into the personality and/or motivation of Member X? For example, let's say I claim that the reason you support the current war is because you "obviously hate Muslims." Or, what if I make a statement like "you obviously hope to [insert malevolent desire here], which leave no other conclusion open but that you [insert malevolent personal judgement here]." Isn't this an appeal to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason? And shouldn't it be considered "out-of-bounds" in this forum?

[tecoyah]

If its negative, and directed at a fellow members person.....just dont post it...period.

[smooth]

there are actual rules to debate and logic that are available to anyone who wants to read and follow them. If some moderators are motivated enough to up the discourse, they could bone up on the logical fallacies and point out red herrings, ad hominems, poisening the well attacks, appeals to emotion/authority, & etc.

it doesn't seem all that difficult to pick up on insults, insinuated or explicit. But for some reason only blatant insults used to be processed as such while poisoning the well attacks went unchallenged. both that and ad hominem attacks undermine an argument by attacking the person making them. I mean, if we were to follow this a useful sticky would be a compendium of logical fallacies.

[tecoyah]

If it would help....we will do it.....Comments people?

[shakran]

I dunno - seems like a lot of work for you guys. If someone uses one of these tactics, we've been pointing it out in the thread.

Just as an example a common tactic lately in response to a point that's negative regarding Bush has been to respond with "but Clinton. . . " Some of us have pointed out the misdirection tactics when they're used. If you guys had to police every time someone did that, you'd need to hire more staff