Query re Politics

Nodin

Is there any guideline or rule relating to people making statements, either of fact or opinion, and then refusing to answer questions related to those statements, while still posting in the same thread?

And by 'refusing' I mean primarily ignoring them entirely, trying to divert from the question coming in second place.

tbh

Nodin wrote: »

Is there any guideline or rule relating to people making statements, either of fact or opinion, and then refusing to answer questions related to those statements, while still posting in the same thread?

And by 'refusing' I mean primarily ignoring them entirely, trying to divert from the question coming in second place.

I have one: If someone constantly makes statements and refuses to back them up, then you should probably disregard that persons statements.

Nodin

...that would be fine, were it not for the fact that it would allow them to essentially litter threads with unsupported statements, thus rather destroying the whole concept of 'debate'. Normally I'd pour some venomous scorn on them, but theres every likelyhood that would be deemed in breach of the forum charter, hence my quandary.

gandalf

To be honest I have an idea which thread and which person you are refering to

All that they are doing is invalidating any points that they actually had because all that people reading the thread see is them avoiding to answer or address the actual flow of the debate.

Eliot Rosewater

If it's particularly bad I'd say report the poster. The mods may then ask him to support his accusations. Posters have gotten slaps on the wrist for acting like that before, if I rightly recall.

It is a quandary though. My instinct is to ignore posters like that, but then you run the risk of other people, who do not realize he or she is talking nonsense, believing him.

Nodin

Tis a dilemma. Oddly enough I prefer personally a less regulated enviroment. On the other hand, that can lead to people shouting past each other, with a complete refusal to deal with refutations etc. That kind of thing is really is not worth my time (or anyone elses)....

Eliot Rosewater

I've always preferred the well regulated style of boards.ie myself. I think politics.ie, based on the opposite mantra, is just a mess.

If you try just the littlest bit to be civil here you should have no reason to have a run in with the mods, in my experience.

DeVore

If someone is stating something as "fact" (usually written in capitals) then you can challenge them to back it up. If not, report the post and ask the mods to enforce this guideline. Its often been used before and I dont know of any resistance to it.

DeV.

OldGoat

"Source or Retract...or look like an idiot" has tended to work for me.

Nodin

DeVore wrote: »

If someone is stating something as "fact" (usually written in capitals) then you can challenge them to back it up. If not, report the post and ask the mods to enforce this guideline. Its often been used before and I dont know of any resistance to it.

DeV.

My thanks.

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

I have one: If someone constantly makes statements and refuses to back them up, then you should probably disregard that persons statements.

Easily done, and in fact a "simple" answer which would suffice for 90% of fora around here.

However, in Politics, a bit like "real life" the whole idea of debate can be muddied and actually skewed by incorrect or mis-interpreted statements that have no place in an 'adult' debate.

sceptre

DeVore wrote: »

If someone is stating something as "fact" (usually written in capitals) then you can challenge them to back it up. If not, report the post and ask the mods to enforce this guideline. Its often been used before and I dont know of any resistance to it.

DeV.

That.

If someone is popping things in as fact repeatedly into a thread and despite challenges to back it up, ignores those and just keeps going, we'll look at it and take action on it. If someone is thread-spoiling by doing that (word to note is "repeatedly") they'll be slapped. As you know, I operate on an anti-idiocy policy so act on what you think a reasonable person (or, well, me or my fellow mods) would rate as idiotic.

Please note though that we're facilitators and peacekeepers, not fact detectors, so repeatedly and thread-spoiling are conditions to be noted in your heads before reporting things like that. If something is wrong and it's important or crucial and someone is posting bs as fact and won't back it up on request as the forum charter requires them to do so we'll happily take action but don't start reporting posts because they're "wrong" (I'm addressing this to the masses btw) or the boot will be angled in a different direction. If anyone needs clarification on what I mean, feel free to ask or PM me but I reckon you know the distinction I'm pointing at Nodin so you probably won't need to. Basically if someone's acting the bollocks, that's one of the things that reports are very welcome on.

Overheal

deadtiger wrote: »

To be honest I have an idea which thread and which person you are refering to

Its not one person, or one thread, or one topic.

gandalf

Overheal wrote: »

Its not one person, or one thread, or one topic.

Actually I reckon this thread was started because of one user. Myself and the OP we were both trying to engage with that user in a single thread where they avoided answering any point that was put to them and attempted to divert totally away from the topic at hand. They eventually got a warning in that thread and I believe they were banned from the forum when they continued carrying on that behaviour in another thread on Politics.

AckwelFoley

3 out of every 5 facts are made up on the spot.

FACT

Overheal

Well Im not sure which poster youre talking about, honestly. But personally I can think of about a dozen users on the Politics forum that have had a history of doing so. Which is fine [that we aren't talking about one poster - not that the behavior is fine], because we need to have this discussion, IMHO.

To that I'll just succinctly say part 8 of the Politics Category charter is something I'd like to see expanded upon regarding this point. That blithely evading challenges to backup your claims on thread (either through sources or reasoning) is not gonna fly.

A: "Well That Guy is a liberal/fascist/nazi etc."

B: "How do you figure? etc."

A: "Pfft typical liberal. Open your eyes. Im not going to spell it out for you" etc.

as opposed to actually explaining how one would draw the conclusion that That Guy is a Liberal Neo-Nazi Pinko Commie. Etc.

Just one of many examples. I know the mods already use good sense about these sort of things but for my part I'd like to just be able to report it as a Breach of Charter when it happens, and save everyone some time

DeVore

having an opinion is one thing, everyone is entitled to their opinion but claiming it is "fact" is another.

I take your point Overheal, that kinda lies in the grey area. Personally I take the refusal to explain as an acceptance that its just their opinion.

Its different when someone says "Its a well known fact that marijuana leads to harder drugs." If thats challenged and no backup is produced, it should be snipped and user sanctioned if its a repeat.

DeV

sceptre

Overheal wrote: »

To that I'll just succinctly say part 8 of the Politics Category charter is something I'd like to see expanded upon regarding this point. That blithely evading challenges to backup your claims on thread (either through sources or reasoning) is not gonna fly.

Have a look at section 2. Could do with a bit of expansion/clarification/re-writing at some point I think but there's already "something" in place.

Overheal

Yeah I would clean up part 2 as perhaps putting some of it in part 8.

P. Breathnach

Most of my participation in boards is in the politics forums. I am satisfied that the charter is clear enough, and the quality of moderation is generally very good.

Political discussion being what it is, people often express strongly-held views in terms that might be intemperate. For the most part, the combined effect of other contributors' posts and moderator intervention effectively clear out the nonsense.

Some nonsense survives because it is difficult to get a proper grip on everything. People can be evasive, or a bit dishonest in argument, or can cite sources that most reasonable people might not accept as reliable.

It can be frustrating dealing with people who seem stupid or unreasonable or dishonest, but that's what life is like: I have the same frustrations in discussing things in real life. While we can ask moderators to deal with extreme cases, I think that changing the charter or attempting to change the culture of the politics forums would not achieve anything worthwhile.

GuanYin

Overheal wrote: »

That blithely evading challenges to backup your claims on thread (either through sources or reasoning) is not gonna fly.

I don't think it ever did fly. The problem in moderation is the balance between coaxing a poster into leaving his/her rantbox and actually participating OR clamping down on everyone who crosses the line.

We've gone both ways when required. I prefer option 1, initially at least.

Just one of many examples. I know the mods already use good sense about these sort of things but for my part I'd like to just be able to report it as a Breach of Charter when it happens, and save everyone some time

Report away. At least we're aware of what people are perceiving as an issue. Of course a reported post does not mean moderation will happen. But at least we get to learn about posters and posting habits.

gandalf

This is the thread that prompted this query

P. Breathnach

deadtiger wrote: »

This is the thread that prompted this query

It's a fairly normal type of discussion of Israel by the standards of the politics forum, as it is an area where the lines of disagreement are strong (that's the reason why I rarely get into discussions on the Middle East). The fact that one particular poster repeatedly evaded a question and tried to deflect the discussion is glaringly obvious, and there was a moderator warning to that poster.

While it was not a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question, if a there was a rule that everybody was obliged to give a direct answer to every question about matters of opinion, you might create a situation where people might be required to answer questions that are not really answerable with a simple yes or no.

DeVore

Ok, but Boards has space for more then Yes or No answers.... we haven't run out of electrons just yet.

DeV.

P. Breathnach

DeVore wrote: »

Ok, but Boards has space for more then Yes or No answers.... we haven't run out of electrons just yet.

I know that we can disturb enough electrons to give an elaborate answer, because I sometimes do it myself. I was thinking more of the difficulty of setting down a rule that if another poster asks you a question about your position, you should answer it directly. It would be difficult to express it clearly and make it proof against unreasonable interpretation, and if it were done I am not sure that the world would be a noticeably better place because of it.

Sigsnipper

Have to say having posted on another political forum where there are no problems like this, do not see why boards continually gets itself in black knots re stuff like this. But would guess it comes down to an over loaded charter.
Every poster should know what is acceptable IMO but where you have an endless list of regulations that will ultimately confuse the genuine poster, the clever poster will play the dumb card and say he misread the charter.

Eliot Rosewater

Sigsnipper wrote: »

Have to say having posted on another political forum where there are no problems like this, do not see why boards continually gets itself in black knots re stuff like this. But would guess it comes down to an over loaded charter.

I'm assuming from your recent accession to The Banned that you're not being sincere here. However it's worth noting that the reason one has a charter is because people do not give regard to "what is acceptable" when posting online. This failure can be seen in places like politics.ie. It can also be seen with new posters. I've noticed that a lot of posters have an initial "teething phase" during which they transition from being personally abusive (an understandable reaction to anonymity) to being respectful as per the charter. If you search back far enough you will see well-known posters and moderators abusing others in their first weeks here.

From what I can see, on politics.ie there is no teething phase, and hence no respect!