Problems in the Politics Forum

southsiderosie

Over the last several months, I have seen a number of comments from posters who I enjoy reading in other forums that amount to “I used to post in Politics, but I don’t anymore”. I have to admit, of late I am not posting as much as I used to. Clearly some of this is post-elections hangover, but I do think that the Politics forum is having the same kind of problems that have come up across the website recently: how do you balance the desire for a broader audience with the desire to hang on to core posters? What should be the standards for the level of debate (this last point was particularly contentious around the time of the elections)? In the case of politics, I also think it reflects a more fundamental, problematic shift in the forum: there are too many silly, sloppy posts, too much soapboxing, too many repeat threads, and too many posters who see the forum as a place to beat everyone else over the head with their personal agendas, rather than engage in debate.

To put things more bluntly: it seems that the politics forum has been taken over by militant republicans, libertarians and the people that hate them (although this seems to have faded a bit since the elections), semi-literate cranks, and cute hoors. This seems to be driving the other 92% of the population away. How can this be addressed – or does it need to be addressed at all?

FlutterinBantam

Could have told you that yonks ago Rosie.

What's needed is a general amnesty!!!!

pablomakaveli

I don't know about others but speaking for myself i do find that im browsing the politics forum less than before and posting even less. Theres definitely a few posters who seem to be hijacking threads and turning them into a back and forth argument between each other that runs over a good few pages.

When i see a thread on politics that seems interesting ill find myself not wanting to read through it if its descended into soapboxing and circle jerking between some of these posters for the final 10 or so pages of the thread. I can see why it would be offputting for other posters as well.

Just my two cents on the matter anyway.

dashboard_hula

There are some posts/threads on Politics (getting less by the day I'll admit) that are well constructed, genuine, intelligent and thoughtful debate. Those are the ones that I subscribe to, and read the most. I do know that there is an actual debate forum somewhere on boards, but it's very quiet, and I don't actually know where it is anymore. But that's what I think a Politics forum should be. On its worst day, the P forum here is a hell of a lot better than politics.ie (don't ask me why, I just can't stand that place), but there can be an awful lot of:

1. Soapboxing. There's one particular user who you have to admire for their knowledge and intelligence considering what I believe to be their young age, but jesus they never consider another point of view. Ever. And being that they're quite prolific, it can get tiring. That's only one person, but hopefully you get my point.

2. Horrible grammer/vocabulary/sentence structure. I don't want to be a snob, but I'd like to be able to follow the debate, and nothing will make me click back faster than not being able to read the shagging thing properly.

3. Thread lengths. I haven't actually read the cannabis or Irish language threads for more than a page or 2 because they're too long and there's a bad SNR there (well, I feel anyway), but I guess that's my problem and nobody elses.

I loved the General Election and Political Debate sub-forums because they were specific, heavily moderated (for crap, not opinion) and they were a pleasure to read and participate in.

I do not for one moment believe that the Politics forum is too heavily moderated, in fact I believe that a tighter hand might actually keep the regular posters participating, and force the drive-bys, the sloppy thread-starters, the soapboxers, the militantabsolutelyeverythings etc. to either smarten up, or stay away.

Wolfe Tone

I dont see the harm in "single issue posters" posting extensively on their preferred topic.

The site is bigger than ever and what is happening in politics is a reflection of that.

Anyway I understand why people feel the way they do, and here are a few suggestions:


Super-threads for various topics

More sub forums(a NI themed one especially, or even a GFA forum could be an idea)

A "invite only" subforum(but I fear this will lead to a situation where only posters who the mods "like" would be admitted, that would be something to be wary of)

I think increased awareness of the republican forum would be a good idea too. No one posts there really.

southsiderosie

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I dont see the harm in "single issue posters" posting extensively on their preferred topic.

The site is bigger than ever and what is happening in politics is a reflection of that.

Anyway I understand why people feel the way they do, and here are a few suggestions:


Super-threads for various topics

More sub forums(a NI themed one especially, or even a GFA forum could be an idea)

A "invite only" subforum(but I fear this will lead to a situation where only posters who the mods "like" would be admitted, that would be something to be wary of)

I think increased awareness of the republican forum would be a good idea too. No one posts there really.

I'm going to ask you a serious question: why do you think that anyone else would want to post in the Republican forum, given the behavior of some republican posters in the main forum?

I used to support the idea of a Northern Ireland forum, but the more NI threads I read, the more I think the risk to reward ratio of such a forum would be far too high. First, modding that forum would be more of a headache than modding AH. But more importantly, I can't see why or how it wouldn't involve the same people who regularly engage in parallel circle jerks and flaming on the main Politics page. While it might be a welcome relief for the rest of us to ringfence some of these threads, I don't see why or how this is something that boards.ie needs to facilitate.

dashboard_hula

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I dont see the harm in "single issue posters" posting extensively on their preferred topic.

I agree with you there - if I have an interest and a high degree of knowledge in say....environmental politics, and that's what I'm known to be interested in, then you're naturally going to see a lot of that infused in my posting history. It's when I try to use every single thread topic as an excuse to twist the flow of conversation towards my specific interest that it can get tiring and irritating.

However, I agree with you on the need for a specific forum for NI politics. I'd rather all the pertinent discussions in there where I can read at peace rather than scattered throughout boards because there's no particular home for it and in some cases, derailing threads that have bugger all to do with NI.

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'm going to ask you a serious question: why do you think that anyone else would want to post in the Republican forum, given the behavior of some republican posters in the main forum?

I used to support the idea of a Northern Ireland forum, but the more NI threads I read, the more I think the risk to reward ratio of such a forum would be far too high. First, modding that forum would be more of a headache than modding AH. But more importantly, I can't see why or how it wouldn't involve the same people who regularly engage in parallel circle jerks and flaming on the main Politics page. While it might be a welcome relief for the rest of us to ringfence some of these threads, I don't see why or how this is something that boards.ie needs to facilitate.

So they can discuss republicanism, Irish nationalism etc in a civil environment with like minded people.

southsiderosie

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

So they can discuss republicanism, Irish nationalism etc in a civil environment with like minded people.

And therein lies the problem.

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.

The republican forum is a private forum which you need to request access to. I think if more republicans knew about it they would post there and not on the politics forum. And to correct what I said earlier it is not exclusively for republicans and nationalists.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

starbelgrade

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The republican forum is a private forum which you need to request access to. I think if more republicans knew about it they would post there and not on the politics forum. And to correct what I said earlier it is not exclusively for republicans and nationalists.

Do you need to have a beard to be granted access?

Nodin

starbelgrade wrote: »

Do you need to have a beard to be granted access?

Beards are available at the door for a nominal fee.

Wolfe Tone

starbelgrade wrote: »

Do you need to have a beard to be granted access?

Yeah, thats why I grew one a while back :pac:

pablomakaveli

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I fully agree with this. For example there is one poster (who i won't name here) who rarely seems to contribute constructively to threads but instead posts inflammatory statements that inevitably another poster will respond to and an argument arises pulling in a few more posters for good measure. He also does this in threads that are of an unrelated topic. I believe he's been banned for short periods before but he still seems to pop up regularly and not just in politics.

It's this kind of behaviour that wrecks some of the threads in politics and puts others off. He's not the only one mind but he seems to me to be one of the worst in recent times.

Wolfe Tone

If you are going to talk about people you should name names imo.

starbelgrade

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

If you are going to talk about people you should name names imo.

That never ends well.

It's better to discuss general problems in forums without turning them into a witch hunt in my opinion.

Wolfe Tone

starbelgrade wrote: »

That never ends well.

It's better to discuss general problems in forums without turning them into a witch hunt in my opinion.

Good point

pablomakaveli

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

If you are going to talk about people you should name names imo.

starbelgrade wrote: »

That never ends well.

It's better to discuss general problems in forums without turning them into a witch hunt in my opinion.

I won't name anyone for the reason starbelgrade gave above. I will say at least that i wasn't refering to any of the posters who have responded to this thread.

I just brought up that example as it was relevant to Permabears point.

stovelid

Seems to be flitering into places like AH occasionally too. One or two threads recently seem to have a certain coterie in there backing each other up (discursively and with thanks) and while that's all fine and well - and I would never advocate any kind of restrictions - it seems a little against the spirit of the place. The gargantuan Bobby Sands thread was a case in point. Not a bad thread in itself; not a bad selection of posters either side and for sure a good topic but just something ever-so vaguely bulliying about it sitting there with dissident opinion subtly unwelcome and people effectively adopting metronomic team-thanking policies.

I do think that Republicanism seems be a bit of a moral weak spot (for absolute want of a better phrase) on Boards and that sometimes things are said - or a consensus allowed to prevail - that might not neceassirly be the case where it one of, say, FF, Unionism or American military policy

Not sure exactly what I'm trying to say: it's kind of an abstruse feeling and certainly I'm not advocating a stilfing of opinion either way.

Without sounding like a tin-foil hat wearer, it's almost as if a group of people have decided to concertedly propagandize on Boards within the boundaries of permitted discussion.

Maybe I'm wrong.

FlutterinBantam

stovelid wrote: »

Seems to be flitering into places like AH too. One or two threads recently seem to have a certain coterie in there backing each other up (discursively and with with thanks) and while that's all fine and well and I would never advocate any kind of restrictions, it seems a little against the spirit of the place. The Bobby Sands one was a case in point. Not a bad thread in itself; not a bad selection o posters but just something ever-sovaguely bulliying about it sitting there with dissident opinion subtly unwelcome and people effectively adopting team-thanking policies.

I do think that Republicanism seems be an moral weak spot (for absolute want of want of a better phrase) on boards and that sometimes things are said or a consensus prevails that might not neceassirly be the case where it a, say, FF or American military policy consensus.

Not sure exactly what I'm trying to say: it's kind of an abstruse feeling and certainly I'm not advocating a stilfing of opinion either way.

Spot on Stovelid, have raised this issue before.

This kind of thing needs to be nipped sharpish,and the general management of Boards.ie need to realise that their facilities are being used to, subtly and not so subtly, promulgate a certain view which immediately draws a hard core of supporters to accuse genuine posters of trolling, and wheeling out idealistic, but immature and somewhat brainwashed individuals to make idiots of themselves whilst prodding the propaganda from a distance.

I think the game is up here.

Hopefully someone will realise that and take action.

Wolfe Tone

I think people are reading too much into it tbh I started a thread on Bobby Sands and asked for peoples memories on it, what was the harm?

Nodin

And behold, the anti-republican crap begins.....

FlutterinBantam

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

and wheeling out idealistic, but immature and somewhat brainwashed individuals to make idiots of themselves whilst prodding the propaganda from a distance.

.

.

:rolleyes:

As I was saying................

Wolfe Tone

Without sounding like a tin-foil hat wearer, it's almost as if a group of people have decided to concertedly propagandize on Boards within the boundaries of permitted discussion.

Care to elaborate on this point? Examples perhaps? I dont see this at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Jesus, all I did was suggest that if more republicans knew about the RaN forum more would post there and would post less in the politics forum, which, as far as I can see, is what you want?

*looks out window*
Now that you mention it....

liah

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Spot on Stovelid, have raised this issue before.

This kind of thing needs to be nipped sharpish,and the general management of Boards.ie need to realise that their facilities are being used to, subtly and not so subtly, promulgate a certain view which immediately draws a hard core of supporters to accuse genuine posters of trolling, and wheeling out idealistic, but immature and somewhat brainwashed individuals to make idiots of themselves whilst prodding the propaganda from a distance.

I think the game is up here.

Hopefully someone will realise that and take action.

Throwing around terms like 'brainwashed' and 'making idiots of themselves' and other generally belittling and divisive comments isn't strengthening the Republican case much.

Probably going to get lambasted for this, but here goes.

I read the Politics forum every day but have never bothered participating because of attitudes like the above. It's not an inviting environment when there's the possibility that you'll be branded 'brainwashed' simply because you disagree with someone's opinion. I've got a sense of the American-style Republicanism seeping through, the general vitriolic "let's put the ideas and people who believe in them down using sarcastic quips and thinly-veiled insults without making an actual point" slipping through to other parts of the boards, too.

It's not that I disagree with the fundamentals of Republicanism or the valid arguments they produce - the opposite, actually, as I learn a lot from genuine, intelligent debate. But what seems to have developed is a kind of hysterical, Fox News style clamouring to be the loudest and drown out other opinions, put across by a seemingly systematic team of individuals hijacking topics, pedantry and nitpicking, gang-thanking, point-scoring and generally just quite aggressively forcing people to eventually drop out of the debate because while they continue to debate, it's clear they have no intention of actually seeing different viewpoints and learning from debate, but rather simply converting people to their way of thinking. This kind of behaviour tends to be typical of a very select few who are very prominent in posting, making it seem like a much bigger problem than it legitimately should be. And I'm not saying the other side isn't guilty of it at all either, certainly there's a few like that, it just seems to be those few who stand out happen to be Republican, which is unfortunate.

I don't think that any of the people complaining are actually complaining about Republicanism itself. I really don't. It's just the style of argument they (the select few) use that's become an issue, and the lack of simply knowing when to stop. It's just unfortunate that it's given other Republicans a bad rep, because it really doesn't have to be this way at all. Each side can be respectful.

Just my 2c.

southsiderosie

I'm glad to see that people have taken interest in this thread, but I'd like to ask if perhaps we can leave some breathing room here for people who haven't aired out their opinion.

I'd also ask people to really take a deep breath before they hit "submit reply" and question whether they are moving this thread forward with their post, or carrying over debates from other threads. I am a bit concerned that the turn the thread has taken will put people off from posting, and I think it's important to get as many views on board here as possible.

Thanks.

Soldie

I agree with the original poster. I am not an active poster but I browse the Politics forum on a daily basis. The reason I am not an active poster is because there are several cliques of active posters who dig their heels in at the earliest chance; they do not seem to be interested in discussion and, instead, seem to view certain thread topics as an opportunity soapbox. I think this can only be solved by a much stronger moderator presence. Check out either of the Libya threads and it won't take you long to figure out which poster should have been banned for trolling days ago.

At the time of posting this there are, amongst others, three Michael Lowry threads in the main politics forum; two threads on Libya; one on the 1916 centenary; one on Martin McGuinness; and one on Prince Albert II of Monaco visiting Ireland. The latter three threads have developed into "talk about Irish republicanism" threads. If you want the casual poster to view such threads and think "I can contribute to this" instead of "**** this" and clicking the X in the corner, then it's time to get serious about keeping threads on topic and getting rid of duplicate threads. Warnings should be given as soon as threads seem to be veering off topic, and threads should be closed if it persists. There should be no tolerance for this. As an aside (and maybe it's just me), but I cannot for the life of me figure out the logic behind the sub-forum structure in the politics forum. Political Theory, US Politics, and an EU forum -- I can understand those, but why is there still a Budget 2011 and General Election 2011 forum? If it's for referencing purposes then perhaps they can be made read only. I also don't really think the Irish Economy forum is ideal; there are many threads that would fit in both the main politics forum and the Irish Economy forum, and splitting the discussion in such a way is not really conducive to debate.

I have no problem with any of the moderators in the politics forum and I am very grateful for the hard work they put in. I don't know if more moderators are needed or if the current rules just need to be enforced more rigidly, but I think that the status quo is turning people away.

gandalf

I have stopped posting on Politics since the GE, partially because of post election fatigue but also because the standard of discourse has slipped even more than the previous time this very topic came up here.

I find it interesting that it seems to be ok that politics standards appear to be dropping to the old AH level and After Hours now seems to be adopting the strictness that politics formally had.