Does the politics forum encourage hostility.

MungBean

The main issue I have is that the politics forum allows this stone throwing from left and right. Its accepted as part an parcel of political discussion.

Yet in my opinion all this does is create tension, anger and inevitably leads to this political point scoring being adopted by newcomers to politics.

I understand that it is inherent in politics, from grass roots right up to the members of the Dáil themselves. But for people who have no strong political ideology this can be influential in them forming their opinion and rather than creating a platform to discuss politics the politics forum is a platform to push people to right or left and create a hostile view.

Would an idea be to create a sub forum to do for reasonable, logical and respectful debate what the Politics Café did for light hearted banter ?. Allow people to question things reasonably and respectfully free from attack. Where a poster can ask for and get proper responses rather than petty jibes and digs.

I'm not saying the mods in politics or any posters are to be singled out for this. I'm just saying perhaps the atmosphere in the politics forum isn't very welcoming of people who haven't got their beliefs set in stone, have a thick skin and are primarily interested in attacking others or protecting their own ideological views. And as such adds fuel to the fire or turns them away. Understanding and respectful discussion is hard to achieve in a political environment I know but I don't think that's an excuse to discourage it entirely by allowing certain aspects of hostile political discussion.

Dudess

Obvious wind-up merchants/people who don't bother to support their arguments deserve it if they get torn apart, but people who post reasoned, well-thought-out and backed-up points and are subjected to snide, low-level trolling or out-and-out ridicule - that deserves actioning IMO.
You shouldn't be on a message board if you're going to attack someone for simply disagreeing with you when they word it in a decent manner.

Dr Galen

Kinda like a Politics 101 type thing MB?

MungBean

Dr Galen wrote: »

Kinda like a Politics 101 type thing MB?

Not really, people may already have political leanings and know the basics of politics but still be open to change and challenging those leanings. A politics 101 type thing although possibly being a good idea in itself in respect to some people it would kinda infer that the reason they are not head strong about any particular ideology is because they dont know what they are talking about.

I dont think anyone needs to be told what to believe only find it out themselves through reasonable discussion free of the weight of both sides breathing down their neck waiting to lambaste you as a fool for believing the wrong thing or trying to shame you into changing your opinion. If that makes any sense.

Duke Leonal Felmet

I actually brought the idea of a super strict sub forum up in Politics, and would support such a move. Any trolling leads to an automatic 3 month ban (either from the sub forum or the entire politics forum), something like that.

LoLth

speaking of keeping things civil, lets try a bit of that in this thread please. Feedback is welcome, accusations and insults are not.

thanks

LoLth

Duke Leonal Felmet

Ok, fair enough. But I don't think the mods are doing enough, even when something is reported.

I am entitled to say that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MungBean

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I actually brought the idea of a super strict sub forum up in Politics, and would support such a move. Any trolling leads to an automatic 3 month ban (either from the sub forum or the entire politics forum), something like that.

How was the idea received before ? I think its not just downright trolling that needs to be address its the hostility and venom with which people make their arguments.

I'd imagine some people would agree with such a forum in belief that the lesser argument would be shown up as it cannot hide behind snide remarks or attacks on an issue because of those who advocate it. The issue itself would come to the fore and whether right/wrong/farcical/brilliant it would become apparent to a certain extent.

I think we all class ourselves as people who will believe something if it is proven albeit reluctant and sometimes in need of persuasion. Hostility and ridicule doesnt result in persuasion it results in the opposite, forcing people back to their own beliefs while writing others off simply because they dont like the people who believe it.

You can make the most valid and statistical relevant point in the world but if its done in a hostile manner its more likely to aggravate someone than convince them. Even though its not trolling and worthy of action by the mods it effectively destroys any ground made in the argument, any possible chance there was of some people understanding the issue and creates a dogfight a lot of the time.

Doesnt matter who's wrong, whether the person posting or the person affected by it all that matters is it can be solved to some extent by reducing the tolerance of hostility and attacking I think.

Duke Leonal Felmet

I only brought it up a few days ago, in the suggestions thread.

Nodin

MungBean wrote: »

Does the politics forum encourage hostility.

No, politics encourages hostility.

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not saying they need to be shielded only that less tolerance of attacking posts would lessen the degree to which they may be influenced by that hostility. It may not be feasible to take the hostility out of the forum completely but I think its feasible to address it and adopt a less tolerant policy to it.

The Politics forum can certainly turn into a scrum at times, especially when people of diametrically opposed viewpoints clash. Strongly worded criticism can go both ways. The mods can intervene to sanction or ban those who cross the line from attacking the post to attacking the poster — but they can't intervene every single time a poster feels jostled or cajoled.

I know they cant intervene every single time someone gets upset but that doesnt mean it cant be tackled in a broader sense. If not in the politics forum itself then perhaps in a sub forum where it is discouraged completely.

If I became tense and angry every time someone launched yet another attack on me or what I believe in, I'd have several ulcers by now! Honestly, I think you need to chill out and not take things so seriously.

There shouldnt be an environment where attacking is the primary aim though is my point. Perhaps I need to chill out but then again perhaps I'd be able to chill out if I could examine my views and challenge my political beliefs without having to struggle through scraps, fights and ridicule.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MungBean

Nodin wrote: »

No, politics encourages hostility.

So does sport but sporting forums do not tolerate attacks of the players or supporters because the team isnt liked.

You go the soccer forum and say Man Utd fans are gullible fools who'll believe whatever Ferguson tells them despite them losing 5 in a row because the players are incompetent (not a dig at Utd. I'm a rugby fan) and see if its allowed. Do the same in politics with a political party/supporters and members and its a valid argument.

Everything has a certain hostility attached but it doesnt have to be tolerated or encouraged through inaction.

Duke Leonal Felmet

MungBean wrote: »

Nodin wrote: »

No, politics encourages hostility.

So does sport but sporting forums do not tolerate attacks of the players or supporters because the team isnt liked.

You go the soccer forum and say Man Utd fans are gullible fools who'll believe whatever Ferguson tells them despite them losing 5 in a row because the players are incompetent (not a dig at Utd. I'm a rugby fan) and see if its allowed. Do the same in politics with a political party/supporters and members and its a valid argument.

Everything has a certain hostility attached but it doesnt have to be tolerated or encouraged through inaction.

The soccer forum is a good example of a fairly regulated forum. A class above the Politics forum.

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But the attacking of posters is fair game if done in a round about way is my point. I'm not getting into specific posts or users here. If someone attacks something based on its support base then thats attacking the support base. More intellectual people may call it Ad hominem perhaps. Discounting the issue based on the people who support it is the problem. And some use the tolerance of the mods to that argument as grounds to attack people with certain ideologies and thats where the hostility and venom is. Hostility and venom directed at a policy is fine, but directed at the people who supported shouldnt be.

Valmont

MungBean wrote: »

Hostility and venom directed at a policy is fine, but directed at the people who supported shouldnt be.

The politics forum is ruthless in a good way; if you are not prepared to argue, refine, defend, and come back for more then you will just drive yourself mad. Just stick it out for a few weeks, have everything you believe in destroyed, and then you'll learn not to take it too seriously and maybe start enjoying the whole horrible process.

Dr Galen

People do realise that we don't and can't read every thread or post in the forum, don't they?

It has been said before many many times, but people do need to report things.

MungBean

Dr Galen wrote: »

People do realise that we don't and can't read every thread or post in the forum, don't they?

It has been said before many many times, but people do need to report things.

Its not about mods reading every post its about discouraging a certain posting style. That style that I have a problem with and which I have (think I have) clarified in this thread have been reported and deemed ok, they do not breach the charter it seems.

So its not a matter of reporting them as they will not be acted upon its a matter of what the mods of the forum deem acceptable. Its the acceptance of those posts and those attacks and how I think they affect the forum which what this thread is about. Its not about bad mods or mods not doing their job.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Dr Galen wrote: »

People do realise that we don't and can't read every thread or post in the forum, don't they?

It has been said before many many times, but people do need to report things.

I do. The punishment has no effect.

Overheal

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

The soccer forum is a good example of a fairly regulated forum. A class above the Politics forum.

I never thought I'd read that.

MungBean

Dr Galen wrote: »

People do realise that we don't and can't read every thread or post in the forum, don't they?

It has been said before many many times, but people do need to report things.

Any chance you or the people who agree with you would like to actually contribute to the discussion rather than look for an easy cop out ?

My contributions in the other thread were deleted as not relevant. What relevance does "users have to report posts" have to do with "mods dont act because certain posts are tolerated" ??

Duke Leonal Felmet

On reflection, I believe the thread title is missing the target. It's not that the forum encourages hostility, it's that the rules and/or application of those rules does not do enough to discourage it.

Hard to fit that in a thread title. :-)

MungBean

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

On reflection, I believe the thread title is missing the target. It's not that the forum encourages hostility, it's that the rules and/or application of those rules does not do enough to discourage it.

Hard to fit that in a thread title. :-)

I'd say that it goes further than not doing enough to discourage it and that it has accepted it. Its accepted this hostility and these attacks as valid political points of view.

This is the encouragement I'm talking about, they are encouraging hostility by allowing it and creating an atmosphere where it breeds more hostility.

I could spend 12 hours a day reporting stuff but it wouldnt make a blind bit of difference as what I have issue with is acceptable. Instead of highlighting my concerns it would paint me as a nuisance for reporting acceptable posts and wasting mods time.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have already addressed this point. I accept that hostility is part of politics but I dont accept that it should be encouraged in the form of attack on supporters and ideologies to enable a poster to evade the issue and simply attack for the sake of it.

When someone posts trying to discuss a policy that policy should be discussed. Throwing pot shots at the support base of the party who put forward that policy isnt a valid argument against that policy.

Either you have misunderstood me or your just looking for strawmen to allow you to argue. I'm going with the latter seeing as I have already explained my position.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I rather think we should

I don't know what to say about the thread though. It can be a bit heated, but that's in the nature of the thing. We post on threads if we spot people getting snide and handbagging, and sometimes it's just very involved argument.

MungBean

bluewolf wrote: »

I rather think we should

I don't know what to say about the thread though. It can be a bit heated, but that's in the nature of the thing. We post on threads if we spot people getting snide and handbagging, and sometimes it's just very involved argument.

So you really dont think posters should be held to any standard whatsoever because "Its the nature of the thing" ?

You think attacking supporters is as good as attacking a policy and regardless of the policy itself you need never read it because you have already decided the Party and supporters are idiots and just state that as an argument ?

MungBean

MungBean wrote: »

So you really dont think posters should be held to any standard whatsoever because "Its the nature of the thing" ?

How exactly did you get any of that from my post when I said the opposite?

You think attacking supporters is as good as attacking a policy and regardless of the policy itself you need never read it because you have already decided the Party and supporters are idiots and just state that as an argument ?

I don't even know what you're talking about now

MungBean

bluewolf wrote: »

How exactly did you get any of that from my post when I said the opposite?

You responded to a post about posting standards and brushed it all off with a comment about my issue and the thread (which happens to be about standard of posting) being that its in the nature of the thing. I read it as you'll stop an argument getting out of hand and those argument can get involved but that you couldnt hold posters to a standard.

Seeing as you think they should be held to a standard what standard do you think they should be held to ?

I don't even know what you're talking about now

This is the type of posting which led me to create the feedback thread. People using round about arguments to attack the ideology/supporters/user instead of responding to the topic and issue at hand.

Say for example I posted a policy on health care from the ULA. Rather than discuss that policy some people would straight out attack left wing ideology or supporters of Higgins or the ULA as a means to discredit the policy rather than discussing the policy itself.

So every time a discussion is attempted about a policy people jump in to take a swing at their "opponents". Ignoring the thread topic, ignoring the issue and focusing on their contempt for the supporters of it.

Any other forum and you'd be picked up for that behaviour pretty quickly and banned if you continued it so why is it acceptable in the politics forum ?

Nodin

MungBean wrote: »

.............



This is the type of posting which led me to create the feedback thread. People using round about arguments to attack the ideology/supporters/user instead of responding to the topic and issue at hand.

..........

No, thats her saying she doesn't know what you're on about, and you using it to launch into another 'O, The Humanity' speech on the horrors of the politics forum.

MungBean

MungBean wrote: »

Seeing as you think they should be held to a standard what standard do you think they should be held to ?

Not insulting each other or other posters on the forum in general
No snide remarks about each other or "handbagging"
as well as
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056111797
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055516094

This is the type of posting which led me to create the feedback thread. People using round about arguments to attack the ideology/supporters/user instead of responding to the topic and issue at hand.

I'm going to assume you were answering my confusion with an explanation rather than targetting this at me...

Say for example I posted a policy on health care from the ULA. Rather than discuss that policy some people would straight out attack left wing ideology or supporters of Higgins or the ULA as a means to discredit the policy rather than discussing the policy itself.

So every time a discussion is attempted about a policy people jump in to take a swing at their "opponents". Ignoring the thread topic, ignoring the issue and focusing on their contempt for the supporters of it.

Do you have any examples of this to link to please

nesf

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Ok, fair enough. But I don't think the mods are doing enough, even when something is reported.

I am entitled to say that.

You are entitled to say that and the mods don't mind such direct criticism once it's polite and reasonable. We're entitled not to agree with you though.

MungBean

bluewolf wrote: »

Not insulting each other or other posters on the forum in general
No snide remarks about each other or "handbagging"

But its limited to personal insults while allowing attacking them through their party support or ideologies. If you attack a parties support in response to a member of that support asking a question you may as well be attacking the poster. Its a round about way of being a dick and throwing a few digs while remaining within the rules.

I'm going to assume you were answering my confusion with an explanation rather than targetting this at me...

Of course it was how could it possible be a reference to your post ? But odd that you'd assume it correct in response while thanking the above post which took it up completely wrong and used it as an excuse to throw a dig. Pretty indicative of how the politics forum is run, encouraging the handbags instead of dealing with it in an adult manner.

Do you have any examples of this to link to please

Yes I do, they have been reported, discussed with the cmod and I was advised my an admin not to get specific in this thread. So if you'd care to discuss it privately then pm me but I wont be linking it here.

MungBean

Nodin wrote: »

No, thats her saying she doesn't know what you're on about, and you using it to launch into another 'O, The Humanity' speech on the horrors of the politics forum.

And this is you misunderstanding something in your eagerness to get involved and throw some mud.

pavcro10

I've always found it interesting how politics discussions can completely rile people up more so than any other. People nearly always lose it and fall out. I think it's because our political stances, be they liberal or conservative or whatever, define a person more than any other opinion. More so nowadays than religion.

nesf

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

The soccer forum is a good example of a fairly regulated forum. A class above the Politics forum.

If that's what you want, good luck to you, I'd oppose any such draconian system bring brought in. I don't think you appreciate the history of the Soccer forum and why it is the way it is.

nesf

pavcro10 wrote: »

I've always found it interesting how politics discussions can completely rile people up more so than any other. People nearly always lose it and fall out. I think it's because our political stances, be they liberal or conservative or whatever, define a person more than any other opinion. More so nowadays than religion.

Yeah, as a country gets more secular, politics replaces religion as the reason to hate your neighbour.

MungBean

MungBean wrote: »

But its limited to personal insults while allowing attacking them through their party support or ideologies. If you attack a parties support in response to a member of that support asking a question you may as well be attacking the poster. Its a round about way of being a dick and throwing a few digs while remaining within the rules.

If you say all members of FF are idiots you will get sanctioned, I've done that before myself. It is a roundabout way of being rude, and it's not tolerated that I have seen

Of course it was how could it possible be a reference to your post ? But odd that you'd assume it correct in response while thanking the above post which took it up completely wrong and used it as an excuse to throw a dig. Pretty indicative of how the politics forum is run, encouraging the handbags instead of dealing with it in an adult manner.

Are you really making snide remarks in a thread complaining about snide remarks? Really?
Nodin said I was confused, which was true, so I thanked it.

Yes I do, they have been reported, discussed with the cmod and I was advised my an admin not to get specific in this thread. So if you'd care to discuss it privately then pm me but I wont be linking it here.

Oh I see, that's fair enough, it would have just made it easier for me to understand because any general attacking a support base has been disciplined that I've seen/dealt with

MungBean

bluewolf wrote: »

Are you really making snide remarks in a thread complaining about snide remarks? Really?
Nodin said I was confused, which was true, so I thanked it.

Its not a snide remark. Its a statement of why I think the politics forum encourages this behaviour. Nodin took me completely wrong and jumped in to accuse me of soapboxing just to get involved. You thanking it (fair play Nodin for throwing a dig) and then admitting in the following post that you could see it was an explanation looks to me like encouraging that type of post while not personally wanting to say such things yourself.

Oh I see, that's fair enough, it would have just made it easier for me to understand because any general attacking a support base has been disciplined that I've seen/dealt with

I have explained it as best I can. Its not direct insults I'm talking about, I know they are acted upon. Its the tolerance to the round about insults which break no rules yet are designed for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to show contempt for a support base or people with a belief rather than discussing the topic at hand.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Absolutely you should be sanctioned. Its a discussion forum and if you want to hurl abuse and show your contempt rather than discuss then you have no place in that forum. Go to AH to shout down anyone you think doesnt have their facts straight, responding to the subject matter and discussing it reasonably is what should be done in the politics forum.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just writing it off without some sort of back up or links is a bit ignorant tbh. Even link to a previous thread or something. The problem is has a high chance of creating noise and not any type of quality.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Just writing it off without some sort of back up or links is a bit ignorant tbh. Even link to a previous thread or something. The problem is has a high chance of creating noise and not any type of quality.

Yup, ignorant, crass and reflects poorly on the person. Doesn't mean it's actionable though.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Just writing it off without some sort of back up or links is a bit ignorant tbh. Even link to a previous thread or something. The problem is has a high chance of creating noise and not any type of quality.

That's true, it's not a shouting match and it would help to at least link to arguments why

nesf wrote: »

Yup, ignorant, crass and reflects poorly on the person. Doesn't mean it's actionable though.

Kinda true as well

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Yup, ignorant, crass and reflects poorly on the person. Doesn't mean it's actionable though.

Yeah. Calling SF voters economic illiterates say isn't really abiding by the spirit of the rules though, if not technically actionable.

bluewolf wrote: »

That's true, it's not a shouting match and it would help to at least link to arguments why



Kinda true as well

At this stage I kind of know the main posters so you get used to predictable responses!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah. Calling SF voters economic illiterates say isn't really abiding by the spirit of the rules though, if not technically actionable.

You're telling me SF voters are well versed in economics? The problem is the phrasing here, if I said the average SF voter didn't know much about economics or banking I'd be saying the exact same thing but it'd be slightly less offensive.

It's all shades of grey, disparaging the opposition isn't against the spirit of the rules, gross abuse is which is a very different thing.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

illiterate and Conservative Christian. I like it.

nesf wrote: »

You're telling me SF voters are well versed in economics? The problem is the phrasing here, if I said the average SF voter didn't know much about economics or banking I'd be saying the exact same thing but it'd be slightly less offensive.

It's all shades of grey, disparaging the opposition isn't against the spirit of the rules, gross abuse is which is a very different thing.

Nope, not telling you that at all. Calling a support base economically illiterate when they post here is abuse, it's just clever and getting around rules.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, not telling you that at all. Calling a support base economically illiterate when they post here is abuse, it's just clever and getting around rules.

Maybe, but really the same can be said about the support bases of all parties and that's what should be thrown back at the comment. It's basically a statement of fact, it's just nothing unique to SF.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Maybe, but really the same can be said about the support bases of all parties and that's what should be thrown back at the comment. It's basically a statement of fact, it's just nothing unique to SF.

True. Libertarians too so we can all just call each other economic illiterates, great craic!