New International Politics feedback and Charter

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks,

As you are probably aware from here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=97080&page=133

and here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057470732

today is the changeover day for EU and US politics to go into the International Politics subforum, with NI and IE going into the main forum.

We are currently working on the updated (and hopefully simplified) charter for the international forum, but if anyone wants to make some suggestions now is the time.

If there are any specific rules that people would like to see in the new forum (bearing in mind that ultimately it will be a mod/c-mod decision), nows the time to let us know.

As a provisional measure, the main forum rules apply here just as they do in the main forum as regards standards etc. Likewise, the Site T&C apply. In terms of special rules, there are a few issues:

1. We are now going to use tags to denote whether a topic is E.U., U.S., U.K. or General international politics. Feedback on this would be welcome.

2. Due to an accident involving some computer circuits and a glass of mulled wine, some of the posters who were banned from E.U. or U.S. Politics may have been inadvertently unbanned. We may try to track them all down, but if you fall into this category and are thinking of bombarding the subforum with spam and abuse, know this - we may be willing to let some previously banned posters back into the fold, but only if they behave. So, if you can show that you will post sensibly and without causing trouble you may get a second chance. No guarantees, but if you show us that you can add to the subforum then it can only be a good thing for you.

Aside from that, there may be one or two other Subforum specific rules that we will put in the charter, so let us know what you think.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

To unfollow the old, now archived, U. S and E.U. forums take a look at the post below:

http:// http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98018095&postcount=41

You might have to scroll down a bit if you've a lot of followed threads.

On the touch site it takes 4 pages to get to this forum, it doesn't show up in search.

K-9

I searched for Gun Control and the first result was the thread here.

International brings up the forum, but politics just brings up the main general forum.

glued

This move seems to have killed a few threads. I think politics was fine the way it was tbh.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

This thread is not going to become like the one in the main forum that had to be closed. If people want to suggest changes to the rules, such as relaxing the standards of debate at certain times etc feel free to do so.

Anyone who tries to litigate a mod decision or decisions, or to have a go at the moderators, on this thread will be dealt with by moderator action. The feedback forum exists for that sort of stuff.

Overheal

I categorically suggest striking the term "one liners" from the charter. It oversimplifies what is and is not meaningful or contributive discussion.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

I categorically suggest striking the term "one liners" from the charter. It oversimplifies what is and is not meaningful or contributive discussion.

Fair point. One liner posts aren't necessarily low quality. I think the point still stands though, just maybe a better description in the charter.

The other low quality posts I think we can deal with separately.

johnnyskeleton

Ok, how about:

1. High standards of debate and quality posts / threads are required. New threads require significant contribution, with citations or a logical and coherent argument. Replies require something that adds substance to the debate. A reasoned single line adds more than an incomprehensible ranting essay. However, a one line reply that is no more than a quip or asserition that doesnt advance the debate is beneath the standards. Anti E.U./U.S. rants are not welcome.

Manach

Presumiable unreasonable Pro-X,Y,Z rants are likewise suspect, which leads to the question how these might be properly and objectively identified?

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

Presumiable unreasonable Pro-X,Y,Z rants are likewise suspect, which leads to the question how these might be properly and objectively identified?

The anti-EU/US rule was transferred over from the previous charters of the old forums. Presumably some time in the past people starting threads with no real substance other than to bash the EU/US was a problem so this rule dealt with it.

The rules dont need to cover all possibilities they just deal with desruptions as they arise. I think the anti-EU/US rants part is no longer a big problem and any such threads would be covered by the rest of the rules anyway.

So we could maybe axe that sentence altogether?

K-9

Manach wrote: »

Presumiable unreasonable Pro-X,Y,Z rants are likewise suspect, which leads to the question how these might be properly and objectively identified?

Soap boxing would cover that, so if somebody endlessly posts pro or indeed anti spiel, with little or no debate, we can thread ban or in extreme cases, forum ban.

It's hard to define, but consistently derailing threads or shouting down opposing views would be a general guideline.

Pro or anti posts aren't a problem at all, it's politics after all but as mentioned, the more rantish type posts are.

Overheal

How about

"High standards of debate and quality posts / threads are expected here. New threads should provide significant contribution, with citations or a logical and coherent argument. Replies require something that adds substance to the debate. A reasoned single line adds more than an incomprehensible ranting essay. This isn't the House of Lords but neither is it the Youtube comments section. Keep this in mind."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

First Up

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is a world of difference between a "one liner" intended to disrupt or divert a thread and a brief but pointed retort. It isn't the number of words in a post that matters - its what those words are.

For example, someone presents an Opinion piece in the WSJ - a Murdoch owned, notoriously right wing publication - as evidence that Clinton's campaign is on the rocks. A brief reply pointing out that opinion pieces in the WSJ are not exactly objective is not a "one liner" of the sort you describe.

Nodin

Does the ban on terms such as "beards" and "zanuFF" etc still stand?

johnnyskeleton

Nodin wrote: »

Does the ban on terms such as "beards" and "zanuFF" etc still stand?

I think Scofflaw's view on that was that a list of prohibited terms is a bad idea because the terms change rapidly. I'd agree with that view. We want to keep the charter as tight as possible and that means that the rules have to be general rather than specifically prohibiting certain terms.

In any event, it's not so much the specific terms as whether they are used in a derogatory or disruptive manner.

Nodin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think Scofflaw's view on that was that a list of prohibited terms is a bad idea because the terms change rapidly. I'd agree with that view. We want to keep the charter as tight as possible and that means that the rules have to be general rather than specifically prohibiting certain terms.

In any event, it's not so much the specific terms as whether they are used in a derogatory or disruptive manner.

I was thinking more of the arrival of the term "cuck", "cuckold" and variations thereof. Likewise "rape apologist" and its variations.

MightyMandarin

Nodin wrote: »

I was thinking more of the arrival of the term "cuck", "cuckold" and variations thereof. Likewise "rape apologist" and its variations.

The use of the term 'cuck' in the 2016 Race thread irks me, if I'm honest. The term originates from 4chan, which can hardly be considered a place for reasonable discussion, and anytime it's been used (by one user I won't name specifically) it's been derogatory towards liberals/left wing people eg 'X is a lefty cuck'.

I'd love to know why, if it is indeed, allowed to be used in this forum.

K-9

Report any posts and we'll take a look. If something is being used as a slur repeatedly that wouldn't be on, teabagger, libtard, that type of stuff.

johnnyskeleton

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'd love to know why, if it is indeed, allowed to be used in this forum.

Because banning a particular word or phrase isnt really fair and leads to a neverending list of proscribed terms. But as K9 points out if its disruptive or of poor quality it can be reported for those reasons.

Overheal

The disputed words can be reviewed on a per case basis but some terms like "teabagger" add nothing to adult conversation.

InTheTrees

And what about the ban on Emoji's?

I've had posts that are otherwise innocuous but contained an emoji that have been deleted by Mods. Presumably the emoji could be construed as sarcasm?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Thank you all for your feedback on the new charter.

Ive edited the one liner/standards rule. That is not to say that anything goes around here, but just we mght be more inclined to turn a blind eye to one liners provided a poster isnt being disruptive etc.

Im going to close this thread now because, I think we have had some good feedback, hopefully everyone who has constructive feedback has had a chance to say it but unfortunately, despite repeatedly saying so, some posters are going to keep using this thread to question specific moderation decisions.

We might reopen this thread in maybe a years time to get updated feedback.

johnnyskeleton

InTheTrees wrote: »

And what about the ban on Emoji's?

I've had posts that are otherwise innocuous but contained an emoji that have been deleted by Mods. Presumably the emoji could be construed as sarcasm?

We will discuss this but Im not sure we will change the rule. A post with nothing but an emoji will still breach the standards requirements, but they are a site feature so I dont think we ought to ban their use outright.