Current Events Suggestion

[Ren Butler]

I didn't say that second thing; he did.

Sorry, that was a copy/paste issue. Fixed.

I read it as saying that when one engages in online debate, one's functional IQ drops. I think that's true, and isn't a reflection on the participants.

If the political bent of the membership of CE weren't opposite his, I might have read it that way. But he made it clear that the board is dominated by an opposing view before he said that.

It didn't seem like he was excluding himself from that effect, either.

It sounded like he was using a passive-aggressive tactic that I have used in the past: "I might be dumb (haha), but you guys are even dumber... ." That's how one tries to get away with calling people stupid.

[FTHurley]

It sounded like he was using a passive-aggressive tactic that I have used in the past: "I might be dumb (haha), but you guys are even dumber... ." That's how one tries to get away with calling people stupid.

That's a perfectly valid interpretation of what he said. It also happens to be pretty much the worst interpretation of what he said, which is to be expected considering that you didn't have any tone of voice or body language to go on when making that interpretation.

[FTHurley]

Sorry, that was a copy/paste issue. Fixed.

No worries. Upon reflection, my pointing it out likely sounded annoyed. Didn't mean it to.

[window]

Simple: discuss the issues without attacking, insulting, or provoking.

I'll agree that the first two are simple. The third one, not so much, witness the debate that pretty much follows and goes to page 3. Ya never know what may provoke.

[skypigeon]

I don't see how one can discuss genuine issues without being provocative. What makes an issue an issue is the controversy behind it. How does one address controversy without pushing someone else's buttons?

[doitagain]

I'd re-phrase it thusly: Simple: discuss the issues without attacking, insulting, or allowing yourself to react to provocation.

[Ren Butler]

I don't see how one can discuss genuine issues without being provocative. What makes an issue an issue is the controversy behind it. How does one address controversy without pushing someone else's buttons?

It's not what you say. It's how you say it.

I've discussed controversial subjects with people I disagree with, without either of us provoking the other.

[skypigeon]

OK, Ren, I'll spot you that for a one-on-one real-life conversation; but how do you pull it off on a multiple member message board where any member can respond to what you post?

I've posted things here I thought were completely innocent, even innocuous, that people have responded to or PM'ed me thinking it was personal or offensive. I've also seen posters here do the same to you. It's the nature of the beast.

[FTHurley]

OK, Ren, I'll spot you that for a one-on-one real-life conversation; but how do you pull it off on a multiple member message board where any member can respond to what you post?

I've posted things here I thought were completely innocent, even innocuous, that people have responded to or PM'ed me thinking it was personal or offensive. I've also seen posters here do the same to you. It's the nature of the beast.

It's almost like we're communicating without two of the three basic elements of human communication.

[Ren Butler]

OK, Ren, I'll spot you that for a one-on-one real-life conversation; but how do you pull it off on a multiple member message board where any member can respond to what you post?

I've posted things here I thought were completely innocent, even innocuous, that people have responded to or PM'ed me thinking it was personal or offensive. I've also seen posters here do the same to you. It's the nature of the beast.

I was talking about both real-life conversations and the Internet.

But yes, I've seen people take things incorrectly, and I'm sure I've been on both ends of it. That doesn't mean it will or must happen by nature. As long as they are careful, they clarify when they are misunderstood, and they grant each other deference, mature people can and should be able to hold civil disagreements about controversial topics.

[FTHurley]

I was talking about both real-life conversations and the Internet.

But yes, I've seen people take things incorrectly, and I'm sure I've been on both ends of it. That doesn't mean it will or must happen by nature. As long as they are careful, they clarify when they are misunderstood, and they grant each other deference, mature people can and should be able to hold civil disagreements about controversial topics.

The problem is that even what constitutes "nice" is subjective (and often regional). When I'm being 60% as direct as I want to be, I find I'm generally still the biggest ******* in the room.

[skypigeon]

What FTHurley said. One person's "civil disagreement" is another person's "hate," because the latter person sees the viewpoint as hateful regardless of how the former person presents it. Again, how do you get around that in a public forum? Do you require the latter person to bottle his emotions? What if how that person presents his emotions sounds "hateful" to you; do you suppress your instinctual response in the name of "civil disagreement?"

Makes me glad I'm not a moderator, how about you?

Ren, I can see what you're proposing as a personal code of honor. Would that everyone would do the same! But many won't and making it a rule saying they have to doesn't guarantee they'll follow it. If anything when the rule is enforced, they'll yowl like cats under a full moon.

[FTHurley]

What FTHurley said. One person's "civil disagreement" is another person's "hate," because the latter person sees the viewpoint as hateful regardless of how the former person presents it. Again, how do you get around that in a public forum? Do you require the latter person to bottle his emotions? What if how that person presents his emotions sounds "hateful" to you; do you suppress your instinctual response in the name of "civil disagreement?"

Makes me glad I'm not a moderator, how about you?

Ren, I can see what you're proposing as a personal code of honor. Would that everyone would do the same! But many won't and making it a rule saying they have to doesn't guarantee they'll follow it. If anything when the rule is enforced, they'll yowl like cats under a full moon.

In fact, in this very thread, the guy advocating the "give folks the benefit of the doubt" position read someone's post, interpreted it in the worst possible way, and responded with a snippy two-word response in which he accused the other poster of being condescending. Now, Ren's interpretation may in fact have been correct. Or the other guy was trying (and failing) to explain in a humorous and self-deprecating way why he avoids online political discussions. The point is that when the guy wishing we could all be nice and give people the benefit of the doubt himself doesn't do so in the same thread, how realistic is that option? Of course, I'm also interpreting Ren's comment in the worst possible way, which may be unfair.

The point is that no matter how nice we think we're being, we're probably all going to come across as jackasses at some point, whether we're actually being jackasses or not.

[Ren Butler]

What FTHurley said. One person's "civil disagreement" is another person's "hate," because the latter person sees the viewpoint as hateful regardless of how the former person presents it. Again, how do you get around that in a public forum? Do you require the latter person to bottle his emotions? What if how that person presents his emotions sounds "hateful" to you; do you suppress your instinctual response in the name of "civil disagreement?"

Makes me glad I'm not a moderator, how about you?

Ren, I can see what you're proposing as a personal code of honor. Would that everyone would do the same! But many won't and making it a rule saying they have to doesn't guarantee they'll follow it. If anything when the rule is enforced, they'll yowl like cats under a full moon.

This is what moderators are for. Personally, I'd embrace the job if offered, even though I've pretty much been told I'd suck at it.

But I actually think the moderators are doing a great job these days. (That hasn't always been true in the past.) If a viewpoint is truly hateful, the post is deleted; if it's not, the respondent has to refrain from overreacting.

With limited membership, this is all very realistic.

[Ren Butler]

In fact, in this very thread, the guy advocating the "give folks the benefit of the doubt" position read someone's post, interpreted it in the worst possible way, and responded with a snippy two-word response in which he accused the other poster of being condescending. Now, Ren's interpretation may in fact have been correct. Or the other guy was trying (and failing) to explain in a humorous and self-deprecating way why he avoids online political discussions. The point is that when the guy wishing we could all be nice and give people the benefit of the doubt himself doesn't do so in the same thread, how realistic is that option? Of course, I'm also interpreting Ren's comment in the worst possible way, which may be unfair.

The point is that no matter how nice we think we're being, we're probably all going to come across as jackasses at some point, whether we're actually being jackasses or not.

I shared my reaction to the post, and DIA and you disagreed with me. No big deal.

I was ready for MV to clarify his point, but he apparently hasn't been back to the thread. So it's time to move on. Once again, no big deal.

The mod spoke. The process worked. The end.

[FTHurley]

I shared my reaction to the post, and DIA and you disagreed with me. No big deal.

I was ready for MV to clarify his point, but he apparently hasn't been back to the thread. So it's time to move on. Once again, no big deal.

The mod spoke. The process worked. The end.

I wasn't saying the process didn't work. I was saying that it sort of shot a hole through the "can't we all just get along" argument.

[sifaka]

What FTHurley said. One person's "civil disagreement" is another person's "hate," because the latter person sees the viewpoint as hateful regardless of how the former person presents it.

How about considering a real-life case in point? Earlier in this thread Mindervillain posted an ad hominem characterization of those who post in the CE forum as of low intelligence. Ren Butler, whose intelligence was not specifically impugned, responded with "condescend much?" This included a quote from Mindervillain and was clearly a personal comment directed at the poster. Is this an example of civil discourse or is this the sort of personal comment that one hopes posters will avoid to keep the discussion focused on the topic and not posters? Is this a provocative comment, or simply a statement of personal opinion and thus the sort of comment one hopes to see on the CE forum?

What do others think?

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see FTHurley's post on this topic which was posted while I was had my post open and was working on something else. I would still be interested in other's opinion about the appropriateness of this comment to what people seem to be hoping will reshape discourse on TF.

[Ren Butler]

I wasn't saying the process didn't work. I was saying that it sort of shot a hole through the "can't we all just get along" argument.

But MV and I weren't fighting. My initial response might have been curt, but that was pointed out to me, so I went into calm detail about why his post was distasteful to me (and still is).

There was no fight. There were no personal attacks. There was no lack of "getting along."

There was simply a reasoned protest that was apparently denied.

The end.

[Ren Butler]

What do others think?

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see FTHurley's post on this topic which was posted while I was had my post open and was working on something else. I would still be interested in other's opinion about the appropriateness of this comment to what people seem to be hoping will reshape discourse on TF.

I think that the issue has been discussed thoroughly already, and that there is no need to pile on.

Moving on...

[FTHurley]

It is a serious question which I would like to know other's opinions. This is not a slam at you, you just happened to be the poster. However my experience on TF would have suggested that such personal comments are not appropriate and are likely to be seen at personally provocative. The mods appear to disagree, which means that personal comments are appropriate, but what are the limits. Obviously had you called Mindervillain an epithet that would have been off-limits, but apparently characterizing his post as condescending is OK. Can we characterize people's posts as idiotic? Can we call poster's stupid. Could you have called Mindervillain "condescending"? I was under the impression that characterizing a poster's behavior was a no no. Now it appears that maybe I was wrong.

I think I covered this well enough. Personal comments are not OK. My point was that comments that are not meant to be personal can across as personal when viewed without tone or body language to guide the viewer. I didn't think Ren was trying to engage in a battle of personal attacks; I just think his over-arching view that we can all be reasonable in our interpretations of others' comments fails more often than it works. No need to engage in a wider academic debate.

[doitagain]

I think sifaka misinterpreted my comments, Ren's, and mindervillain's, putting him at odds with the rest of the discussion.

FTH, well said.

Yes, please, move on.

[FTHurley]

DIA, is the plan to eventually open CE back up to the full audience, or is the closed beta maybe going to become a closed release? I'm not a CE regular, so I don't especially have a horse in the race; just curious.

[doitagain]

I'd like it to be more open, but it will probably be by invitation, and possibly not for public viewing.

[mclarke]

I do believe that if the old CE forum becomes a restricted access area, the definition of what constitutes a CE topic needs to be addressed. While the majority of threads in Current Events either start out as or devolve into political discussions, this is not true for all topics and, therefore, I believe it would be detrimental to TrackForum in general if the opportunity to discuss the world at large or humankind in general became retsricted because of the tendency of some posters to identify others with a specific political camp and to then react on that basis.

If truly political sniping and the repetitive finger-pointing which results could be confined to an exclusively political forum and a Current Events forum could then be created for the more general social/military/humanity/philosophical/religious/legal sort of issues, the danger of CE emotions spilling over into the OffTopic forum may be avoided while not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

With many of the threads on the old CE forum, there was little real attempt to conduct any meaningful discussion or to gain insight as a result of an exchange of views. Some positions are so entrenched that the presence of one poster simply results in a response to the appearamce of the poster's name rather than to the topic which is presented for discussion and, in truth, often the thread title itself is intentionally worded to maximize reaction.

Maybe a quota should be applied to the threads themselves rather than to the posters, though the two are obviously intertwined. For example, enough threads have been started about Obama's birth certificate and about Palin's intelligence to allow the moderators to simply toss out any attempts to use those issues as titles in new threads ( I only use those as examples because the issues seem to have largely blown over but, during their peak, new threads were started frequently for the sole purpose of soap-boxing on the same positions ) During the current Republican nomination race, the same issue would be brought up in numerous guises by posters who seemed to have run out of steam in other threads on the topic but felt that using their interpretation as the title of a new thread somehow gave them a sense of accomplishment.

Few posters are as reasoned and courteous as those who have offered their opinions within this thread and, while I still believe that a no-moderation policy may be the best option for CE, if moderation has to take place, I do think that the nature of American political discourse requires that it, and it alone, be kept separate from other broader areas which are of of interest to TF members.

[racer47201]

I'd like it to be more open, but it will probably be by invitation, and possibly not for public viewing.

I hope this doesn't come into being, a new class system, the new illuminati versus the unwashed masses.

[sifaka]

I'd like it to be more open, but it will probably be by invitation, and possibly not for public viewing.

I think the idea of making the CE forum a private hidden forum is an excellent idea. That way it cannot tarnish the rest of TF, which seems a concern to many. In addition, since it is hidden, those uninvited will never know what they are missing. Given that we don't even know who is participating and who has been excluded, we are doubly in the dark and won't be bothered by its continuation as a private forum.

I think this reflects genius at work and is an excellent idea. I say that as someone who has not been invited, and is unlikely to be invited, to participate.

Now if the powers that be make it private but readable by the world, that would be cruel and unusual punishment for those of us who like discussing politics with people of different persuasions. So if the mods want to be really nasty, take CE private and make it public.

[mstove]

No idea how hard this is since I have no experience running a message board, but could it be that by default you cannot access the CE forum when you join (and that would be retroactive when it went live) but you could go into your control panel and essentially turn it on?

[FTHurley]

One annoying thing about the beta test is that I left what I think is a perfectly reasonable and rational comment on a thread in the OT forum, only to see the thread disappear right after I posted. I know it's a fact of life in a closed beta, and it's not intentional, but damn, that's kind of annoying.

[Indy500Dude]

I'd like it to be more open, but it will probably be by invitation, and possibly not for public viewing.

So free speech be damned. Here is a radical idea. Have a CE/political board without a mod. As I have said before, you don't like it, dont read it or post on it.

[RS2]

So free speech be damned. Here is a radical idea. Have a CE/political board without a mod. As I have said before, you don't like it, dont read it or post on it.

Cool idea, Go start one.