[Vicky.]

OK there have recently been a few issues with people complaining about various moderation decisions in this section. I think that maybe some kind of collective decision can be made on this (with a bit of luck). Now obviously everyone won't agree, I don't think we could do anything that literally everyone agrees with...but we can try to get a large majority decision and stick by that. So, my idea for this is

Would people be happy with discussion threads actually being threads full of discussion? Rather than the snipey rubbish we often get in this section. This would mean that


-Posts such as 'but what about X' are no good. You can add your actual opinion and bring up X in relation to your post, yes. But just nothing but a 'what about' post is no good. No bringing up totally unrelated things, unless there is an actual reason to bring up that thing, and of there is, then thats fine.
-Posts must actually be well thought out and address the OP. If the thread has moved on naturally (as sometimes happens), then thats fine too, but posts must have some actual thought put into them.
-The sniping at each other stops. Yes, say you disagree with someones opinion. But just stuff such as 'you like X so obviously you would think that', with no other substance to the post at all, is pointless.

Obviously usual rules about no insulting members and such would apply also.

I would say that anyone persistently making one line 'what about' type posts, or sniping rather than debating should be banned from this section temporarily, and then permanently if it continues, not fully banned.

Finally, I would like peoples actual opinions on this as I basically want to do something that most are happy with tbh.

So if you say no on the poll, pleased tell me why and what you would suggest instead.

We can hopefully come to an agreement between all of us.

Maybe I am being too optimistic though. But lets see

Second attempt at this as my first attempt was clearly questionable in some of the 'rules'

We don't like to have many rules at all tbh in this section..we are more lenient here than elsewhere as we realize people get quite passionate about certain topics. But clearly some decisions made recently have annoyed a lot of members...

[Cherie]

It's like ground hog day

I agree!

[Vicky.]

I know

I did realise though that the bit about links in posts and such is a bit harsh as many people will just post a news story and then add their opinion later on

Just really really want to sort out this section and if I just start deleting the posts that I mention in the OP, people will go mental about it so...thought it best to be transparent.

I am basically trying to save this section, as I used to love it and I know how good it can be without all of the recent rubbish

Given it seems I am not allowed to step down..this is the next best thing, besides just leaving the bloody site

[Cherie]

[QUOTE=Vicky.;9854624]I know

I did realise though that the bit about links in posts and such is a bit harsh as many people will just post a news story and then add their opinion later on

Just really really want to sort out this section and if I just start deleting the posts that I mention in the OP, people will go mental about it so...thought it best to be transparent.

I am basically trying to save this section, as I used to love it and I know how good it can be without all of the recent rubbish

Given it seems I am not allowed to step down..this is the next best thing, besides just leaving the bloody site [/QUOTE]

no you are not allowed to step down

and thank you for trying to sort this out

[thesheriff443]

The problem is people take serious debates far too seriously, arguing with someone you don't like about a subject that you can't change or won't change.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

The problem is people take serious debates far too seriously, arguing with someone you don't like about a subject that you can't change or won't change.

Well, thats what serious debates is though, surely. Someone should be able to forcefully argue their point without dissolving into a 'whataboutery' fit or sniping on.

Cherie - I have literally asked to be a normal member again like 3 times now in the past couple of months and I am still green. It was annoying me a bit, but I am now over it I think. I think james may have just thought I was tantruming a bit, which in one of the cases may be true but in the others i was deadly serious

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well, thats what serious debates is though, surely. Someone should be able to forcefully argue their point without dissolving into a 'whataboutery' fit or sniping on.

Cherie - I have literally asked to be a normal member again like 3 times now in the past couple of months and I am still green. It was annoying me a bit, but I am now over it I think. I think james may have just thought I was tantruming a bit, which in one of the cases may be true but in the others i was deadly serious

I am glad he has made you see sense

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well, thats what serious debates is though, surely. Someone should be able to forcefully argue their point without dissolving into a 'whataboutery' fit or sniping on.

Cherie - I have literally asked to be a normal member again like 3 times now in the past couple of months and I am still green. It was annoying me a bit, but I am now over it I think. I think james may have just thought I was tantruming a bit, which in one of the cases may be true but in the others i was deadly serious

Only on an internet site would you continue to argue with some one who views you don't agree with, you don't mix with people you don't like in real life.

As members look for ways to undermine another members opinion it gets personal because that's their personal opinion.

[Tom4784]

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

I would agree with that, can we also add words like scum etc, because they add nothing, you don't hear that at PMs questions, Teresa May shouting scum at the opposition

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I would agree with that, can we also add words like scum etc, because they add nothing, you don't hear that at PMs questions, Teresa May shouting scum at the opposition

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

I'd agree to that.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

I'm a bit confused with this too, because sometimes under the correct context, 'she is scum' could be fine? Like that rees-mogg thread where the OP was of a video that highlights the awful things that he has done under his time in parliament. A natural response could be that he is scum, and that would be for the reasons that the video brought up, is there need to reiterate why he is scum? If there was a thread on a mass murderer some time in the future, why cant people use that space to vent? Why must they give reasons to vent, the reasons are going to be obvious sometimes..

I dunno, I'm not being purposely difficult I promise.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

yeah that's fine, just to stop people from just posting scum, or he/she's gross kinda posts which add nothing and are more aimed at the member rather than the party

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

I agree with this. Its fine to say you consider someones view to be transphobic, but it should be backed up with why you think that, basically?

But I do think random 'you are racist' posts should be considered an insult if the likes of 'snowflake' were

Personally I completely disagree with snowflake and leftie/rightie (never have heard rightie, ever) being insults though. Loony left, possibly. Remoaner is a clearly baiting term I reckon. I know its used in the press, but that doesnt change anything.

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

That was me




I think regardless of what extra rules get out in place, some people will always break them so is there really much point?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

SO there we are again - you want to be able to infract people who say snowflake or leftie but still want to be able to use far more insulting words such as racist unles it is used in conjunction with a word such as wanker.

Might be fair if it also only applied to those who say something along the lines of leftie wanker. Waste of time when the mods still want to practice double standards.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

SO there we are again - you want to be able to infract people who say snowflake or leftie but still want to be able to use far more insulting words such as racist unles it is used in conjunction with a word such as wanker.

Might be fair if it also only applied to those who say something along the lines of leftie wanker. Waste of time when the mods still want to practice double standards.

Like I said, if someone finds a view racist and they can explain why then it should be allowed because that is adding to the discussion, calling people remoaners and snowflakes only serves to bring a discussion to a screeching halt.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Like I said, if someone finds a view racist and they can explain why then it should be allowed because that is adding to the discussion, calling people remoaners and snowflakes only serves to bring a discussion to a screeching halt.

That is your opinion not fact. So if someone finds someone’s view snowflakey or hard left but give an explanation why that is okay? You are not willing to change your stance one iota. Nothing will change clearly.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

So if someone finds someone’s view snowflakey or hard left but give an explanation why that is okay?

There's other words you can use, snowflake is just an insult through and through. It'd be like saying 'you can call people stupid or ugly, just as long as you explain why.'

Thinking that someone's post is racist, in itself, is not an insult, especially if they explain why.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

So if someone finds someone’s view snowflakey or hard left but give an explanation why that is okay?

"snowflakey" isn't an opinion though, it's a silly jibe.

What you are basically saying when you say "they are snowflakes!" is;

"In my opinion, those people are being too sensitive"

... And the latter would be totally fine to say. You can see the difference, surely.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I think the only thing with locked threads, Maru...from my forum experience anyway...is that the thread becomes locked, so silliness can’t continue or whatever reason it has been...but that can then spill into other threads more/ a new thread...because people still want to say.....but the locking didn’t allow them....

Isn't that what suggestions is for? If it's done pretty consistently and frequent enough though, it shouldn't appear to be partial to the average user.

There's no way to end disputes, that's part of the job.

[Withano]

How do you detemine what a well-thought out post is? A minimum word count?

I'd like to add, I'd say a good 30%+ of the arguments stem from people misinterpreting posts - I think that needs to be addressed somewhere.

But all good ideas in the op

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

How do you detemine what a well-thought out post is? A minimum word count?

I'd like to add, I'd say a good 30%+ of the arguments stem from people misinterpreting posts - I think that needs to be addressed somewhere.

But all good ideas in the op

I have no idea. I have actually asked James before if we can have a minimum word count in this section and he said it could not be done with the software. But I think thats maybe a good idea. Issue there is, sometimes a single word would be fine. Depending on the thread. So yet again, its all about context, which is why its extremely hard to have these 'set rules' that people demand of us.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I have no idea. I have actually asked James before if we can have a minimum word count in this section and he said it could not be done with the software. But I think thats maybe a good idea. Issue there is, sometimes a single word would be fine. Depending on the thread. So yet again, its all about context, which is why its extremely hard to have these 'set rules' that people demand of us.

I don't always go into great detail with my contributions in this section, but I always try to make sure that they are adding something to the discussion even if it's just a couple of sentences. It's just there are times when I am willing to put my two cents into a discussion but I don't have the time to write more than a few words. I don't think "well thought-out posts" should be a requirement, but perhaps a clamping down on what is considered a constructive or a non-constructive post is necessary?