[Vicky.]

OK you know what, I may totally abandon this attempt to sort stuff out. As yes, context really is important and set rules do not really work. Ugh. I really don't know what to do here tbh

[Marches]

considering the demographic of this forum and where everyone leans politically in general nothing i have to say will have much impact and as such i prob won't gauge upon much political discussion here

i agree with the sentiment of the op but like political debates on forums ALWAYS end up messy. Its just how things are. People are very passionate about this kind of stuff. Theres a lot of subjectivity that gets perceived as objectivity and it can frustrate some people when they see an opinion they deem to be objectively wrong. you'll just never be able to tame discussions like this. Ive been on various forums and it always ends the same way.

[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?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

OK you know what, I may totally abandon this attempt to sort stuff out. As yes, context really is important and set rules do not really work. Ugh. I really don't know what to do here tbh

whisky works for me

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

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?

Yeah I agree with this. But then there is the issue of..people considering their own posts to be constructive, no matter what, So people would still be kicking off. This is the issue we are currently having actually.

People are going to kick off no matter what really aren't they. So yeah, **** this idea of attempting to sort stuff, as it won;t work at all

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yup, again, its all about context.

Again, this is why set rules do not really work. And yes, its generally very easy to tell regardless of word count if something is meant to be baity or not

How would everyone feel about a separate forum for actual debates. Where mention of current politics and such are basically, banned. So you could have a discussion about, maybe abortion rights, without it turning into a tory v labour thing? Its something I have brought up before (after it was suggested to me by PM) and I think this would help matters a lot as people sick top death of all the politics stuff could just go there

A News and Politics section, and a separate Serious Debates section might work... maybe.. idk

[Tom4784]

When we clamp down on posts like that we get accused of censorship

[Vicky.]

What I meant by addressing the OP was basically about this 'whataboutery' stuff. Like, going into a thread about Corbyn doing something and just posting 'but May is ridiculous' or 'what about Rees Mogg, he voted against gay marriage' when it has nothing at all to do with the thread and is not actually addressing whatever the OP is about, if this makes sense?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Withano

A News and Politics section, and a separate Serious Debates section might work... maybe.. idk

Or maybe keep news and debates as it is, and add a politics subforum which will be affectionately known as a ****ing mess

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

What I meant by addressing the OP was basically about this 'whataboutery' stuff. Like, going into a thread about Corbyn doing something and just posting 'but May is ridiculous' or 'what about Rees Mogg, he voted against gay marriage' when it has nothing at all to do with the thread and is not actually addressing whatever the OP is about, if this makes sense?

But that happens on QT and in the commons!

[Marches]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

What I meant by addressing the OP was basically about this 'whataboutery' stuff. Like, going into a thread about Corbyn doing something and just posting 'but May is ridiculous' or 'what about Rees Mogg, he voted against gay marriage' when it has nothing at all to do with the thread and is not actually addressing whatever the OP is about, if this makes sense?

you could always warn/infract but then people yell 'censorship'

as long as its within reason id doubt anyone but the person trying to deter from whatever is being discussed would have an issue

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah I agree with this. But then there is the issue of..people considering their own posts to be constructive, no matter what, So people would still be kicking off. This is the issue we are currently having actually.

People are going to kick off no matter what really aren't they. So yeah, **** this idea of attempting to sort stuff, as it won;t work at all

I think you should definitely leave it open for discussion. It all seems pretty fair to me, and there's no denying that a lot of discussions lately have only resulted in a battle of words between two parties, this past month especially. The fact of the matter is that something quite clearly needs to be done about all the sniping etc., so you were right to bring it to everybody's attention.

[Maru]

If moderating to the letter is going to be too difficult (which it sounds like it will be), I think stick to public warnings and thread locks.

When you're deleting threads and posts for simple rule breaks like being off-topic, you're leaving things open to interpretation.

I think just a simple warning to tell people that that is not considered on-topic and to get back to the OP's post will suffice. The people who would be annoyed would be satisfied to see this public warning posted and well--if the thread crashes... then thread lock.

The OP should have the most control I think. They should be able to say, this is the discussion I want to have--within these parameters... I don't want to discuss XYZ, I want to discuss this issue and the merits/non-merits of it. This creates an equal environment since people who are right-leaning can have as many threads as they'd like about conservative topics and so can left-leaning folk with social justice topics... everyone is happy, as long as they keep to the OP.

[jet]

I hit I Agree as I think Vicky's OP is a good step forward. I haven't read all the comments yet though, but basically I'm just for even - handedness and fairness all round really.

[Ammi]

....hmmm, I’m not sure about the discussions having to be ‘more thought out with reasons given’ type thing...because sometimes a simple question could apply to the discussion...or a simple short statement, which would stare a view...also its 13+yrs forum age, so
maybe younger members might want to take part in discussions, but don’t feel yet, that they could give reasons...they might just think..’oh, I think that’s wrong’, but not really have gathered thoughts enough to post to expand on that...more an instinctive opinion they have...?...anyways, making too stead fast rules of post content, may achieve an opposite of putting of as well...it also could feel a little exclusive, maybe..

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah I agree with this. But then there is the issue of..people considering their own posts to be constructive, no matter what, So people would still be kicking off. This is the issue we are currently having actually.

People are going to kick off no matter what really aren't they. So yeah, **** this idea of attempting to sort stuff, as it won;t work at all

Kudos for you trying Vicky,maybe it would be better if people didn't snipe in their responses as that will always get peoples backs up,I've been in here and just one person sniping can derail a thread and make it nasty,so maybe an instant days ban (or two) might work,I don't envy your job tbh. Crack that whip Vicky

[Ammi]

...I actually like that some people might say...oh he’s rubbish or whatever and that’s that of that...and then others expand more and expand the debates...it makes for a great mix, I think...because we all are individuals, not only in our thoughts but how we convey them in type as well..

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Maru

If moderating to the letter is going to be too difficult (which it sounds like it will be), I think stick to public warnings and thread locks.

When you're deleting threads and posts for simple rule breaks like being off-topic, you're leaving things open to interpretation.

I think just a simple warning to tell people that that is not considered on-topic and to get back to the OP's post will suffice. The people who would be annoyed would be satisfied to see this public warning posted and well--if the thread crashes... then thread lock.

The OP should have the most control I think. They should be able to say, this is the discussion I want to have--within these parameters... I don't want to discuss XYZ, I want to discuss this issue and the merits/non-merits of it. This creates an equal environment since people who are right-leaning can have as many threads as they'd like about conservative topics and so can left-leaning folk with social justice topics... everyone is happy, as long as they keep to the OP.

So basically, more transparent moderating but leave things as it is? That could work. Like, when stuff gets deleted, post that there has been a deletion and why? Stuff like that?

The issue here would be that then the person who has been deleted will argue back that their post should not have been removed, and then we have to either delete that comment, or explain further and then the thread would turn into 'the modding is unfair' arguments

Honestly, this whole thing has made me really think I should just step back from moderating for a while. I really feel we are in a 'cant win' situation where half the forum agree with the deletions and stuff and half disagree

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Kudos for you trying Vicky,maybe it would be better if people didn't snipe in their responses as that will always get peoples backs up,I've been in here and just one person sniping can derail a thread and make it nasty,so maybe an instant days ban (or two) might work,I don't envy your job tbh.

Yeah I agree with this too. But again, whoever is banned from the section would think it was an unfair ban, and we are really back to square one

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Maru

If moderating to the letter is going to be too difficult (which it sounds like it will be), I think stick to public warnings and thread locks.

When you're deleting threads and posts for simple rule breaks like being off-topic, you're leaving things open to interpretation.

I think just a simple warning to tell people that that is not considered on-topic and to get back to the OP's post will suffice. The people who would be annoyed would be satisfied to see this public warning posted and well--if the thread crashes... then thread lock.

The OP should have the most control I think. They should be able to say, this is the discussion I want to have--within these parameters... I don't want to discuss XYZ, I want to discuss this issue and the merits/non-merits of it. This creates an equal environment since people who are right-leaning can have as many threads as they'd like about conservative topics and so can left-leaning folk with social justice topics... everyone is happy, as long as they keep to the OP.

..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....

[bots]

if members could vote to give mods a days ban, i think it could increase the fairness aspect

[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 bitontheslide

if members could vote to give mods a days ban, i think it could increase the fairness aspect

Y'all can ban me permanently if you like. I don't mind

Admin did ban me once, IIRC. Just to show me it could be done. Not sure if it was Josy or Ben (when he had admin powers)

[RichardG]

i mean i think the debates section as a whole is a damn mess both in terms of its content and some occasional questionable moderating decisions but i also think the same applies to the main big brother forum as well? i think that everything will carry on as before regardless of what rules you may or may not introduce.

[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.