Busjamin
Senior Member
Disclaimer: I want this to be received as a genuine effort to improve the site, but I am not unbiased. I have personally been guilty of overt 'political' statements here in reaction to certain subjects I find hard to ignore. I am willing, and in some cases compelled to engage with these subjects, but not at the expense of the forum at large... I have received modmail before, 'discouraging further political engagement'. I doubt I'm the only one here who would appreciate some clarity on what that means.
_
Bit of meta-gaming here. I've picked up on a pattern here since I joined earlier this year. It's hardly unique to this forum, but I care about this one so I'm speaking up.
If the subject of a thread could be considered 'political' at all, there are inevitably comments that drag the conversation into rhetorical territory.
I personally see this as the enforcement moment to solve the problem before it starts.
From the forum rules sticky:
Of all the lines in the rules section, I think this is the most relevant to this issue. The 'politics', by my observation, has only arisen as the result of someone crossing this line (rhetoric). If anything, it seems like the political backlash from other members is the only outcome and it just crops up again a few threads later. I say rhetorical territory because most often this turn in the conversation is described as 'political' even when the subject is something scientific or otherwise only debatable in a 'political' sense. It's also usually coming from a single comment, an obvious catalyst for an expanding argument that later catches the mods attention.
I truly believe what the moderator team wants to avoid is actually political rhetoric. This could be distinguished from political discussion, or even political debate.
Rhetoric is used in bad faith to push a 'political' agenda and influence people to choose sides on any given issue (even facts, as it seems these days). "[X Political Party] hates freedom" is political rhetoric.
Discussion and debate are used expand our collective understanding of the issue at hand, seeking to get closer to the truth of the matter. "[X Political Party] has historically employed policies that resemble communism to me," is political discussion. "[X Political Party] has historically employed policies that resemble communism to me, and I don't think that's the right direction for our government," is political debate.
For example; a thread about Tariffs is inevitably going to involve some political opinion on the matter. Tariffs are fundamentally a political tool. It also very directly affects our Skoolie builds and is a valid topic of conversation, so a blanket ban on political subjects doesn't really go far enough in my opinion. We need to be able to talk about the practical effects of political decisions without letting a few bad-faith comments get the thread closed by mods. I also don't think it's fair to ask the rest of us to all 'be the bigger person' when someone is clearly participating in a bad-faith manner.
At this point I genuinely know nothing about the people on the mod team so I do not presume to understand their perspective or opinion on the matter. That is what I am hoping to better understand. I guess in terms of practical outcomes, I'd like to see the rules section expanded to address this distinction between rhetoric and legitimate discussion. If the "Ignore" button is our only recourse against the trolls, I'd just like to know that for sure.
_
Bit of meta-gaming here. I've picked up on a pattern here since I joined earlier this year. It's hardly unique to this forum, but I care about this one so I'm speaking up.
If the subject of a thread could be considered 'political' at all, there are inevitably comments that drag the conversation into rhetorical territory.
I personally see this as the enforcement moment to solve the problem before it starts.
From the forum rules sticky:
Do not take every opportunity to express your disagreement, incite argument, insult each other, or fan flames. Voice your opinion respectfully and then let it go.
Of all the lines in the rules section, I think this is the most relevant to this issue. The 'politics', by my observation, has only arisen as the result of someone crossing this line (rhetoric). If anything, it seems like the political backlash from other members is the only outcome and it just crops up again a few threads later. I say rhetorical territory because most often this turn in the conversation is described as 'political' even when the subject is something scientific or otherwise only debatable in a 'political' sense. It's also usually coming from a single comment, an obvious catalyst for an expanding argument that later catches the mods attention.
I truly believe what the moderator team wants to avoid is actually political rhetoric. This could be distinguished from political discussion, or even political debate.
Rhetoric is used in bad faith to push a 'political' agenda and influence people to choose sides on any given issue (even facts, as it seems these days). "[X Political Party] hates freedom" is political rhetoric.
Discussion and debate are used expand our collective understanding of the issue at hand, seeking to get closer to the truth of the matter. "[X Political Party] has historically employed policies that resemble communism to me," is political discussion. "[X Political Party] has historically employed policies that resemble communism to me, and I don't think that's the right direction for our government," is political debate.
For example; a thread about Tariffs is inevitably going to involve some political opinion on the matter. Tariffs are fundamentally a political tool. It also very directly affects our Skoolie builds and is a valid topic of conversation, so a blanket ban on political subjects doesn't really go far enough in my opinion. We need to be able to talk about the practical effects of political decisions without letting a few bad-faith comments get the thread closed by mods. I also don't think it's fair to ask the rest of us to all 'be the bigger person' when someone is clearly participating in a bad-faith manner.
At this point I genuinely know nothing about the people on the mod team so I do not presume to understand their perspective or opinion on the matter. That is what I am hoping to better understand. I guess in terms of practical outcomes, I'd like to see the rules section expanded to address this distinction between rhetoric and legitimate discussion. If the "Ignore" button is our only recourse against the trolls, I'd just like to know that for sure.