New Political Forum

[Jaskalas]

What if, on the Debate Club, I posted Obamcare eats puppies?

Suppose I needed material to back that up. Then suppose I had a link to a news article. Questionable sources aside, let's say that I find one that is reasonable. You read it and realize that nowhere is my assertion noted or spoken of. That my post was in fact my own interpretation based, perhaps, on that article's information. Perhaps I misread or even misused that article.

Is that the sort of post you would take action on?

 

[dank69]

Don't see much use for any of those. (You reminded me... haven't seen the "post turtle" guy since the election, for which I am eternally grateful.)

But really, do you guys REALLY want us policing every post down to this level?

Look, the idea here isn't to create a church knitting group. It's just to have discussions that are honest and reasonable. Silly names shouldn't be necessary, but neither do I think people should freak out over their occasional use.

ETA: And yes, no matter what we do, some people will be pissed off. You guys are just going to have to accept the occasional decision you don't like. Just as we ourselves will!

I think you are going to have to be extremely strict at first. There is no room for words like "Obummer," "Dubya" or "post turtle" in a serious debate.

 

[Pens1566]

While I agree that some terms/references to political figures should be filtered (obvious ones already listed), some like W and BO should be allowed. Hell, BO signs his own tweets that way. BHO however should be looked at closely as the H is almost always used in a derogatory way.

 

[randomrogue]

You can look at this from the point of view of a group of anonymous people on the internet having a debate or you can look at it as if this was a face to face debate.

These derogatory terms are "acceptable" on the internet. They are generally not acceptable in person.

I would probably go somewhere in the middle. The Post Turtle thing was extremely immature. That needs to stay out. Obamacare though is not a big deal at all.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

How about "Hillarycare"? That goes back to the early 90s.

Sexist.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Sexist.

Oh look, a new thread meme based on twisting someone's words. Is that going to be allowed in the new forum too?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Oh look, a new thread meme based on twisting someone's words. Is that going to be allowed in the new forum too?

Just as a point of information, but we are not currently in the new forum.

Gonad, can you at least to some extent relax and trust that I, and EagleKeeper, and the admins, want to be fair and not capricious, and that we all want for the new room to succeed?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Just as a point of information, but we are not currently in the new forum.

Gonad, can you at least to some extent relax and trust that I, and EagleKeeper, and the admins, want to be fair and not capricious, and that we all want for the new room to succeed?

I want the forum to be successful as well, I'm just not sure how everyone is defining the term "successful." And I don't feel like I'm bringing up questions that aren't either already being asked or will be shortly after the forum goes live. But I would like an answer on what originally sparked my questioning:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2301328
Acceptable for the new forum or not?

 

[Mursilis]

Can I make a suggestion?

Can POSTING privileges be applied for and granted/denied, but viewing privileges be allowed like any other forum (L&R excepted).

This is a great idea. I'd like to see the same.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I want the forum to be successful as well, I'm just not sure how everyone is defining the term "successful." And I don't feel like I'm bringing up questions that aren't either already being asked or will be shortly after the forum goes live. But I would like an answer on what originally sparked my questioning:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2301328
Acceptable for the new forum or not?

1) The overall statement came from a politician for political impact

2) The justification that he used after the fact states that: how are the term records being defined.

3) Now, in the context of the new forum.
First define what should be considered to be a health record.
Then determine is such is being turned over to the IRS.

 

[Mursilis]

Yes, the intention is to make the new forum viewable to all, including those without posting ability in that forum. -DrPizza

Thank you.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Regarding Gonad's question in this thread...

It depends on exactly what you mean with your question: "if a user tried to post that assertion in the new P&N forum with that reasoning to back it up would that be allowed as a legitimate point of debate or disallowed for being fantasy based FUD?"

Do you mean if someone just posted the news story about the politician? If so, I'd expect them to say whether they think the politician is correct or incorrect, and why.

If you mean, rather, what would happen if a poster behaved like the politician in question here, well, a positive assertion should be supported with evidence. If a poster says that our health records will be turned over to the IRS, we'd all expect him or her to explain what the basis is for that concern.

I have no intention of jumping into every thread to pass judgment on whether or not the argument is made well enough or not. In general, due to having a lot of smart people, my feeling is that unsupported claims will quickly be forcefully challenged, thus giving someone who did not adequately support the claim at first a chance to provide that support. Individuals who make a habit of posting claims without evidence -- especially, inflammatory ones -- will be "rehabilitated".

 

[3chordcharlie]

Interesting idea, I was disappointed when a previous proposal to clean up P&N was rejected.

I used to have some pretty good discussions here, and I learned a lot from posters who disagreed with me. A lot of those posters gave up and left, and in the past year I can remember one actual, reasonable debate. I'm not sure I remember any at all the year before that.

Generally P&N is ruled by ideology and volume, though not necessarily in that order.

I don't know if life affords me the time to properly participate in a quality political forum, but I'll certainly be reading it now and then.

 

[Jaskalas]

Generally P&N is ruled by ideology and volume, though not necessarily in that order.

That's another thing... what sort of volume control will be enforced? Specifically multiple topics on the same subject. Posts in those topics back and forth, perhaps repeating themselves and spinning circles without progress.

Sounds like a directed political discussion would impose controls over that.

 

[3chordcharlie]

That's another thing... what sort of volume control will be enforced? Specifically multiple topics on the same subject. Posts in those topics back and forth, perhaps repeating themselves and spinning circles without progress.

Sounds like a directed political discussion would impose controls over that.

Hmm... So the debate club needs a 'Ko rule'.

Sounds like a good idea.

 

[brianmanahan]

imho this is a great idea

one question though, will correct spelling and grammer be enforced? or will incorrect spelling and grammer be penalized?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

imho this is a great idea

one question though, will correct spelling and grammer be enforced? or will incorrect spelling and grammer be penalized?

Depends on weather or not you do it artistically/ironically like you just did.

 

[HomerJS]

If sources are known to publish erroneous stories and are multiple offenders, i.e. Drudge Report should not be allowed to be a source.

 

[Abraxas]

What if, on the Debate Club, I posted Obamcare eats puppies?

Suppose I needed material to back that up. Then suppose I had a link to a news article. Questionable sources aside, let's say that I find one that is reasonable. You read it and realize that nowhere is my assertion noted or spoken of. That my post was in fact my own interpretation based, perhaps, on that article's information. Perhaps I misread or even misused that article.

Is that the sort of post you would take action on?

The way it is handled in another forum that I like when it comes to evidencing posts is that when someone makes a claim, they are not initially required to source it. However, anyone can then challenge the claim and the original claimant has three options at that point; they can withdraw the claim, they can provide a source, or they can leave the thread (as a practical point since you can't really stop them). If the article they link doesn't support the claim, challenge them on it again. If they refuse to source the claim but keep debating, they can be reported. At that point usually what happens is a mod will post a note that they have been formally challenged and a demand for support, which, if not met results in formal reprimand.

I'd like to see a system like that for content moderation.

 

[mafia]

Lets say a member who does not have posting privileges in the debate forums wants to ask a question to be debated upon, will there be a way to do that? Like a "submit your question" type of thing?

 

[TraumaRN]

I would love to part of this new forum. I tend to avoid P&N because of the crazy loud obscene behavior. I'd love to be part of a civil, reasoned debate over various issues.

So mods I politely ask, can I please get a pass to this potential nirvana of internet debate?

Thanks.

 

[JEDIYoda]

one question though, will correct spelling and grammer be enforced? or will incorrect spelling and grammer be penalized?

Does it really matter considering quite a few poster do not speak english as their first language....

 

[JEDIYoda]

If sources are known to publish erroneous stories and are multiple offenders, i.e. Drudge Report should not be allowed to be a source.

Niether should wikipoedia if that`s the case....read wikipedia disclaimer...

 

[Kelvrick]

This new forum looks interesting. I'm ready to debate Dr. Pizza regarding his views on gun control. If I get in, I'll need to empty out my ignore list, too.

It should be nice to have a place where you can read things on the internet and they just might be true. I feel like this would be a nice balance to the highly technical where we discuss the more philosophical side of things.

I also think that everyone should be let in so that there are enough voices to stay viable. Having the application process could be detrimental when someone is reading, wants to post and then has to wait for approval. Just be quick with the ban (posting in DC) hammer if they get out of line.

Should I post an application over in the moderator discussion forum or is this enough?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Don't see much use for any of those. (You reminded me... haven't seen the "post turtle" guy since the election, for which I am eternally grateful.)

But really, do you guys REALLY want us policing every post down to this level?

Look, the idea here isn't to create a church knitting group. It's just to have discussions that are honest and reasonable. Silly names shouldn't be necessary, but neither do I think people should freak out over their occasional use.

ETA: And yes, no matter what we do, some people will be pissed off. You guys are just going to have to accept the occasional decision you don't like. Just as we ourselves will!

That did not take the trolls long to start testing their limits, just be prepared to be accused of being the fox guarding the chicken house if you do not side with them.
They know what derogatory remarks are and will push the envelope while claiming ignorance.