New Political Forum

[Kelvrick]

Follow the process

Maybe I'm just stupid, but according to the first post, you apply by:

Applications will be taken through Moderator Discussions. You may apply but one time, and will receive a yea or nay within at least one week. You must accept our decision without further comment. Continuing to clutter MD and presume upon our volunteer time will be considered sanctionable trolling.

I see people posting in debate club and when I go to Moderator Discussions, I see no new threads aside from the 2 stickied announcements. Hence, my confusion. Unless you guys hide everyone's threads from each other. Oh well, application posted in Moderator Discussions.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Maybe I'm just stupid, but according to the first post, you apply by:



I see people posting in debate club and when I go to Moderator Discussions, I see no new threads aside from the 2 stickied announcements. Hence, my confusion. Unless you guys hide everyone's threads from each other. Oh well, application posted in Moderator Discussions.

Yup you will only see your own interactions in the MD forum. I put mine in this morning and it's all I have there just waiting to find out what the result is.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You assumed he didn't read the disclaimer. Guess what? Every person on the entire internet knows wikipedia isn't a definitive source. Therefore, you assuming he didn't know this is the same as assuming he is an idiot.

did I?

Did I come out and say he was an idiot? no....end of story!

Read what you wish into this....I know what I said and what i did not say..

Peace!

 

[stormkroe]

I have a more specific question about the application. Is it supposed to be a 'plead your case' post or simply a request for permission? I merely requested access but will change it if necessary.
Thanks
P.s. an area devoid of calls of 'libtard', 'ban him' on every post, 'conservitards gonna tard', etc sounds too good to be true.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I have a more specific question about the application. Is it supposed to be a 'plead your case' post or simply a request for permission? I merely requested access but will change it if necessary.
Thanks
P.s. an area devoid of calls of 'libtard', 'ban him' on every post, 'conservitards gonna tard', etc sounds too good to be true.

Pleading ones case is not needed. Track records are what will deny access.

Participant actions will determine continued access.

In otherwords, by applying, you have stated you will honor the rules. One who's word is no good will fast wear out their welcome.

 

[ManBearPig]

So to join, I have to make a post in moderator discussions asking to join?

 

[ivwshane]

So to join, I have to make a post in moderator discussions asking to join?

Yes.

The new forum is live now and called the debate club.

 

[Jaskalas]

I feel it is pertinent to ask about the goals of Debate club.

My imagination, fruitful as it is, pictures two distinct forums co-existing. One is open discussion, wild west no real rules. It's the OT of politics, high noise but low signal. The other forum is restricted, has plenty of meaty rules, and has a directed, moderated, heavily structured debate. This is a specialized forum attempting to cut out the noise for a crystal clear signal.

Now I haven't filled in all the details of what Debate Club could be, it's just a general idea of me, perhaps, leaping to conclusions of what grand distinctions would separate it from P&N. Presently I see a forum that is strikingly similar to P&N with a polite open discussion.

Was that it? Debate Club is a polite, troll-free (maybe), version of P&N?


Don't know how I feel about that. Is it a distinct enough role to warrant a separate forum? I realize that all along I may have mistaken the intention of our benevolent, omnipotent overlords, and a clean P&N may be a worthy goal. However, the signal to noise ratio is still going to feel disconcerting for those who may have wanted more.

Now that's not necessarily me. My time in P&N is self evident that I'm a pig wallowing in mud as much as the next guy. That together we have treated this forum as the OT in politics and nothing more. What if Debate Club wasn't our next pig sty?

My suggestion is to call out for ideas. If you are a person who wants more from this new forum, let us hear it. Help share ideas on what its structure and rules should look like. I would like to know how we'd lay out the details of a better Debate Club.

First partial example is this post here. This sort of thing sounds like a step in the right direction, but we would need more to fill the whole picture of how a directed, structured political debate would be moderated.


If you want to see a high signal low noise forum, we have some work to do at defining just what that is.

 

[RampantAndroid]

To start with a question: I understand that what the rule on quotes not being altered is trying to do (prevent the "fixed that for ya" stuff) but are we allowed to quote a single section of a post? Like what I'm about to do below with Jaskalas' post. Because I can see a case for not allowing it, and a case for allowing it:

Allow it because it lets me pick out specific points of a post and make it clear and concise what I'm responding to (without beginning by summarizing the exact point I'm responding to.)

Disallow it because it lets me take things completely out of context/make it look like the quoted post was really saying something completely different.

Was that it? Debate Club is a polite, troll-free (maybe), version of P&N?

Frankly, I think that's a great enough goal to start with. The mods on here know I'm pretty verbose with my hits of the report button and posts in the moderator forum - usually with the response being "P&N is the wild west and [insults/attacks/whatever else I complain about] is allowed." It's pretty annoying to have a thread going that either is wrecked or riddled with "libtards!" and "republicons!" all the time. Heck, I'm pretty sure I proposed this idea 6 months ago only to be informed I wasn't the first to do so.

Don't know how I feel about that. Is it a distinct enough role to warrant a separate forum? I realize that all along I may have mistaken the intention of our benevolent, omnipotent overlords, and a clean P&N may be a worthy goal. However, the signal to noise ratio is still going to feel disconcerting for those who may have wanted more.

Wait, which will have a higher SnR than wanted? Debate or P&N? P&N will become even more of a zoo, as the people allowed in to the debate forum will likely be the people less prone to insults already. As such, those people may view the debate forum as the new home for them, and P&N as the undercity that they don't go in to anymore...lowering the overall bar in P&N. Frankly, I'd hope that if the debate forum is successful that the P&N forum would go away. I think that most forums here usually don't produce as much of an emotional response as politics will, and as such I think politics should be a VERY special case.

What I want from a new forum (and that's assuming they let me slip through the gate ) is a forum that is what I said above: I can state my views/positions and not be worried about the response being "you're just another [insult]" My time spent in P&N as of late has really tapered off simply because so much of what I see is just that - bickering, not debating.

 

[JEDIYoda]

personally I think the talking is over....the new forum has opened!

I would also say these are not our forums. We really had not very much say as well it should be.

Usually as in thye past people make things so specific that it drives I would say the mods bonkers....just post and if your wrong your wrong.

It`s a 3 strike system for now anyways.......

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Was that it? Debate Club is a polite, troll-free (maybe), version of P&N?

Don't know how I feel about that. Is it a distinct enough role to warrant a separate forum? I realize that all along I may have mistaken the intention of our benevolent, omnipotent overlords, and a clean P&N may be a worthy goal. However, the signal to noise ratio is still going to feel disconcerting for those who may have wanted more.

With respect, we beat to death the matter of whether or not this sort of forum was warranted for months (literally), and in the end, the admins made the choice to give it a shot.

The major goals were, yes, a polite, troll-free version of P&N with a focus on intellectually honest arguments as opposed to unsupported claims and nasty insults.

Of course, what eventually happens with the forum is up to all of us. No forum of this type will ever end up where its creators anticipate when they set it up, unless they rule it with an iron fist (which creates its own problems).

Everyone should remember that the new room has been open for three days. It takes time to get a new group together, even one drawing from a large pool of people as this one is. Give the place a few months to gel, and then if it's not serving a valid purpose, we and the admins can reassess.

I'll make one other observation as well. I don't have any hard facts to back this up, but my subjective impression is that P&N itself has gotten less nasty and its SNR has improved significantly since the Debate Club was announced. This sort of secondary effect doesn't actually surprise me very much, because when a new area is announced with the specific intention of being a "better place" than somewhere else, there will be a natural tendency on the part of people who opposed it to demonstrate -- consciously or unconsciously -- that the old place wasn't really that bad. That would tend to lower the contrast between the two groups and make it easier to question the validity of having both.

Be patient folks. Let this play out.

And if you like the Debate Club and want it to succeed, it's simple: post more. Start new threads. I'm trying to post a couple a day but I don't want the place to become the "CK show".

 

[cwjerome]

I posted a request in Mod Discussion 2 days ago and don't have access. Guess I'm a troll

 

[EagleKeeper]

I posted a request in Mod Discussion 2 days ago and don't have access. Guess I'm a troll

I believe it was stated that it could take up to a week.

 

[WelshBloke]

anyone can join atf

No they cant. Plenty have been perma banned for not following the rules.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Not to rehash it but, this thread outlines one of my issues with the term "Obamacare" perfectly.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2302135
It sets the tone for any criticism that follows to either be baseless biased ranting or readily dismissed as such out of the likelihood it is. Using proper terminology would elevate the discussion around it, which is probably why that's continuing to fall out of favor among the media. I think having to use proper terminology at least in thread titles for all subjects in the Debate forum will help set the bar for discussion a little higher.

 

[Jaskalas]

Not to rehash it but, this thread outlines one of my issues with the term "Obamacare" perfectly.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2302135
It sets the tone for any criticism that follows to either be baseless biased ranting or readily dismissed as such out of the likelihood it is. Using proper terminology would elevate the discussion around it, which is probably why that's continuing to fall out of favor among the media. I think having to use proper terminology at least in thread titles for all subjects in the Debate forum will help set the bar for discussion a little higher.

• Do we want to moderate tone?
• If we did, checking terminology would be required?
• I posit that we could create a specific rule for topic titles and original posts, and that this might address those concerns.
• Neutral topic titles and clearly defined (separated) questions / points to address.

Well... on perhaps a directly related subject, how literal should the forum name "Debate Club" be taken? Example... I could envision a rule in the new forum to have certain requirements placed on the OP. In an attempt to set the tone, if admins / mods are interested in this.

I would posit that to achieve this goal we'd need two distinctions. 1: The topic title must be neutral and accurate as to what the "debate" is. 2: The OP would need to consist of questions or points to debate, a link or reference if applicable, and then their commentary which is to address the original questions and points as if the OP is posting the first reply.

Would this be what you desire regarding setting the tone?

I would reference my own first topic where I open discussion based on extraordinary claims. I've a topic title pertaining to my own frame of reference, a link to the news article, a quote from it, some words laying out my position. Perhaps I was not clear or even neutral enough in setting the tone. I tried to add questions and points to my commentary, but they may have been overlooked or taken the wrong way.

To address neutral topic titles, this should be easy enough. Instead of using my position where I say so called scientists have jumped the shark, I'd make it "Claim: CO2 causes earthquakes / volcanoes". Maybe I'd add a question mark at the end. Point being, it'd in no way reflect my opinion, but instead try to explain the topic as clearly as possible. If I changed that to "Ridiculous Claim: CO2 causes earthquakes / volcanoes" I would be in violation of keeping a neutral tone.

In short, a neutral tone would be required outside the commentary section of the OP. Thoughts?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

For what it's worth, let me say as a primary antagonist in the thread Gonad linked, that the conflict had nothing to do with the use of the term "Obamacare", and would have transpired in exactly the same way if every instance of that term were replaced by "ACA".

"Debate Club" is just a name. The idea of it is to reinforce that the point is debating issues, not just propagandizing or hurling insults.

I want to take a very light hand in the beginning in terms of allowed topics, because we need to get a critical mass of activity in the room so it takes off. As long as people are posting in good faith and trying to be reasonable, that's fine. There *are* posting guidelines stickied in the forum.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It *is* propaganda. Specifically name calling and transfer. There are people who will get all stroke-faced at mere mention of "Obamacare" that actually react positively when you use "ACA" or factual details from the legislation. I'm not going to push the issue anymore because if you don't see such terminology coloring the debate in a disingenuous manner then I guess there's no point to.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It *is* propaganda. Specifically name calling and transfer. There are people who will get all stroke-faced at mere mention of "Obamacare" that actually react positively when you use "ACA" or factual details from the legislation. I'm not going to push the issue anymore because if you don't see such terminology coloring the debate in a disingenuous manner then I guess there's no point to.

can we say cop out???

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It *is* propaganda. Specifically name calling and transfer. There are people who will get all stroke-faced at mere mention of "Obamacare" that actually react positively when you use "ACA" or factual details from the legislation. I'm not going to push the issue anymore because if you don't see such terminology coloring the debate in a disingenuous manner then I guess there's no point to.

We're not all going to agree on everything. Unfortunately, I think you are not just in the minority on this issue, you're pretty much by yourself. What do you expect people to do, take news articles and run search-and-replaces on them?

I have no interest in running a forum so uptight that we can't even use a term that is widely used by pretty much everyone including the guy it is named for.

 

[cubby1223]

It *is* propaganda. Specifically name calling and transfer. There are people who will get all stroke-faced at mere mention of "Obamacare" that actually react positively when you use "ACA" or factual details from the legislation. I'm not going to push the issue anymore because if you don't see such terminology coloring the debate in a disingenuous manner then I guess there's no point to.

Seriously? By your definition "Affordable Care Act" is also propaganda, parties run focus groups and pick the name based on what presents the legislation in the best emotional way. You say yourself people react positively to that terminology.

Why do you deserve the right to color a debate the way you want it colored?

Obamacare has already become common terminology.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The distinction between rhetoric and propaganda is academic at best; and everything is rhetorical.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

On an administrative note...

We have a backlog of applications to get through and the admins are dealing with a small technical glitch. Please be patient as they sort it out. Sorry for the delays, and it doesn't mean you're not going to be allowed in.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Seriously? By your definition "Affordable Care Act" is also propaganda, parties run focus groups and pick the name based on what presents the legislation in the best emotional way. You say yourself people react positively to that terminology.

Why do you deserve the right to color a debate the way you want it colored?

Obamacare has already become common terminology.

I only want debates colored with accuracy from accurate & proper names over slang & pejoratives.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I only want debates colored with accuracy from accurate & proper names over slang & pejoratives.

can I say something and I am not being mean....what you want will not happen as far as it is Obamacare is a commonly accepted terminology.....now other things like Repubtard...or libtard....I would say will not be allowed.....but hey I am not a mod...