I find this place has become toxic with the political flame wars dominating any musical discussion. Went over to talk classical, where I will be spending my time now, and the ban on politics and religion really seems to facilitate a much better experience. Not that I will be missed, but I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way.
Most of the politics are confined to a handful of clearly marked threads which you can just avoid reading if you don't want to see them.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on February 07, 2019, 04:24:24 AM
I find this place has become toxic with the political flame wars dominating any musical discussion. Went over to talk classical, where I will be spending my time now, and the ban on politics and religion really seems to facilitate a much better experience. Not that I will be missed, but I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way.
As suggested above just ignore the overtly political threads. I have more or less given up on Talk Classical as I find many of the
musical threads to be toxic. This forum isn't perfect but there is plenty of civilised conversation to be had.
I agree with Biffo, having tested the waters at TalkClassical, the musical threads there can be toxic, with people going on about how music they don't like or understand is inferior. I've stopped participating there, although my account is still active.
The political threads here are mostly toxic, but compartmentalized so I can avoid that content without difficulty.
In any case, I hope you'll reconsider.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on February 07, 2019, 04:24:24 AM
I find this place has become toxic with the political flame wars dominating any musical discussion. Went over to talk classical, where I will be spending my time now, and the ban on politics and religion really seems to facilitate a much better experience. Not that I will be missed, but I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way.
On the contrary, I should miss you.
Quote from: San Antone on February 07, 2019, 05:47:33 AM
I have zero understanding of why people are obsessed with discussing politics and religion, all I know is I do not want to have anything to do with a discussion of either topic.
Maybe people are obsessed with discussing politics and religion because those are things that affect people's lives, perhaps much more than classical music?
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on February 07, 2019, 06:09:20 AM
The political threads here are mostly toxic, but compartmentalized so I can avoid that content without difficulty.
Blame the establishment for that! They have divided us so they can keep screwing us up!
Quote from: amw on February 07, 2019, 05:08:03 AM
Most of the politics are confined to a handful of clearly marked threads which you can just avoid reading if you don't want to see them.
If only that were true, but you in particular inject political unpleasantness into all sort of threads.
Quote from: Ken B on February 07, 2019, 09:20:03 AM
If only that were true, but you in particular inject political unpleasantness into all sort of threads.
That's not fair. I find many of amw's political views nuts, but I do not recall 'unpleasantness' or a tendency toward unpleasant politics on non-political threads. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black, as evidenced by this unnecessarily argumentative and 'unpleasant' post.
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on February 07, 2019, 06:09:20 AM
I agree with Biffo, having tested the waters at TalkClassical, the musical threads there can be toxic, with people going on about how music they don't like or understand is inferior. I've stopped participating there, although my account is still active.
The political threads here are mostly toxic, but compartmentalized so I can avoid that content without difficulty.
In any case, I hope you'll reconsider.
I agree with you about the political threads. Just ignore them.
As a refugee from Talk Classical I agree. There are a few threads that I follow but I rarely participate anymore.
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on February 07, 2019, 12:28:06 PM
That's not fair. I find many of amw's political views nuts, but I do not recall 'unpleasantness' or a tendency toward unpleasant politics on non-political threads. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black, as evidenced by this unnecessarily argumentative and 'unpleasant' post.
It's more than fair. Take a look at the recent American music thread for instance.
It's hypocritical or disingenuous to tell people the politics is confined to a few clearly defined threads whilst injecting it into others. I think the original poster was bothered at least in part because such discussions are not in fact quarantined.
Quote from: Ken B on February 07, 2019, 01:18:23 PM
It's more than fair. Take a look at the recent American music thread for instance.
That was a good, civil, interesting discussion. Thanks for recommending it.
Oh wait, you didn't like it? huh
Quote from: Brian on February 07, 2019, 01:46:39 PM
That was a good, civil, interesting discussion. Thanks for recommending it.
Oh wait, you didn't like it? huh
Where is this thread?
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on February 07, 2019, 01:47:41 PM
Where is this thread?
You were part of it! I think it was 10 favorite American composers.
It was indeed a civil discussion, San Antone's posts in particular being good. But it was also an example of a (failed) attempt to inject political trolling. There are other examples, but that was a recent thread where I saw it.
Quote from: Ken B on February 07, 2019, 03:02:39 PM
You were part of it! I think it was 10 favorite American composers.
It was indeed a civil discussion, San Antone's posts in particular being good. But it was also an example of a (failed) attempt to inject political trolling. There are other examples, but that was a recent thread where I saw it.
Yes, I vaguely remember it, I looked for it, didn't find it, and wondered if it was deleted for some reason.
Quote from: Brian on February 07, 2019, 01:46:39 PM
That was a good, civil, interesting discussion. Thanks for recommending it.
Also credit for starting it should be owed to San Antone, not me! (And not really a political discussion either)
Ken seems to be projecting....
Quote from: amw on February 07, 2019, 03:19:29 PM
Ken seems to be projecting....
I didn't want to be the one to say it ;)
(While I oppose a ban on politics for the reasons stated above - it's very easy to avoid; the only time I see political posts are when I do my weekly read-throughs of Todd's and amw's post histories - I think Ken's intervention here is a good example of why some people might support it.)
Quote from: Brian on February 07, 2019, 05:12:18 PM
I didn't want to be the one to say it ;)
(While I oppose a ban on politics for the reasons stated above - it's very easy to avoid; the only time I see political posts are when I do my weekly read-throughs of Todd's and amw's post histories - I think Ken's intervention here is a good example of why some people might support it.)
I for one oppose such a ban. But I do think it's best kept quarantined. That requires a little self discipline, sometimes A bit lacking.
Your comment vindicates my earlier claim.
As long as a member doesn't get on the grandstand on say the 'listening' thread or a composer thread, then I see no reason why political threads should be banned, especially if the threads and the posts are designated to the right part of the forum. Personally, I never understood why anyone would want to discuss politics on a music forum to begin with, but that's really out of my control and makes no difference in the threads that I like to post in.
I oppose the ban. I will not that compared to social media and overtly political websites, GMG discussions are generally respectful, better informed, and more tolerant of opposing views.
Well, politics and religion are not going to be banned, so let's get that out of the way up front. We are, in most cases, mature, well-rounded adults and should be able to maneuver around the occasional obstacle to our sensibilities without losing our minds. I am sorry to see BWV 1080 leave, but people come and go here all the time, and for less understandable reasons than being fed up with the political situation being thrown up at them.
That said, let me take a moment to remind you all, especially those (the majority by now) who weren't here back in the days when prohibition was attempted. There wasn't a thread on the board which hadn't devolved into a morass of political muck (against GW Bush (Dickhead Cheney, actually) in those days). When these discussions were banned, the result was stultifying on all conversation, as though an intellectual blanket had been thrown over the members. So it was decided to allow political and religious discussion in The Diner. And while those threads have been largely unmoderated, they have managed for 15 years to give an outlet to people. I think this policy has proven its worth.
It is true, however, that there are some people who simply can't leave it alone and want to continue discussions outside of the prescribed area. I have deleted more than a few posts which were out of bounds, although they have been a small blot on the larger scheme of things. Instead of pointing fingers and carrying on about it ad infinitum, take a minute to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are guilty. The moderators here are as hands-off as you could ask, but that comes with a price. If you don't want to be policed, then police yourself. I'm not at all happy that a member felt compelled to leave, it may or not have been justified, but the fact that he felt it was makes it de facto true.
Thanks,
Gurn 8)
Well put. I am not in favour of banning political or religious posts or threads, but confining them to the diner seems like a sensible policy.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 07, 2019, 07:19:32 PM
Well, politics and religion are not going to be banned, so let's get that out of the way up front. We are, in most cases, mature, well-rounded adults and should be able to maneuver around the occasional obstacle to our sensibilities without losing our minds. I am sorry to see BWV 1080 leave, but people come and go here all the time, and for less understandable reasons than being fed up with the political situation being thrown up at them.
That said, let me take a moment to remind you all, especially those (the majority by now) who weren't here back in the days when prohibition was attempted. There wasn't a thread on the board which hadn't devolved into a morass of political muck (against GW Bush (Dickhead Cheney, actually) in those days). When these discussions were banned, the result was stultifying on all conversation, as though an intellectual blanket had been thrown over the members. So it was decided to allow political and religious discussion in The Diner. And while those threads have been largely unmoderated, they have managed for 15 years to give an outlet to people. I think this policy has proven its worth.
It is true, however, that there are some people who simply can't leave it alone and want to continue discussions outside of the prescribed area. I have deleted more than a few posts which were out of bounds, although they have been a small blot on the larger scheme of things. Instead of pointing fingers and carrying on about it ad infinitum, take a minute to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are guilty. The moderators here are as hands-off as you could ask, but that comes with a price. If you don't want to be policed, then police yourself. I'm not at all happy that a member felt compelled to leave, it may or not have been justified, but the fact that he felt it was makes it de facto true.
Thanks,
Gurn 8)
Hear hear. That's exactly what needed to be said.
We are here for a common purpose; more often than not we can get along; when things heat up we often know how to climb down... (I know I've had to send out many an apology in private messages, especially in my early years on this forum, when I would let thing get under my skin) ...and in any case banning religion (and politics) in a forum discussing music, half of which was and plenty of which remains explicitly religious (or political) would make little sense. Banning either would be tantamount that we have given up even trying to be a generally civil community. Not that we always are -- but I think we are always trying and not doing so bad a job at it, either.
politics = the bane of civilization :P
Quote from: david johnson on February 09, 2019, 12:44:45 AM
politics = the bane of civilization :P
Politics: n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
(Ambrose Bierce)
But also that which makes civilization possible. So we're stuck. :-)
Quote from: david johnson on February 09, 2019, 12:44:45 AM
politics = the bane of civilization :P
"Politics is the continuation of war by other means."
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on February 09, 2019, 01:01:31 AM
Politics: n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
(Ambrose Bierce)
I love that, really. Very Twainish in nature... :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 09, 2019, 07:12:19 AM
I love that, really. Very Twainish in nature... :)
8)
The Devil's Dictionary is a fabulous book.
Egotist (n.) A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 09, 2019, 07:12:19 AM
I love that, really. Very Twainish in nature... :)
8)
Bierce, Twain and Mencken are triplets separated at birth. Excellent sense of terse, wry humor and intelligence.
Cynic. (n.) blackguard whose faulty vision makes him see things as they are - as opposed to how they ought to be.
Pockets. (n.) cradle of motivation, grave of conscience. (I'm paraphrasing, but I think I get them more or less right.)
Quote from: Ken B on February 09, 2019, 07:36:52 AM
The Devil's Dictionary is a fabulous book.
Egotist (n.) A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on February 09, 2019, 07:42:44 AM
Bierce, Twain and Mencken are triplets separated at birth. Excellent sense of terse, wry humor and intelligence.
Cynic. (n.) blackguard whose faulty vision makes him see things as they are - as opposed to how they ought to be.
Pockets. (n.) cradle of motivation, grave of conscience. (I'm paraphrasing, but I think I get them more or less right.)
Of the three, I know Bierce the least, Twin, by far, the best. Mencken came later than the others but certainly carried on a fine tradition.
I'll check that out, Ken. Good quotes are a handy thing to have on hand. :)
8)
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on February 07, 2019, 07:46:06 PM
Well put. I am not in favour of banning political or religious posts or threads, but confining them to the diner seems like a sensible policy.
I agree with the Ghost's opinion too.
I have no intention of banning the discussion of politics on this forum. It is a legitimate areas of discussion. It is not illegal and does not contravene the rules of the forum (or civilised countries) in any way, so they will stay.
Please discuss politics. Argue politics. Robustly. They deserve to be discussed and argued. But do NOT use the excuse of politics to attack any other member of the forum. You can say "I disagree with your political views". You cannot say "You are an idiot because of your political views". Simple, isn't it?
I wrote the Forum Guidelines (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5.0.html) many years ago. There is a section on Religion. I will amend it to include politics, as those 2 topics cause the most problems.
cheers
Rob
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 07, 2019, 06:35:23 PM
As long as a member doesn't get on the grandstand on say the 'listening' thread or a composer thread, then I see no reason why political threads should be banned, especially if the threads and the posts are designated to the right part of the forum. Personally, I never understood why anyone would want to discuss politics on a music forum to begin with, but that's really out of my control and makes no difference in the threads that I like to post in.
I agree. Why would politics enter a discussion on a music forum? There is "The Diner"-- the correct place. On the Scubaboard forum they call it The Pub. I'm sure most forums have the place for topics not related to that particular forum.
I really wish they would --- these threads have done nothing but shown each of us what uncompromising, opinionated a****** we are and I say 'we' as in a collective we because I'm guilty of this on more than one occasion as is everyone else I've seen on those threads.
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 01, 2020, 07:49:15 PM
I really wish they would --- these threads have done nothing but shown each of us what uncompromising, opinionated a****** we are and I say 'we' as in a collective we because I'm guilty of this on more than one occasion as is everyone else I've seen on those threads.
I heartily disagree,
John.
Sure, some threads veer towards ugliness from time to time. But the diverse (at least agewise) makeup of this forum makes for an inspiring and thought provoking reading. Uncompromising? Opinionated? I've seen worse, much worse. Notwithstanding the occasional flare-up, y'all here are a pretty decent bunch.
(Only slightly) off-topic, but could someone please clarify how to use the "ignore list"?
I managed to put one offender on ignore, but have not been able to repeat the process.
The "ignore" feature is AFAICT undocumented by the forum software. Does one need to become a paying member to fully enable it?
Quote from: T. D. on May 02, 2020, 03:50:10 AM
(Only slightly) off-topic, but could someone please clarify how to use the "ignore list"?
I managed to put one offender on ignore, but have not been able to repeat the process.
The "ignore" feature is AFAICT undocumented by the forum software. Does one need to become a paying member to fully enable it?
You do it this way:
Profile =>
Modify Profile =>
Buddies / Ignore List =>
Edit Ignore List =>
Add To Ignore List => write the name you want to ignore and hit
AddHopefully that helps. ;)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 02, 2020, 04:50:52 AM
You do it this way: Profile => Modify Profile => Buddies / Ignore List => Edit Ignore List => Add To Ignore List => write the name you want to ignore and hit Add
Hopefully that helps. ;)
Unless he's got you on ignore already. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 02, 2020, 04:50:52 AM
You do it this way: Profile => Modify Profile => Buddies / Ignore List => Edit Ignore List => Add To Ignore List => write the name you want to ignore and hit Add
Hopefully that helps. ;)
Thank you! I figured that out once and completely forgot the procedure.
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on May 02, 2020, 06:21:01 AM
Unless he's got you on ignore already. :)
True, that... :)
Took me a little while to identify the Ignore function as well, when I found that option convenient recently; I think guidance on this subject could be better, unless there are hidden, guiding remarks somewhere.
I certainly don't think the politics subject should be banned - and discussions seem to be held within the limits of the Diner section, unlike say at a place like TC, where they have had to close musical / allegedly musical threads all the time. I have more or less decided to stay out of those discussions here though, since the persistent cultural differences between the US and Europe (especially Scandinavia & Northern Europe) have become quite obvious to me, and US-related themes tend to dominate. There are however forums, where open, political discussions are held in a less, let's say robust, and more civic manner - Reddit Denmark is one example, believe it or not.
I'm fine with restricting political discussions (if appropriately labeled) to the Diner. It's not difficult to avoid the Diner if one has an aversion to such topics. In the early days of lockdown, I briefly and foolishly abandoned my longstanding policy of "no online politics"...that was soon corrected.
Fortunately, I see little if any "politicisation" of musical discussions here.
Quote from: Rinaldo on May 02, 2020, 03:33:45 AM
I heartily disagree, John.
Sure, some threads veer towards ugliness from time to time. But the diverse (at least agewise) makeup of this forum makes for an inspiring and thought provoking reading. Uncompromising? Opinionated? I've seen worse, much worse. Notwithstanding the occasional flare-up, y'all here are a pretty decent bunch.
The problem I have with discussing politics is no one seems to want to change their minds. They can listen to an opinion, but it doesn't mean either party will change their mind. In my experience, a person has to change on their own --- no opinion is going to make them want to change and a lot of times this is due to some kind of personal, first-hand experience. I do my best to stay off those threads unless I'm telling 71 dB how crazy I think he is. ;) :P
We can not change people's minds.
If a person believes in Darwin, there is nothing than can be done.
Al least those of us who do believe in Darwin can support each other.
Quote from: arpeggio on May 02, 2020, 08:09:46 AM
We can not change people's minds.
Of course we can, if we have the skills to do that. I am not very skilled myself it seems, but there are people who are.
People can change their own mind and you can give them the
seed to start that process.
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 02, 2020, 10:37:40 AM
If you wish to spread your Socialist beliefs and lies, then knock yourself out. I'm merely pointing out that you aren't some kind of prophet sent from the Bernie Sanders campaign to deliver gospel truths. I don't really give a damn what you believe in, because I'm more than 100% against your political beliefs. I'm not brainwashed and neither is anyone else who disagrees with you. Deal with it.
I don't really have purely
Socialist beliefs*. I believe in
social democracy for the good reason that it has been very succesful. Also, I don't have a reason to lie, because nobody is paying me to do that. If I have facts wrong it's because I have been misinformed and you can correct me, but don't bother try to "correct" me with other misinformation.
I'm sure we are not 100 % in disagreement politically. I'm sure there is a lot we agree about. For example I believe we are both anti-Trump. It's just that the things we agree about don't lead to conflicts and look invisible, non-existent.
I'm not a shrink and I don't know what goes on in your head, but the way you react to my posts indicate that you are internalized corporate propaganda as the truth. Also, it's not a shame to be brainwashed. Just 4 years ago I was brainwashed to think Obama is a great president and that Hillary Clinton will become the next great president. Then Trump won and caused huge cognitive dissonance in my head: "Why didn't Hillary Win?" "How on Earth did a crazy reality TV baffoon win?" I wanted to understand and started to follow US politics closely, something I had never done before (why would I have as a Finn?). It didn't take long for me to learn about the horrible truth
(both the Republicans and the Democrats are utterly corrupt and the whole political system in the US is completely broken so that there is no real democracy but oligarchy.) about US politics, but I also got hooked and here I am trying to get free. ::) Anyway, we are being manipulated various ways (e.g. adds) everyday and we better be wise enough to reject such manipulation.
-------------------
*Social democracy is a mixture of capitalistic and socialistic ideas so I believe selectively in capitalism and socialism, because they both have their areas where they work best. It's about taking the best of both worlds and that's the secret of it's success.
I don't wish to divulge my political beliefs on this forum, because, quite frankly, 71 dB, I don't want any further division between myself and other members. It's bad enough that apparently I'm a "self-centred, childish drama queen" according to several members here. ::) No need in furthering that divide.
Maybe you can't change people's minds - or at least about their core values - but you can try to correct misinformation and misconceptions, which isn't nothing.
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 02, 2020, 05:21:50 PM
Maybe you can't change people's minds - or at least about their core values - but you can try to correct misinformation and misconceptions, which isn't nothing.
True, but most people's opinions won't change because of an argument. There has to be personal growth, which only happens on their own terms.
The problem with discussing politics (and "changing someone's -- rarely one's own -- mind) are at least partially rooted in two facts:
We usually start with the end-point of an opinion, not its source. If we are interested in why people think the way they do, it helps to know what they ultimately hope the achievement/goal of their opinion is.
Most of the time, we will find that they are significantly similar to our own. Already then, we realize that we are talking 'merely' about the "how", not, in essence, about the "what". Assuming good intentions, or simply asking about them, if we are not sure, helps such discourse immensely. Doesn't get rid of the ideological part that makes conversing about these topics difficult, but minimizes its influence.
Not that I'm not as guilty as most of us in being inconsistent in applying this, but I try to assume (whenever level-headed enough), that those who hold political ideas contrary to mine, that they still hold similar social ideas. They wish to live in a society worth living. (Although even that, of course, can be an element of self-rationalization... along the lines of the patronizing idea: "s/he wants the same thing, it's just that I know better how to get there.)
The other aspect is the fact that politics is inseparable of ideology and our idea of self. In that, it's much closer to religion than science or music. If we expect someone to change their opinion, we are essentially asking them to change their idea of self. But the idea of self is deeply ingrained in us, obviously, and expresses itself in the way we dress, the kind of people we surround ourselves with, which coffee shop we go to, what music we listen to or profess to like. It's an immodest goal, to say the least, to ask someone else to change any aspect of that... especially knowing how we are usually loath to do the same.
And yet, from civilized discourse about such essential matters rises our ability as societies (be it a community or a country or a forum like this... all heterogeneous in different ways) to grow. And, perhaps, even to avoid mistakes. And no matter how much we disagree on such matters, at least in this forum we can all agree, in the end, that Bach is the greatest composer and that anyone who doesn't is a degenerate dummy with tin cans for ears.*
* ;) ;D
P.S. And yes, I am aware that this is essentially only rephrasing what others, for example like Mirror Image in his post just above, have said elsewhere in this thread.
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 02, 2020, 12:38:05 PM
I don't wish to divulge my political beliefs on this forum, because, quite frankly, 71 dB, I don't want any further division between myself and other members. It's bad enough that apparently I'm a "self-centred, childish drama queen" according to several members here. ::) No need in furthering that divide.
Simply don't post about politics if you don't wish to divulge your political beliefs. Do what Harry does. He
never posts about politics. Maybe he is the smart one of us. I am a bitter and frustrated individual who WANTS to shout his political beliefs to everyone! >:D
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on May 04, 2020, 12:27:06 AM
The problem with discussing politics (and "changing someone's -- rarely one's own -- mind) are at least partially rooted in two facts:
We usually start with the end-point of an opinion, not its source. If we are interested in why people think the way they do, it helps to know what they ultimately hope the achievement/goal of their opinion is.
Most of the time, we will find that they are significantly similar to our own. Already then, we realize that we are talking 'merely' about the "how", not, in essence, about the "what". Assuming good intentions, or simply asking about them, if we are not sure, helps such discourse immensely. Doesn't get rid of the ideological part that makes conversing about these topics difficult, but minimizes its influence.
Not that I'm not as guilty as most of us in being inconsistent in applying this, but I try to assume (whenever level-headed enough), that those who hold political ideas contrary to mine, that they still hold similar social ideas. They wish to live in a society worth living. (Although even that, of course, can be an element of self-rationalization... along the lines of the patronizing idea: "s/he wants the same thing, it's just that I know better how to get there.)
The other aspect is the fact that politics is inseparable of ideology and our idea of self. In that, it's much closer to religion than science or music. If we expect someone to change their opinion, we are essentially asking them to change their idea of self. But the idea of self is deeply ingrained in us, obviously, and expresses itself in the way we dress, the kind of people we surround ourselves with, which coffee shop we go to, what music we listen to or profess to like. It's an immodest goal, to say the least, to ask someone else to change any aspect of that... especially knowing how we are usually loath to do the same.
And yet, from civilized discourse about such essential matters rises our ability as societies (be it a community or a country or a forum like this... all heterogeneous in different ways) to grow. And, perhaps, even to avoid mistakes. And no matter how much we disagree on such matters, at least in this forum we can all agree, in the end, that Bach is the greatest composer and that anyone who doesn't is a degenerate dummy with tin cans for ears.*
* ;) ;D
P.S. And yes, I am aware that this is essentially only rephrasing what others, for example like Mirror Image in his post just above, have said elsewhere in this thread.
I don't think you can change someones basic political views, but perhaps you can change their views on whether a particular candidate or policy is a worthy embodiment of those views.
Quote from: arpeggio on May 02, 2020, 08:09:46 AM
We can not change people's minds.
If a person believes in Darwin, there is nothing than can be done.
One can try to show that it is something like a category mistake because Darwin is not someone/something to believe in. Unlike G*d, Logics or FC Barca.
Here's my honest opinion of why I feel the political threads have done GMG more harm than good:
1. It has caused members to turn on each other --- many of whom have placed each other on ignore. I've put people on ignore, but I soon realized how childish this is and how it doesn't really solve any problems, because, guess what, until you confront the problem head-on, there will never be a resolution only continual conflict.
2. The name-calling and personal ad homs are at an all-time high on these kinds of threads and, quite frankly, I just don't get it. Can we not discuss something and, be, at the very least, civil about it? I'm not saying I haven't done it, because I have, but if I have personally offended anyone, I sincerely apologize and so should all of you.
3. I'm not for a complete ban on the political threads as, sure, we all can ignore them, but when it starts spilling over to the classical threads, I take issue with it. If you have a problem with someone from a political discussion, you should sort it out there or go to private messaging.
4. It has caused several members to leave and never return. No other explanation needed here. A shame GMG has lost members to something as dumb as a political thread.
Anyway, that's my two measly cents.
There's often talk of "ignore" in the heat of the moment, but clear from subsequent interaction elsewhere that that's not what's happened and the very same people are happy to have a civil discussion about whatever non-political thing.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 04, 2020, 04:20:08 AM
Simply don't post about politics if you don't wish to divulge your political beliefs.
71 sums it up nicely here. It is easy to not participate in the discussions, and just as easy to avoid them if and when they spillover. Banning on a forum sets a dangerous precedent, especially when the ban is designed to stymie discourse.
Plus, the mods here are killer.
Totally agree there are a lot of forum and blog on political subject
TC is illustrative of the quixotic task of trying to keep politics out of all conversations. A lot of music was informed by and written in response to the surrounding politics, and discussing the music and composer means discussing the politics.
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 12, 2020, 06:27:25 PM
TC is illustrative of the quixotic task of trying to keep politics out of all conversations. A lot of music was informed by and written in response to the surrounding politics, and discussing the music and composer means discussing the politics.
But where does one draw the line? It's one thing to discuss politics and it's another to discuss them the way they're carried on here with the endless parade of ad homs and constant belittling.
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 12, 2020, 06:33:09 PM
But where does one draw the line? It's one thing to discuss politics and it's another to discuss them the way they're carried on here with the endless parade of ad homs and constant belittling.
It sounds as if they should make use of the ignore function then.
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 12, 2020, 06:38:47 PM
It sounds as if they should make use of the ignore function then.
Someone shouldn't even have to use the ignore function if people would be more respectful of each other.
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 12, 2020, 06:33:09 PM
But where does one draw the line? It's one thing to discuss politics and it's another to discuss them the way they're carried on here with the endless parade of ad homs and constant belittling.
That's true, and I know I've been guilty of some of that myself. I guess the line is where the mods have to step in and close the threads for a few days and tell everyone to cool it.
But at the same time its not necessary to view a heated entrenched argument as insulting.
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 12, 2020, 06:43:56 PM
That's true, and I know I've been guilty of some of that myself. I guess the line is where the mods have to step in and close the threads for a few days and tell everyone to cool it.
But at the same time its not necessary to view a heated entrenched argument as insulting.
I'm not disputing the arguments, I'm disputing the need to put each other down because there's a disagreement. Two people can disagree but it doesn't have to resort to putting the other person down because they don't agree, which is what I've seen too many times in the political threads here.
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 12, 2020, 07:15:44 PM
I'm not disputing the arguments, I'm disputing the need to put each other down because there's a disagreement. Two people can disagree but it doesn't have to resort to putting the other person down because they don't agree, which is what I've seen too many times in the political threads here.
I suspect that on many though not all occasions its not because of the political matter under discussion or the point of view but because they're continuing with some other kind of behavior than many have asked them to stop.. The insulting language is then a way of trying to impress upon them that continuing when many have asked politely for them to stop doing a certain thing is just a form of trolling.
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 12, 2020, 07:47:59 PM
I suspect that on many though not all occasions its not because of the political matter under discussion or the point of view but because they're continuing with some other kind of behavior than many have asked them to stop.. The insulting language is then a way of trying to impress upon them that continuing when many have asked politely for them to stop doing a certain thing is just a form of trolling.
Trolling is certainly a good word to describe it. Anyway, I made my points on the previous page and whether they're valid or not is left for others to decide.
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 12, 2020, 07:47:59 PM
I suspect that on many though not all occasions its not because of the political matter under discussion or the point of view but because they're continuing with some other kind of behavior than many have asked them to stop.. The insulting language is then a way of trying to impress upon them that continuing when many have asked politely for them to stop doing a certain thing is just a form of trolling.
The ignore function exists as does the report function. I stress that last part because the mods here are awesome, especially Gurn and Knight (I state these two as these are the two I've had the most interactions with).
Well, to give one example from the politics threads, there's one member - for the sake of anonymity let's call him "teddy bear" - who I want to hear from because he seems to have intelligence, be well read and has a different perspective. But I want to hear from the best or sincere version of himself, not the arrogant ass version, and unfortunately the arrogant ass is what we get 90 percent of the time. Ignore would be writing him off as worthless, which I don't think is the case. Just very very very difficult and frustrating.
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 12, 2020, 08:10:07 PM
Well, to give one example from the politics threads, there's one member - for the sake of anonymity let's call him "teddy bear" - who I want to hear from because he seems to have intelligence, be well read and has a different perspective. But I want to hear from the best or sincere version of himself, not the arrogant ass version, and unfortunately the arrogant ass is what we get 90 percent of the time. Ignore would be writing him off as worthless, which I don't think is the case. Just very very very difficult and frustrating.
Lol. For posters like that, even though I love "teddy bear," I simply ignore the thread they are going-off in or I simply scroll past their posts. I think we all have, and are, posters who we value in most instances and not others. Plus, let's say they really annoy me, which I doubt might happen, then I just get off the forum and go do something else that I like. I think if you banned politics that those posters might just get up and leave and migrate to a place that was not so heavy-handed.
But, you must also recall that Iago is one of my favorite posters ever; I still revisit his profile to read through them. Now, he was a cuddly teddy bear. ;D
Here's him at his best:
Quote from: Iago on May 31, 2009, 04:04:05 PM
There is lots of music by Bach that can be described by a word starting with the letter "B". But that word isn't "beautiful". That word is "BORING".
Tiresomely BORING. BORING to the point of sleep induction in the listener.
So BORING that it makes me turn off my audio system.
I have never owned a recording of music by any of the Bachs, and never will.
The only Bachian experiences I have had were in the concert hall. And they never failed to put me in a catatonic trance of severe ennui and boredom.
UGH, the Bachian style makes me PUKE!.
Don't bother rebutting. My mind and my taste CANNOT be changed. Not after 60 yrs of listening.
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 12, 2020, 06:43:21 PM
Someone shouldn't even have to use the ignore function if people would be more respectful of each other.
I agree, respect is the key. I am against banning anything, including politics which is impossible anyway. Just look at the coronavirus thread. We come from opposite directions but have enjoyed my discussions with Que on the Brexit thread, argument without rancour. To use a term in great use at the present time I have chosen to "self-isolate" from the Boris Johnson thread. Respect is in short supply there.
YES! I support banning politics from the entire universe :P
I cleared up my ignore list. Nobody is ignored by me now and wasn't actually ignored before because I kept clicking the "you are ignoring this person, click to read the message" links so ignore function didn't help me ignore anything, it only caused me more work. :P Ignore function should be strong: When you ignore someone, you see zero evidence of the activity, not even the posts where someone quotes someone you ignore.
The only effective ignore function is to leave the forum, but I'm not doing that either.
I want to be respectul, but my lack of self-esteem and frustrations in life make me weak and I become disrespectful easily. Looks like that's my life, and I got to live it this way. The best advice I can give to myself is: People will always disagree and it's ok.
Quote from: david johnson on May 14, 2020, 01:27:19 AM
YES! I support banning politics from the entire universe :P
How are you going to run the society without politics? Total anarchy?
warning :
look at the :P smiley before writing a reaction
Quote from: david johnson on May 14, 2020, 01:27:19 AM
YES! I support banning politics from the entire universe :P
+1 The rest of the universe seems to get along just fine without it 8).
Quote from: steve ridgway on May 14, 2020, 03:13:41 AM
+1 The rest of the universe seems to get along just fine without it 8).
Even without plutocracy?
Quote from: Irons on May 14, 2020, 01:16:29 AM
I agree, respect is the key. I am against banning anything, including politics which is impossible anyway. Just look at the coronavirus thread. We come from opposite directions but have enjoyed my discussions with Que on the Brexit thread, argument without rancour. To use a term in great use at the present time I have chosen to "self-isolate" from the Boris Johnson thread. Respect is in short supply there.
I agree with Irons tactics, but disagree regarding respect. If you don't have the willpower to ignore, the rest of us shouldn't be punished for your lack and inability.
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 14, 2020, 07:37:58 AM
I agree with Irons tactics, but disagree regarding respect. If you don't have the willpower to ignore, the rest of us shouldn't be punished for your lack and inability.
"Respect yourself and others will respect you." - Confucius
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 14, 2020, 08:14:17 AM
"Respect yourself and others will respect you." - Confucius
Why do you care that random people, who you don't know and likely will never meet, respect you?
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 14, 2020, 08:21:23 AM
Why do you care that random people, who you don't know and likely will never meet, respect you?
Alternatively, there's something appreciable in not wanting to display one's oh-so-impressive-cynicism, or the like.
Quote from: MusicTurner on May 14, 2020, 08:31:15 AM
Alternatively, there's something appreciable in not wanting to display one's oh-so-impressive-cynicism, or the like.
We've had and have threads specifically designed to objectify women. That someone called you a nitwit should be the least of your worries.
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 14, 2020, 07:37:58 AM
I agree with Irons tactics, but disagree regarding respect. If you don't have the willpower to ignore, the rest of us shouldn't be punished for your lack and inability.
You are right. Anything else water off a ducks back but politics = >:D. Is a music forum though. :(
Quote from: Irons on May 14, 2020, 10:17:15 AM
You are right. Anything else water off a ducks back but politics = >:D. Is a music forum though. :(
I've been on other forums dedicated to a particular topic, but they gated the politic forum. That is a possible solution, I suppose, for those that can't control themselves.
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 14, 2020, 08:21:23 AM
Why do you care that random people, who you don't know and likely will never meet, respect you?
I don't expect them to respect me personally, but a person can try to be respectful of another person's opinion without resorting to ad homs or flame-throwing.
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 14, 2020, 04:25:25 PM
I don't expect them to respect me personally, but a person can try to be respectful of another person's opinion without resorting to ad homs or flame-throwing.
Ah, yes. An edict from the paragon of virtue.
Well this is a peculiar situation...
To clarify a little what I meant before I flounced off: I do honestly believe the moderators here are fine people who do a fine job and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. My frustration was with the trolls and with the nature of every discussion board, good bad or otherwise that I've experienced for the trolls to ultimately get their way through sheer persistence, even if that just means destroying something or poisoning the well. I see an example of this as two political threads being closed and one started by a troll, which I believe gives him some powers over it, being open. If I was being calmer and more helpful I might have suggested that they should all be closed and a mod start a new one with their own guidelines in the header. I submit that idea now.
And yes, I know my responses on these threads would not always be characterized as "when they go low we go high".
I have, however, tried to keep political discussion exclusive to those threads as much as possible, have even tried to nanny political discussions that have popped up elsewhere back where it belongs.
Why have political threads at all? I think peoples attitude to the Diner generally is instructive: the common response seems to be "you could do away with all of it - except those ones I really like". And these are a topics I find necessary and engaging, if often heated. I don't believe 99% of the discussion has been rubbish or just reinforcing the boundaries of the culture wars as two recent opinions stated.
Yes its a classical music site. I've been waiting and expecting my enthusiasm for classical to come back to the level it was on TC before most of my vinyl got stolen and then I had to sell of all my cds during a stretch of hard times. I still read and enjoy the posting of others and contribute a little, though much more to jazz and non-classical in recent years. I'd like to think its been noted that I contribute to those threads and to threads on other cultural pursuits.
Glad to see you back, Simon.
I'm glad you've decided to stick around, Simon.
I appreciate that, and the kind words from others, and I'm sorry to be making such a melodrama out of this. We'll see.
Yes, appreciation here, too (and also for the kind comments on moderation).
--Bruce
Welcome back, Simon. You were missed, even If for a few days :).
Quote from: SimonNZ on June 03, 2020, 03:41:41 PM
Well this is a peculiar situation...
Things didn't always go smoothly between you and me but I'm glad you're back.
Quote from: SimonNZ on June 03, 2020, 04:21:38 PM
I appreciate that, and the kind words from others, and I'm sorry to be making such a melodrama out of this. We'll see.
Good to see you back here on GMG,
Simon!
Best regards from the antipodes,
Glad to have you back, Simon!
Q
Good to have you back Simon !
Thank you, all.
This little experiment has proven so gratifying I intend to repeat it every four or five days from now on.
Simon's back. Server crashes are not always a bad thing. :)
Quote from: SimonNZ on June 03, 2020, 03:41:41 PM
My frustration was with the trolls and with the nature of every discussion board, good bad or otherwise that I've experienced for the trolls to ultimately get their way through sheer persistence, even if that just means destroying something or poisoning the well. I see an example of this as two political threads being closed and one started by a troll, which I believe gives him some powers over it, being open. If I was being calmer and more helpful I might have suggested that they should all be closed and a mod start a new one with their own guidelines in the header. I submit that idea now.
I'm sure everyone is busy, but if this idea is going to be a hard "no" then I'm going to need to hear a hard no at some point.
Not only politics, there can be nasty exchanges between people who like and dislike Cage.
If I am unhappy with a thread I avoid it. Just like members on my ignore list.
I want the thread, I just don't want the hastily made one by an OP who has shown himself to be a troll, and which has already proven fractious, even (gasp) without my participation. And I especially don't like that this is now being treated as a fait accompli, when everyone states they'd prefer something robust but civilized. Which I think would mean setting out certain criteria in the header from the beginning, for example that responses of mere snark, sarcasm and eyerolling won't be tolerated, just as more offensive or insulting language wont be. The current OP has no intention of following his own "keep it classy, I promise I will" header, and has proven it in only three pages. Nothing good can follow from these beginnings.
Quote from: SimonNZ on June 04, 2020, 04:46:47 PM
I want the thread, I just don't want the hastily made one by an OP who has shown himself to be a troll, and which has already proven fractious, even (gasp) without my participation. And I especially don't like that this is now being treated as a fait accompli, when everyone states they'd prefer something robust but civilized. Which I think would mean setting out certain criteria in the header from the beginning, for example that responses of mere snark, sarcasm and eyerolling won't be tolerated, just as more offensive or insulting language wont be. The current OP has no intention of following his own "keep it classy, I promise I will" header, and has proven it in only three pages. Nothing good can follow from these beginnings.
I agree.
Quote from: SimonNZ on June 04, 2020, 04:46:47 PM
I want the thread, I just don't want the hastily made one by an OP who has shown himself to be a troll, and which has already proven fractious, even (gasp) without my participation. And I especially don't like that this is now being treated as a fait accompli, when everyone states they'd prefer something robust but civilized. Which I think would mean setting out certain criteria in the header from the beginning, for example that responses of mere snark, sarcasm and eyerolling won't be tolerated, just as more offensive or insulting language wont be. The current OP has no intention of following his own "keep it classy, I promise I will" header, and has proven it in only three pages. Nothing good can follow from these beginnings.
You may well be right about his having no intention; he rarely makes even a show of good faith. He may also be
incapable, a common failing among the trumpkins.
I remember when I mentioned several conservatives who were critical of Trump.
One of them referred to these critics as clowns.
I wonder what pejoratives they will apply to Mattis.
I don't get the idea of locking stuff or even blocking/ignoring people (don't even know what the function is called)... never done it once, and I've posted here since before 2006... just too much of an authoritarian action for my taste.
Even the most extreme examples of past members... it's the internet, so we're all on an even playing field. Instead of blocking someone if they are a bully, bully them back, and don't stop until they stop. And as for threads, just let them play out if they get derailed, who cares? You could be me and be getting not enough interest in your threads to even want to post in The Diner. Bleh.
Quote from: arpeggio on June 04, 2020, 08:55:06 PM
I remember when I mentioned several conservatives who were critical of Trump.
One of them referred to these critics as clowns.
I wonder what pejoratives they will apply to Mattis.
Count on them to display a comparable lack of imagination.
Quote from: greg on June 04, 2020, 09:51:03 PM
I don't get the idea of locking stuff or even blocking/ignoring people (don't even know what the function is called)... never done it once, and I've posted here since before 2006... just too much of an authoritarian action for my taste.
Even the most extreme examples of past members... it's the internet, so we're all on an even playing field. Instead of blocking someone if they are a bully, bully them back, and don't stop until they stop. And as for threads, just let them play out if they get derailed, who cares? You could be me and be getting not enough interest in your threads to even want to post in The Diner. Bleh.
If 'The Diner' section of the forum didn't exist, I wouldn't care. It seems, especially lately, that if you want to treat someone like dirt or call them names, insult their intelligence, etc., then this part of the forum is the place to do it without fear of moderator interference. A forum needs guidelines, because if you don't have some rules, then you have chaos. I also disagree with your bullying comments. In my experience, you don't fight fire with fire and yield satisfactory results. If anything, it further alienates both parties and, as a result, could very well lead to members leaving, which we've seen many times before.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 05, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
If 'The Diner' section of the forum didn't exist, I wouldn't care. It seems, especially lately, that if you want to treat someone like dirt or call them names, insult their intelligence, etc., then this part of the forum is the place to do it without fear of moderator interference. A forum needs guidelines, because if you don't have some rules, then you have chaos. I also disagree with your bullying comments. In my experience, you don't fight fire with fire and yield satisfactory results. If anything, it further alienates both parties and, as a result, could very well lead to members leaving, which we've seen many times before.
Well the problem with making everything safe and regulated is the development of the echo chambers which lead to extremist thinking because views go unchallenged. This sort of thing has a greater chance of affecting the real world as well.
I also think that there needs to be places where chaos can run rampant, but within a safe environment, like the internet. Otherwise, people's inner chaos can sometimes spill out into the real world, as well. Safe outlets are good.
You don't fight fire with fire, but you fight it with strong water pressure, if you get what I'm going for.
Quoteif they are a bully, bully them back, and don't stop until they stop.
Some bullies don't stop until an authority steps in. That is one flaw in your suggestion. Another is that it places the energy burden upon the bullied. Bullies who are in practice just riff on. Another flaw is requiring a person to engage in behavior he finds objectionable, as a supposed recourse.
A historically poor suggestion on your part.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 05, 2020, 10:46:25 AM
Some bullies don't stop until an authority steps in. That is one flaw in your suggestion. Another is that it places the energy burden upon the bullied. Bullies who are in practice just riff on. Another flaw is requiring a person to engage in behavior he finds objectionable, as a supposed recourse.
A historically poor suggestion on your part.
+ 1 I can only nod my head in agreement, Karl.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 05, 2020, 10:51:24 AM
+ 1 I can only nod my head in agreement, Karl.
Common sense. Why the need for illegible print, I wonder?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 05, 2020, 10:46:25 AM
Some bullies don't stop until an authority steps in. That is one flaw in your suggestion. Another is that it places the energy burden upon the bullied. Bullies who are in practice just riff on. Another flaw is requiring a person to engage in behavior he finds objectionable, as a supposed recourse.
A historically poor suggestion on your part.
There is no requirement, it's only a suggestion as you can still ignore people. Once people are known to be bullies in an online setting they will lose credibility anyways. It can come to a point where they get bored because they have no effect.
Perhaps in online forums, having a reputation thread that people can reference is a good solution. So new members can reference that thread and know immediately who to act coldly and dismissive toward. The people with the worst reputation will know that harassing others won't be rewarded, and either stop or get bored and leave. They continue because they provide some good qualities and might even be helpful sometimes. But it's probably better to not even indulge in gratitude towards such people, either.
You all agree but realize that online (and IRL) safe spaces are possibly the primary cause for the strong political division in the US.
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2020, 10:53:36 AM
Common sense. Why the need for illegible print, I wonder?
I don't know how Greg's mind works, so I can't answer this. :D
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 05, 2020, 11:00:19 AM
I don't know how Greg's mind works, so I can't answer this. :D
Urmmmm... ahemmm.... it was Karl, actually.
EDIT: I see that meanwhile he printed it normally. Very good.
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2020, 11:02:47 AM
Urmmmm... ahemmm.... it was Karl, actually.
EDIT: I see that meanwhile he printed it normally. Very good.
Ah, sorry! I got confused. :P Nothing new there. ;)
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2020, 11:02:47 AM
Urmmmm... ahemmm.... it was Karl, actually.
EDIT: I see that meanwhile he printed it normally. Very good.
I don't kmow why that font-resizing plagues me when I'm posting from my Kindle....
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2020, 10:53:36 AM
Common sense. Why the need for illegible print, I wonder?
No need: Act of Algorithm.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 05, 2020, 10:46:25 AM
Some bullies don't stop until an authority steps in. That is one flaw in your suggestion. Another is that it places the energy burden upon the bullied. Bullies who are in practice just riff on. Another flaw is requiring a person to engage in behavior he finds objectionable, as a supposed recourse.
A historically poor suggestion on your part.
+1 from me as well.
Quote from: SimonNZ on June 04, 2020, 01:22:59 PM
I'm sure everyone is busy, but if this idea is going to be a hard "no" then I'm going to need to hear a hard no at some point.
"..."
yeah. okay. whatever.
Quote from: SimonNZ on June 08, 2020, 01:06:23 AM
"..."
yeah. okay. whatever.
I wrote you a PM on Friday which you haven't yet taken the time to answer, so I don't feel unduly upset by your impatience.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 08, 2020, 08:58:39 AM
I wrote you a PM on Friday which you haven't yet taken the time to answer, so I don't feel unduly upset by your impatience.
8)
You asked me to put together an argument to be presented to the mods, but I feel I've already said everything I needed to say upthread here.
And as time goes on and the thread attracts more posters and as you post there yourself then the answer to my request is really just a simple "no", isn't it?
That's fine. That's your collective prerogative. But you might as well have just said no. Am I really being "impatient" now for something else?
Its okay. It is what it is and I'm done with the gripe.
Quote from: greg on June 05, 2020, 10:59:50 AM
You all agree but realize that online (and IRL) safe spaces are possibly the primary cause for the strong political division in the US.
The cause of the strong political division in the US is sensible, moderate people becoming exhausted at having to deal with the way that extremists can energise their base through social media.
Places like Facebook and Youtube are often echo chambers (not "safe spaces" FFS). For years, they had algorithms that encouraged people to see things that they would already like, because they'd stay on the sites longer. It took a very long time for those companies to realise the consequences of that.
Where you go wrong is expecting a message board like this one to be able reverse the tide, with the frankly ridiculous suggestion to bully the bullies back (seriously, did you try this in high school? How did that go?). Yes, we don't energise the extremists here, or don't want to, but you think we ought to have to deal with them and the growth in politics as some kind of entertainment, a sort of digital bullfighting.
The only way a site like GMG can stand against that is to kick out the people who troll and treat politics as sport. Something the moderators seem to have zero intention of doing.
I agree, but I'm not sure much can be done. I suppose the mods don't want to turn them into free speech martyrs.
Quote from: Madiel on June 08, 2020, 03:03:21 PMThe only way a site like GMG can stand against that is to kick out the people who troll and treat politics as sport. Something the moderators seem to have zero intention of doing.
That sounds great, until they decide to kick you out. I find the situation here tolerable. I don't expect to have meaningful political discussion, but occasionally I feel the need to vent a little.
Quote from: André on June 08, 2020, 03:37:15 PM
I agree, but I'm not sure much can be done. I suppose the mods don't want to turn them into free speech martyrs.
It's a music discussion board, not a general message board. Which does of course raise questions about whether to just ban such discussions and raises issues about The Diner generally.
But honestly, that's the answer to the whole "free speech" crowd. No-one in their right minds would think that they could go to their local chamber music group, or tennis club, or wine appreciation society, and make everyone else's lives miserable by constantly talking about politics.
What we have here is a side room, off from the main meeting, where we let people talk politics. We don't HAVE to have that room open. We could shut it. Or we could have different rules for it. Whatever, ultimately it's up to the moderators. But the notion that there's an inherent right to have that space and to say absolutely anything the hell you want in there, and then everyone has to carry on in the main meeting space as if all of that never happened?
"Free speech" has never, despite what some people think, meant freedom from consequences or from rules. All it's ever meant, even in the USA, is freedom from the government punishing you for it. And GMG ain't the government. Any "free speech" martyr who can't reason their way through that distinction is just providing confirmation that their political views weren't worth listening to in the first place.
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on June 08, 2020, 03:50:21 PM
That sounds great, until they decide to kick you out. I find the situation here tolerable. I don't expect to have meaningful political discussion, but occasionally I feel the need to vent a little.
Why don't you expect to have meaningful political discussion? And what are you venting about? There's a big difference between venting about political news and making fun of other posters.
Plus the ratio of posting approaches matters a hell of a lot.
Quote from: Madiel on June 08, 2020, 03:51:13 PM
Why don't you expect to have meaningful political discussion?
Because it's the internet?
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on June 10, 2020, 02:43:55 PM
Because it's the internet?
Do you expect to have meaningful musical discussion on the internet?
"The internet" is mostly made up of physical human beings typing away (there are certainly bots out there, but I suspect not on GMG). The only reason discussion on the internet doesn't proceed the same way as offline discussion is if we allow to people treat it as different. Which generally comes down to anonymity. I don't think that somewhere like a message board, with frankly a relatively small community, qualifies as a place where there's genuine anonymity. We're interacting with the same people regularly, even if we use screen handles rather than legal names.
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on June 08, 2020, 03:50:21 PM
I don't expect to have meaningful political discussion, but occasionally I feel the need to vent a little.
This comment puts your
complaint (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,29894.msg1296507.html#msg1296507) on the new USA Politics thread about "intrusive" moderating into an interesting perspective.
Because what you seem to look for, is not on offer. Not anymore, anyway.
Q
I congratulate the moderators on the new thread.
I have no intention of personally participating in it, not least because it's already clear that some people can't cope with the requirements... though maybe it will settle down in time. Best of luck.
Quote from: Que on June 11, 2020, 01:20:06 AM
This comment puts your complaint (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,29894.msg1296507.html#msg1296507) on the new USA Politics thread about "intrusive" moderating into an interesting perspective.
Because what you seem to look for, is not on offer. Not anymore, anyway.
Q
Thanks for the notice.
Quote from: Madiel on June 11, 2020, 01:39:15 AM
I congratulate the moderators on the new thread.
I have no intention of personally participating in it, not least because it's already clear that some people can't cope with the requirements... though maybe it will settle down in time. Best of luck.
+1 If they can't cope with the new rules of political discussion, then they can leave like the others. People seem to not come to this forum for music anymore and I find that distressing and actually embarrassing. Thankfully, there are quite a few members interested in posting about music still, but many of the longtime members have drifted off into the political thread and it has turned out to be a point-of-no-return for them.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 11, 2020, 07:30:15 AM
many of the longtime members have drifted off into the political thread and it has turned out to be a point-of-no-return for them.
I'm not that sure about "many", John. A few, rather. And I can think of only one single longtime member whose interest has been exclusively politics in the last years.
Quote from: Florestan on June 11, 2020, 07:34:48 AM
I'm not that sure about "many", John. A few, rather. And I can think of only one single longtime member whose interest has been exclusively politics in the last years.
Yes, but you can see a trend in their posting as of late where only a few posts are made about music and the rest are about politics.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 11, 2020, 07:40:32 AM
Yes, but you can see a trend in their posting as of late where only a few posts are made about music and the rest are about politics.
Sad but true.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 11, 2020, 07:40:32 AM
Yes, but you can see a trend in their posting as of late where only a few posts are made about music and the rest are about politics.
My musical efforts this week have been otherwise concentrated (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,92.msg1296856.html#msg1296856).
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 11, 2020, 11:15:57 AM
My musical efforts this week have been otherwise concentrated (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,92.msg1296856.html#msg1296856).
Good to see you continue to work, Karl. Very encouraging, indeed. 8)
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 11, 2020, 07:30:15 AM
+1 If they can't cope with the new rules of political discussion, then they can leave like the others. People seem to not come to this forum for music anymore and I find that distressing and actually embarrassing. Thankfully, there are quite a few members interested in posting about music still, but many of the longtime members have drifted off into the political thread and it has turned out to be a point-of-no-return for them.
Yes. I find "I can't vent about politics, I have to genuinely discuss it" an extremely bizarre reason to leave a classical music forum, but there you are.
Quote from: Madiel on June 11, 2020, 02:16:12 PM
Yes. I find "I can't vent about politics, I have to genuinely discuss it" an extremely bizarre reason to leave a classical music forum, but there you are.
You and I are of the same mind about this it seems, Madiel.
Was my post deleted without explanation or is it just my imagination?
I don't care how it was perceived, technically it was still on topic. There was a point to it, if someone can't see the point then that's completely their fault for lack of understanding. ::)
Maybe we should delete the mods posts if we don't like them, and then say they were "questionable." Sounds fair.
Otherwise, based on what rule #4 says, I would personally suggest that since the word "questionable" is entirely subjective, it is made clear in the first post that this thread is ruled under the system "Might is Right." Posts don't have to be wrong, they can just be disliked and deleted.
After that edit is made, I won't ever complain at all if a post of mine is deleted on this thread. But I would like people to reflect on what kind of system that is, and also what kind of effects that would happen if this type of system is extended to places larger than here. But perhaps they can have a place here since it is somewhat small? I could see that argument, but this is something you have to be super careful with,
Quote from: greg on June 14, 2020, 08:52:31 AM
Was my post deleted without explanation or is it just my imagination?
I don't care how it was perceived, technically it was still on topic. There was a point to it, if someone can't see the point then that's completely their fault for lack of understanding. ::)
If that's the case, they are abusing their power and not following forum policies. I'd like to know if that is the case (that they actually deleted your post) and what it contained before I start a pretty serious string of posts...
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 14, 2020, 05:03:03 PM
If that's the case, they are abusing their power and not following forum policies. I'd like to know if that is the case (that they actually deleted your post) and what it contained before I start a pretty serious string of posts...
Have you considered a lawsuit? We gave full notice up front that questionable posts would be deleted forthwith, without further justification or discussion. I didn't see the post in question, but I'm going to guess that it fit those criteria, thus it is gone.
Given the history of the political posting here, and the general outcry for stronger moderating, and that post #1 in this thread gives fair warning of the consequences that entails, and the fact that you aren't a moderator so your opinion of the justification for deleting greg's post is extraneous to the event, I would suggest that a long string of serious posts will be for nowt.
If this deters anyone from posting in the USA Politics thread, well, darn the bad luck.
GB
Aye it's there, in plain black and white:
Quote from: Que on June 09, 2020, 10:18:46 AM
4. Any questionable posts will be deleted and the moderating decisions to that effect are not open for discussion or correspondence.
The moderators
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 14, 2020, 05:52:46 PM
Have you considered a lawsuit? We gave full notice up front that questionable posts would be deleted forthwith, without further justification or discussion. I didn't see the post in question, but I'm going to guess that it fit those criteria, thus it is gone.
Given the history of the political posting here, and the general outcry for stronger moderating, and that post #1 in this thread gives fair warning of the consequences that entails, and the fact that you aren't a moderator so your opinion of the justification for deleting greg's post is extraneous to the event, I would suggest that a long string of serious posts will be for nowt.
If this deters anyone from posting in the USA Politics thread, well, darn the bad luck.
GB
With all due respect, Que's original post carries weight as a member only. Moderators, in the forum policies (found here: https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5.0.html), are not given the power of making forum policies. What's more, if a post has a link only, that too does not violate forum policy. When a moderator deletes a post that in no way violates forum policy, then a moderator has abused his or her power.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 14, 2020, 04:12:29 PM
A Breitbart piece about "rumors"; can't get much farther from hard news than that.
I very much hope this is the case, Karl. It's fairly close to me, after all, and will likely take a revisit sometime.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 14, 2020, 05:52:46 PM
and the general outcry for stronger moderating
Well, not coming from me, for sure. Actually, in general the moderating on this forum was pretty good, I think, because it was fairly lenient, but only in the more extreme cases did it take action.
My personal beliefs are that anything apart from spam or slander, or severe harrassment cases (maybe there's more? that's all I can think of) should be fine. But of course, this isn't my forum so it isn't up to me.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 14, 2020, 05:03:03 PM
If that's the case, they are abusing their power and not following forum policies. I'd like to know if that is the case (that they actually deleted your post) and what it contained before I start a pretty serious string of posts...
I made a comment on the article Dowder shared. I just said something like "if we're doing reparations, can I identify as black in order to get money from white people?"
(it's the same comments on the article... also the same joke that the Hodge Twins use (they are conservative black comedians on youtube)).
There is a point to this. No, it isn't a great post that I would really care about. My only concern is that for this thread, how do people even know what they are allowed to say or not?
(assuming this wasn't a forum hiccup or something, pretty sure the post went through)
All systems of rules require someone to be in a decision-making position. Most of the time you just don't notice it (often because you're so USED to it that you take it for granted).
There is some benefit in decision-makers making their decisions visible and providing reasons for them... though my concern is whether in this instance that'll just create bigger arguments about whether the decision was right.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 14, 2020, 05:03:03 PM
If that's the case, they are abusing their power and not following forum policies. I'd like to know if that is the case (that they actually deleted your post) and what it contained before I start a pretty serious string of posts...
Stop trying to second guess moderating decisions. This is not how this works.
We've said time and time again that as a general rule we as moderators answer
to each other and in final instance to the forum owner, not to everybody that happens to come and post here.
Specific moderating decisions have never been up for discussion, there is really nothing new about that.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 14, 2020, 06:19:02 PM
With all due respect, Que's original post carries weight as a member only. Moderators, in the forum policies (found here: https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5.0.html), are not given the power of making forum policies. What's more, if a post has a link only, that too does not violate forum policy. When a moderator deletes a post that in no way violates forum policy, then a moderator has abused his or her power.
Respect? I see very little of it.
The ban on trolling and inflammatory posts is clearly in the forum guidelines.
The argument that the stipulation in the USA politics thread that any posts need to contribute to a genuine and meaningful discussion, would be a violation of forum guidelines is absolutely ludicrous. It is nothing more than common sense and merely an explicit indication of how we will use our general discretionary power as moderators on that particular thread.
It falls well within our general mandate, and I strongly reject the accusation of abuse of power and take very much offence to it.
Q
Quote from: Que on June 15, 2020, 12:14:23 AM
Stop trying to second guess moderating decisions. This is not how this works.
We've said time and time again that as a general rule we as moderators answer to each other and in final instance to the forum owner, not to everybody that happens to come and post here.
Specific moderating decisions have never been up for discussion, there is really nothing new about that.
Respect? I see very little of it.
The ban on trolling and inflammatory posts is clearly in the forum guidelines.
The argument that the stipulation in the USA politics thread that any posts need to contribute to a genuine and meaningful discussion, would be a violation of forum guidelines is absolutely ludicrous. It is nothing more than common sense and merely an explicit indication of how we will use our general discretionary power as moderators on that particular thread.
It falls well within our general mandate, and I strongly reject the accusation of abuse of power and take very much offence to it.
Q
There is a separate rule on spam and advertising. It reads,
Quote"Spam and Advertising
Spamming refers to posts that contribute nothing to the content of the forum, but aim to advertise or promote the posters own product or viewpoint. These are usually unrelated to the forum's theme.
Please make sure that you are posting for the good of the community, not just for the sake of self-promotion. Spam and other advertising is not tolerated on the forum. Occassionally, if you have a website or service that is directly related to classical music, and you think it may be of interest to our members, please ask the administrator or a moderator for permission to post the topic on the forum. Only with admin or moderator sanction will such websites or products be allowed to be posted."
Clearly, a link from a third party site (meaning external to the forum) does not violate this rule. I don't see any connection. These posts (the links) do not advertise or promote anything for the poster, they are for the good of the discussion, and are not spam. I suppose if I posted in a number of threads, it could be considered spam (but that is not what we are discussing).
As to the question of trolling, it is clearly not trolling either. There is nothing derogatory or inflammatory about such links.
As to your last point - it's a paper tiger. I am not suggesting what you write at all. I am suggesting it makes no common sense to have to write something that is already in the link itself (or make comments about the link as if that makes the link ok), though I always appreciate when posters highlight something in the post that they thought particularly worthy.
This is (in part) how I come to the conclusion that you do not have the power to delete posts that meet forum guidelines. It's clear as day to me that the only way that suggestion actually needs to be followed is if the forum policies are amended. Of course, as a moderator, you can turn me off with the flick of a switch, which is what I feel is the threat implicit (and not so implicit) behind your posts and Gurn's post.
Your job is a difficult one - no ever thanks you, people are usually upset with some or another decision, a lot of your hard work is unseen, etc. You talk about respect, which is something I have always tried to give you and the other moderators. And if you feel I have not, I am truly sorry for that, because I have (shown respect) in every post I have made. However, the expectation of respect runs both ways.
Yeah... I should find another forum to post on. Perhaps I should try posting on myanimelist forum or something.
If posting any even remotely edgy jokes are not allowed, then it sort of drains the fun away since that is a big part of my sense of humor. It's even a part of musical aesthetic.
That and the only threads that seem to update in the Diner regularly are the politics and Corona virus threads. I don't even want to talk about politics but it's the only thread with regular discussion. There's just no interest in the threads I like- Anime, video games, Dreams, Psychology, etc. people are just obsessed with politics.
Probably will post in the future about classical music exclusively once I actually start listening to music again more often... just got other stuff going on for now, like making music and gaming.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 15, 2020, 06:51:42 AM
There is a separate rule on spam and advertising. It reads, Clearly, a link from a third party site (meaning external to the forum) does not violate this rule. I don't see any connection. These posts (the links) do not advertise or promote anything for the poster, they are for the good of the discussion, and are not spam. I suppose if I posted in a number of threads, it could be considered spam (but that is not what we are discussing).
As to the question of trolling, it is clearly not trolling either. There is nothing derogatory or inflammatory about such links.
As to your last point - it's a paper tiger. I am not suggesting what you write at all. I am suggesting it makes no common sense to have to write something that is already in the link itself (or make comments about the link as if that makes the link ok), though I always appreciate when posters highlight something in the post that they thought particularly worthy.
Look, I said nothing about spamming. The deleted post had no link, but was inflammatory and was in no way a contribution to a genuine and meaningful discussion.
So, I really do not understand why you try to shift the whole thing on the links issue.
The links issue has already been discussed and clarified, and I don't see it causing any problems besides your "indignation".
QuoteThis is (in part) how I come to the conclusion that you do not have the power to delete posts that meet forum guidelines. It's clear as day to me that the only way that suggestion actually needs to be followed is if the forum policies are amended. Of course, as a moderator, you can turn me off with the flick of a switch, which is what I feel is the threat implicit (and not so implicit) behind your posts and Gurn's post.
There are no threats. As moderators we can intervene against your wishes, yes.
This has always been the case and is inherent to a moderated environment.
And if we look at the situation at this forum, I see no reason for you to get nervous about it and lash out at us in this way.
QuoteYour job is a difficult one - no ever thanks you, people are usually upset with some or another decision, a lot of your hard work is unseen, etc. You talk about respect, which is something I have always tried to give you and the other moderators. And if you feel I have not, I am truly sorry for that, because I have (shown respect) in every post I have made. However, the expectation of respect runs both ways.
Accusations of violating forum guidelines and abuse of power presume malintent and are insulating and offensive. I don't see any show of respect in that. And then, adding insult to injury, you try to lie the blame for that lack of respect from you with us.
Q
Quote from: Que on June 15, 2020, 08:36:55 AM
Look, I said nothing about spamming. The deleted post had no link, but was inflammatory and was in no way a contribution to a genuine and meaningful discussion.
So, I really do not understand why you try to shift the whole thing on the links issue.
The links issue has already been discussed and clarified, and I don't see it causing any problems besides your indignation.
There are no threats. As moderators we can intervene against your wishes, yes.
This has always been the case and is inherent to a moderated environment.
And if we look at the situation at this forum, I see no reason for you to get nervous about it and lash out at us in this way.
Accusations of violating forum guidelines and abuse of power presume malintent and are insulating and offensive. I don't see any show of respect in that. And then, adding insult to injury, you try to lie the blame for that lack of respect from you with us.
Q
As a moderator, you should be the one trying to de-escalate the situation. Instead, you are appear to be upping the ante, which in turn is putting you in violation of forum policy. You are accusing me of lying which is simply untrue.
I never referenced Greg's post in any way in my responses (referring here to replies 147 and 151, though I did ask Greg what he wrote in a separate post. I did not reference his posts in my responses, but rather to reply 30 in the other thread). Except for that one post, I have said nothing about Greg's post. I did not see it, and so I cannot comment on it. I was only interested in it as possibly being relevant to my post. Here is the relevant excerpt from my original post:
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 10, 2020, 06:49:17 AM
3. This is not forum policy. I do not believe any member or group of members has the authority to unilaterally impose new policies that are not forum policies. So either this needs to be adopted as a forum wide policy or it needs to be dropped.
4. This is incredibly unclear and has no meaning. If a post violates forum policy, then some action needs to be taken. If it does not, you either need to get the forum policy changed (to incorporate the issue) or there is nothing you can do about it. Moderators cannot unilaterally decide to delete stuff (in my opinion) if it follows forum guidelines.
I am entirely focused on the links issue (and #4 on your list), and that was what my first post on the topic was about. Again, it is reply 30 in the other thread and perhaps you missed it? How ironic would that be?!
I'm not sure what you mean by clarified. If you mean it has been altered in some way from the original, that would be good news indeed.
As to the rest, well, I'm sorry you feel that way. The forum has policies that we are all expected to adhere to. From my point of view, you seem to be violating those policies, setting your own, and then giving yourself the right to delete posts that you deem 'questionable' (whatever that means) even if they do not violate forum policy. I strongly object to this. And by the way, you are wrong on one thing - one can abuse one's power with the best possible intent/interests at heart.
EDIT: Spamming was introduced only because it is the name of the forum policy section referenced.
Quote from: Que on June 15, 2020, 08:36:55 AM
Look, I said nothing about spamming. The deleted post had no link, but was inflammatory and was in no way a contribution to a genuine and meaningful discussion.
So, I really do not understand why you try to shift the whole thing on the links issue.
The links issue has already been discussed and clarified, and I don't see it causing any problems besides your "indignation".
There are no threats. As moderators we can intervene against your wishes, yes.
This has always been the case and is inherent to a moderated environment.
And if we look at the situation at this forum, I see no reason for you to get nervous about it and lash out at us in this way.
Accusations of violating forum guidelines and abuse of power presume malintent and are insulating and offensive. I don't see any show of respect in that. And then, adding insult to injury, you try to lie the blame for that lack of respect from you with us.
Q
You're missing the point to the joke in my post... guess I'll spell it out.
With all of the "identification" stuff going on like men identifying as women and being allowed to compete in women's events as a result, various people on the left who are white but claiming they are a different race, the existence of the US census which asks you which race you are, etc. how is a reparations system going to reconcile that with the identity phenomenon?
Seriously, can I just select "African American" on the next census and then get money from whoever selected "white?"
It was a direct response to the article. On topic, and actually something that could promote discussion. However, it is emotionally offputting to some because it reflects the absurdity of different things existing together.
As for abuse of power, it's more like if rules are subjective, then they aren't really rules but just permission to use power whenever wanted.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 15, 2020, 09:21:38 AM
As a moderator, you should be the one trying to de-escalate the situation. Instead, you are appear to be upping the ante, which in turn is putting you in violation of forum policy. You are accusing me of lying which is simply untrue.
[...]
I am entirely focused on the links issue (and #4 on your list), and that was what my first post on the topic was about. Again, it is reply 30 in the other thread and perhaps you missed it? How ironic would that be?!
I'm not sure what you mean by clarified. If you mean it has been altered in some way from the original, that would be good news indeed.
As to the rest, well, I'm sorry you feel that way. The forum has policies that we are all expected to adhere to. From my point of view, you seem to be violating those policies, setting your own, and then giving yourself the right to delete posts that you deem 'questionable' (whatever that means) even if they do not violate forum policy. I strongly object to this. And by the way, you are wrong on one thing - one can abuse one's power with the best possible intent/interests at heart.
EDIT: Spamming was introduced only because it is the name of the forum policy section referenced.
You keep insisting that we as moderators have overstepped our powers by - collectively - setting the specific rules for the US politics thread. I don't agree that we are violating forum guidelines or abusing our powers. I think it is a ridiculous and baseless accusation.
Accusing me of violating guidelines by accusing you of
lying (does anyone still follow?) is even more ridiculous.
For me the discussion ends there.
Q
Quote from: Que on June 15, 2020, 10:14:43 AM
You keep insisting that we as moderators have overstepped our powers by - collectively - setting the specific rules for the US politics thread. I don't agree that we are violating forum guidelines or abusing our powers. I think it is a ridiculous and baseless accusation.
Accusing me of violating guidelines by accusing you of lying (does anyone still follow?) is even more ridiculous.
For me the discussion ends there.
Q
It's a shame. It really is.
Looks like my viewpoint about having politics on a music forum is looking pretty well right at this juncture. :-\ Carry on arguing about nothing, gentlemen.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 15, 2020, 11:13:33 AM
Looks like my viewpoint about having politics on a music forum is looking pretty well right at this juncture. :-\ Carry on arguing about nothing, gentlemen.
Well said. Reading the above exchanges (not that I recommend it), would remove any reasonable person's doubt about "No".
FWIW, the other two music forums I visit both ban political discussions.
Quote from: T. D. on June 15, 2020, 12:15:16 PM
Well said. Reading the above exchanges (not that I recommend it), would remove any reasonable person's doubt about "No".
FWIW, the other two music forums I visit both ban political discussions.
I mean it just doesn't make any sense to have political discussions on a music forum. I mean if the forum was called 'Good Music And Politics Guide' then I'd have no reason for an argument, but it's not. There are many political forums out there. If one feels the nagging need to talk politics, then go to one of those forums.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 15, 2020, 12:45:02 PM
it just doesn't make any sense to have political discussions on a music forum.
Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Kabalevsky --- and my hero Rachmaninoff. 'Nuff said, John. :P >:D
Quote from: Florestan on June 15, 2020, 12:50:03 PM
Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Kabalevsky --- and my hero Rachmaninoff. 'Nuff said, John. :P >:D
:P Indeed, but these are composers whose lives have been shaped by their political environment or by sheer avoidance of it, but this doesn't mean launch into a tirade against Communism.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 15, 2020, 01:13:50 PM
:P Indeed, but these are composers whose lives have been shaped by their political environment or by sheer avoidance of it, but this doesn't mean launch into a tirade against Communism.
Communism is (happily) a thing of the past. Don't get me started on contemporary composers whose music is a tirade against Capitalism. :D
Rant over. For good.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 15, 2020, 12:45:02 PM
I mean it just doesn't make any sense to have political discussions on a music forum. I mean if the forum was called 'Good Music And Politics Guide' then I'd have no reason for an argument, but it's not. There are many political forums out there. If one feels the nagging need to talk politics, then go to one of those forums.
Nor is it called "Good Music And [that Diner thread you like that has nothing to do with music]"
Don't know if you've ever looked at an actual political forum, but they're all troll-farm trolls, bot spam, fourteen year olds pretending to be forty year olds and loudest-voice-wins party-as-sports-team fanatics. If you actually want to discuss politics you'd go anywhere except there.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 14, 2020, 05:03:03 PM
If that's the case, they are abusing their power and not following forum policies. I'd like to know if that is the case (that they actually deleted your post) and what it contained before I start a pretty serious string of posts...
This is how you started, wanting to know about the content of the post.
Since then you've switched to saying it's got nothing to do with the particular post and basically arguing with moderators that you're a better lawyer about forum policies than they are... possibly because the text on forum policy hasn't been updated to your liking?
The moderators simply aren't answerable to you in this way. They're not your elected representatives. The other stuff you're referring to is not a constitution that you can haul the moderators off for breaching.
The new US thread has a stipulated policy. That policy has arisen for specific reasons. Whether that policy is consistent with something else, which you've been arguing about quite nastily, is not only something that I'm not sure you're accurate about it's also not something that is NEARLY as relevant as you suppose unless you can somehow get the site owner to agree with you that it's relevant. In which case the site owner can just go ahead and modify the overall forum policy to negate your complaint.
You're acting as if the moderators are acting on some random whim outside their statutory powers. What statute????
Even in my crankiest moments against moderator behaviour (and yes I've been seriously cranky) it's been on the basis of what I've personally thought should be done. Not on the basis of invoking some idea that the moderators are restrained by a written document that I claim to interpret better than the moderators, and claim renders something ELSE the moderators have written about the specific situation to somehow be null and void.
In other words I'm generally against deletion. But I simply cannot see a way of being against deletion on a thread that SPECIFICALLY says deletion is actively contemplated. Those are the terms of engagement on that thread.
Quote from: Florestan on June 15, 2020, 01:15:38 PM
Communism is (happily) a thing of the past. Don't get me started on contemporary composers whose music is a tirade against Capitalism. :D
Rant over. For good.
;D
Quote from: SimonNZ on June 15, 2020, 01:54:37 PM
Nor is it called "Good Music And [that Diner thread you like that has nothing to do with music]"
Don't know if you've ever looked at an actual political forum, but they're all troll-farm trolls, bot spam, fourteen year olds pretending to be forty year olds and loudest-voice-wins party-as-sports-team fanatics. If you actually want to discuss politics you'd go anywhere except there.
It is quite true that I've participated in some non-musical topics in 'The Diner', but what's also true is none of these topics have wanted to make me leave the forum because of a disagreement I had on a political thread. It does seem that these guidelines are causing more and more members to either 1. be confused or 2. just downright unhappy and even more argumentative. The ongoing argument here between mc ukrneal and Que being a case in point.
Quote from: Madiel on June 15, 2020, 02:33:46 PM
This is how you started, wanting to know about the content of the post.
Since then you've switched to saying it's got nothing to do with the particular post and basically arguing with moderators that you're a better lawyer about forum policies than they are... possibly because the text on forum policy hasn't been updated to your liking?
The moderators simply aren't answerable to you in this way. They're not your elected representatives. The other stuff you're referring to is not a constitution that you can haul the moderators off for breaching.
The new US thread has a stipulated policy. That policy has arisen for specific reasons. Whether that policy is consistent with something else, which you've been arguing about quite nastily, is not only something that I'm not sure you're accurate about it's also not something that is NEARLY as relevant as you suppose unless you can somehow get the site owner to agree with you that it's relevant. In which case the site owner can just go ahead and modify the overall forum policy to negate your complaint.
You're acting as if the moderators are acting on some random whim outside their statutory powers. What statute????
Even in my crankiest moments against moderator behaviour (and yes I've been seriously cranky) it's been on the basis of what I've personally thought should be done. Not on the basis of invoking some idea that the moderators are restrained by a written document that I claim to interpret better than the moderators, and claim renders something ELSE the moderators have written about the specific situation to somehow be null and void.
In other words I'm generally against deletion. But I simply cannot see a way of being against deletion on a thread that SPECIFICALLY says deletion is actively contemplated. Those are the terms of engagement on that thread.
It might not matter to you, but at least one of my posts was deleted (the one where I responded to Karl immediately after responding to Gurn, so quite early in the discussion) where I specifically referenced my reply #30 from earlier in the other thread. Perhaps seeing that would have made it clearer I was always arguing as a follow up to that post, which if you were to read all the way through to now would be quite consistent in this regard. I still have no idea what Greg posted really, but he implied they had deleted a link, the very thing I am against. So for me, it was simply a starting off point. As you can see in my posts, I never referenced Greg's post again unless it was brought up by someone else.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 15, 2020, 05:15:35 PM
It might not matter to you, but at least one of my posts was deleted (the one where I responded to Karl immediately after responding to Gurn, so quite early in the discussion) where I specifically referenced my reply #30 from earlier in the other thread. Perhaps seeing that would have made it clearer I was always arguing as a follow up to that post, which if you were to read all the way through to now would be quite consistent in this regard. I still have no idea what Greg posted really, but he implied they had deleted a link, the very thing I am against. So for me, it was simply a starting off point. As you can see in my posts, I never referenced Greg's post again unless it was brought up by someone else.
Nevertheless, my main point is that your notion that there is some overarching "forum policy" that the specific, stated USA Politics thread policy has to comply with is misconceived.
The fact that there isn't a "forum policy" saying not to have loads of links in posts is irrelevant. There certainly isn't a forum policy actively ENCOURAGING lots of links either. Now, there is a specific policy just about USA Politics. And the sensible place to post that policy? Right where the moderators posted it.
You seem to believe that the only way the policy goal can be achieved is to go and amend the forum-wide policies. What would that policy say, though? It would say "here are the specific rules for USA politics (because we haven't felt the need to implement a similar policy on any other topic, given that other topics haven't faced the same problems)". There seems very little point in jumping up and down and demanding that the moderators achieve a FORM to your liking when the SUBSTANCE would end up being exactly the same.
You're also running the argument that moderators can't set policies. This appears to be an argument from silence rather than based on the Forum Guidelines explicitly saying that Moderators Can't Set Policies. In fact, ALL of your arguments seem to be based on the Forum Guidelines post being some kind of constitutional document about powers. It's not.
But if you want it to be amended to say specific things about US politics, I'm sure it can be. The question is why you think this would make any difference to how US politics discussion is now regulated.
Quote from: Madiel on June 15, 2020, 05:35:56 PM
Nevertheless, my main point is that your notion that there is some overarching "forum policy" that the specific, stated USA Politics thread policy has to comply with is misconceived.
The fact that there isn't a "forum policy" saying not to have loads of links in posts is irrelevant. There certainly isn't a forum policy actively ENCOURAGING lots of links either. Now, there is a specific policy just about USA Politics. And the sensible place to post that policy? Right where the moderators posted it.
You seem to believe that the only way the policy goal can be achieved is to go and amend the forum-wide policies. What would that policy say, though? It would say "here are the specific rules for USA politics (because we haven't felt the need to implement a similar policy on any other topic, given that other topics haven't faced the same problems)". There seems very little point in jumping up and down and demanding that the moderators achieve a FORM to your liking when the SUBSTANCE would end up being exactly the same.
You're also running the argument that moderators can't set policies. This appears to be an argument from silence rather than based on the Forum Guidelines explicitly saying that Moderators Can't Set Policies. In fact, ALL of your arguments seem to be based on the Forum Guidelines post being some kind of constitutional document about powers. It's not.
But if you want it to be amended to say specific things about US politics, I'm sure it can be. The question is why you think this would make any difference to how US politics discussion is now regulated.
I don't think it makes sense to have policies set in different areas. It makes things confusing. Right now, it would be one thread, but who's to say it wouldn't expand. I think it's much easier to have it all in one place. I also think it's inconsistent. A post in one thread is fine, but the same type of post in another is not? That doesn't make any sense to me. That's why I would delete the idea of deleting links without text completely.
I also think that giving the moderators the power to delete questionable posts based entirely on their whim without some sort of backing to what that might entail is problematic to say the least. It means their interpretation of everything is what is important, not the rules set out for all to follow. TO be clear, I am not accusing anybody of anything. But it does make these sorts of... questionable....actions all too easy.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 16, 2020, 03:53:36 AM
I don't think it makes sense to have policies set in different areas. It makes things confusing. Right now, it would be one thread, but who's to say it wouldn't expand. I think it's much easier to have it all in one place. I also think it's inconsistent. A post in one thread is fine, but the same type of post in another is not? That doesn't make any sense to me. That's why I would delete the idea of deleting links without text completely.
I also think that giving the moderators the power to delete questionable posts based entirely on their whim without some sort of backing to what that might entail is problematic to say the least. It means their interpretation of everything is what is important, not the rules set out for all to follow. TO be clear, I am not accusing anybody of anything. But it does make these sorts of... questionable....actions all too easy.
Or you could avoid any kind of post deletion by staying out of the political threads. Problem solved.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 16, 2020, 07:06:20 AM
Or you could avoid any kind of post deletion by staying out of the political threads. Problem solved.
True.
It's just natural to comment on stuff if it's nearby.
For example, there's a post there about how it would have been better if Stalin killed more people and the US were permanently destroyed. It's not even part of a joke. It hasn't been removed. Apparently my post was more questionable.
Quote from: greg on June 16, 2020, 07:17:13 AM
For example, there's a post there about how it would have been better if Stalin killed more people and the US were permanently destroyed. It's not even part of a joke. It hasn't been removed.
Let me guess: it's
amw, right? :D
The chick is crazy when it comes to politics.
Quote from: greg on June 16, 2020, 07:17:13 AM
True.
It's just natural to comment on stuff if it's nearby.
For example, there's a post there about how it would have been better if Stalin killed more people and the US were permanently destroyed. It's not even part of a joke. It hasn't been removed. Apparently my post was more questionable.
I never understood the mentality of "I'm on a music forum, but since I'm here, I should go over to the political thread and spread propaganda." If I can use an analogy, the political threads are like bright streetlights and people who flock to those threads day in/day out are like flies. But now that the mods have laid down some reasonable and well-founded guidelines, those streetlights have morphed into bug zappers. :D
Quote from: Florestan on June 16, 2020, 07:18:58 AM
Let me guess: it's amw, right? :D
The chick is crazy when it comes to politics.
Of course lol.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 16, 2020, 07:24:29 AM
I never understood the mentality of "I'm on a music forum, but since I'm here, I should go over to the political thread and spread propaganda." If I can use an analogy, the political threads are like bright streetlights and people who flock to those threads day in/day out are like flies. But now that the mods have laid down some reasonable and well-founded guidelines, those streetlights have morphed into bug zappers. :D
People heavily into politics are gonna want to talk about it. What goes in must come out. Using the same forum for both music and politics is just more convenient, I guess, then switching back and forth between multiple forums. The updated threads all appear together.
My motivations are just to talk about anything in a forum that I know is already comfortable to post in. But the "anything" turns into mostly just politics since I seem to be monologue-ing in the threads I'm actually interested in.
Fwiw, I find the fact that this forum allows political discussion a distinctive and enriching quality. Hearing political discussion in a setting that is already somewhat familiar, is slightly different than heading to a place specifically for that purpose, for some reason. I'd be sorry to see it go.
Just one more thought about the Stalin thing (sorry).
But a YouTuber I really like (bald and bankrupt) regularly visits Soviet ruins, and in one episode he visits the grave site of an entire family line that was murdered under the regime. It will make you want to cry. I don't know how anyone could look at that and continue to suggest more people should have been killed...
Quote from: greg on June 16, 2020, 07:43:55 AM
Just one more thought about the Stalin thing (sorry).
But a YouTuber I really like (bald and bankrupt) regularly visits Soviet ruins, and in one episode he visits the grave site of an entire family line that was murdered under the regime. It will make you want to cry. I don't know how anyone could look at that and continue to suggest more people should have been killed...
She's either being deliberately provocative or really a nutjob. Either way ignoring her is the best policy (pun).
Quote from: Iota on June 16, 2020, 07:35:23 AM
Fwiw, I find the fact that this forum allows political discussion a distinctive and enriching quality. Hearing political discussion in a setting that is already somewhat familiar, is slightly different than heading to a place specifically for that purpose, for some reason. I'd be sorry to see it go.
Great, so head over the Trump thread and get insulted. Start your day with that!
Quote from: greg on June 16, 2020, 07:34:34 AM
My motivations are just to talk about anything in a forum that I know is already comfortable to post in. But the "anything" turns into mostly just politics since I seem to be monologue-ing in the threads I'm actually interested in.
Oh all right. I am not going to give personal info to a load of dodgy "quiz" sites but have added to the dreams thread.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 16, 2020, 07:50:11 AM
Great, so head over the Trump thread and get insulted. Start your day with that!
I've managed perfectly well so far, without ever going on that thread.
Ban politics already, or at least exclude the relevant threads from the "show unread posts" query.
Quote from: steve ridgway on June 16, 2020, 07:53:23 AM
Oh all right. I am not going to give personal info to a load of dodgy "quiz" sites but have added to the dreams thread.
Appreciated. :)
Quote from: Wanderer on June 16, 2020, 09:46:59 AM
Ban politics already, or at least exclude the relevant threads from the "show unread posts" query.
There is exactly 1 thread on USA Politics. It is called 'USA Politics'. If you can't avoid 1 thread, well, there isn't a whole lot I can do from here. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 16, 2020, 10:06:54 AM
There is exactly 1 thread on USA Politics. It is called 'USA Politics'. If you can't avoid 1 thread, well, there isn't a whole lot I can do from here. :)
8)
There's actually several US political threads: the coronavirus one is essentially a US political thread in disguise of something it's not, next is the Brexit thread and then there's a Boris Johnson thread, which both of these threads have US politics wrapped around them for better or for worse (for the worse I say). But my point is it's not a question of avoidance, it's a question of whether they belong on a music forum. There's absolutely nothing wrong with creating a thread on headphones or the weather. This is harmless stuff, but when it comes to politics and religion, but mainly politics this forum has proven that it cannot respectfully disagree, but, instead, turns into an ad hom blood bath in which the only victims are the ones that are doing the insulting and not the other way around. I'm glad that there have been steps taken to prevent people from bashing each other on the political threads, but even with these measures taken, it has proven that, again, people aren't happy here and, in fact, it has caused more of a ruckus than when there were no guidelines implemented. The end result is the same: people are unhappy and they're leaving. Hell, I've been splitting some of my time on Talk Classical and have generally enjoyed the environment.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 16, 2020, 10:26:24 AM
There's actually several US political threads: the coronavirus one is essentially a US political thread in disguise of something it's not, next is the Brexit thread and then there's a Boris Johnson thread, which both of these threads have US politics wrapped around them for better or for worse (for the worse I say). But my point is it's not a question of avoidance, it's a question of whether they belong on a music forum. There's absolutely nothing wrong with creating a thread on headphones or the weather. This is harmless stuff, but when it comes to politics and religion, but mainly politics this forum has proven that it cannot respectfully disagree, but, instead, turns into an ad hom blood bath in which the only victims are the ones that are doing the insulting and not the other way around. I'm glad that there have been steps taken to prevent people from bashing each other on the political threads, but even with these measures taken, it has proven that, again, people aren't happy here and, in fact, it has caused more of a ruckus than when there were no guidelines implemented. The end result is the same: people are unhappy and they're leaving. Hell, I've been splitting some of my time on Talk Classical and have generally enjoyed the environment.
There is discussion of governmental strategies and discussions regarding many other countries in the corona thread. It's obvious that you can't discuss or deal with the virus without debating governmental and administrative issues.
The Boris Johnson thread is marginally relating to Trump at times, but it's certainly not about US politics.
I don't recall dealing with the US or #45 in those threads. I gave up a long time ago, due to the obvious cultural differences that just keep emerging again and again. One post of mine, I think in a US thread, was a quote of a #45 remark that was, er, a bit strange and had some ~entertainment value.
Quote from: MusicTurner on June 16, 2020, 11:30:37 AM
There is discussion of governmental strategies and discussions regarding many other countries in the corona thread. It's obvious that you can't discuss or deal with the virus without debating governmental and administrative issues.
The Boris Johnson thread is marginally relating to Trump at times, but it's certainly not about US politics.
I don't recall dealing with the US or #45 in those threads. I gave up a long time ago, due to the obvious cultural differences that just keep emerging again and again. One post of mine, I think in a US thread, was a quote of a #45 remark that was, er, a bit strange and had some ~entertainment value.
But my point is that this forum's political threads have been US-centric and it is US political threads that get the most foot traffic on this site and, before the guidelines fell into place, the Trump thread was one of the most heavily discussed non-musical threads that I've seen since my joining this site in 2010.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 16, 2020, 03:53:36 AM
I don't think it makes sense to have policies set in different areas. It makes things confusing. Right now, it would be one thread, but who's to say it wouldn't expand. I think it's much easier to have it all in one place. I also think it's inconsistent. A post in one thread is fine, but the same type of post in another is not? That doesn't make any sense to me. That's why I would delete the idea of deleting links without text completely.
I also think that giving the moderators the power to delete questionable posts based entirely on their whim without some sort of backing to what that might entail is problematic to say the least. It means their interpretation of everything is what is important, not the rules set out for all to follow. TO be clear, I am not accusing anybody of anything. But it does make these sorts of... questionable....actions all too easy.
There were already different policies in different areas. The guidelines you're fond of quoting make quite clear that The Diner is a distinct area. So that's frankly a pretty poor argument.
As to your notion of this all being on the basis of whims, I started this by pointing out that every system requires SOMEONE to be making the decisions and the idea that there would be no discretion involved is a fantasy. Interpretation is going to be involved no matter what. Otherwise we wouldn't need moderators. We could just have software that deleted things it was programmed not to like. And our political addicts would spend all their damn time trying to outwit that.
Quote from: Madiel on June 16, 2020, 02:04:46 PM
There were already different policies in different areas. The guidelines you're fond of quoting make quite clear that The Diner is a distinct area. So that's frankly a pretty poor argument.
As to your notion of this all being on the basis of whims, I started this by pointing out that every system requires SOMEONE to be making the decisions and the idea that there would be no discretion involved is a fantasy. Interpretation is going to be involved no matter what. Otherwise we wouldn't need moderators. We could just have software that deleted things it was programmed not to like. And our political addicts would spend all their damn time trying to outwit that.
Any system that is transparent, consistent and fair is a welcome one, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 16, 2020, 05:02:23 PM
Any system that is transparent, consistent and fair is a welcome one, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.
If your concern is consistency... here is probably not the place for an entire philosophical discussion about the problems with people trying to get cases treated the same way when no 2 cases are ever going to be the same, but I still don't know whether your notion of "consistency" involves the USA Politics thread being treated the same as every thread (in which case, no, because behaviour around USA Politics as a topic is not the same as every other topic), or whether we're talking about all posts on the USA Politics thread being treated consistently (in which case, I'm sure the moderators are trying to make consistent decisions in line with the policy stated at the beginning of the USA Politics thread).
As for transparency, the policy itself IS transparent. It's been publicly posted. I personally think there is more room for moderators to explain in individual cases what they're doing rather than having posts just disappear, but the moderators don't agree, and I do wonder whether all that would happen is lots of combative responses as to why the decision is wrong anyway. Not sure what else can be done about that, beyond the kind of discussions that happen here in GMG News. I certainly wouldn't want those discussions to completely clog up the threads where the action is, so I'd say it's better they occur here... but I don't think there is a way of forcing the moderators to discuss the reasoning behind individual decisions.
They've made clear that the tolerance levels on the USA Politics thread are different from elsewhere (just as those Guidelines make clear the tolerance in The Diner for certain things is different from the rest of the forum). At some point posters need to take that into account when posting, just as anyone in any situation needs to take account of when the rules change. That's what rule changes are MEANT to do.
Transparency- the policy is transparent, but i think mc meant "reasons given" why posts are deleted. That type of transparency.
Consistency- no one expects 100% consistency. But instead, consistent within reason. Have the mods deleted the post advocating that Stalin should have killed more and the US should have been destroyed yet? Apparently that isn't "questionable" enough? Or are they just taking their time? If that post is okay, then that's extreme inconsistency.
Fair- pretty much falls under transparent + consistent IMO.
Quote from: greg on June 16, 2020, 06:20:44 PM
Transparency- the policy is transparent, but i think mc meant "reasons given" why posts are deleted. That type of transparency.
Consistency- no one expects 100% consistency. But instead, consistent within reason. Have the mods deleted the post advocating that Stalin should have killed more and the US should have been destroyed yet? Apparently that isn't "questionable" enough? Or are they just taking their time? If that post is okay, then that's extreme inconsistency.
Fair- pretty much falls under transparent + consistent IMO.
Not sure why that post bothers you so much, greg. While I (and obviously you) don't agree with the opinion expressed, there is certainly no reason why the poster isn't allowed to believe that way, trust me, she isn't the only person in the world who does! We are not in the business of forcing people to believe a certain line of thought, we are simply trying to get them to express their beliefs in a civil manner and to actually listen to what others say in reply.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 16, 2020, 06:44:09 PM
Not sure why that post bothers you so much, greg. While I (and obviously you) don't agree with the opinion expressed, there is certainly no reason why the poster isn't allowed to believe that way, trust me, she isn't the only person in the world who does! We are not in the business of forcing people to believe a certain line of thought, we are simply trying to get them to express their beliefs in a civil manner and to actually listen to what others say in reply.
8)
I don't care about the difference in opinion. I wouldn't delete a post like that if I were a mod, either, despite it being extremely disrespectful.
But apparently that isn't "questionable" enough, yet my post was? Did I just enter an alternate dimension? Is it okay if I say Hitler should have killed more people?
Quote from: Florestan on June 16, 2020, 07:47:09 AM
She's either being deliberately provocative or really a nutjob.
The latter.
To be honest, I do think there's plenty to debate about Stalin, the Soviet Union, etc (& me and my friends get into some very heated ones at times) but there's no point doing so if the other person is coming from a viewpoint of believing everything they hear from the US government & media. So I don't really bother, and just present my views in a somewhat unnecessarily provocative way—though not, I think, more provocative than people who minimise the deaths of black people in police custody in the US, or people who support the mass detention of immigrants by ICE and CBP, or people who think letting others die of coronavirus is an acceptable price to pay for economic growth, etc, to say nothing of the people who think European colonisation of the Americas was good or whatever. Sometimes the only way people can understand that these things are wrong is to be confronted with a viewpoint that supports redirecting the violence from the "other" (i.e. immigrants, black people, native americans, people with health problems etc) to "people like them" (i.e. landlords, bourgeois intellectuals, police officers, people whose family owned a castle etc).
But that's the reason political discussions always become heated and result in insults and such being thrown around—these are real issues of life and death. (Well, life and death for most of us. Those of you for whom politics only affects the value of your bank accounts can afford to treat them as a game.) I deal with it personally by just being extremely cynical and only rarely if ever posting in the threads in question. I can turn this down to "never" if the mods prefer.
Quote from: amw on June 16, 2020, 07:12:20 PM
But that's the reason political discussions always become heated and result in insults and such being thrown around—these are real issues of life and death.
Succinctly expressed.
I don't think that's why they become heated. I think they become heated because these days a lot of people have tribal affiliations and identities in politics, in a way that they do for sports teams but no longer do for Team Brahms and Team Liszt/Wagner.
A lot of political discussion is no longer actually about issues, about policy. It's about whether Your Team is currently scoring points. There have been studies showing how you can get a very different response to the very same policy statement depending on whether you identify it as having come from a Republican or a Democrat.
Quote from: Madiel on June 16, 2020, 08:28:33 PM
I don't think that's why they become heated. I think they become heated because these days a lot of people have tribal affiliations and identities in politics, in a way that they do for sports teams but no longer do for Team Brahms and Team Liszt/Wagner.
A lot of political discussion is no longer actually about issues, about policy. It's about whether Your Team is currently scoring points. There have been studies showing how you can get a very different response to the very same policy statement depending on whether you identify it as having come from a Republican or a Democrat.
Yes. Tribalism (aka regression).
Tough enough for anyone to get into any political discussion without quickly being labeled with so many assumptions. Best to not affiliate too heavily with anything. But people have this strong need to group up. I'm weird, though, if I happen to agree with someone that's fine, but I go it alone. People get lonely easily, just not a relatable thing to me.
Quote from: greg on June 16, 2020, 09:22:01 PM
Yes. Tribalism (aka regression).
Tough enough for anyone to get into any political discussion without quickly being labeled with so many assumptions. Best to not affiliate too heavily with anything. But people have this strong need to group up. I'm weird, though, if I happen to agree with someone that's fine, but I go it alone. People get lonely easily, just not a relatable thing to me.
Fortunately the members here don't get as tribal over music as say a rock music forum 0:).
Quote from: greg on June 16, 2020, 06:58:13 PM
I don't care about the difference in opinion. I wouldn't delete a post like that if I were a mod, either, despite it being extremely disrespectful.
But apparently that isn't "questionable" enough, yet my post was? Did I just enter an alternate dimension? Is it okay if I say Hitler should have killed more people?
You just did. ::)
And as I told you earlier, I never saw your post, but I support the integrity of the moderator who deleted it.
8)
Quote from: amw on June 16, 2020, 07:12:20 PM
....I deal with it personally by just being extremely cynical and only rarely if ever posting in the threads in question. I can turn this down to "never" if the mods prefer.
We are more concerned with your means of expression than the content of your beliefs. It is our considered opinion that people aren't assholes because of what they believe, but because of how they impose it on other people. Unless, of course, they believe that treating everyone else like a moronic enemy can be parlayed into a lifestyle. :-\
8)
Quote from: greg on June 16, 2020, 06:58:13 PM
I don't care about the difference in opinion. I wouldn't delete a post like that if I were a mod, either, despite it being extremely disrespectful.
But apparently that isn't "questionable" enough, yet my post was? Did I just enter an alternate dimension? Is it okay if I say Hitler should have killed more people?
My... Are still going on about this? It must have really hit a raw nerve.
If you are that sensitive, perhaps you should apply some of that sensitivity to your posts.
Here is some interesting advice, from the Bible, of all places...
First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.Here is another advice: stop pointing at others to justify your own actions.
Q
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 17, 2020, 07:57:28 AM
You just did. ::)
And as I told you earlier, I never saw your post, but I support the integrity of the moderator who deleted it.
8)
Just did what?
Do you mean calling for deletion of a post? Because I never would have called for that if my post weren't deleted for being "questionable."
Quote from: Que on June 17, 2020, 08:21:09 AM
My... Are still going on about this? It must have really hit a raw nerve.
If you are that sensitive, perhaps you should apply some of that sensitivity to your posts.
Here is some interesting advice, from the Bible, of all places...
First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.
Here is another advice: stop pointing at others to justify your own actions.
Q
You are the one blame shifting. You started all of it by giving no clear rules and an entitlement to do whatever you want, so no one has any idea what is going to hurt the mods' feelings or not.
I'm pointing at amw's post as an example that any reasonable person would find it more questionable than my post. It's not to 'justify my own actions,' that has no meaning to me and is just pure gaslighting.
Me calling you out for lack of consistency isn't even going to be acknowledged by you.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 17, 2020, 09:14:51 AM
You just did.
8)
Oh, are we playing baby games? :)
So it's okay to post it on the US politics thread without it getting deleted? And how am I to know what is 'questionable' is so... abnormal?
But even if it doesn't get deleted, how am I to know it's because of me talking about it, so mods don't delete as a matter of "proving" they are consistent?
Obviously that statement is something I strongly don't believe.
GMG members arguing with GMG moderators about their decision to impose a guideline on the US politics thread? How did I not see this coming? Oh wait, I did. ::)
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 17, 2020, 10:28:25 AM
GMG members arguing with GMG moderators about their decision to impose a guideline on the US politics thread? How did I not see this coming? Oh wait, I did. ::)
You're right.
When people rule by emotion chaos ensues. Other people's emotions are unpredictable and hard to guess. So it becomes pointless to even do anything.
Rule by solid rules and logic and there is much less room for debate. Things become more consistent. If someone does wrong, they know it beforehand so if they are punished they will know why.
Quote from: greg on June 17, 2020, 09:21:24 AM
Oh, are we playing baby games? :)
So it's okay to post it on the US politics thread without it getting deleted? And how am I to know what is 'questionable' is so... abnormal?
But even if it doesn't get deleted, how am I to know it's because of me talking about it, so mods don't delete as a matter of "proving" they are consistent?
Obviously that statement is something I strongly don't believe.
Someone here clearly is. You asked a question, you got an answer. You've taken the tiny molehill and are attempting to build a mountain out of it. I'm pleased that you don't believe in that. Neither do I, which is why I didn't introduce it into the conversation...
8)
[Opens thread.]
[Reads most recent posts.]
[Realizes his initial decision to skip this thread was a very good decision.]
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 17, 2020, 12:21:12 PM
Someone here clearly is. You asked a question, you got an answer. You've taken the tiny molehill and are attempting to build a mountain out of it. I'm pleased that you don't believe in that. Neither do I, which is why I didn't introduce it into the conversation...
8)
I would hope that wasn't even suspected by me saying that.
If people are not seeing what I'm doing (making examples, using comparisons to make a point), then I just give up on communication. Apparently people just don't have the slightest clue on how to read between the lines? Idk...
If anyone still doesn't understand, I primarily advocate for light moderation, only taking action in more extreme cases. If it is impossible, then banning politics is the next best option. The worst out of the three is allowing discussion but silencing anything at whim. Even worse is silencing at whim less controversial posts, but allowing more controversial posts. If you view it as a timeline, that's exactly how this has played out.
No one has to do anything. But I just wanted to communicate that message.
Greg, what you're doing is insisting the decision to delete your post MUST have been wrong.
Because you made some kind of joke that you perceive as harmless.
Someone else didn't perceive it as harmless. Okay? The moderators are not obliged to agree with your own ranking of what's controversial and what's not. It's not objective.
Quote from: Madiel on June 17, 2020, 02:47:20 PM
Greg, what you're doing is insisting the decision to delete your post MUST have been wrong.
Because you made some kind of joke that you perceive as harmless.
Someone else didn't perceive it as harmless. Okay? The moderators are not obliged to agree with your own ranking of what's controversial and what's not. It's not objective.
I just said they don't have to do anything.
But how am I supposed to know what I'm allowed to say if that is considered harmful, yet "Stalin didn't kill enough people" is okay?
They can make decisions by purely subjective emotion, but I just want to make clear that that never ends well. That's purely "Might is Right" thinking.
Quote from: greg on June 17, 2020, 02:53:46 PM
I just said they don't have to do anything.
But how am I supposed to know what I'm allowed to say if that is considered harmful, yet "Stalin didn't kill enough people" is okay?
They can make decisions by purely subjective emotion, but I just want to make clear that that never ends well. That's purely "Might is Right" thinking.
It's not purely subjective. Guidelines were posted. Stop acting like you're not smart enough to learn the boundaries, and take some responsibility for LEARNING instead of acting like the first time you stuffed up negated the entire system.
Quote from: greg on June 14, 2020, 08:52:31 AM
Was my post deleted without explanation or is it just my imagination?
I don't care how it was perceived, technically it was still on topic. There was a point to it, if someone can't see the point then that's completely their fault for lack of understanding. ::)
The fact that you had to resort to claiming you were 'technically' on topic as your starting point tells me a lot.
And the guidelines are not simply about being 'on topic'.
Quote from: Madiel on June 17, 2020, 02:57:13 PM
It's not purely subjective. Guidelines were posted. Stop acting like you're not smart enough to learn the boundaries, and take some responsibility for LEARNING instead of acting like the first time you stuffed up negated the entire system.
Acting? I'm 100% real. What are the boundaries? How in the world is promoting genocide further from the boundaries than joking about identifying as another race?
Quote from: Madiel on June 17, 2020, 03:02:07 PM
The fact that you had to resort to claiming you were 'technically' on topic as your starting point tells me a lot.
And the guidelines are not simply about being 'on topic'.
That's just me trying to figure out the actual reason why my post was deleted. Obviously no one can give a concrete reason why it was deleted other than it being "questionable," a purely subjective term.
The fact that you don't understand how a joke about race can be questioned as being in poor taste is not doing you any favours. Maybe in your part of the world jokes about race are generally accepted. These days, they are not acceptable to a lot of people. Guess one of the moderators must be one such person.
Quote from: Madiel on June 17, 2020, 03:08:31 PM
The fact that you don't understand how a joke about race can be questioned as being in poor taste is not doing you any favours. Maybe in your part of the world jokes about race are generally accepted. These days, they are not acceptable to a lot of people. Guess one of the moderators must be one such person.
Maybe it should be made explicitly clear then? Because if it isn't, it's very confusing. In other places it may be slightly edgy, but acceptable, and I have no idea what the mods' political/moral feelings are.
Though it's very questionable about a moderator's sense of morality if that's worse than seriously supporting genocide. Just saying.
(And in case anyone doesn't get the point of that post, it's a joke on being able to
identify as something that one isn't, and getting the government to assist in that. Not even in the same league as an actual racist joke, for example- not trying to belittle races or anything like that, just trying point out the absurdity of two conflicting ideas).
There is so much else in the wide world in which to find amusement.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 17, 2020, 03:15:08 PM
There is so much else in the wide world in which to find amusement.
True.
Being stuck at home working doesn't help the desire to post here, but obviously it's a waste of time. A better distraction could be nice.
Quote from: greg on June 17, 2020, 03:14:33 PM
Maybe it should be made explicitly clear then? Because if it isn't, it's very confusing. In other places it may be slightly edgy, but acceptable, and I have no idea what the mods' political/moral feelings are.
Though it's very questionable about a moderator's sense of morality if that's worse than seriously supporting genocide. Just saying.
(And in case anyone doesn't get the point of that post, it's a joke on being able to identify as something that one isn't, and getting the government to assist in that. Not even in the same league as an actual racist joke, for example- not trying to belittle races or anything like that, just trying point out the absurdity of two conflicting ideas).
So you decided to be 'slightly edgy' in a place where questionable posts would be deleted. And you find that confusing?
You can figure it out Sherlock.
And stop comparing other posts to yours. I'm trying to get you to compare your post to the guidelines. Focus on your own posting behaviour.
Quote from: Madiel on June 17, 2020, 04:24:43 PM
So you decided to be 'slightly edgy' in a place where questionable posts would be deleted. And you find that confusing?
You can figure it out Sherlock.
And stop comparing other posts to yours. I'm trying to get you to compare your post to the guidelines. Focus on your own posting behaviour.
I just didn't know how low the bar would be set.
I still don't understand how low the bar is set if that post is allowed but mine isn't. So I guess it is set very low for me but not for some others. Oh well.
Quote from: greg on June 17, 2020, 04:36:05 PM
I just didn't know how low the bar would be set.
I still don't understand how low the bar is set if that post is allowed but mine isn't. So I guess it is set very low for me but not for some others. Oh well.
Or I guess it could be that making light of the long history of discrimination against blacks at this particular point in time, as protests happen all over the world, is more of a sensitive issue at the moment than you think it is??
Honestly. Have you actually paid ANY attention to what's going on in your country right now? And not just your country. There are protests in Europe and Australia as well, at least.
Without having seen the actual text of your post I don't know exactly what I'd think of it. But I suspect that trivialising reparations would have at least generated a physical eye-roll, I probably wouldn't have bothered with an emoji one.
And I certainly wouldn't have thought that suggesting white people claim to be black in order to get money was adding anything meaningful to the discussion. In fact you seem to be acknowledging that you weren't even TRYING to add something meaningful to the discussion. And yet you still don't see a possible reason why your post was removed.
Quote from: Madiel on June 17, 2020, 05:37:38 PM
Or I guess it could be that making light of the long history of discrimination against blacks at this particular point in time, as protests happen all over the world, is more of a sensitive issue at the moment than you think it is??
Nowhere am I making light of discrimination. If the mods think that, then that's their misinterpretation.
I already said what I mean by it.
Quote from: Madiel on June 17, 2020, 05:37:38 PM
Honestly. Have you actually paid ANY attention to what's going on in your country right now? And not just your country. There are protests in Europe and Australia as well, at least.
So I guess current events changes the validity and meaning of my point? Nope. I'm only concerned with timeless truths and logic. Not temporary collective feelings of the world.
Quote from: Madiel on June 17, 2020, 05:37:38 PM
Without having seen the actual text of your post I don't know exactly what I'd think of it. But I suspect that trivialising reparations would have at least generated a physical eye-roll, I probably wouldn't have bothered with an emoji one.
Reparations is an abomination, definitely worth ridicule. It's extremely racist towards both white and black people.
I'm not going to debate the politics of reparations with you here. (1) It's inappropriate to do it here. (2) I'm not seeking to change your view (no matter how misconceived I think it is). (3) I doubt I could change it anyway.
I'm just trying to deliver you insight as to why someone else might have seen your post in a quite different light.
I think I've said all I have to say on the topic.
Quote from: Madiel on June 17, 2020, 06:09:05 PM
I'm just trying to deliver you insight as to why someone else might have seen your post in a quite different light.
Much appreciated.
Madiel, you haven't read
greg's post (neither have I) but I suspect you haven't read
amw's either. Here it is:
Quote from: amw on June 15, 2020, 06:33:35 PM
These days I think most of us think the purges by Stalin and Mao didn't go far enough. If Khrushchev had been sent to Lubyanka or Deng Xiaoping had met the appropriate fate in the Cultural Revolution, etc, maybe we'd have a different (and better) world, one in which the permanent destruction of the United States of America would be within reach.
Greg is right. If this post (which is not even a bad taste joke, it's serious --- and actually not the first one along these lines from this poster) is not questionable, then nothing is because the word itself is meaningless.
(For the sake of truth and reason, I had to say it. Sorry for the interruption, guys, carry on.)
I don't know how much clearer I can be that I'm not interested in the comparison game. There are so many different factors about topic, tone and context that it's essentially valueless.
Plus I'm not a moderator so who the fuck cares what my opinion would be.
Quote from: Madiel on June 17, 2020, 11:56:42 PM
I don't know how much clearer I can be that I'm not interested in the comparison game. There are so many different factors about topic, tone and context that it's essentially valueless.
Plus I'm not a moderator so who the fuck cares what my opinion would be.
Yours not being a moderator did not hinder you from expressing at length your opinions on greg's post, which you haven't even read. Just saying. Over and out for good.
Quote from: Florestan on June 18, 2020, 12:00:19 AM
Yours not being a moderator did not hinder you from expressing at length your opinions on greg's post, which you haven't even read. Just saying. Over and out for good.
Oh FFS. Learn to read. What I am NOT interested is employing the reasoning that if Post X is deleted, Post Y must also be deleted because Post Y is 'worse' than Post X. Not least because I was taught in law school that that kind of reasoning rather than taking each case on its own merits tends to lead to bad errors. Half of the exam questions we got were deliberately designed to catch out students trying to do that kind of comparison and lead them astray.
I'm not going to enter an opinion on amw's post because amw isn't in here arguing endlessly about whether the rules are unfair. And because whether or not amw's post should be deleted
is completely irrelevant to the deletion of greg's post. Greg's post is assessed against the guidelines, NOT AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE'S POST.
Quote from: Madiel on June 18, 2020, 12:03:09 AM
I'm not going to enter an opinion on amw's post because amw isn't in here arguing endlessly about whether the rules are unfair. And because whether or not amw's post should be deleted is completely irrelevant to the deletion of greg's post. Greg's post is assessed against the guidelines, NOT AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE'S POST.
You make me break my word but I can't help it.
Here is the relevant guideline:
QuoteAny questionable posts will be deleted
The very first word is
any, meaning that all posts are subjected to this scrutiny. Now,
greg's post was deleted which means it was analyzed and found questionable;
amw's post was not deleted which means it is was analyzed and found not questionable. It's as simple as that.
For anyone that is directly affected by a moderating intervention and has a question about it or issue with it, I repeat our request to take it up with us by sending us a private message. This is the general rule, interventions on the USA politcs thread are however the exception. You might be surprised how reasonable we are. And if you are not directly affected, the issue is frankly none of your concern.
It's dissapointing that most opt for the unfortunate path of public drama instead.
This is confusing for the other members that do not have a full picture of what happened. And they are encouraged to second guess the moderators, which serves no purpose other than fueling tensions and bruising relations. Such debates mainly attract those who have a general or personal issue with moderating. The silent majority of those who have no issue, will wisely stay out of it.
I understand: if you are angry with the moderators, you are not interested in a dialogue but you want to put them on the spot. But the rest of the forum is not a jury that will be able to pass an informed and independent judgment in your case against the moderators, nor has it the power to do so. And as moderators we are not at liberty to fully speak our minds or disclose all relevant information, in the interest of the forum and of those involved.
Meanwhile.... proceedings on the new USA Politics thread are running surprisingly smoothly and discussions are conducted in a calm and orderly fashion.
I concur with the notion that those who object to a more intensive form of moderating, should simply stay out of that thread.
Finally: moderating is not an exact science, and there is a lot of "grey area" we have to deal with, but we try to be as fair and as consistent as possible. But as has been said before: no two cases are exactly the same.
Q