I don't speak up much in here. I have only posted a couple of times, but other than that I generally just lurk and read. One of the things that I really learned a lot from was the political forum, which isn't what drew me in here, but was a pleasant surprise to find in a fitness forum. I used to consider myself pretty well-informed, but there was so much that I was unaware of that I found myself reading in politics pretty regularly to keep up. It was quite a revelation for me. I was upset when things started to get personal, because it seemed like a good place to have converstation. Nevertheless, I vote to bring it back, and not make it private (so I can read it too). If people get ugly, just delete the offending post or get rid of the people causing problems. It isn't really fair to make something like that available and then take it away. If you don't bring it back I will still keep lurking though. Sorry to bring this up again. I know it is a taboo topic right now.
I hear ya Lenny.
I will say this: It was getting ugly, and things needed to change.
The real dialog needs to be about: How can we make it work?
At the same time, it could be argued that a political forum has no real place on a fitness and nutrition message board.
However, it was nice - for a while.
The only way I think it could work would be through strict moderation - every post would need to be approved. I don't think this is really feasible, though.
I hear you. Hm. It does give me a couple of ideas. I could heavily moderate it, as Vin suggests, by having all the posts go into a queue, and then only allowing them to go up after they have been read and approved by moderators (kinda like T-rag). This is not a step I will make swiftly... I need to digest this idea for a while.
It would probably take a lot more time to follow threads, but that may not be a bad thing. It may force the posters to think out their replies more carefully. Mind you, I am not sold on the idea yet. I would much prefer to have the live format we had, rather than putting on a filter like that.
Is it possible to have a protocol with which any posts containing personal attacks or insults are deleted with a warning? 1 warning then a ban perhaps.
Questioning a source should be allowed, and necessary. The trick I guess is for each poster to try and remain objective (yeah right huh?).
TS dismissing a source as liberal is fine. It is what it is. But mistaking that for a personal attack and responding with insults puts us on the merry-go-round again.
While political stances may stem from deeply held beliefs & outlooks on life, I still believe it is possible to have civil debate.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
Originally posted by kuri: While political stances may stem from deeply held beliefs & outlooks on life, I still believe it is possible to have civil debate.
I used to believe that too Kuri, but unfortunately I have become a bit jaded and cynicle, and I no longer believe this is possible. You are unfortunately a rare bird!
One comment: what has gone on here recently is, in microcosm, what has gone on in the larger political sphere. It's not pleasant in either case. And it's destructive.
Another comment is that perhaps the more irenic or peace-loving kinds of people, like Vin, might work out rules that the more combative among us, like me, would have to follow.
If so, I'd suggest for his consideration:
Posts between 100 and 150 words. No fewer, no more.
No emoticons.
Only one or maybe two posts per person per day.
These are just suggestions. But there's one more. I wouldn't like it, but:
Prohibit anyone who has contributed more than 15 posts, of any length, to the now defunct politics board or to political topics on its predecessor off topic board, from contributing until March 30.
Some of us have already had our say.
__________________
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument." William Gibbs McAdoo. US Vice-President under Woodrow Wilson.
Some other things to think about:
If JP does reinstate a polital forum, what would be its so-called 'mission'? Or, what would be the purpose of it? With two posts per day, clearly it would not be any kind of dialoging.
I like your ideas - I had similar ones myself (sans *me* moderating ). Minimum words per post (and maximum is a good idea as well), limit to how many posts per day. Or perhaps posts per topic? Maybe preset topics of the day/week? Two ON TOPIC posts per thread per day? Just ideas.
Frankly, most probably too complex for JP and/or the moderator to realistically implement.
And - correct me if I'm wrong - did you just call yourself combative, Gardener?
I can't believe it's come to this!
PS - Can I tell my more liberal-minded friends you called me peace-loving?
I miss it too. Being just an observer of the American machine I though it was informative. Being a public servant I find that for the most part public debate is dead and this forum gave me hope that people still care to air their though and perhaps broaden their mind. Tolerance doesn't mean you agree, it means you respect and allow people to offer their point of view.
So please bring it back...make the boys behave.
My rule of thumb: If it doesn't pay the mortgage then its just a game.
BTW: it just got above -20c woohoo...time to have a bubbly on the patio
__________________
Take care of your lawn
and
the grass will be greener on your side of the fence
As long as we're comprising a list heres a few more suggestions:
1. no copying text of complete articles. Links are OK, as is paraphrasing. I'm copied articles perhaps more than anyone, but for various reasons it may be better to have the main body of each post to consist of one's own writing.
2. no emoticons - good idea.
3. Don't have anything to add? Then don't post. I'm sure theres many people who don't care to discuss politics and thus don't post - its that simple. A ground rule of respecting another's right to express their view is basic.
If someone can't refrain from posting only snide remarks then their posts should be deleted.
Maybe your right JP in that civil debate is not always possible. The prevalence of divergent opinions is obviously stong and the political climate turbulent - but thats WHY I believe its important to flesh out thoughts and arguments with others in a community.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
A lot of good ideas and suggestions. Thanks guys. I still need some more time to think about how to do this, or even if I am going to do this.
Right on, Jean-Paul. Take time to think about "how" and certainly "if."
Vin, yes. I did say "combative." No one can have recently retired from almost 40 years in the cockpit of higher education without getting involved in a lot of battles--some important (curriculum), some that turned out to be purely symbolic and inconsequential. I have been involved in some heated battles, albeit, in educational settings conducted with polite demeanor. You soon learn to speak your mind, and mental habits carry over.
In political discussions in these intensely partisan and polarized times, there is very little chance that a political discussion will change anybody's mind or affiliation. People can and do change their minds, but it's seldom because someone else tells them something.
In case there is no revival of the board, I do have something to suggest to Vin, Greg, Tin Man, and any other people who have been interested bystanders. My main interest lies in the unelected influences on governmental processes, policies, and decisions over the past several decades and certainly today. By "unelected" I 'm not referring to decrepancies between popular vote and electoral college vote as regards the Oval Office.
I mean, in part, what Dwight Eisenhower warned us against when he left the presidency, namely the "military-industrial complex." There are at present 25,000 lobbyists in Washington, DC, representing widely divergent interests and positions.
There are also organizations with names suggesting an entirely different agenda than the one they are actually pursuing.
I'm retired from teaching. Bad weather finds me inside at the computer. I have time to look into some of these groups. Only a couple of days ago, someone e-mailed me an article from Rolling Stone that mentioned in passing an outfit called The Committee to Restore American Values. I looked it up. Few people may have heard of it, but it has had a very considerable influence on our contemporary political scene.
I have on the erstwhile pols board posted links to a number of such items, which I also usually send on to friends.
If some of you want your name added to my e-mailing list for such items, you can let me know via a PM and I will do it --generally without adding comment.
I am not going to add the names of anyone who has been really active on the old board, however.
__________________
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument." William Gibbs McAdoo. US Vice-President under Woodrow Wilson.
). Minimum words per post (and maximum is a good idea as well), limit to how many posts per day. Or perhaps posts per topic? Maybe preset topics of the day/week? Two ON TOPIC posts per thread per day? Just ideas. 
Linear Mode
