Hand wringing about Jill leaving.

[lookout123]

Dana I love ya, you commie tart but if you think right or left matter in the politics forum anymore you need a serious rethink. Merc and UG are really not that different than spexx and whoever his latest little puppy in crime happens to be at the time. You just happen to agree more often than not with the view from the left so don't notice it. Political discussion in the cellar has been dead for a long time. Now it is just a statement and restatement of positions followed by escalated name calling poopslinging.

[infinite monkey]

I don't get why we're supposed to feel like hand-wringing wussies if we express that we think Jill got run out on a proverbial rail. Sure, she could have done things differently. So could you. And you. And me. I can still think we might have lost a unique voice.

Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere. I'm here to annoy you for as many years as I'm alive.

[DanaC]

Actually I notice it with Spexx as well. And with Tw.

I am not for one moment suggesting that there is no nastiness from leftwing posters, or that the right has a monopoly on this shit. But the majority of people who've been 'driven away' by the nasty political fights over the last year or so have been left-leaning.

You're right though, that it isn't just a matter of left v right. This is about our cultural approach to politics in our community. I am equally disturbed by leftwing posters launching personal attacks and treating their opponents with contempt as I am when it happens the other way around. I see more of it from the right than from the left.

Now, you can suggest that this is because I am leftwing and therefore sympathise with the leftwing posters' views: but I do not sympathise with personal attacks and disrespect, and I think I am rational and open enough to spot the difference between a well-crafted response and a shitty attack regardless of which end of the political spectrum it is coming from. And, in that light, i tell you I see more of that from the right against the left than the other way around.

Of course that might just be a matter of numbers. There seem to be more right-leaning, or centre-right posters overall than left-leaning or centre left posters in this community. Consequently if a similar proportion of each are dickheads, then there will be an imbalance to the right.



[eta] Just for clarity: I raised the left-right aspect of this because Monster asked if I'd have responded the same way had Jill been on the other side of the divide. My view overall is that this is a wider problem than just a left-right spat. This is about how we do politics in the Celllar. It's about people coming here expecting rational discussion and instead facing unpleasant attacks.

[Griff]

I cross borders quite a bit but am probably center-right. I consider UG to be a cartoon, but Merc is a mean bastard here. IM is much meaner than Spexx, but the left crowd tends to dog-pack, rotating because Merc/UG are always looking for a fight and normal people tire of being like that. I feel bad that we can't discuss politics here anymore, but I did my best to rid us of Merc before to no avail. So we will have a watered down cellar... er leaky basement er something.

[ZenGum]

I second everything that Dana has said in this thread.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I second everything that Dana has said in this thread.

I second this second of everything Dana said.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

I second this second of everything Dana said.

I second this second of the first second.

I don't get why we're supposed to feel like hand-wringing wussies if we express that we think Jill got run out on a proverbial rail. Sure, she could have done things differently. So could you. And you. And me. I can still think we might have lost a unique voice.

And this too.

[infinite monkey]

Mean old monkey.

[Griff]

We all take our turn at it.

[sexobon]

Anyone else for sloppy seconds?

[Big Sarge]

I'm sorry to see her go too. Political discussion is always perilous both online and in person.

[Undertoad]

Precisely, Biggie;

I wonder whether there is some way a better debate can actually be facilitated. Maybe with an official debate moderator, who only lets posts through if they contain no attack.

Proposal of debate agreed to beforehand

Posts limited to 500 words

Onlookers can flag a fallacious argument

A debater can tap out and be replaced by another of his/her choosing

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Precisely, Biggie;

I wonder whether there is some way a better debate can actually be facilitated. Maybe with an official debate moderator, who only lets posts through if they contain no attack.

Proposal of debate agreed to beforehand

Posts limited to 500 words

Onlookers can flag a fallacious argument

A debater can tap out and be replaced by another of his/her choosing

good morning UT

I have an idea I'd like to offer.

I was running out of gas last night when I made the post to which you replied, and now I see there's been much activity since then. I like much of what has been said, especially by DanaC and by Griff. Flint's remark that we're all adults here, by choice, so quit crying has some resonance for me too. But I'd like to point out that another of Flint's comments strikes at the heart of how the conversations in the Politics thread (and other threads too) get derailed. He said something to the effect of "I was just making a random comment in a random thread, why all the torches and pitchforks?".

Exactly.

For me, I was participating a NON random discussion (same thread though) and (in this case) Flint bursts in with his randomness. Chaos ensued. The discussion was derailed. It kind of reminds me of ... a streaker racing across the playfield. The game stops. Or Bill Gates getting a pie in the face at a conference. Utterly irrelevant to the content of the conference, I can't even remember what he talked about, but I remember that he got hit with the pie. These kinds of interruptions detract from my experience of the conversation/debate. I wish I didn't have to see them.

Exactly.

My suggestion is this: I wish there were a way to not have to see INDIVIDUAL comments in a thread. A collapse button would be ideal for this. I envision that a post would default to expanded, but could be toggled with a click. This wouldn't prevent me from seeing the post in the first place, but I could streamline the flow of the conversation to my own satisfaction.

I see lots of advantages to this hypothetical solution.

1. infinitely customizable, for each dwellar and each thread.
2. It's reversible.
3. it's better (for this purpose, at least) than the "ignore poster" function, since it allows more granular control
4. this puts minimum restrictions on the poster's "freedom of speach"
5. this puts minimum burden on some moderator to control the "debate"

I don't think it is possible for me to control other people's words and actions and thoughts. Even a moderator can not do that--the can only remove offenses. I don't wish to control others' words, I just want to be able to minimize the distraction they present for me.


I see potential disadvantages too:

1. the conversations could be choppy (choppier, since random acts of non-sequitor-ocity are already a clear and present (and growing) danger)
2. there's a risk that I'd see/hear a different story/flow than what others see/hear. But this is actually what I desire. I already don't like how it's hashed up--I'm trying to clarify things for myself.

Basically, some of these discussions are in sore NEED OF EDITING. This would let me do that editing. Lots of what I write and think and say gets edited. Some of what I express is lightly edited if at all. There's a time and place for both. But up until now, I couldn't think of a way to achieve this editing for those conversations that require it. In the past, I've suggested (and done) that the crap posts simply be ingnored. That's actually a lot easier said than done. This would make it a bit easier to do.

The analogy of a bar has long been used to describe the interactions here in the cellar, and it's an apt one. This function would be like being able to mute (ooo mute, maybe the function can be called "mute post") a voice that *I* find disruptive to my attention/experience while hanging out at "the bar". I could just click that button and I could return my attention to the thing I want to focus on. The interrupter could continue to babble on, and might (or might not) have something constructive to contribute later, we'll both see. We do this all the time when we're trying to have a conversation, we turn down the tv, or we close the door behind us, or we move away from the noise.


... wow... that's a lot of talk... your thoughts sir? Your thoughts, friends?

[Aliantha]

What about if you just use the 'report abuse' feature', and if someone gets 3 or 5 or 7 or whatever number of posts for the same post, they get a 24 hour ban?

I think this is a good idea because for one thing, it means it's not left up to just one person to decide if the post is bad or not, but also, if the discussion is that heated, perhaps the poster could benefit from a short break to collect their thoughts.

[Undertoad]

That's not really how the feature works though. That leaves it to moderators, which is not really what the mods are for.