Requirements for posting in the New political sub-forum

vbimport

#1

I think we need this added to the sticky thread New political sub-forum .

The amount of posts or years a member that are required to view the
Sub-Forum : Political discussion .
I know this was discuseed but I never saw this information.
Or are there any requirements ?
Can a brand new member view the Sub-Forum : Political discussion ?

[EDIT by Dee 27-12-2013]
This thread has been moved to the political forum by request of the thread creator.

This thread will stay strictly on topic, and be used to discuss the requirements of posting in the political forum.

Political or religious views will not be allowed in this thread, and will be deleted at the earliest opportunity by the forum staff.

Forum staff will be allowed to participate in this thread and express their views providing they too stay on topic.

Please use the report post button if you see any off topic posts.


#2

For now, all members, new and old, can view and post in the political sub-forum. There are no post count restrictions either.

Needless to say, the staff are closely monitoring how things pan out, including the possibility of members using sock puppets to stir things up.


#3

Thanks Dee , I just wanted to know.
Early in the discussions it was posted somewhere that it might be done like the Residents Lounge .
That is why I asked.

Other that the obvious reason that some of my posts &/or the threads they are in will be moved there.


#4

Things may change in the future, but for the moment the forum is open to all, and although the staff are monitoring the new forum closely, we are allowing the members to self moderate their own posts. Hopefully showing that they are willing to make the political forum work.

We will of course step in and enforce the rules if required to do so.


#5

We might find the political forum is like being in old Western saloon where everyone has a gun. In those situations people tend to be a little more respectful of each other, in general.


#6

[QUOTE=UTR;2713894]We might find the political forum is like being in old Western saloon where everyone has a gun. In those situations people tend to be a little more respectful of each other, in general.[/QUOTE]

Well, I always come unarmed. It must be a cultural thing, I guess.


#7

[QUOTE=BeeR_DoG;2714231]Well, I always come unarmed. It must be a cultural thing, I guess.[/QUOTE]

It was a metaphor. :wink:


#8

I will bring both my arms as they are attached to my hands & fingers.
I need those to type with . :bigsmile:

I also think it needs to be understood by those reading & maybe participating in the political sub-forum that they need to be “thicker skinned” . If they can’t they need to stay in the rest of the forum where they won’t need to be.

If a thread is still being actively participated in.
The guide has been in essence followed .
Meaning everything is not even to the point of needing a “thick skin”.

This is about the thread that was closed.
That a thread is arbitrarily closed because admin &/or staff has decided a thread has “run its course”.
One member with minimal participation asking for the thread to close. That being part of 2 out of 4 of his posts & implied in another of his post.
Is not a reason to close a thread in the political sub-forum.
It is a form of censorship.This violates the reason the political sub-forum was created . To allow more involved discussion of controversial topics by members that can handle such discussion .
Otherwise it is like the rest of the forum.
So my suggestion for an addition to the guide is not close a thread for the “run its course” excuse .
How many threads that can be found that are years old & still open .
I understand why & agree that they should be . I’m using those as an example. They are open in case someone they still may be useful to can ask a question.
That being said. Most have “run their course” & won’t be used again.
So far I don’t remember any of those ever being closed because they had “run their course.”

I will end with this quote:
" Don’t pee on my leg & tell me it’s raining."


#9

That thread was closed under rule 5

5: Don’t excessively argue your point of view. If you have made a comment or statement once in a thread, there should be no need to keep making that same point over and over. However, you will be allowed to elaborate on points you have already made if required. Again, use some common sense.

But could have easily been closed under rule 3

3: Be respectful of other cultures, [B]religious groups[/B], and nationalities.

I also point you towards another section in the rules.

Please note:
Any examples used in this document are illustrative only and should NOT be taken to cover the full scope of what is acceptable or unacceptable.


#10

@ cholla: Apparently you missed the part of my post about rule 5:

You have 13 out of 67 posts in that thread. That is what I meant by ‘run its course’. The rules aren’t there just to serve your agenda.


#11

@ Dee ,I don’t think any “religious groups were disrespected” .
Points were made about doctrine .
If it was as I suspect the “false gods” reference . I would discuss that in the sub forum but not in this forum. The post with that was made after olyteddy’s rule #5 warning.
I will cover the rest in my response to olyteddy .

@ olyteddy , I will start with another forum rule.
I want to make it clear that I don’t dispute the right of admin or mods to close a thread . That is made very clear in the whole forum rules.

I didn’t miss the post about rule #5 .
Even with the amount of posts I made I don’t believe rule #5 was violated by me.
With some of the posts I made I decided to respond different members with a seperate post. I don’t think the answers I gave were repetitive . On the page I did 5 in a row I could have made that just one post but thought it would read better seperated.
To me that means I didn’t “keep making that same point over and over”.
My replies were usually in response to a post of another member .
I think that stays within the “you will be allowed to elaborate on points you have already made if required”.
To some I might have excessively argued my point of view.
I think responding to what is being posted doesn’t violate this.Even more so when it is done civilly.
I would have PMed you but I wanted again to make the point.
The Political sub-forum by it’s very nature will have points excessively discussed.
That is not necessarily “argued”. Even if it is if it is kept civil why is that a problem.
The small amount of name calling was from a new member & that was toward me. I didn’t complain because I considered it a very mild example.
There will need to be a higher level than that allowed or the political sub-forum becomes little different that the rest of the forum.
As above the admins & mods can run the political sub-forum as they like.
I don’t have control over that.
I think the sub-forum will fail to work if more in depth & even content that may be offensive to some is not allowed. Time will tell if that is correct.


#12

…I didn’t miss the post about rule #5 .
Even with the amount of posts I made I don’t believe rule #5 was violated by me.
With some of the posts I made I decided to respond different members with a seperate post. I don’t think the answers I gave were repetitive . On the page I did 5 in a row I could have made that just one post but thought it would read better seperated.
To me that means I didn’t “keep making that same point over and over”…

We did. End of discussion.


#13

This thread has been moved to the political forum by request of the thread creator.

[B]This thread will stay strictly on topic,[/B] and be used to discuss the requirements of posting in the political forum.

[B]Political or religious views will not be allowed in this thread, and will be deleted at the earliest opportunity by the forum staff.
[/B]
[B]Forum staff[/B] will be allowed to participate in this thread and express their views providing they too stay on topic.

Please use the report post button if you see any off topic posts.

[edit]
I have also added this info to the first post in this thread.


#14

[QUOTE=cholla;2714497] I also think it needs to be understood by those reading & maybe participating in the political sub-forum that they need to be “thicker skinned” . If they can’t they need to stay in the rest of the forum where they won’t need to be.[/QUOTE]Generally I find that people who say people need to be thicker skinned know themselves at what they have said, or would like to say, is beyond what normal reasonable people would find acceptable.
Just because you can say something, it doesn’t mean you should.

Hopefully in this forum we will find a happy balance, where people don’t take offense to easily, and the person posting will show some restraint before posting something that they know will likely cause offense to a person or group of people.

That’s what debate is all about, finding a happy balance where people can actually have a meaningful discussion. If you get peoples backs up, you can expect them to get annoyed and retaliate, and at that point the debate becomes mostly irrelevant.

BTW, and for everyones information. The rules for this thread set in the above post are as much for the benefit of the members, as it is to allow the thread to be managed or the staff to put their point of view on how this forum can work.


#15

3: Be respectful of other cultures, religious groups, and nationalities.

It looks like we also have to include sexual preferences


#16

[QUOTE=Dee;2714727] Generally I find that people who say people need to be thicker skinned know themselves at what they have said, or would like to say, is beyond what normal reasonable people would find acceptable. [/QUOTE]
Of course that depends who is defining “what normal reasonable people would find acceptable” . I think you & I would have a different definition of that.

[QUOTE=Dee;2714727]
That’s what debate is all about, finding a happy balance where people can actually have a meaningful discussion. [/QUOTE]
I have a different definition of debate as well. To me it is defending ones point & sticking to that. Civilly if possible.If at some point the other person has changed your mind them admit that & go with it. Otherwise stick to your thought on the subject.

[QUOTE=Liggy;2714732]It looks like we also have to include sexual preferences[/QUOTE]

I going to make this short as I posted an example in the other thread & I’m not going to post it here.
You actually don’t mean any sexual preference .
That can cover a wide range of perversions.
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth by telling you for sure what you mean. You are free correct me if I’m wrong.
What you wanted to say is homosexuals instead of sexual preferences.

My vote if I have one is against adding homosexuals to the list.

I guess “cultures” covers me . Texas redneck, gunrights &
US Constitution supporter.
"Religious groups " should about cover the rest .


#17

Here in the US, at least, when laws regarding discrimination are concerned, we refer to ‘Sexual [I]Orientation[/I]’. I realize it seems like a nit-pick and it is a subtle difference but it does seem to be what is agreed to.


#18

[QUOTE=cholla;2714738]What you wanted to say is homosexuals instead of sexual preferences.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=olyteddy;2714741]Here in the US, at least, when laws regarding discrimination are concerned, we refer to ‘Sexual [I]Orientation[/I]’. I realize it seems like a nit-pick and it is a subtle difference but it does seem to be what is agreed to.[/QUOTE]
Sorry - I’m not a native English speaker and I guess “Sexual Orientation” is indeed the better term :iagree:

@Cholla - this should not be restricted to homosexuality - there are some more sexual orientations that do not violate any law (at least in Germany). I know what you’re hinting at but I’m not referring to illegal things - maybe this needs to be worded a little better, but I better leave the exact wording to others.


#19

[QUOTE=Liggy;2714742]Sorry - I’m not a native English speaker and I guess “Sexual Orientation” is indeed the better term :iagree:

@Cholla - this should not be restricted to homosexuality - there are some more sexual orientations that do not violate any law (at least in Germany). I know what you’re hinting at but I’m not referring to illegal things - maybe this needs to be worded a little better, but I better leave the exact wording to others.[/QUOTE]
[B]olyteddy’s [/B]is probably the most correct term.
It would be interesting to see what the others allowed in Germay are but maybe in another thread.
To me heterosexuals is just a given since they will be the majority .


#20

I agree that ‘sexual orientation’ is a better way to word it. I guess I said sexual preference in the other thread. Of course, I didn’t think I had to say ‘legal sexual preference between consenting adults’ as I assumed that everyone would already understand that.

@cholla.
I have no doubt in my mind that we both would have different views on what we would consider reasonable and acceptable. We are all different, and what will be important IMO, is to find that ‘happy balance’ that I talked about, not only for you and me, but for everyone that wishes to use this forum.