[Grizzly]

Also just ban political discussion of current events in general, as it is on discord.

[karajorma]

I suspect that would just result in things moving back to gen discuss.

More importantly, what happened was a symptom of a deeper problem with HLP. And I honestly feel it would have happened even without political discussions.

I'll leave this thread open but I suspect that even discussions of whether or not we should have a political board will prove my point.

[Grizzly]

I agree on both points, but consider:
Political discussion is only as good as its moderation. Even without trolling admins actively making the situation worse, you end up in situation where moderators can't actually moderate effectively because their peers have already been involved in it.

I'd argue that the only reason HLP still puts so much weight on political discussions is because it celebrates a culture of heated arguments over everything else. I think trying to adhere to this culture over everything else will just bring more people to ruin.

[karajorma]

MP-Ryan has already stated that it is his desire to see a change to that culture and make Political Discussion into a place where civilised discussion about politics can be had. Given the sheer number of people who are mostly on HLP because they find it a good place to talk about what is going on in the world, I'd definitely be loath to remove it when it might actually result in us losing lots of members.

[Grizzly]

MP-Ryan has already stated that it is his desire to see a change to that culture and make Political Discussion into a place where civilised discussion about politics can be had.

I vaguely remember that was his goal three years ago. Did it work, was the effort worth it?

[karajorma]

For the most part, I'd say yes. Look at what General Discussion was like 10 years ago.

I'd rather keep Pol Dis because it means that we keep a core of  long term FS people around who would otherwise wander off. Which means that a cool mod or TC might make them play again. Hell, I might have wandered off myself if it wasn't for Pol Dis.

[MatthTheGeek]

Pasted from the "What should HLP 2021 be?" thread:

yes, delete PolDisc. I don't think I need to get expansive on the reasons why. There are plenty of places on the internet to talk politics that are not HLP. If you really want to talk politics to people from HLP, there's a wonderful thing called Private Messages. We certainly don't need to know whether you want to cage immigrants or smoke pot in order to work together.

The counterargument was that you need a place for pol discussion to happen so it won't spill over the rest of the community - if you don't care about politics, just don't go there! I think the recent events (as well as much older discussions involving female pilots of the GTVA in places that were definitely not a politics board and resulted in the loss a valued community member) have definitely demonstrated that this experiment was a failure.

[Mobius]

PolDisc has to be archived, IMO.

It serves no real purpose over here. And I'd enforce rules on topics which can be addressed in General Discussion too, just to make sure that things can settle down and prevent future drama. This community doesn't any flame wars caused by stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with FreeSpace.

[The E]

I've been thinking about this a bit, and I think I'm with Matt here: Poldisc should die. The forums should, in this new constellation with discord included, act mostly as a repository of posts that require and deserve more permanence than discord can, by its design, afford: Release announcements, long-running and focussed discussions about new features or campaigns, tech support stuff, FAQs and such.
Discord can then act as a more fleeting outlet to facilitate actual, real-time discussions.

However, unlike Matt, I clearly recognize (at least within myself) a need for a venting place, a place to talk about off-topic ... errr ... topics and stuff that happens out there. This should be the Discord: as a more ephemeral medium, it is less likely to grow like a cancer. There are discords out there that can manage such discussions without them exploding all the time; I think we can too.

[karajorma]

I should point out that quite a few users on HLP are here mainly because of general discussion and political discussion. Based on what I've heard this last month, we'd probably lose MP-Ryan for a start.

[BlackDove]

PolDisc is just one more avenue of expression, which allows insight into who is actually behind a nickname. You had exactly the same problems between members and their values before PolDisc and you will have them after if you delete it. PolDisc is not the actual problem. It is just another avenue for people to show their true colors.

Do we want to know what those colors are? We can still kind of see them even without political discussions. They are displayed in other forums from time to time over the years, in other subjects. But maybe it is better not to know. I don't think so personally, but the site is about modding, and any and all political discussion can be banned and moderated away from the forums entirely.

That said, the campaigns, the game. They entirely revolve around political issues. If the group as a whole cannot discuss politics, what does that say about the value of the content that they're making for the game?

[The E]

I think this thread is redundant; please use kara's HLP 2021 thread for this discussion.

[BlackDove]

PolDisc should stay, but only if moderation and enforcement of the rules is possible. If not, it needs to be closed down and political discussion banned. That said, it says a lot about a forum and its members if they are not deemed to be capable to discuss certain issues. It brings into question the value of what they're producing as a whole.

[karajorma]

Actually I asked people to use this thread for this discussion. To keep it out of the other thread.

[Sandwich]

Despite recent events, I still think that PolDisc has value. The failures of the recent event as relate to PolDisc were:

One, people were violating both the general Guidelines for Forum Conduct, as well as the PolDisc-specific A Quick Note on Board Guidelines post which is pinned at the top of the PolDisc board. Specifically, the guidelines about being respectful of other people, and debating their stances, not attacking them personally.

Two, the violations above should have been immediately reported to the highly-competent moderating staff to handle. This was not done in a timely fashion; instead, an attempt was made to resolve the situation via negotiation first. Given the already-inflammatory mood in the thread, this failed miserably.


The solutions to both points of failure is obvious. One, people should obey the forum guidelines. Two, when encountered with violations of the guidelines, report the post to a moderator and don't continue the debate with the violator.

[0rph3u5]

I've made my views on PolDisc partially in another topic already, but to summarize and expand, the following:


1) For there to be a "Political Discussions" board, there needs to be an actionable definition of what "political" means.
For some people, as a matter of cultural background, "political" may just refer to matters I would describe as "high politics" - the actions and statements of parties, governments, statespersons and the matters of ideology - a definition I do not find to have a high utility as it promotes nothing but a view that allows yourself and your action to be put at distance or in contrast. I will spare you the tedious and preaching follow-up...
Achieving such a definition while keeping it accessible would be real time investments (there is an interconnected field of linguistics and political science in which dozens of people make their careers of this); and it is up to the staff to make a determination if they want do it or not.


2a) Discussion of matters of complexity can only go so far as the open communication channels allow.
Not all forms of communication are created equal - in the social sciences there is a model to break down communication forms by what "channels" they allow information to flow through; even enhanced with iconographic representations to signify how a line of text is to be read, mostly text based interactions have only a low number of channels open and even then depend highly on literacy (as in not just the basic skill to read and write text, but also interpret layers beyond the pure text) of the recipient.
If the discussion of some matters cuts deep it may not always be able to fully express some of that depth in pure text – especially if you are hitting matters close to a person’s self-image and identity, where the rational quickly gives way to more immediately responsive avenues of reaction.


2b) On the disparity of time investment
One of the problems of that can pre-form any discussion space detrimentally is that of disparate amounts of time to invest and how it forms a problematic power dynamic; basically how do you stop the people who have the time and energy to argue from keeping raising the entry level to a discussion or from just by volume drown out voices more deliberate, less bold or just with less time to spare.
This is one of the major problem in organizing political discussion anywhere, not just online – and it quite often bleeds into the make-up of representative bodies working on legislation. Trying to solve it usually takes measures which on the surface look like the opposite of what they are trying to promote, e.g. prioritizing new entries into a discussion, and requires a committed group to enforce.


2c) On “Closing” Arguments
One of the things that is great about having political discussions in an in-person, time-limited format (or connected to a process that will eventually has to end) is that all participants have to eventually make a closing argument; these can not only serve as statements of position but can also as an evaluation how the discussion is progressed.
While working this angle may seems technically high achievable (limiting the lifetime of each topic and force a new one to be opened if the need for discussion persists), I am not so sure if it will gain acceptance.


3) On utility beyond discussion
Having the opportunity to interrogate the past public posts of someone can be a tremendous help besides confronting that person outright. How you want to approach a person and on what subjects can easily be informed by having a look into situations when that person is “out in the wilds”.
I hear the argument that “making these arguments private” but I find it missing this point – It assumes that every member of community has the time to invest and the boldness to actually do that.


Entering all these points into consideration, and also accounting for the presence of a more responsive medium in the Discord, shutting PolDisc down might be the most prudent course of action at this time, as a reform would require additional staff to enforce. Point 3 can be served by lurking in the Discord as well – even if some restriction apply there as well.

[Grizzly]

wrt point 1, I would like to point out that if you shut down political discussion wholesale, you still have to determine what is considered political and what isn't. In the end, I'd say it's just up to the moderators to read a thread as it gets out of hand, decide "Do I want to moderate this?" and if the answer is no, to lock the thread.

[Lorric]

The funny thing is, -Joshua-, I think by far these days and for years the one who uses Pol Disc and creates the most new threads in there is you. 8/24 threads on the first page and 10/25 on the second were created by you. If you were to swear off Pol Disc it would have a big effect.

For years I've wanted a split into Pol and Gen Disc, and as you know, this happened a few years ago. I had hoped that this would allow interesting and nice apolitical topics to pop up in Gen Disc, where we could be friendly with each other, but Gen Disc is kind of dead. Pol Disc is slowly dying as people are driven away from it. I think hiding it from the general public was a great move as it greatly reduced the strategic value of it in the culture war people have been fighting in there.

I've not been on discord to know if people are friendly with each other there, but we've rarely had threads like that here as long as I can remember.

There is too much bad blood between people. Something that has stuck in my mind is something I saw from #BP. You would think having things in common would be a path to reconciliation. Phantom Hoover despises Dragon. He has a keen interest in mathematics, and when he found Dragon might also have one, rather than it be a good thing, he was genuinely disturbed by this and hoped he didn't. I don't understand this at all, but under such conditions, reconciliation is impossible. Only eternal conflict.

There is just way too much bad blood. Way too many people who revel in hurting people. The culture must change so people just won't put up with it. Refuse to engage with hostility. Every person who doesn't want hostility would have to draw a line in the sand and just not engage with it. Ignore these people and post around them.

Question for staff. Is it wrong for people to beat Goober over the head with the doomsday thing all the time in totally unrelated threads? It's been going on for over three years. Of course, you're free to believe that it disqualifies him from anything he says being relevant, but if it was me thinking that, I just wouldn't talk to the guy. But it's not enough for them to make such a personal choice (indeed, they don't make it, as they keep talking to him.) The goal is to tarnish his name and drive him away, like so many others before him.

Civil political discussion is impossible on Hard Light. Most of the people who participate don't want it, they want to fight and win. They want to pwn. They want people to get banned. I'm rarely on the same side as these people, but even when I am, they're insufferable, I'm there trying to have a civil discussion with someone and they're there in attack mode putting that person on the defensive, making it impossible.

I know -Joshua- isn't in there for destroying people. You won't get what you want, so you might as well leave Pol Disc.

[Grizzly]

The funny thing is, -Joshua-, I think by far these days and for years the one who uses Pol Disc and creates the most new threads in there is you. 8/24 threads on the first page and 10/25 on the second were created by you. If you were to swear off Pol Disc it would have a big effect.

It's true, I actively enjoy political discussions (right up until the point someone threatens to sue me over it ). But there is sometimes very little point. I love this little line from one of the admins at the time, as it's the most begrudging compliment I've ever received:

I have noticed that, despite your political views, you tend to be a little more sane and a little less foaming-at-the-mouth than certain other people.

If that's the level of a contempt that an admin has for the people he's having political discussions with, and he's not getting pushback for it, how can you even have a good conversation? It sets the tone for the entire forum.

Question for staff. Is it wrong for people to beat Goober over the head with the doomsday thing all the time in totally unrelated threads? It's been going on for over three years. Of course, you're free to believe that it disqualifies him from anything he says being relevant, but if it was me thinking that, I just wouldn't talk to the guy. But it's not enough for them to make such a personal choice (indeed, they don't make it, as they keep talking to him.) The goal is to tarnish his name and drive him away, like so many others before him.

Having been active in that thread and it actively dropping my respect for Goober like a stone, I can safely say that the goal is not so much to "hit him over the head with it". It's not that he made a prediction that turned out to be wrong. It's how he conducted himself in the thread itself, belittling people who disagreed with him as not seeing the obvious truth, praising himself as rational in a thread full of hysterical comments from others, and doubling down even after the projected date had passed. The issue is not that Goober will make nonsensensical predictions or say silly things. It's that he will not, ever, admit he's wrong even in a situation where it was absolutely 100%, without a doubt, clear that he was wrong. In a pile of situations where Goober has picked a pit to die in, predicting the rapture is simply the most obvious one.

Up until this month. But the pattern was the same.

[Lorric]

The funny thing is, -Joshua-, I think by far these days and for years the one who uses Pol Disc and creates the most new threads in there is you. 8/24 threads on the first page and 10/25 on the second were created by you. If you were to swear off Pol Disc it would have a big effect.

It's true, I actively enjoy political discussions (right up until the point someone threatens to sue me over it ). But there is sometimes very little point. I love this little line from one of the admins at the time, as it's the most begrudging compliment I've ever received:

I have noticed that, despite your political views, you tend to be a little more sane and a little less foaming-at-the-mouth than certain other people.

If that's the level of a contempt that an admin has for the people he's having political discussions with, and he's not getting pushback for it, how can you even have a good conversation? It sets the tone for the entire forum.

Question for staff. Is it wrong for people to beat Goober over the head with the doomsday thing all the time in totally unrelated threads? It's been going on for over three years. Of course, you're free to believe that it disqualifies him from anything he says being relevant, but if it was me thinking that, I just wouldn't talk to the guy. But it's not enough for them to make such a personal choice (indeed, they don't make it, as they keep talking to him.) The goal is to tarnish his name and drive him away, like so many others before him.

Having been active in that thread and it actively dropping my respect for Goober like a stone, I can safely say that the goal is not so much to "hit him over the head with it". It's not that he made a prediction that turned out to be wrong. It's how he conducted himself in the thread itself, belittling people who disagreed with him as not seeing the obvious truth, praising himself as rational in a thread full of hysterical comments from others, and doubling down even after the projected date had passed. The issue is not that Goober will make nonsensensical predictions or say silly things. It's that he will not, ever, admit he's wrong even in a situation where it was absolutely 100%, without a doubt, clear that he was wrong. In a pile of situations where Goober has picked a pit to die in, predicting the rapture is simply the most obvious one.

Up until this month. But the pattern was the same.

He's not wrong though. He's identified what those people are like, and he's identified that you are different. Goober is usually civil. I remember him having a good gloat about Trump winning, but usually, he doesn't do that stuff. I don't think you and he would have a problem discussing politics.

But he did admit he was wrong:

https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=93654.msg1856400#msg1856400