Ban political debate in bear garden ?

[unclebulgaria67]

I am not in favour of stopping any debates and to allow freedom of speech. But there have been a number of threads where debates have become silly arguments. The threads then get closed after they have run their course.

 

People are entitled to opinions, even if you don't agree with them. If you don't agree, then just post a counter argument or ignore. No point attacking someone for their opinion, as you are not likely to change their minds.

 

I am not sure political threads should be encouraged on CAG. It is principally a consumer advice site. The Bear Garden was i think intended for general chat about interests, current affairs. There are specific internet forums that cover politics.

[trebormoinet]

I find it annoying when threads are closed if things get heated and passions run high, "If they eyes offend thee,pluck them out" in other words don't read the thread, ignore it, if it offends.

Much better in my opinion to create a let off steam sub forum as a place to debate emotive issues and a place to move for posts in any forum if they deemed to be getting heated rather than stifle debate however offensive it might be, the right to offend is a sign of a working democracy.

[think about it]

The fact is though that when a counter argument degenerates into personal attack then it's beyond blowing off steam. State your case, counter any points that are made that don't align with yours and move on. Unfortunately it's gone beyond that recently with people nipping at each other's heels to try to add weight to their points. It's at that point the threads ought to be heavily moderated or closed because this isn't a 'banter' forum but one for serious, adult, mature debate. Lose that maturity and we might as well be 4chan.

[SabreSheep]

You will notice of late that I have been trying to steer discussion away from personal attacks as much as possible however I work full time and often return to a thread full of bile that needs clearing out.

 

Whilst the sub forum idea is great in principal sadly emotions would not remain there. We already see that emotional conflicts cross threads, they would cross forums as well. So It is in everybody's best interests to not encourage an area where normal Site rules would not apply.

 

Also a gentle reminder, that whilst we try to retain as much free speech as possible, this forum is not a democracy

 

You have all seen and stated the answer, keep debates to the point and use factual information to prove or disprove. Attack the position a person holds is fine, just do not attack the person personally.

[tobyjugg2]

I find it annoying when threads are closed if things get heated and passions run high, "If they eyes offend thee,pluck them out" in other words don't read the thread, ignore it, if it offends.

 

I agree fully, but there is a difference between passion heated debate and trolling.

 

Despite this hub very clearly not being 'a democracy' in Sabresheeps words, or 'fair and unbiased' in my words I think passionate, even somewhat heated debate should be welcomed, whereas trolling should be penalised.

 

The problem is what the dictators (its not a democracy) define as each will appear to be biased to anyone who does not agree.

If the site representatives get it wrong there will be very little intelligent debate here, or debate by very few people.

 

I would think if it was 'got right' a site of this size age and expected prominence should have hundreds of active debaters with opinions. If the 'site' practice and policy has got it wrong, there would just be a few handfuls of people, if they get it really wrong, there would only be a handful.

 

 

 

addendum

I think too many threads are closed before they have actually run their course, seemingly based on (more excused by) undressed trolling of the thread rather than the thread or even issue actually having run its course unclebulgaria.

[unclebulgaria67]

Problem is that any political threads will attract trolls, who don't want a debate, but to simply try to insist that their view must be correct. They then get annoyed when this does not happen, threads go on and on, covering the same points.

 

The question is probably wrong in mentioning ban, but do people want the Bear Garden to be a politics free zone ?

 

If there is a way of setting up a thread with a poll, perhaps people can vote.

 

I don't personally mind political debate, but many people don't like it or would prefer there to be places which are politics free.

[think about it]

I agree that some threads are closed before they're at a natural end but the issue, as you quite rightly point out, is those that choose to troll through a thread and openly mock and abuse others. In my most humble of opinion, it's the rooting out of those few users that will prevent any such ban or need for excessive moderation. Some of the other forums I use utilise a warning system (which CAG may also, I've not seen it) and then pre-moderation of posts for persistent offenders.

 

You're also right on the number of contributors, the one thing that always strikes me is the number of visitors to the site in comparison with registered users. Quite how we convince those 'lurking' in the background to sign up and join in is a matter for further discussion.

 

The other issue we face is mass political apathy, most people just don't care or know about politics; conversely those that do hold very strong opinions and beliefs. We've seen it in the last week with some of the posts that were quickly brought to a conclusion that even site team members will hold and post about their opinions in a manner that may inflame others, it's then dealing with the fall-out as tempers flare beyond sensible debate that has to be the most challenging aspect.

[tobyjugg2]

Problem is that any political threads will attract trolls, who don't want a debate, but to simply try to insist that their view must be correct. They then get annoyed when this does not happen, threads go on and on, covering the same points.

 

Which gives limited options

 

Ban political debate (define political debate, define issues without a political element, define a political opinion post)

 

Close the thread (the trolls say hahahahaha - and continue what they are doing - everyone else leaves)

 

Just Delete 'troll' posts (Staff are biased dictators - and not just by trolls - and some undoubtedly are in my view (LOL))

 

Warn trolls, warning flag troll posts and make them amend them (flag remains on amended post showing who trolls in staff opinion) - (awkward, a lot of staff work, - but perhaps the best option longterm)

 

 

Why should staff NOT take the easy option of just deleting posts they (or they and a pal) dont like:

A site like this depends on financial support, which relies on commitment, gratitude and/or good will of donators, which is unquestionably increased by involvement with the site and decreased by thinking a site is a biased platform for a limited few.

... Else where is the justification for this site to be considered any better or more than (or even as effective as) any 'ask' site?

 

 

qualifier:

"and decreased by thinking a site is a biased platform for a limited few."

 

- unless the limited few are funding it of course

[citizenB]

Which gives limited options

 

Ban political debate (define political debate, define issues without a political element, define a political opinion post)

 

Close the thread (the trolls say hahahahaha - and continue what they are doing - everyone else leaves)

 

Just Delete 'troll' posts (Staff are biased dictators - and not just by trolls - and some undoubtedly are in my view (LOL))

 

Warn trolls, warning flag troll posts and make them amend them (flag remains on amended post showing who trolls in staff opinion) - (awkward, a lot of staff work, - but perhaps the best option longterm)

 

 

Why should staff NOT take the easy option of just deleting posts they (or they and a pal) dont like:

A site like this depends on financial support, which relies on commitment, gratitude and/or good will of donators, which is unquestionably increased by involvement with the site and decreased by thinking a site is a biased platform for a limited few.

... Else where is the justification for this site to be considered any better or more than (or even as effective as) any 'ask' site?

 

 

qualifier:

"and decreased by thinking a site is a biased platform for a limited few."

 

- unless the limited few are funding it of course

 

"staff" as you so quaintly identify moderators are unpaid volunteers - they also have their own day jobs/families/ lives. They do not need to spend what time they do have for CAG refereeing posters who want to rant and squash debate with their one liners or personal abuse. Nor do they need to accept some of the rather unfair accusations levelled at them.

 

Deleting posts or closing threads is usually a last option and we do not take any pleasure from doing it at all.

 

The Bear Garden has always been allowed a bit more leeway in what is posted - however it would seem that some members are starting to take advantage of that.

 

When disruptive posts carry over onto regular threads, frightening off those who come here for help then they will be unapproved/deleted and the poster warned/banned.

 

I would like to think that some of the rather aggressive posting in the Bear Garden is not typical of the poster and that they are simply taking advantage of the anonymity of the forums.

[unclebulgaria67]

Slippery slope. Once people start posting political stuff, it gets noticed and it attracts more people. CAG might prefer to avoid. Means more moderator time and takes away from CAG being about consumer advice.

[tobyjugg2]

Slippery slope. Once people start posting political stuff, it gets noticed and it attracts more people. CAG might prefer to avoid. Means more moderator time and takes away from CAG being about consumer advice.

 

Valid point, and if that is the site admins view it seems the bear garden should be removed or anything judged a 'political thread' should be immediately deleted without explanation,

else we are back to post 8.

 

 

... mind you - aren't consumer rights a political issue?

[tobyjugg2]

When disruptive posts carry over onto regular threads, frightening off those who come here for help then they will be unapproved/deleted and the poster warned/banned.

 

As they should be in my opinion if that black and white.

 

I haven't seen any real examples of that occurring as a practice (the trolling other threads outside of bear garden), so I can perhaps assume that the squashing of them must be occurring very effectively.

I do appear to be very recently seeing a drop in the 'one liner' blatantly (in my view) disruptive posts.

 

I have seen some very questionable 'advice' posted in various threads by none-staff (I use 'staff' intended to mean 'official' representatives of this site), but have only really noticed dx and bankfodder actually challenge some of those. Of course I haven't read or even glanced at anything like all posts.

Even my own personal opinion on whether those dubious/clearly incorrect 'advice' posts should be deleted or at least flagged is very unclear to me.

[estellyn]

Obvious incorrect advice posts should surely be challenged - in my knowledge area I'm happy to correct or even be corrected if I'm not up to date on something.

 

Regarding political debate - I enjoy debate BUT there are people who post who have no idea how to debate, they just want to ram their views home and will belittle other posters, engage in personal attacks along the way. They don't explain or back up their points. I'm curious and interested in how people who have views different to mine come to hold those views and what sources they use etc.

 

But this is not how debate happens on the forum.

[obiter dictum]

Hear hear

[SabreSheep]

Obvious incorrect advice posts should surely be challenged - in my knowledge area I'm happy to correct or even be corrected if I'm not up to date on something.

 

Regarding political debate - I enjoy debate BUT there are people who post who have no idea how to debate, they just want to ram their views home and will belittle other posters, engage in personal attacks along the way. They don't explain or back up their points. I'm curious and interested in how people who have views different to mine come to hold those views and what sources they use etc.

 

But this is not how debate happens on the forum.

 

I agree and I keep saying it.

Attack the position not the person. Back your point up with evidence.

Discredit others evidence by all means but use only other sources of information to do so.

[caro]

I'm all for debate, but my reason for staying on cag and volunteering for so long is because I want to be a part of helping people with their problems. I don't want to spend my leisure time refereeing people who don't seem able to have a debate without turning it into a slanging match.

 

I'm all for free speech, debate, discussion and you'll rarely see me moderate posts or close threads, but neither will I tolerate abuse.

 

That said if someone is facing court tomorrow or about to lose their home, then I won't be wasting my time breaking up squabbles in the bear garden if people can't walk away and ignore trolls who are winding them up.

[Tawnyowl]

I'm all for debate, but my reason for staying on cag and volunteering for so long is because I want to be a part of helping people with their problems. I don't want to spend my leisure time refereeing people who don't seem able to have a debate without turning it into a slanging match.

 

I'm all for free speech, debate, discussion and you'll rarely see me moderate posts or close threads, but neither will I tolerate abuse.

 

That said if someone is facing court tomorrow or about to lose their home, then I won't be wasting my time breaking up squabbles in the bear garden if people can't walk away and ignore trolls who are winding them up.

 

Well said.

 

 

Argue No Debate Yes.

 

 

Gossip Yes.

 

I am out of here.

[snowdragon]

Fun yes! Politics NO! Games, YES, argue, NO

[Conniff]

"Ban political debate in bear garden ?"

 

What, and stop me and my bessy mate orbiter dictum having a conversation