Political Threads / Religious Threads

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Political Threads / Religious Threads

  • Yes, Allow them.

  • No, Do not allow them.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
By campaigning I was refering to the tactic of expanding the issue beyond the question in an effort to get more support.

As an example: Characterizing this as an effort to "ban" all off-topic discussion.
This kind of scaremongering is poor form.

I wasn't scaremongoring, I was rebutting BM's faulty logic (it's homebrewtalk.com, therefore we can only talk about beer). I know you're not trying to ban all OT discussion; my point was that people who use the argument "hey, this is a beer forum, we shouldn't be discussion politics" aren't being logically consistent - in other words, if your argument against political discussions is that this is just a forum for discussing homebrewing, then you must also support banning ALL non-homebrew-related topics too...either that, or pick a new rationale for your position.

I was arguing in favor of logical consistency, not scaremongering.
 
Beer is the focus. Beer topics are welcome everywhere.

OT discussion is not welcome in all forums, but we have found places for it because we all support it.

Political and Religious discussion do not have that same appeal for most members.
If one uses the poll number alone as the sole method that the Admin will use to decide this, it appears that we may be talking about where this is to occur and perhaps the ground rules. Lets not get ahead of that though.

Contrary to stated beliefs, I do not consider HBT to be the paragon of civil debate.
If actual rules of debate were enforced, many of the threads would be clipped. I think a
high school forensics major could see that.

If someone isn't mature and civilized enough to have a political discussion with someone with whom they disagree and still be friendly with that person outside of that discussion, then what business do they have in a community like this in the first place?

In ref to the above... because those types of people think they can, but don't realize that others find them to be incapable of it.

As someone that has met 50+ people here, I find enormous value in the social/networking aspects of this site. Argueably, I am among those that take the most advantage of that aspect, so I don't wish to be characterized as someone that wants to take the fun out of this place. I also won't be entering into a discussion defending the logical points of my personal opinion.
 
olllllo said:
The topic is Political Threads / Religious Threads
Yes, Allow them.
No, Do not allow them.

There is no need to campaign either way.

At least a discussion of the issues, how they affects the site, and how to best deal with them is productive. "Cast your vote, move along, keep your comments to yourself" is not...

Which brings us back (once again) to an underlying theme of this debate. We have one group of people who are not satisfied to simply ignore the comments/people they disagree with. That group won't be content until all comments/threads the disagree with aren't posted anywhere on HBT.

By campaigning I was referring to the tactic of expanding the issue beyond the question in an effort to get more support.

As an example: Characterizing this as an effort to "ban" all off-topic discussion. This kind of scaremongering is poor form.

There no "scaremongering" or false characterization involved. Any intelligent discussion on the suppression of ideas will always raise the question "If we ban X, why not Y" and the progress to "Where do we draw the line?".

If you don't ignore the viewpoints of others, "Where do we draw the line?" will include "all non-beer" Why? Because for you, that line is just politics/religion. For me that line may include adult content. For Joe, it's the rhetoric over who's team is better than the other guy. For Mike, it's some guy ranting about how evil his wife is. For BM (and others), it's all non-beer. And hence the "ban all" discussion. Because if the goal is to eliminate undesirable conversations from HBT, then the only common topic that ALL of us come here for is beer.

Also, let's assume for arguments sake that someone was suggesting that this thread was an effort to "ban all". The goal of sucha suggestion would be to manipulate votes based on fear. Not a positive thing, but certainly no less "scaremongering/campaigning" than the repeated suggestions that political/religious threads will result in the ultimate demise of HBT.

If actual rules of debate were enforced, many of the threads would be clipped.
I think a high school forensics major could see that.

A high schooler could also see that free-form debate in a bar is a quite popular pastime, whilst formal debate is not.
 
While not as common, beer related threads and other non political/religious threads have also turned into personal flame wars. The problem with restricting certain types of content is that anything has the potential to turn into a political debate/flame war. I remember a thread where someone's dog got sick and the whole thread turned into a big ethics debate about what to do, and then got a bit ugly. The potential exists for many threads to get bruatal and specifically excluding political/religious threads is only going to minimize the issue or force the political discussion to pop up subtely in other places.

I am all for keeping things the way they are, but with more self-moderation on our parts. If you notice a personal attack, hit the bad post link or post a reminder to get back on track. Also, as has probably already been mentioned in this thread (I didn't have time to read the whole thing) this is an election year and I'm sure that after the election and the resultant complaining about who is the president the political threads will die off some.
 
Is it me or is this thread starting to sound like one of those religious/political ones. Not that I'm trying to start a fight or anything :D
 
I say no.

I'm a mod for another board (sports related) and we made a no politics/religion policy about a year ago. Since then the board has been much much better overall
 
I say no.
I'm a mod for another board (sports related) and we made a no politics/religion policy about a year ago. Since then the board has been much much better overall

Better for who? The mods or the members? At present 60+% of the members (of this board) disagree with your assessment.

If this is about running off members, then a private back room for such debates solves that problem easily. All the rest is just "campaigning" to justify a given position.
 
At present 60+% of the members (of this board) disagree with your assessment.
Caveat: 60% of those who voted, not of the members.

If this is about running off members, then a private back room for such debates solves that problem easily.
It doesn't address all of the issues raised -- nor even, I think, the principle one -- therefore doesn't solve the problem "easily."

Rick
 
Is it me or is this thread starting to sound like one of those religious/political ones. Not that I'm trying to start a fight or anything :D

LOL! no, it's not just you. I've been thinking it for a while too, but it is clear why that should be. We are discussing a possible amendment to the the HBT constitution here. ;)

This thread is political by it's very nature. It started with a poll, naturally that started a debate. Then followed some campaigning (On my part at least, and I'm not ashamed about that). Eventually it will result in a decision by the executive branch of this forum.

Gotta love the American democratic system, and thus far, although I realise this forum is NOT a democracy, it seems to be applying itself quite nicely in this forum too!. :)

I'm just happy to have my say, whatever happens.
 
Caveat: 60% of those who voted, not of the members.

What on earth would be the point of a poll if we had to take into account the opinions of those never expressed an opinion? We would have to start making stuff up on their behalf?
 
Caveat: 60% of those who voted, not of the members.

You're absolutely right. After everyone votes it could be 99% or 1%. But since we can't know the minds of those who haven't voted, we're kind of stuck with those that did...


It doesn't address all of the issues raised -- nor even, I think, the principle one -- therefore doesn't solve the problem "easily."

Apparently I don't understand the principle one then. Please elaborate so I can make sure that I'm debating the right subject.
 
What on earth would be the point of a poll if we had to take into account the opinions of those never expressed an opinion?
Well, if there are a gazillion members and political/religious threads are allowed to continue because 72 people vote to allow them and a gazillion-72 members left you'd wish you took them into account. :)

My point is that you can't assume the voting percentages represent the opinion of those who didn't participate. (Well, you can assume it but you could be wrong.) I didn't say it was a major issue, just that it's good to keep in mind the (at this time) 120 folks who voted are a small percentage of the population here.

Rick
 
I just have to say a couple (more!) things. I'm a pretty open minded person, and very little offends me. No one has actually ever offended me, but if they had, I'm a big girl and I would speak up. I'm a liberal minded person, and a Christian, and I think everyone who talks to me knows my bent. If you are not a Christian, or not a Democrat, I can listen and speak to you with respect. I trust that most of you would do the same, especially those with different views.

I'm politically active in my community and spend time at meetings and speak my mind. I'm not a shy sort and everyone who knows me is aware of this.

The problem with having these conversations on a forum like this is that it can get ugly fast. I genuinely like all of you, and I don't enjoy having to moderate these ugly discussions. I know, I know- just ignore the political ones. Well, I can't always do that when we get name calling and complaints from other members.

Very few people have been warned or banned from brewing discussions. Most of the unpleasant duties of being a mod come from political and "not work safe" postings. That's why I don't want to see them- not because I want to stick my head in the sand and pretend the world is just a happy place. I really dislike having to be a policeman and step into this stuff. If there was a place for it that I could totally ignore and not even have to look at it, I wouldnt' be against allowing those discussions.
 
Apparently I don't understand the principle one then. Please elaborate so I can make sure that I'm debating the right subject.
That the overall affect will be negative for the community as a whole. Most of the discussion by those who support the threads is that those who don't can just avoid them; most of the discussion by those who voted no is around the affect on the community as a whole -- even if avoided by those who prefer the threads not be a part of HBT (and who, for the most part, already avoid them).

Moving them to where those who aren't looking at them will continue to not look at them doesn't really address anything. If the community as a whole suffers, if it spills over in to negative attitudes/comments in the community as a whole, it can still run folks off whether the actual threads are behind or in front of the membership wall.

The idea that having political/religious threads will/can/does negatively affect the community as a whole may be erroneous, but to me it's the principle argument against them.

Rick
 
Gotta love the American democratic system, and thus far, although I realise this forum is NOT a democracy, it seems to be applying itself quite nicely in this forum too!.

Actually, it is. HBT is a capitalist enterprise and ultimately HBT exists only as long as it makes a profit for TX. And that means that we the consumers have the opportunity to vote with our dollars. Or in this particular case, our eyeballs. If many people vote against HBT (stop visiting) policies will change. If many people vote for HBT (more watching) the policies creating that growth with continue and expand.
 
HBT exists only as long as it makes a profit

That's an assumption. Plenty of site operate with fees to cover costs. We do not know the Admin's motivations and I do not expect him to share them.
 
Better for who? The mods or the members? At present 60+% of the members (of this board) disagree with your assessment.

If this is about running off members, then a private back room for such debates solves that problem easily.

You're misrepresenting the poll. 60% have voted that political/religious discussions should be allowed...not that these discussions make HBT "better." In fact, many said they voted yes because they don't get involved in those discussions anyhow.

I agree about the back room, so long as the mods (who ultimately have to police it) don't object to the additional workload.

Ultimately it's TxBrew's decision to make, based on whatever factors he wants to consider. He's not obligated to consider or value our opinions, and we should be grateful he does. Still, it's entirely at his discretion.
 
I just have to say a couple (more!) things. I'm a pretty open minded person, and very little offends me. No one has actually ever offended me, but if they had, I'm a big girl and I would speak up. I'm a liberal minded person, and a Christian, and I think everyone who talks to me knows my bent. If you are not a Christian, or not a Democrat, I can listen and speak to you with respect. I trust that most of you would do the same, especially those with different views.

I'm politically active in my community and spend time at meetings and speak my mind. I'm not a shy sort and everyone who knows me is aware of this.

The problem with having these conversations on a forum like this is that it can get ugly fast. I genuinely like all of you, and I don't enjoy having to moderate these ugly discussions. I know, I know- just ignore the political ones. Well, I can't always do that when we get name calling and complaints from other members.

Very few people have been warned or banned from brewing discussions. Most of the unpleasant duties of being a mod come from political and "not work safe" postings. That's why I don't want to see them- not because I want to stick my head in the sand and pretend the world is just a happy place. I really dislike having to be a policeman and step into this stuff. If there was a place for it that I could totally ignore and not even have to look at it, I wouldnt' be against allowing those discussions.

I feel ya, I really do---and I'd not like to be in your position (which is why I'd not like to be a moderator). I wouldn't want to have to act as the policeman and constantly have to break up heated arguments among people whom I consider friends---simply because that changes the dynamic of the relationships. It's no fun! But it's the life of a moderator; I suppose it's also no fun for a cop to have to arrest his friends, but that's the life they chose when the signed up for the force. I don't mean to be insensitive and say to you "just deal with the choices you made", because that's not the entirety of it. In reality, I go out of my way to not put moderators in that position. When a mod recently asked me in a PM (nicely, I might add) if I wouldn't mind toning it down just so that people around here calm down a bit, I was absolutely fine with that---for your sake and for the forum's.

I just think it's a matter of people having enough respect for the moderators to not have to put them in that position if they can help it. Of course, it's always going to happen, but if people are cognizant of it, and cognizant of the way other people on the board view them, then I think it'll be a better place. And if someone is constantly stepping past that line, they can be dealt with individually. A bigger problem is what can be seen as a double standard - and I think that at the very least, keeping the moderators out of these discussions so that they may remain (at least somewhat) objective will go a long way.
 
That the overall affect will be negative for the community as a whole. Most of the discussion by those who support the threads is that those who don't can just avoid them; most of the discussion by those who voted no is around the affect on the community as a whole -- even if avoided by those who prefer the threads not be a part of HBT

And based on the arguments I have seen presented thus far, I would say that "the effect on the community as a whole" is in large part a strawman created to mask personal agendas* and cast a negative light on anyone offering an opposing viewpoint. Much like politicians do when they branding each and every new spending proposal as being "for the children" or "for homeland defense". After all, only a complete goober would be against helping children, safe streets, and the good of the community...

* IMHO, these agendas break down into two basic categories. 1) Mods, who are sick of moderating 'hot' threads. 2) Members, who don't like reading stuff they disagree with or don't feel comfortable publicly opposing.


The idea that having political/religious threads will/can/does negatively affect the community as a whole may be erroneous, but to me it's the principle argument against them.

And now we've gotten down to the fundamental problem. The principle argument for suppressing conversation between other people (consenting adults, no less) is based on a premise that there is limited information to support and you even freely admit may be erroneous. Do you not agree that such a line of reasoning is illogical? Particularly in light of the fact that trying it for awhile is a perfectly viable option.

Well, if there are a gazillion members and political/religious threads are allowed to continue because 72 people vote to allow them and a gazillion-72 members left you'd wish you took them into account.

That sword has two edges. What if political/religious threads are NOT allowed to continue because 60 people vote to disallow them and a gazillion members left. Then you'd wish you took them into account.

Bottom line: With free and open voting, you must assume the vote is a sampling of the population at large. To so otherwise is pure speculation and can be taken anywhere you want it to go.
 
The idea that having political/religious threads will/can/does negatively affect the community as a whole may be erroneous, but to me it's the principle argument against them.

The abstract idea might be the best argument against them so far (in my view at least), but I still see very little to actually back it up. Isolated incidents will always be a part of a forum like this, whether we're talking about taxation or AL vs SS. The best argument for criminalizing marijuana is that it could turn people into crazies if they smoked enough of it, thus leading to injury, death and destruction on a large scale. But while that hypothetical might be the best argument, there is no evidence of it actually being a reality---though there are certainly people who have smoked too much weed and done bad things, but these are isolated incidents. Along those lines, like I said, I don't see this outbreak of animosity spilling over into the rest of the forums that you guys are implying is happening. I just. Don't. See it. Now maybe I'm just blind to it, or maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but until someone can point out the epidemic of bad blood around here outside the political threads, your argument is nothing but an abstract idea, like reefer madness. And just as i oppose the criminalization of marijuana, I oppose this---because it's aimed at solving a hypothetical problem--and you have freely admitted that it is hypothetical by admitting that it may be wrong. By your standards, I could just make up anything...you know, if we don't outlaw homebrewing, the world could be overrun by crazy drunks hellbent on destroying the planet! So let's outlaw homebrewing! Yes, it's an extreme example, but the process is the same: attempting to fix a hypothetical problem.
 
You're misrepresenting the poll. 60% have voted that political/religious discussions should be allowed...not that these discussions make HBT "better." In fact, many said they voted yes because they don't get involved in those discussions anyhow.

There's a double negative causing confusion here. I didn't suggest they made the board better.

The OP said that disallowing them made the board better suggesting that allowing them had made degraded the board. Assuming that very few people vote for something that makes a situation worse, I said that 60% disagreed with his assessment (that they made the board worse).

Clear as mud?
 
That's an assumption. Plenty of site operate with fees to cover costs. We do not know the Admin's motivations

Get technical if you wish, but I can bet you that my statement (below and above) holds true no matter what his motivation. Otherwise this poll/thread wouldn't exist...

If many people vote against HBT (stop visiting) policies will change. If many people vote for HBT (more watching) the policies creating that growth with continue and expand.
 
I haven't taken part in very many exchanges here, but I have been around since last september. There was an anti newbie question bent to some of the threads last fall that almost turned me off from the site. I paid for a subscription, though, because I am here almost every day for a few minutes at least. The few political/religious threads I've seen almost felt worse than the rtfm,ah threads. In those threads there was sometimes a bit of humor coming through, but it goes away a lot quicker in the p/r threads.

I come here to learn how to make beer better than I do now. This past year, it has been learning to brew all grain. The politics an religion I can get anywhere - usually cant get away from them, in fact. As the owners of a bakery, we get all kinds of people in each day who talk all over the spectrum. Very few of them discuss beer with me (unless of course I happen to be brewing while they are there!). I enjoy the beer talk, and the banter on the side forums, but the topics of discussion here generally make me want a stiff shot of scotch, rather than a nice homebrew.

There is a new club feature here that may be easier for the mods than a sub forum (but what the hell do I know?). Presumably every one in the club will know what to expect.

I'm not against the discussion of the topics, but I get enough of it elsewhere, and don't need to see it here. I voted no (no, really?) but I also know when to stop reading, and go back to the new post page to read a different thread.

Christ! (oops, can I say that in this thread?) This is only my 25th post! what a newb!

Tuesday is the best day of the week.

David
 
OK..we've discussed this to death!

I want the best of both worlds here...I want civil discussion of any topic of interest, but I don't want people getting so worked up that it bleeds over to the beer threads. That degrades the main purpose of home brew in general.
Having said that...I don't want it legislated either.
Perhaps to facilitate an easily moderated "Spot" the new "Area'" is a good idea. This could avoid the total ban of this type of discussion (Which I believe will lead to the ultimate boring of HBT!).
 
Wow. Even a discussion ABOUT political threads can get heated;)

Anyways, I find it appalling that political discussion is so taboo in our society today. The only information we can get is through an extremely biased media, or the politicians themselves. For some strange reason I'm not allowed to ask my buddy what he thinks. If I'm scoping out chicks at the bar, I ask him which one to go for. If I'm buying a car, he comes along to offer his opinion about the price. If I'm considering who I want to be president.... I'm totally on my own???? Why? because a few ******-bags who don't know how to offer up an opinion without becoming a bunch of jerks have tainted all political conversation for all eternity? That's stupid.

Allow the discussions and If you join in on one, accept that you'll probably have someone call you an ugly name.

If you don't want to see or partake, it's real simple:

DON'T POST IN OR READ POLITICAL THREADS

There's NOTHING more annoying than someone coming into the middle of a thread just to enflame people and then go running to the moderators to get the thread locked. Hello, stupid, if you don't like the thread, STOP READING IT!
 
I see the conclusion of this thread ending in the favour of the minority.

There are some very good debaters on this forum, and they tend to be in favour of allowing the "politigous" threads to continue (new word there, I just made it up) No surprises there, and yes, I'm going to generalise here:- The posters that CAN debate, WILL debate. Posters that are less interested in debate will tend to vote against debating politigous matters at all.

This thread alone, while an obvious hot topic regarding censorship, after 141 posts has failed to bring out the worst in us, and should be considered a succesful arguement for the continuation of politigous threads. IMO

(Campaigning, yes, I know)
 
Isolated incidents will always be a part of a forum like this, whether we're talking about taxation or AL vs SS.

I'm going to try to keep it civil here, but this is way off base. Everybody knows that AL not only introduces off-flavors into your beer, but it also gives you Alzheimer's. :fro:

Also, smoking marijuana does make you criminally insane. ;)

That's enough humor for now.......we now go back to our regularly scheduled debate on the topic of what debates may or may not be debated.
 
I'm going to try to keep it civil here, but this is way off base. Everybody knows that AL not only introduces off-flavors into your beer, but it also gives you Alzheimer's. :fro:

Also, smoking marijuana does make you criminally insane. ;)

That's enough humor for now.......we now go back to our regularly scheduled debate on the topic of what debates may or may not be debated.


Why stop with the humour there?

Although nobody has invoked Evans law yet on the grounds that BMC has never been mentioned thus far.......

Monkey piss! :D
 
Better for who? The mods or the members? At present 60+% of the members (of this board) disagree with your assessment.

If this is about running off members, then a private back room for such debates solves that problem easily. All the rest is just "campaigning" to justify a given position.

Well it was definetly better for the mods. And better for the site. Because political arguments would spill over to the rest of the board. Negative relationships developed and certain posters could not stop going after each other even with non political stuff.

this is a different board with different people - so it may not be the same. I was just trying to relate from a similar situation.
 
The OP said that disallowing them made the board better suggesting that allowing them had made degraded the board. Assuming that very few people vote for something that makes a situation worse, I said that 60% disagreed with his assessment (that they made the board worse).

Which again, is not supported by the poll results. Don't make assumptions, don't over-simplify. Adhere to the specific language of the poll when analyzing the data.

Some people voted yes because they don't read the discussions. Others voted yes *IF* these discussions were confined to their own dedicated (and in some cases hidden) forum. It appears to me that these people don't think political discussions benefit the forum, since they take pains not to read them, and would prefer they be kept out of plain sight. Clearly they constitute a less than ringing endorsement.

Let's say there was another poll. How do you think people would vote if asked these questions? I expect there would be a very different outcome.

A) I believe allowing political and religious discussions improves HBT.

B) I believe allowing political and religious discussions does not improve HBT.
 
this is a different board with different people - so it may not be the same. I was just trying to relate from a similar situation.

And a different specialty topic matter too. Sports allegiances can be like religions sometimes...and I could see how every topic had the potential to become heated. Homebrewing, not so much. Good beer is good beer---and while there are many ways to make good beer, I don't see many things that cause people to get defensive about it. Sports...yeah...lots of potential.
 
The principle argument for suppressing conversation between other people (consenting adults, no less) is based on a premise that there is limited information to support and you even freely admit may be erroneous. Do you not agree that such a line of reasoning is illogical?

Not at all. First, PMs, e-mail, and the huge number of forums available elsewhere allow the consenting adults to carry on such debates to their heart's content. Second, it's your opinion that there is limited information to support the idea the forum would be negatively affected; this thread has a post from someone with experience that banning such threads made a forum better, and I've seen heated discussions bleed over into other posts on this site. Third, you suggest that my admitting my position might be wrong is tantamount to admitting illogical reasoning. Part of the problem with debating, here and elsewhere, is that so many people are unwilling to accept they may be in the wrong (yet, interestingly, are usually the first to suggest they enter the discussion with an "open mind"). With hot-button topics, this makes it more likely to become nasty. Are you saying you are never wrong or it's just in this particular instance there is no chance you have erred in your position? :)

I go into most discussions accepting I may be wrong in my opinion; I think it's the only way to have a truly healthy discussion. Otherwise you're just proselytizing.

That sword has two edges. What if political/religious threads are NOT allowed to continue because 60 people vote to disallow them and a gazillion members left. Then you'd wish you took them into account.
I absolutely agree; my point was you shouldn't assume the poll is a direct correlation of those who didn't vote. Fact is, I'd guess the majority that don't vote could care less whether or not they continue. Truth is, I don't think keeping or not keeping them will have any noticeable impact on membership. I just think the place will be a nicer place to hang around if they are disallowed.

Rick
 
...For BM (and others), it's all non-beer. And hence the "ban all" discussion. Because if the goal is to eliminate undesirable conversations from HBT, then the only common topic that ALL of us come here for is beer...

Hey, i like to talk about boobies and BBQ as much as the next guy (or gal...not that there's anything wrong with that...) :D
 
Hello, stupid, if you don't like the thread, STOP READING IT!

I'm sure glad we can remain civil while discussing this...

Your choice of words speaks volumes about this topic. Evan argues that the HBT community should be self-policing in discussion threads, but time after time we see the community is not up to the task. Eventually words and phrases like "stupid" or "hysterical hyper-emotional ranting" crop up, and the discussion spirals downward.
 
it's your opinion that there is limited information to support the idea the forum would be negatively affected; this thread has a post from someone with experience that banning such threads made a forum better, and I've seen heated discussions bleed over into other posts on this site.

I've seen heated discussions spill over too, but they are very rare in my experience. VERY rare. I mean, like, in the two years I've been here, I've seen it maybe half a dozen times. Regardless, it's not up to us to prove a negative (or disprove a positive) like the people who said that there weren't any WMD's in Iraq. It's up to the ones who are making the assertion that this is a problem to 'prove a positive' if their position is to be given credence. Otherwise it's just my anecdotes versus your anecdotes...useless.
 
attempting to fix a hypothetical problem.
But, Evan, I don't believe it to be that hypothetical. I've seen discussion on other boards blow up with folks who had been friendly for a long time become bitter in all their dealings with each other on the boards, with the end result being the exodus of members who were valued for their knowledge around the central purpose of the board.

Like others here, I've been fooling around on discussion boards since they were single-modem BBSes. Over the years, I've seen hot-button issues damage a friendly message board, from SF&F, to writing, to amateur radio, to photography to others I've probably forgotten. In my experience, it's fairly common to happen. It may not be nor become an issue here, but I don't think the potential is quite as hypothetical as the antics displayed in Reefer Madness.

Rick
 
Hey, i like to talk about boobies and BBQ as much as the next guy (or gal...not that there's anything wrong with that...) :D

And when was the last time you saw a verbal fight on HBO about boobs or BBQ? Oh sure...silicone vs saline vs natural, or maybe gas vs charcoal, but always friendly and without insulting comments. It helps that we have specific, dedicated places to discuss these things. I don't go to the all-grain or general chit-chat forums and start arguing about my preference of lump charcoal or dry rubs. (Or saline!)

Nobody has ever suggested banning all non-beer discussion. Just two specific categories of discussion, which quite reliably turn into nasty fights and require mod intervention.
 
I'm sure glad we can remain civil while discussing this...

Your choice of words speaks volumes about this topic. Evan argues that the HBT community should be self-policing in discussion threads, but time after time we see the community is not up to the task. Eventually words and phrases like "stupid" or "hysterical hyper-emotional ranting" crop up, and the discussion spirals downward.

I never said it should be purely self-policing (go back and read my first post in this thread), I just said that we're all adults and it takes both self-policing and third-party-policing to keep it cool. yes, those things DO crop up sometimes, and the discussion does sometimes spiral downward---and the thread gets closed quickly, end of story. I watched it happen the other day between a couple members...it was getting a little too heated so BM closed it. Done. You'd have a point if these over-the-line incidents were happening all the time, but honestly, there's rarely more than one big political thread going at any given time, and I think that between all the mods (and other people observing who can PM the mods if they see fit), it's never gotten to a point that's a big problem. Well...once in awhile it has, but that usually ends in suspensions or bans.

But again, I never said we should just rely on self-policing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top