Political Threads / Religious Threads

[user 4295]

The only way for something like this to work is to have a forum that is password only and unmoderated (the mods would be working overtime otherwise). You have to ask the admin for the password and accept that this forum will be unmoderated and only the thick skinned need apply. Any complaints to the mods for someone venturing into this forum and getting offended would result in disciplinary action taken against the complainer.

I have seen this type of password only, unmoderated forum work on many other sites that I frequent. Knowing that you are entering "the wild west", so to speak, and that complainers will be dealt with tend to keep the thin skinned out.

 

[adrock]

I voted for, but I want to make it clear that I only support it if it doesn't (or hasn't) become a huge burden on the mods to oversee it. I really enjoy the political debate on the forum, as it contributes to the overall "pub" feel of the site. This site is a "one-stop shop" for all my interweb needs..........I'd prefer not to go find a specific political forum to talk about politics. I don't even know those people! At least here we all have something in common; we're all passionate about brewing (and drinking) beer. That's enough common ground for me.

On the flip side I can, to some extent, relate to the idea of not wanting to know EVERY detail about a person I'm talking to (for example if they solicited a transvestite hooker back in '82): But when did it become impossible to have friends that believe in different political ideals? I for one have not had that problem, and if I did I would avoid political discussions on this site and in person. To that end maybe it isn't a bad idea to give them their own forum.

 

[BierMuncher]

Every now and again...a brawl is unavoidable. Once the politics die down...we'll be cursing each other about fly VS batch and SS VS aluminum.

With a good homebrew in hand…personalities are bound to “shine”.

Regardless of the debate topic…the basic rules should stand:

Shake hands first.
Exchange your verbal fisticuffs.
No low blows.
First person to go down…fights over.
Shake hands and buy each other a beer.



If those crazy Irish can keep returning to the same pub night after night, brawl after brawl, then so can we.

Bottom line is that it is us (homebrewers) against the rest of the BMC drinking world.

 

[adrock]

The only way for something like this to work is to have a forum that is password only and unmoderated (the mods would be working overtime otherwise).

While this may make it easier on the mods, I think an unmoderated forum would instantly change all discussions in that forum from civil banter into flame wars........it would be the exact opposite of what I'm looking for. IMO if this is the decision we come to I would certainly not frequent it!

 

[user 4295]

I voted for, but I want to make it clear that I only support it if it doesn't (or hasn't) become a huge burden on the mods to oversee it.

That's why I said that the only way it can work is if a password only, unmoderated forum is created to house that kind of content. Otherwise, it will take away from the valuable service that the mods perform just policing the rest of the forum.

If you ask for the password you are agreeing that you will not be offended by the content if you "choose" to enter. And if you do get offended, you must just suck it up because complaining about the offense to the mods or admin will result in the complainer being punished.

I have seen this approach on other forums allow people to engage in subject matter that may be controversial, allow forum members to talk about subjects that interest them, outside the scope of the forum, without placing a burden on the forum's mods or admins.

 

[billtzk]

I voted to allow, but like others I think such discussion should be contained within a dedicated forum. I do believe these discussions can be divisive and perhaps destructive of the brewing-related community spirit if people can't be civil, so I would not suggest that such a forum be completely unmoderated.

 

[BierMuncher]

We will not have any un-moderated areas.

 

[JustDave]

Allow them.

People should be able to tell the tone of a thread from the subject or the first few posts. If they're easily offended or just don't feel like reading things of that nature, they should click away.

It's like getting offended at things on radio/TV -- just change the channel if it bothers you, don't ban the material.

 

[BigKahuna]

We will not have any un-moderated areas.

+1 that can NOT happen!

That is how things get WAY out of hand! This would only lead to serious problems...

 

[user 4295]

While this may make it easier on the mods, I think an unmoderated forum would instantly change all discussions in that forum from civil banter into flame wars........it would be the exact opposite of what I'm looking for. IMO if this is the decision we come to I would certainly not frequent it!

Please believe when I say that I don't mean any disrespect to you with what I'm about to say. This is exactly why it needs to be password only and unmoderated. What are you looking for? Politics and religion, by nature, are subjects that people hold very strong opinions about. Most people are not equipped, either because of a lack of education on the subject, or a lack of the communication skills necessary to engage in intelligent debate. This will always lead to name calling and flaming.

The fact that you would not frequent such a forum is proof that this is the only way it would work. You know your limitations, and that's a good thing. You suspect that you would be offended if you entered so you would choose not to enter.

 

[BigKahuna]

You know your limitations, and that's a good thing.

Not True. The ONLY way to find your limitation is to exceed them...and in this case, that is never a good thing.

 

[user 4295]

We will not have any un-moderated areas.

Then this discussion about political and religious topics being allowed should end right now. Look, fours pages of opinions so far on the topic of whether or not these subjects should be allowed! What do you think would happen if a forum that was moderated was opened to contain such content. You poor mods would have no time to do anything else, and the forum would inevitably have to be closed.

As I said, I've seen the unmoderated forum work on many other sites, and the thin skinned definitely do not enter.

 

[user 4295]

Not True. The ONLY way to find your limitation is to exceed them...and in this case, that is never a good thing.

Not true. I don't have to eat sand to know that it probably isn't palatable.

 

[Evan!]

Allow them.

People should be able to tell the tone of a thread from the subject or the first few posts. If they're easily offended or just don't feel like reading things of that nature, they should click away.

It's like getting offended at things on radio/TV -- just change the channel if it bothers you, don't ban the material.

How much sympathy can you really have for someone who is easily offended that voluntarily ventures into a thread about, say, taxation or global warming? I'm not saying it should be a free-for-all by any means, just that I don't think most people are being given enough credit with regards to how thick their skin is. I think the "problem" is overblown and is being exaggerated for some reason. Yesterday, a couple people were bickering in the "taxation" thread, and it was getting a little too heated and personal between them for even my tastes...and within 2 minutes, The Muncher had lockedinated it. Just how it should be (or, perhaps, just a warning to calm down in some situations could precede lockedinating, but I digress). I just don't see the urgent problem that was intimated by the very presence of this poll. There are problems here, to be sure, but I don't see this as a big one.

 

[Philip1993]

+1 that can NOT happen!

That is how things get WAY out of hand! This would only lead to serious problems...

I disagree. On of the forums I visit (also a vocal bunch) is unmoderated and it's a nice place to hang out. There are two or three that battle DAILY, and they have their own forum (spiders not allowed) where they pummel each other at will. Interestingly, the continue to spar even though no one else ever goes to that forum.

I said "unmoderated", but in the rest of the forums self moderation is practiced with great success. If someone gets rude, the rest of the crowd shuns them until they behave or feel so unwelcome they slink away. Usually, they get quiet for awhile and return a better netizen.

On *rare* occasion someone gets banned, but it's only about one a year (notice of banning is made public).

Anyway, I can understand why Tx chooses not to have unmoderated forums. But the assumption that unmoderated forums must end in disaster is inaccurate.

I'm of the firm opinion that the OT banter, including political discussion, is one of the cornerstones that make this place enjoyable to frequent---and that eliminating them altogether is NOT the answer.

+1

not to start this discussion here...but this is a privately owned non-governmental non tax funded web site and censorship is 100% acceptable.

Time for the "cheap beer" rebuttal ==> Acceptable and enjoyable are two different things.

Seriously though. A love it or leave it approach won't work. Tx is in this to make money. And money means eyeballs on page. If you allow it to get too wild, you run off visitors. If you make it to dry/technical, you run off visitors.

The only way for something like this to work is to have a forum that is password only and unmoderated (the mods would be working overtime otherwise).
You have to ask the admin for the password and accept that this forum will be unmoderated and only the thick skinned need apply.
Any complaints to the mods for someone venturing into this forum and getting offended would result in disciplinary action taken against the complainer.

I have seen this type of password only, unmoderated forum work on many other sites that I frequent. Knowing that you are entering "the wild west", so to speak, and that complainers will be dealt with tend to keep the thin skinned out.

I like this approach. Since we have made the bar analogy, this is the electronic version of "you boys take that outside". My other site has a forum called "Threads gone wild" where the runaways get moved to and continue for weeks...

 

[k1v1116]

If political and other debates were banned we wouldn't have a thread like this to argue about it.

 

[skinfiddler]

Seems like you have areas set up for non-beer related discussions anyway- what's the issue? Don't like 'em?- Don't participate

 

[NJTomatoguy]

I voted allow.

Those are 2 things I don't discuss with anyone, but will learn from others views.

 

[BigKahuna]

On *rare* occasion someone gets banned, but it's only about one a year (notice of banning is made public).

.

No mods...who banns them?

Honest question...not being argumentative.

 

[Philip1993]

No mods...who banns them?

Honest question...not being argumentative.

Serious, no mods. The site admin participates in the discussions like you or I and when he sees someone really bringing everyone down (or he gets reports of same) he brings out the ban hammer and makes a post notifying everyone of what happened and why. Usually, they get a warning to play nice or leave, but not always.

Most people get a clue when they make a new post and no one responds to it. Or they make a bad post and 10 people tell them to act like an adult or go elsewhere.

 

[BierMuncher]

…What do you think would happen if a forum that was moderated was opened to contain such content…

That is what’s happening right now. The problem is these discussions are popping up too many places. That makes our jobs tougher than if the discussions were limited to a single spot and moderated.

You throw people into a back room and let them start throwing haymakers all day…hard feelings are going to bleed over to the “front” of the house.

 

[menschmaschine]

The problem with politics and religion is that they are, at there core, beliefs. Beliefs rise from personal experience and are therefore, inherently personal. This is why these discussions always end up personal. When one perceives their belief is attacked, they feel personally attacked. These discussions WILL end up being devisive, no matter what. We can sugar coat it with all the we want, but some people form positive or negative opinions about others based on their core beliefs. If that's something we can live with on this forum, then keep them. Whatever happens, something needs to be done differently than how it's been done as of late, what with the election around the corner and all.

I vote to allow them to be disallowed.

 

[NWernBrewer]

BM +1

That would eventually happen - if not happened already. People can get angry about things they feel strongly about and when the avenue of expression is closed before they are done - I could see people taking jabs elsewhere.

That said I am still for these topics, they have never gotten too bad that I have seen and add to a community experience which I feel is part of this site's strength.

 

[olllllo]

The unofficial unmoderated area is the PM. There is even an ignore feature.

Yes it is one-one-one but that's what these thread devolve into. If people self-moderated and used the PM appropriatly, there may not be an issue.

 

[eschatz]

on principal alone I dont believe that content should be monitored on the site. However, some of the discussions do get a bit rowdy. I totally agree with a Religious/Political thread category.

 

[Fingers]

As pathetic as it may sound, you lot are counted amongst my friends. I often debate politics and religion with my friends and of all my RT close friends, I'm alone in my opinions. I'm left wing, they're right. I'm not religious, they are. If my friends always agreed with me we'd quickly run out of things to talk about. As it is, the drunken debates go on. I'm the weirdo in the bunch.

Here's to drunken debates!

 

[BierMuncher]

...on principal alone I dont believe that content should be monitored on the site...

We're just here to keep our neighborhoods safe, civil and a place people want to visit to talk about beer.

 

[bethlehembrewer]

not to start this discussion here...but this is a privately owned non-governmental non tax funded web site and censorship is 100% acceptable.

and the fact is: Limiting the freedom of either the owner or the designated Moderators to censor the content of a private forum is in and of itself a violation of the first amendment.
The Freedom of speech ONLY pertains to the Government passing LAWS that forbid you to speak your mind. It does NOT guarantee you a Public Forum to do so.

Tell that to the guy who called us pr!cks!

And well said Evan!

 

[BarleyWater]

I don't usually pay much attention to the religious/political threads, but when half of the new posts aren't beer related, it does get a bit frustrating and hard to ignore. I hate to say it, but there are a couple people on this board that I have less respect for now, than if I had ever come across some of their responses to the devisive threads. People get angry at eachother, and say things that would never be said in person, without the aid of a keyboard and monitor to hide behind.

I however don't think the answer is to ban them, but shoving them all into one place that I never have to deal with would be great. I voted yes, and think there should be a seperate category (like there aren't enough catagories already).

 

[BigKahuna]

Tell that to the guy who called us pr!cks!

You have confused my point? or I am confused. I am saying that the owner of a site has the right (As long as it's not funded by tax money) to censor what ever they want.