Shall we ban politics? Take the poll.

[tnthomas]

Actually politics on SF is really rather mild in comparison to other places. For one thing verbal abuse is rare not too hard to ignore. We even have an 'ignore' function for us to use.

I appreciate the fact that this forum is fairly evenly balanced when it comes to political opinions. On other forums I have participated in there has been a tendency for the overwhelming majority of posters to be supporters of the same side of politics. This results in posters seldom hearing a dissenting opinion. Either way, left or right leaning, I find little to interest me. I'm either preaching to the choir or f**ting against thunder as my dear mother would say.

SF is certainly mild compared to all the forums I've visited that have a political section. That's why I hate to see the political forum closed here, no real alternatives as many have such hopelessly toxic environments.

I hope that if the final poll tally gives the "yes, ban it" faction a simple majority, it is not necessarily binding.

Frankly thought conditions were improving in the Political section, compared to the last several months. ?? Goings on behind the scenes, that isn't readily apparent...?

I've seen forums with a lot less traffic have a lot more mods that SF does, perhaps recruiting another mod is in order.

 

[Butterfly]

As I've said before, I think the political section serves an excellent purpose in allowing folks to express their opinions. I've learned quite a bit as a result of participating in it. For one thing, sometimes it provides a question that "grabs" me and I go off in to googleland to research the issue. For instance, I gained a lot of knowledge about congressional procedure from researching questions of "what happens if" and "what does this mean" and so forth.

I also believe it gives many of us a chance to think and engage in what is going on around us, which is important in many ways, especially to those who don't have much of a social life, for whatever reason. Putting a subject off limits the community aspect of the forum, and I believe that lessens its value.

Many of us do not participate in all the forums, but I think the politics forum is a good one. I don't see anything intrinsically wrong in "bickering," as long as it does not descend into ridicule and calling one another idiots and so on.

 

[Camper6]

When I first joined SF , I said to myself ,finally a good political forum with no personal attacks and posters sticking to the topic.

No longer. Finding having to defend against personal comments instead of the topic.

I will always defend myself come hell or high water. If it means being banned or the forum closed so be it.

The golden rule should be 'Stick to the topic not the poster'.

 

[Matrix]

I'm not being facetious, but I seriously would consider Warrigal, if she be willing.

Warri would be a good choice. She's even-tempered, fair, and not a member of either political party.

First, Warri had to give up posting in politics to moderate it, it's not a good idea to be a referee and a player at the same time. Second, Warri is clearly on one side.

I'm wondering. Have you had complaints or is this a concern of your own? This is the second time around isn't it.

My own concern, I have tried everything I can. It's crystal clear to me that politics is poison to this forum.

I rarely read political posts but feel a site should offer a wide range of topics to suit all members, as long they respect each other's point of view and things don't get nasty...

It's pretty much work the same way with politics in real life, can you imagine Trump supports and Hillary supporters respect each other?

 

[Cap'nSacto]

"...can you imagine Trump supports and Hillary supporters respect each other?"

That's an excellent point.

 

[Ken N Tx]

First, Warri had to give up posting in politics to moderate it, it's not a good idea to be a referee and a player at the same time. Second, Warri is clearly on one side.


My own concern, I have tried everything I can. It's crystal clear to me that politics is poison to this forum.

It's pretty much work the same way with politics in real life, can you imagine Trump supports and Hillary supporters respect each other?

As a former Adim/Mod, I know what you 2 are going through daily!! The forum I was on had roughly 30 Mods to cover the 24 hour shifts..Not only for politics and/religion but to control the never ending spamming!!!
Any, even slight mention, of politics/religion the post/thread would be deleted and a warning PM sent to the poster!! The forum has thousands of active members and they all know and respect the rules!!

 

[Lolly]

Six pages and 80 posts.... it's pretty clear Matrix, that you are planning on banning the political forum... SO DO IT already!!.... You have been complaining long enough about it. Let the people desiring political debate find other forums and let SF carry on in the vision you intend.. Only by banning it completely will you be able to learn what that action is going to do to your site... either for the better..... or the worse..

 

[Matrix]

1.) Domestic and global politics has an impact on senior citizens, our children, our grandchildren, and our Country. I believe it's important to have the opportunity to discuss politics on a senior citizen forum.

I agree, but a balanced political forum will never work out.

2.) I agree with a couple of the posters that what one clicks on or reads on a discussion board are at their own "risk". If one does not believe the political forum or any specific thread on that forum agrees with their political beliefs, they are not forced to click on it.

It's more about those who post in politics, when they post in non-politics forum, the hard feelings won't miraculously disappear.

3.) So many discussion boards are weighted heavily towards one side or the other.

I have come to exactly the same conclusion: this is the only way a political forum can work out, it must be on one side. If a senior forum allows politics, it has to be a "Republican Senior Forum" or a "Democrat Senior Forum". There is no middle ground.

I have tried heavy moderation to keep SF friendly, I don't mind the work involved or being hated by some members, but after I banned 2/3 politics posters, I started to wonder if it's worth it. I built SF for seniors to hang out, these banned members are good people, why don't we ban politics instead of good members?

I have been trying light moderation in the past few weeks, not surprisingly it's getting hastier day by day. This is even worse than heavy moderation.

p.s. I do not know the capabilities of this board's software. Two other discussion boards I post to have political forums. Both are sports boards. Their political forums are "hidden". A member must request permission to have access to the political discussion and can, likewise, opt out at any time. I have not opted in to either board's political discussion because I believe the board's purpose is discussion of and support of that particular sport. SF's mission, I would imagine, is support and interest for seniors. Politics can be important to seniors. Yet, if it were possible to have that forum "hidden" where those who wanted to participate could, maybe that would be a "compromise".

This is similar to my last solution I wanted to try. We create two private hidden forums: one for democrats and one for republicans, democrats choose their own mods, other members can apply to join one or both forums. By this way, there won't be hard feelings, if the democrat forum doesn't like how a republican member posts, they can simply remove him.

But on a second thought, it would be quite boring if every participants agree with each other and their posts can't be read by all members and guests.

 

[IKE]

My own concern, I have tried everything I can. It's crystal clear to me that politics is poison to this forum.

I have my own feelings about politics, religion and racial issues and I don't have a desire to argue back and forth about how or why I feel the way I do, it serves no purpose.......think about it, because of arguing back and forth on a computer how many that like or dislike Obama, HRC, Trump their policies or their personalities have actually been convinced to change their minds ?......I'd be willing to bet that the number is real close to zero.

Although I very rarely post (but do sometimes read them) I can see where being a referee / moderator on the Politics Forum would be a real pain in the a$$ and time consuming......I for one would not want to put up with the aggravation.

The bottom line Matrix, no matter what the poll results show, is that it's......'Your Site and Your Rules', do what you feel needs to be done for the good of Senior Forums as a whole.

 

[Camper6]

..I'd be willing to bet that the number is real close to zero.

Not close. It's zero.

If I was a moderator? Zero tolerance. The first personal attack and it would be goodbye politics or any other forum.

 

[Matrix]

I enjoy the political forum... but it does need moderating... and the moderator should be fair and unbiased.. rules should apply to everyone equally, and everyone should be aware of them.

That's the problem, isn't it? I was viewed as a republican by many members, but outside this forum SF was regarded as a democrat forum. When many members reported BobF's posts and wanted him to be banned, but he was actually the only republican member posting in politics for quite a while, how could I be fairer to democrats?

I don't like the hatred and negativity in the politics forum, unfortunately it happened to be from democrats because of Trump. If Obama was still the president, the negativity would be from republican members, but before Trump announced his campaign, the political forum was peaceful and friendly.

I'm always wondering who is wise enough to judge if a mod is fair or not, and how.

 

[Lolly]

Not close. It's zero.

If I was a moderator? Zero tolerance. The first personal attack and it would be goodbye politics or any other forum.

This IMO is the problem.. The term PERSONAL ATTACK has to be clearly defined.. and I mean in no uncertain terms... Unfortunately some folks view a disagreement with their views as a personal attack... which is not the case... We have many people that believe someone strongly defending their personal views as being nasty or guilty of personal attacks.. I'm not going to name names... but we KNOW who those people are... That of course is not the case.. but you cannot convince people of it ..

 

[Camper6]

That's the problem, isn't it? I was viewed as a republican by many members, but outside this forum SF was regarded as a democrat forum. When many members reported BobF's posts and wanted him to be banned, but he was actually the only republican member posting in politics for quite a while, how could I be fairer to democrats?

I'm always wondering who is wise enough to know if a mod is fair or not, and how.

They wanted BobF to be banned? Really? I am shocked. Preaching to the choir is fun?

Well then. I'm surprised at the poll results so far. It would seem to me to be a foregone conclusion as to which way the vote would go.

Oh by the way. Putting someone on ignore doesn't work because it screws up the thread.

 

[Lolly]

That's the problem, isn't it? I was viewed as a republican by many members, but outside this forum SF was regarded as a democrat forum. When many members reported BobF's posts and wanted him to be banned, but he was actually the only republican member posting in politics for quite a while, how could I be fairer to democrats?

I don't like the hatred and negativity in the politics forum, unfortunately it happened to be from democrats because of Trump. If Obama was still the president, the negativity would be from republican members, but before Trump announced his campaign, the political forum was peaceful and friendly.

I'm always wondering who is wise enough to know if a mod is fair or not, and how.

Since this thread is an airing of feelings... No Matrix.... you are not viewed as being fair at all... at least not by the more liberal posters... Which is why, when all is said and done... I think you should ban the political forum and let the chips fall where they may. I did vote to keep it... but.. events of the last few days have made me change my mind.

 

[CeeCee]

Actually politics on SF is really rather mild in comparison to other places. For one thing verbal abuse is rare not too hard to ignore. We even have an 'ignore' function for us to use.

I appreciate the fact that this forum is fairly evenly balanced when it comes to political opinions. On other forums I have participated in there has been a tendency for the overwhelming majority of posters to be supporters of the same side of politics. This results in posters seldom hearing a dissenting opinion. Either way, left or right leaning, I find little to interest me. I'm either preaching to the choir or f**ting against thunder as my dear mother would say.

Yes, there are nastier forums when it comes to politics. Most of you wouldn't last a day on them.

They are also very big and there really isn't a sense of community like there is on here. I just feel that the nastiness in politics spills over into the nice part of the forum.

Like I said before, if you call me a racist and a nazi just because I voted for Trump, I'm going to avoid you in the post about puppies. Human nature.

 

[Camper6]

I'm laughing at your comment.

Like I said before, if you call me a racist and a nazi just because I voted for Trump, I'm going to avoid you in the post about puppies. Human nature.

Why.? Even Hitler had a dog that he loved and the dog loved him.

 

[Aunt Bea]

This IMO is the problem.. The term PERSONAL ATTACK has to be clearly defined.. and I mean in no uncertain terms... Unfortunately some folks view a disagreement with their views as a personal attack... which is not the case... We have many people that believe someone strongly defending their personal views as being nasty or guilty of personal attacks.. I'm not going to name names... but we KNOW who those people are... That of course is not the case.. but you cannot convince people of it ..

I guess I'm one of those people.

I don't understand the need to engage other posters in an effort to defend personal views or to paint all members of a political party with the same broad brush. It may not be the definition of a personal attack but it does make for tedious and often unpleasant exchanges that don't appear to accomplish anything.

Maybe you are right, maybe it is time to close the political forum.

 

[Lolly]

I guess I'm one of those people.

I don't understand the need to engage other posters in an effort to defend personal views or to paint all members of a political party with the same broad brush. It may not be a the definition of a personal attack but it does make for tedious and often unpleasant exchanges that don't appear to accomplish anything.

Maybe you are right, maybe it is time to close the political forum.

I understand.... this is why I stated that the term PERSONAL attack needs to be clearly defined so there is no room for doubt or interpretation. Just exactly what is fair game and what isn't... What one poster thinks is nasty.. another may think it's simply defending a position. Some folks take things way to personally and some insist on pushing the boundaries. Some.. don't even know when they are crossing a line.

 

[CeeCee]

I'm laughing at your comment.



Why.? Even Hitler had a dog that he loved and the dog loved him.

Ha ha but my point is that if you call me a racist for no other reason than who I voted for, I probably don't like you.

 

[Lolly]

Ha ha but my point is that if you call me a racist for no other reason than who I voted for, I probably don't like you.

Yes... absolutely... which is why terms like... "ALL Trump voters"..... Or "SNOWFLAKES" or "Libtards"... Or "Far Right whackos" "Kool aid drinkers" "Lefties" should be banned, because if you are a Trump voter... Or a Liberal... it's hard to NOT take that as a personal attack..

And this is the last I have to say on the matter...... The ball is in Matrix's court now... Whatever happens.. happens.

 

[Matrix]

Here's a radical thought - keep the political forum but do not allow the use of names or reference to any person or political party. Discuss ideas instead of personalities. Build a wall, don't build a wall. Keep DACA, get rid of DACA. Repeal ACA, keep ACA. Open boarders, impose travel ban.

Never mind. It would never work. (I need an emoji of me dope slapping myself...)

I did consider this, I called it partial ban, but is it easier to follow than "no personal attacks" or "no comment on posters"? My answer was no. We can come up with perfect rules, but when it comes to politics, people get emotional and ignore any rules.

One thing about these opinion polls always puzzles me. Is there some kind of safeguard to prevent anyone from voting more than once?

One member can only vote once.

Matrix and Seabreeze can see who voted and for what. Ive been a global mod on another forum and I could see that info. I'm sure they can also.

I don't see who voted what. Maybe it's possible in admin panel, but I wouldn't bother. No point doing it.

Actually politics on SF is really rather mild in comparison to other places. For one thing verbal abuse is rare not too hard to ignore. We even have an 'ignore' function for us to use.

I appreciate the fact that this forum is fairly evenly balanced when it comes to political opinions. On other forums I have participated in there has been a tendency for the overwhelming majority of posters to be supporters of the same side of politics.

It's at the cost of banning many members. Banning politics or members?

I've seen forums with a lot less traffic have a lot more mods that SF does, perhaps recruiting another mod is in order.

If we ban politics, it's not because we are overloaded by moderation, more mods is not a good thing.

but I think the politics forum is a good one. I don't see anything intrinsically wrong in "bickering," as long as it does not descend into ridicule and calling one another idiots and so on.

It's inevitable. If we enforce the rules, we probably have to ban everyone.

The golden rule should be 'Stick to the topic not the poster'.

It's a great rule, but what would you do if the members don't follow it? Ban them?

Like I said before, if you call me a racist and a nazi just because I voted for Trump, I'm going to avoid you in the post about puppies. Human nature.

This is exactly why I want to ban politics.

 

[CeeCee]

Yes... absolutely... which is why terms like... "ALL Trump voters"..... Or "SNOWFLAKES" or "Libtards"... Or "Far Right whackos" "Kool aid drinkers" "Lefties" should be banned, because if you are a Trump voter... Or a Liberal... it's hard to NOT take that as a personal attack..

And this is the last I have to say on the matter...... The ball is in Matrix's court now... Whatever happens.. happens.

I agree with you. If all that could be left out of the discussions that would be great.

 

[Camper6]

It's a great rule, but what would you do if the members don't follow it? Ban them?

Ban them from the political forum. Hide the political forum from those that don't like politics.

A forum is not complete without politics. They are part of our every day life.

 

[Camper6]

Ha ha but my point is that if you call me a racist for no other reason than who I voted for, I probably don't like you.

That doesn't bother me at all. If someone makes a comment in the political forum and then asks a question about television or needs some help or advice. It doesn't bother me at all because I understand politics and political forums.

 

[Happyflowerlady]

It appears to me that there are about three categories of people here.
The first bunch includes the ones that think arguments and bickering are just fine in the political threads, and they enjoy this type of thing.
The second bunch includes people who are interested in discussing what is happening politically; but do not want it to turn into an argument, and the third bunch are the ones who do not want to discuss politics at all, and especially hate it when the arguments carry over into the rest of the forum.
There is probably NO solution that is going to please everyone here, just because there is so much difference in what people actually want from the forum.
I would like to see politics left in the forum, but I hate the arguments; so I personally am in the second group.

What about the possibility of making the political area private, and people have to “Belong” to that area before they can see what is posted there, and a notice of “enter at your own risk” type of announcement that would let people know that anything goes inside of that part of the forum.
Then , just let people do the arguing that they want to, and don’t even worry about moderation there.
For the ones who want to discuss and not argue, there is always Speaker’s Corner, and for the ones who want to avoid politics altogether, it simply would not even show up on the forum for them.
Then, if politics carries over into the other sections of the forum (such as something in entertainment or current events) that is even remotely political, it can be reported and deleted.

This way, no one needs to be banned, moderation of the forum should be simpler, and both sides will get what they want, for the most part.