I have a proposition for a new Sub forum.

[Zeonix]

Except we're not allowed to create political threads in offtopic. I mean, I was friggin asked to delete a thread regarding a scientific study that said people who voted for Bush have certain qualities and it went on to list them. No one had even posted in the thread, but I had to delete it because of the "What if...?" question.

I would assume that the political subforum would allow us to discuss said study as well as other ongoing news. There is more going on in the world than what we hear in mainstream news or the big stories.

 

[Rayos]

Politics will be forever debated till the end of time. There is never a conclusion and for the most part, you do not need many NEW topics but ongoing topics that will continue to be debated so that knowledge can be spread on both sides arguements.

This is not a a request to boost forum post counts. It is a request i have made because i too enjoy debating with people and using what they have to say against them. Sadly i hate to say this but i too am like zeonix and i can debate for the sake of debating. I enjoy debating topics and understanding an opposition and then counteracting back and forth. It is almost a game of wits compromised with knowledge and intelect. You have seen that a good amount of people will at least be ACTIVE in the section. I suggest if you feel that POLITICS aren't a big enough issue or a big enough boom for the forum to be discussed in its own seperate forum....than we should be able to talk about politics in the open forum. Take away the banning of discussion. it isn't like there are many topics being made recently. Like someone said prior it is a lot of nonsense being posted

"I SAW THIS ON CNN"
"She did this to her cat"
"How many did he fit up there?"

things like that. The politics forum won't take away from that but you will be more than surprised to see the people interested in these topics. I for one would spend most of my time there debating with others on topics that i feel are of importance to nations. We have numerous COUNTRIES here. Each has their own set of laws. It will be good to see how one countries solves a problem over another. It is a way to expand the minds of the forum go'ers. I honstly don't see a plausible debate behind this besides

"it is too much work" ...then again we already made alternates to that situation. ::Shrug:: my opinion.

 

[Killface]

Well, I have an idea about the whole "who gets in thing"...


The administration could act like the Supreme Court does. If someone wants in, the Mod's/Admin's can vote if they want them in there or not. And the majority vote wins of course.

Its just an idea right now, I dunno if its all that good, since i JUST thought of it.

I for one will behave myself in there, i love political discussion, and if i goof up, then theres more at stake than just some Warning / Ass kicking by the hands of the Ban-Saber.

 

[Grega]

Well, I have an idea about the whole "who gets in thing"...


The administration could act like the Supreme Court does. If someone wants in, the Mod's/Admin's can vote if they want them in there or not. And the majority vote wins of course.

Its just an idea right now, I dunno if its all that good, since i JUST thought of it.

I for one will behave myself in there, i love political discussion, and if i goof up, then theres more at stake than just some Warning / Ass kicking by the hands of the Ban-Saber.

I for one can say ill act like i allways do. Put logic into my posts with a detail of good old fun coments and avoiding insulting.

And since politics is similar to philosophy ima be very active in there XD

 

[Killface]

I for one can say ill act like i allways do. Put logic into my posts with a detail of good old fun coments and avoiding insulting.

And since politics is similar to philosophy ima be very active in there XD

Yeah... them were some good times on MSN Messanger. lol

 

[Fire Phoenix]

I'm all for a politics section, but I don't think people should be picked by the moderation team before you can post there. Personally, I think anyone over 17 (maybe 16) should be allowed to post there. If they screw up, they're given the boot from that section. Hell, you can even ask us to decide whether the offender deserves to be removed for "x" amount of time from that section. That gives everyone an equal opportunity to participate, and it also weeds out anyone not mature enough to hold a civil conversation.

That said, I'd probably get banned while posting in that section. I like arguing for the sake of arguing. Its a sickness, really.
Agreed
On a sidenote, if you want I'll be glad to be a mod. I can guarantee no one will flame. Ever. But the rules shouldn't apply to me. I need free reign. Best idea anyones ever come up with....ever vote zeo 2007?

Meh, I personally believe only one person should mod such an area. That should me Maj, seeing as he has "supreme" rule over everyone and he isn't biased like some mods.

 

[Scruff]

Well, we're not allowed to talk about it in the normal forum, not without a mod stepping in and telling us we're not mature enough to talk about it. Make a sub forum where we can, can't see how it would hurt anyone.

 

[Crimson Moon]

Of course I am, I've only been around for 3 years. But I'm not the type to pull a Sean.

Looks like I'm still well-known around these forums o/

 

[Majin_You]

If you seriously think your moderation team is "mature" enough to hold a discussion forum with zero tolerance I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. I'd name names, but I'd rather not get into trouble because if I named names, those people I named would get pissed and be like "NO!!!"

I don't recall ever making any reference to that, at all. If you have genuine issues with members of my staff, you can tell me about them in private; I can assure you that comments of this nature in public, whether they are well-intentioned or not, will simply serve to diminish your momentum. Having said that, I never once referred to the entire staff as being perfectly impartial, or unquestionably mature - in fact, I never referred to how political/religious discussions would be moderated at all, I simply made mention of the fact that the staff, as a whole, cannot find a method of judging who should stay and who should go with respect to the proposed section. Don't try to pull non-existent wool over my eyes.

Believe me, I am perfectly cognizant of which moderators have crossed the line; I just maintain a standing policy that prevents moderator-to-moderator correction being dealt out in public - it does more damage than good.

Having said that, I agree with Cuc in that the "1 strike and you're out" policy, so far, would be the easiest to manage. It's a real headache to set up a new section or sub-section that begins with a handful of people that have access (even if they are grouped into usergroups), so starting out with universal access might be the way to go, sending people out as necessary.

Also, I think we can give the "I'd be happy to moderate the section" comments a rest, guys. The administrators would be the ones watching the section, both due to the nature of the section (delicate as it is), as well as the fact that only administrators can edit user privileges. If the need precipitates, people can always leave us comments about people they feel are "disrupting the section", and we can keep an eye out or act as needed (though that doesn't really differ from how the other sections are run, really).

EDIT - Or, as Saru mentioned, we could simply try loosening the chain a bit and reopen the floor to political discussions (a bit cleaner, but the onus would be very heavily on those people taking part in the topics). It has been a while, and the community has changed a fair bit.

 

[Fire Phoenix]

I don't recall ever making any reference to that, at all. If you have genuine issues with members of my staff, you can tell me about them in private; I can assure you that comments of this nature in public, whether they are well-intentioned or not, will simply serve to diminish your momentum. Having said that, I never once referred to the entire staff as being perfectly impartial, or unquestionably mature - in fact, I never referred to how political/religious discussions would be moderated at all, I simply made mention of the fact that the staff, as a whole, cannot find a method of judging who should stay and who should go with respect to the proposed section. Don't try to pull non-existent wool over my eyes.

Believe me, I am perfectly cognizant of which moderators have crossed the line; I just maintain a standing policy that prevents moderator-to-moderator correction being dealt out in public - it does more damage than good.

Having said that, I agree with Cuc in that the "1 strike and you're out" policy, so far, would be the easiest to manage. It's a real headache to set up a new section or sub-section that begins with a handful of people that have access (even if they are grouped into usergroups), so starting out with universal access might be the way to go, sending people out as necessary.

Also, I think we can give the "I'd be happy to moderate the section" comments a rest, guys. The administrators would be the ones watching the section, both due to the nature of the section (delicate as it is), as well as the fact that only administrators can edit user privileges. If the need precipitates, people can always leave us comments about people they feel are "disrupting the section", and we can keep an eye out or act as needed (though that doesn't really differ from how the other sections are run, really).

EDIT - Or, as Saru mentioned, we could simply try loosening the chain a bit and reopen the floor to political discussions (a bit cleaner, but the onus would be very heavily on those people taking part in the topics). It has been a while, and the community has changed a fair bit.

Had this information been with me before I posted, I probably wouldn't have said some of the things I said. Also, because they're mods, I figured they'd be granted immidiate access (like certain other parts of the forums, although unfair I can live with that). I'm just working with past experience.

 

[Rayos]

Side note* I brought up the 0 tolerance rule for the forum not cuc ^_^



So...what is the hold up then?

 

[Skiwan]

In response to this, I'd like to say that wordplay is one of the many reasons why I and many others love politics. Being able to say something without actually saying it is amazing. So is being able to insult someone without them knowing because they're too focused on words you insert there in order to attract their attention.

I know you guys want straight talk, but I think that takes away from some of the magic and may actually create more anger since there's only one way to interpret "**** you. You're an idiot."

This is it though, people aren't able to stay away from personal insults when arguing in politics, insults a lot worse than what a 14 year old would get himself banned for. I like a lot of people in this community, but i've distanced myself from a few just because I don't agree with them on certain things. You might enjoy it, since you're already seen as the antagonist (even though, you really aren't) by many on here, however, I hate those kinda talks that get everyone stigmatised a certain "lower" view (which also fuels the fire). It distances people and causes tension, I like people being able to respect others view but when you say one thing and mean another, imo its the least mature thing in politics. They call it mud-slinging for a reason. Its primative, easy to do and you get yourself messy in the process.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Side note* I brought up the 0 tolerance rule for the forum not cuc ^_^



So...what is the hold up then?

Actually, this idea has been around for a long time before you mentioned it, so has the 1st strike. It has been discussed to death in the private areas of the forum. (Not the Beta Tester areas, which you had access to.)

 

[Grega]

Actually, this idea has been around for a long time before you mentioned it, so has the 1st strike. It has been discussed to death in the private areas of the forum. (Not the Beta Tester areas, which you had access to.)

How about this proposal. One political thread is started. If it runs without problems the subforum gets a green light. If problems arise it is closed and no subforum.

Basicly like a chance to proove ourselvs.

The 0 tolerance in the subforum would still be there though.

 

[Killface]

Thats a good Idea Grega.... Tho, there is one problem with it. What if some morons start flaming eachother, then it gets closed and ther is no Sub-forum? Thats not too fair for the ones who behaved.

So i thought of a tweak for your idea. We take Grega's idea, and live with it. But if someone acts up, BAM! instant banned access from the sub forum.

That way, we can tell who's mature enough to stay, and who's dumb enough to start a beef with someone in there.

 

[Phobius]

How about this proposal. One political thread is started. If it runs without problems the subforum gets a green light. If problems arise it is closed and no subforum.

Basicly like a chance to proove ourselvs.

The 0 tolerance in the subforum would still be there though.

Now lets get down to business. I do agree that if we do make this section that maybe "Off topic" will become obsolete pretty much but who cares when the posts you make there don't count toward your post count. Now since this going to be a mature section pretty much I think that post counts should be counted there if this section is made. If we create this sub forum I do believe were going to have trouble makers and with this sub forum 1 strike and your gone and this should go for everyone (except the team members obviously) if you can't control yourself in a simple sub forum then you cannot be there its that simple.

My idea to test this out would be to make a sticky for political/religious talk and give it a trial period and see how that goes and how everyone reacts. Since its a sticky it will be easy to point out the trouble makers and if the sub forum does get created the users who broke the rules in the sticky will obviously not be allowed access to that forum since they cannot handle themselves in a well matured matter in a simple sticky.

Thats all I have to say.

Didn't I already suggest this idea?

 

[Cold Steel]

I say no. The people of our forums are of a too broad difference in maturity. It will always end up in a flamefest.

 

[Raeku]

Then why not just make it simple. If you can vote, you can discuss politics. After that the zero tolerance rule will thin out the rest of the immature people.

 

[Cold Steel]

Then why not just make it simple. If you can vote, you can discuss politics. After that the zero tolerance rule will thin out the rest of the immature people.

That is so wrong.. I was talking about the difference in maturity, not age or the right to vote.

 

[Rayos]

Hence 0 tolerance rule...


If the maturity level of the forum was SO BAD...there wouldn't be anyone posting since they would all be banned...