Politics standards

K-9

nesf wrote: »

What's the line though between AH and Politics? Like, on Politics you'll not get away with AH style factual claims because you can be forced to back them up and reference them. It's the users own fault if they're not pushing for this in threads. If someone refuses the back up their points then the mods will step in and force the user to either put up or shut up and if the poster constantly does this they'll be removed from the forum.

I'm completely open to suggestions on practical ways we can improve the standard of debate without being overly harsh on people. Should we be warning people for having poorly informed opinions for instance? Because that's part of the problem as I see it (but I haven't any clue on a good and fair way to deal with it).

Honestly I can't answer that question.

There used to be a difference.

People can argue away in AH to their hearts content. There used to be complaints that politics was too harsh, I don't see that anymore.

I'd say if some posters aren't saying politics is too harsh, something is wrong! It's supposed to be harsh.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Honestly I can't answer that question.

There used to be a difference.

People can argue away in AH to their hearts content. There used to be complaints that politics was too harsh, I don't see that anymore.

I'd say if some posters aren't saying politics is too harsh, something is wrong! It's supposed to be harsh.

I think some of it is Politics was a lot smaller. The regulars had much more of a presence and it was mostly filled with hacks and people with a serious interest in Politics rather than ordinary posters with just an opinion. There just wasn't that much popular interest in politics in general which lead to the standard being quite a lot higher naturally.

Nowadays every man and his dog has strong opinions on how the way the country is run should be changed. This has dragged down standards because people are a lot less informed. Unless we ban a large number of the posters from the forum and set up some kind of access requests forum like Soccer, this isn't going to change any time soon.

We can clamp down on abuse, soapboxing and spam but we can't really do much if the average person venturing into the forum isn't very well informed on matters. It used to be the case that the dominance of the regulars would ensure that the new poster would be "trained up" quite quickly but the size of the inflow of new users in 07/08 meant this didn't happen.

Effectively Politics had its own Eternal September around that time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September)

Scofflaw

I suppose one forgets to some extent that we're currently going through one of the more exciting times, politically, in the history of the State.

amused,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I suppose one forgets to some extent that we're currently going through one of the more exciting times, politically, in the history of the State.

amused,
Scofflaw

Indeed. We get crisis after crisis, event after event, with no long stretch of time for the forum to settle down and for newbies to mature and become serious regulars.

The closest place I can think of to this on the forum at present is the Public Sector debates. Both sides have gotten used to each other and while bitterly opposed in many respects the standard of debate is an awful lot higher than it was a year ago.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Indeed. We get crisis after crisis, event after event, with no long stretch of time for the forum to settle down and for newbies to mature and become serious regulars.

The closest place I can think of to this on the forum at present is the Public Sector debates. Both sides have gotten used to each other and while bitterly opposed in many respects the standard of debate is an awful lot higher than it was a year ago.

We put in quite a lot of work on the NI issues as well, and I think that had some positive results. Now, though, the world and his dog have arrived for the Presidency fight. Also, the Pamela stuff was never going to pull in the quality crowd.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dr Galen

nesf wrote: »

Nowadays every man and his dog has strong opinions on how the way the country is run should be changed. This has dragged down standards because people are a lot less informed.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I suppose one forgets to some extent that we're currently going through one of the more exciting times, politically, in the history of the State.

amused,
Scofflaw

In two lines, the lads have captured what has happened in the politics forum over the past 3 odd years.

Honestly, I don't think that there is a lot that can be done tbh. The forum is far too high traffic to be able to go in and delete or warn on every AH style post that gets posted. You'd need a huge team of Mods to do that, and you'd end up with more warnings, directions and deleted posts than quality ones.

The forum is somewhat looking to find a new identity imho. Somewhere that Joe the fireman/office worker/cab driver can pour out his opinions and ideas for fixing the country, but also allows for Joseph, the political historian/academic/graduate/intelligentsia card carrier to talk about the higher end of things. Sorting that out will take time, patience and a bit of creativity really. I hate online elitism, so having a similar system to soccer wouldn't be great in my eyes. That was created for very specific reasons, and to my mind those reasons don't really translate to what is going on in politics.

Good luck with that lads

Nodin

later10 wrote: »

..........
My own interest in politics is tapering off lately, you can get the same quality of discussion in AH.

You might note that the quality in AH has gone up a tad, while politics had dropped a bit. The two are not unrelated.

gandalf

Dr Galen wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think that there is a lot that can be done tbh. The forum is far too high traffic to be able to go in and delete or warn on every AH style post that gets posted. You'd need a huge team of Mods to do that, and you'd end up with more warnings, directions and deleted posts than quality ones.

So is your answer leave it descend into the cesspit that it is obviously heading for. The clean up would be painful initially but once it has taken hold and the regular posters know how things are working then it will settle down (I know this from experience).

The forum is somewhat looking to find a new identity imho.

The forum is going downhill rapidly it has been for a while now. This is just another of a series of threads where some of us regulars have pointed this out. (actually I would class myself as an ex-regular at this stage).

Somewhere that Joe the fireman/office worker/cab driver can pour out his opinions and ideas for fixing the country, but also allows for Joseph, the political historian/academic/graduate/intelligentsia card carrier to talk about the higher end of things.

Please the Politics forum was for everyone but its premise was that people structured their argument and thought about it before they posted. I hope that is how I posted there and I would definitely not describe myself as an intelligentsia.

Sorting that out will take time, patience and a bit of creativity really.

At this stage this has been going on for a long time.

I hate online elitism, so having a similar system to soccer wouldn't be great in my eyes. That was created for very specific reasons, and to my mind those reasons don't really translate to what is going on in politics.

As the person who helped set up the soccer access system I agree with you 100%, that system is not the answer here.

What is the answer is to increase the number of mods even bolstering them with temporary ones drafted in from other forums and make very clear posting guidelines to ensure quality that should be in the Politics forum and separate it from the type of posts that belong in After Hours. Most importantly enforce those rules rigorously and ruthlessly.

Dr Galen

gandalf wrote: »

So is your answer leave it decent into the cesspit that it is obviously heading for. The clean up would be painful initially but once it has taken hold and the regular posters know how things are working then it will settle down (I know this from experience).



The forum is going downhill rapidly it has been for a while now. This is just another of a series of threads where some of us regulars have pointed this out. (actually I would class myself as an ex-regular at this stage).



Please the Politics forum was for everyone but its premise was that people structured their argument and thought about it before they posted. I hope that is how I posted there and I would definitely not describe myself as an intelligentsia.



At this stage this has been going on for a long time.



As the person who helped set up the soccer access system I agree with you 100%, that system is not the answer here.

What is the answer is to increase the number of mods even bolstering them with temporary ones drafted in from other forums and make very clear posting guidelines to ensure quality that should be in the Politics forum and separate it from the type of posts that belong in After Hours. Most importantly enforce those rules rigorously and ruthlessly.

I really hate having to re-quote a multi quote answer. Especially when I'm knackered, so I'll sumarise if thats cool.

Firstly, I'd broadly agree with your first point, it would be tough. I wouldn't argue otherwise. I'm just saying that unless a radical overhaul of a) the numbers of Mods and b) how the forum is moderated happens, it's just not practical tbh to do much. I think, bearing in mind the resources that they have, the Mods do a good job. To do the sort of cleanup etc that might be required, they'd nearly need to double the numbers.

I'd also class myself as an ex-regular-ish. Tbh, i've even stopped reading the forum as much as I used to. You do get tired of the same arguments over and over again, and banging the head against the brick poster.

You are right, in that the standard of post has dropped. I used to spend ages just reading things, not even posting in the forum. You'd learn a lot about things, things that you might not have agreed on, but still learned something new. That doesn't happen as much. Ok so maybe my analogy was a bit tongue in cheek, but I think we mean essentially the same thing. FWIW i didn't always agree with you but I always found your posts a good read.

I still stand by my thoughts that the Politics forum is changing, and trying to re-find itself. maybe it does need a shove in the right direction, to make sure that standards can be maintained. Whether people have the stomach for that fight is another thing altogether though.

later12

Black Swan wrote: »

Please be advised that what you have counted to make your point was uninformed and in error. I have read 100% of all reported posts in all of my forums since being appointed a mod 2 years ago (almost a year ago in Politics). I have a special email account that all reported posts are forwarded to, and when I am online daily (sometimes several times daily) and see them, I go immediately to the post reported, not the reported post thread. If it is obvious that a violation has occurred, or if one of my co-mods or Cmods have already taken action, then why bother visiting the reported post thread? If it is not obvious and no action has been taken, then I visit the reported post thread. Although I cannot speak for them, my co-mods and Cmods probably do something similar.

Yes, that's a reasonable explanation, as I mentioned earlier there are lots of reasons why the read and unread reports in the reports section correspond inexactly with moderator attention. Nobody is disputing that here.

The evidence of the quality of posting in the politics thread is not something that necessarily has to be sought out in how the reported posts are read, or responded to. It is visible in black and white on the politics forum. It is visible in the fact that this seems to be an ongoing issue raised by regular users over a few different threads recently.

Clearly the problem that has emerged is a user problem, not a modding problem. But at a certain level, user problems become moderators' problems. Although the politics moderators are, imo, more open to criticism (and possibly get more stick than) any other mods on this site, nevertheless this criticism ultimately doesn't bear fruit. The problems persist.

I haven't been around here long enough to know whether the issue is cyclical, although I'd imagine that Scofflaw is indeed correct on that. But I really don't see why this isn't acted on a bit more decisively, and the ban stick isn't applied a bit more liberally. (True, in that case you guys are probably going to get heaps more users starting more feedback threads, arguing the flip side of what some of us are saying here)

There could be no question in our minds as to what is required of us when we read the politics charter. Yet these relatively firm requirements are not borne out in practice, they are completely undermined by what actually happens.

I would agree with Dr Galen above. At present the politics forum appears to be in a no-mans-land. Maybe it would be best if moderators establish a position and stick to it, not all of us regular users will be happy, but at least we will all know where we stand.

gandalf

Dr Galen wrote: »

I really hate having to re-quote a multi quote answer. Especially when I'm knackered, so I'll sumarise if thats cool.

Apologies I am a multi-quote whore

I agree with nearly everything you said in that post.

I still stand by my thoughts that the Politics forum is changing, and trying to re-find itself. maybe it does need a shove in the right direction, to make sure that standards can be maintained. Whether people have the stomach for that fight is another thing altogether though.

This is the crux.

From my perspective at this stage I believe the admins need to step in and decide what standards they want in one of the higher profile forums on this site and to communicate that to the users of that forum. They then need to ensure that whatever direction they decide on taking that the moderators have the numbers and the resources to implement that direction.

nesf

Part of the problem is that people just aren't reporting posts. The London Riots thread had 3 infractions and a ban on the first page but we didn't get a reported post for 2 hours by which point the trolling had done its damage.

Edit: Even under our current rules and ways of applying them that thread resulted in a heap of infractions and some bans for the worst offenders, but if people aren't reporting posts it's going to take a lot longer for those punishments to be handed out and threads will go even further off-topic in the meantime.

I'm not sure a purge is even possible Gandalf if the users aren't behind it and aren't reporting posts.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

Clearly the problem that has emerged is a user problem, not a modding problem. But at a certain level, user problems become moderators' problems. Although the politics moderators are, imo, more open to criticism (and possibly get more stick than) any other mods on this site, nevertheless this criticism ultimately doesn't bear fruit. The problems persist.

Well, the problem is modular in nature. This can be clearly seen in your thread on the US downgrade. There was some nonsense in it but it didn't get out of control and the more serious users stamped down on it without the need for the mods having to deal with it. That's the ideal for the forum. The mods only having to step in when someone is seriously out of line.

What we have is subsets of users frequent certain types of threads. Norris threads bring pro and anti gay posters, Immigration threads bring pro and anti foreigners posters and so on. There tends to be very little cross pollination across these threads for the most part.

We've made some progress on NI threads and PS threads, both are a lot better than they were, though neither are where I'd like them to be yet, but changing them takes a long time and a lot of user education on what is and what is not acceptable. It can also take a long time to root out who is soapboxing and who is just passionate. The latter are welcome the former are not.

It's complicated and if we want long term change it takes time. It takes time to turn vociferous posters into reasonable regular posters and that has to be the goal, not simply to ban everyone who doesn't meet our standard (though on the immigrant threads banning racists seems to be the only answer in a lot of cases).

We've made progress since the last feedback thread, not as much as I'd like, but some has been made. The thing is, I'm not convinced that a mass purge is the answer because it'll just dump the problem onto AH's lap and other forums. Better to slowly guide the conversation towards something more reasonable and use the time to divide posters into the majority who can change and the minority who won't and to ban the minority. A mass purge gives no time for users to recant and honestly I think that it would savage the traffic on the forum in an unnecessarily harsh way. I'd prefer a more lively forum that was a bit messy than a nearly dead forum that was very serious.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

We've an issue with people being afk at the moment. 2 mods are afk for the moment but should be back in the near future on top of those you mentioned. GuanYin just hasn't been removed. Sceptre moderates in bursts, and honestly is still useful to the mod team as such. He doesn't post much but does sweep in and clean up a mess every so often. Right now we have three active mods in myself, Scofflaw and Black Swan. This could be better I agree.

The problem with the London Riots thread was people waiting so long before reporting posts. Once the posts were reported the mods knew they had a "problem thread" on their hands and 3 of us have been monitoring it since, i.e. Scofflaw, Black Swan and myself.

Mod absenteeism isn't really the problem, it's just that college schedules caught a number of our mods this time around dumping the forum onto the mods no longer in the college exam/thesis system, otherwise we'd have 5 mods active and that'd be more than enough for day to day stuff.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

3 Mods really isn't enough tbh. In fairness, life totally gets in the way from time to time alright, for everyone. Would it be an idea to set up a temporary panel of people, who when such things occur, could be asked to step into the breach? Then once one of the regular mods comes back on stream they head back to the panel? That way you'd be getting people involved, who understand the gig, the forum and how things run.

I've come across similar issues with noise/signal before in two of the forums I moderate. It's a tough nut to crack alright.

Personally I think the only way to really get on top of it, is to be really engaged, and not necessarily waiting for reported posts to come in. Sometimes Mods have to step in and put in the guiding hand, to help shape a discussion in a certain manner. That takes a fair bit of time to be given up, so again I'd say that extra hands to help out is whats needed.

nesf

Dr Galen wrote: »

3 Mods really isn't enough tbh. In fairness, life totally gets in the way from time to time alright, for everyone. Would it be an idea to set up a temporary panel of people, who when such things occur, could be asked to step into the breach? Then once one of the regular mods comes back on stream they head back to the panel? That way you'd be getting people involved, who understand the gig, the forum and how things run.

I've come across similar issues with noise/signal before in two of the forums I moderate. It's a tough nut to crack alright.

Personally I think the only way to really get on top of it, is to be really engaged, and not necessarily waiting for reported posts to come in. Sometimes Mods have to step in and put in the guiding hand, to help shape a discussion in a certain manner. That takes a fair bit of time to be given up, so again I'd say that extra hands to help out is whats needed.

I've brought up the idea on the Politics Mods forum. We'll see what the others think.

Scofflaw

3 active mods is certainly too little. I think we've discussed the 'standby mods' idea before, but they need to be mods, generally, otherwise the hoops we have to jump for them to be given modding powers in Politics make the process too slow. We would also need fast response by Admins, which is something we won't necessarily get.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Could the solution not be less moderators and not more? As Permabear indicated, some mods are already pretty much absent from the day to day involvement with the forum (apart from reading reported posts maybe), whereas more regular mods like Lockstep, nesf and Scofflaw are much more involved.

In corporate structures, it tends to be recognized that rule-by-committee often leads to weaker governance or slower progress than a a more direct management system.
Individuals can be less inclined to take decisive action, perhaps down to failure to reach consensus on policy, the Abilene paradox, or groupthink. There is also greater scope for inconsistencies to arise. Or it becomes tempting to step back and wait to estabish others' thoughts by waiting for others to intervene, and if everybody does this, the result can be complete inaction.

So perhaps the problems could be solved by a more authoritarian, more empowered moderating team. Not by introducing even more moderators, with even more obstacles of agreement to surmount, even more potential for inconsistency, an even less clear direction for the forum, and perhaps an aggravation of the problem.

Of course I appreciate that as this would imply more effort on behalf of the likes of nesf and scofflaw who already put plenty of effort in, and some moderators being asked to step down, and an appearance of more monocratic, stricter posting environment, it could be an unpopular solution all round. But I do believe it would ultimately benefit the quality of posting in politics.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

Could the solution not be less moderators and not more? As Permabear indicated, some mods are already pretty much absent from the day to day involvement with the forum (apart from reading reported posts maybe), whereas more regular mods like Lockstep, nesf and Scofflaw are much more involved.

In corporate structures, it tends to be recognized that rule-by-committee often leads to weaker governance or slower progress than a a more direct management system.
Individuals can be less inclined to take decisive action, perhaps down to failure to reach consensus on policy, the Abilene paradox, or groupthink. There is also greater scope for inconsistencies to arise. Or it becomes tempting to step back and wait to estabish others' thoughts by waiting for others to intervene, and if everybody does this, the result can be complete inaction.

So perhaps the problems could be solved by a more authoritarian, more empowered moderating team. Not by introducing even more moderators, with even more obstacles of agreement to surmount, even more potential for inconsistency, an even less clear direction for the forum, and perhaps an aggravation of the problem.

Of course I appreciate that as this would imply more effort on behalf of the likes of nesf and scofflaw who already put plenty of effort in, and some moderators being asked to step down, and an appearance of more monocratic, stricter posting environment, it could be an unpopular solution all round. But I do believe it would ultimately benefit the quality of posting in politics.

At the moment we generally operate as individual troubleshooters with full powers to act as we see fit, with consensus only really coming up for new situations or new rules. This is the main problem with adding new mods, they need to be able to work independently yet still work off the same hymn sheet. This has proved a problem in the past. It does not mean that we can't add new mods but it means they have to be watched for the first month to make sure they're behaving in line with the rest of the mods which adds to Scofflaw's and my own workload. Another mod or two would be handy though, so we're very much looking into it.


The second point: Well, I'm divided on this. I'm not sure I want the forum to be quiet but high quality. I view the forum as being a place for the site and the site is a lot more "general" in appeal than it was 5 years ago which was around the heyday in terms of quality. I think we do need to respect that a lot of ordinary people with minimal political knowledge want to discuss politics these days and we have to have some kind of set up that accommodates them. I'm very much open to suggestions on how we can improve quality without losing too much of the traffic volume (though personally I'm not sure we can really have both and there'll have to be some kind of trade off between the two).

later12

There is no way you can maintain the current traffic levels and expect a serious posting quality.

Also, on a broader note, can we please get away from the notion that there is some sort of political snobbery at play here? I don't know the first thing about Norwegian gun laws, about the politics of same sex marriage, about Libya, or about the Dublin 15 by-election.
Yet I know that if I am going to express an opinion on one of these threads, it's my own responsibility to try to inform myself on it. Not to simply jump in and post the first thing that occurs to me.

Posting unabashed nonsense is not the work of the 'ordinary Joe Soap'. I can think of posters whose opinions are well worth reading who as far as I know range from graduates of non-political disciplines to the unemployed. Unabashed nonsense is not something that anybody should have to put up with in politics, and it is even more objectionable when it is defended in the name of giving the mythical 'Joe Soap' a voice.

I don't know of anyone who considers themselves anything other than a Joe Soap poster. We are all Joe Soaps, we all have a voice, but it's our responsibility to use it effectively.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

There is no way you can maintain the current traffic levels and expect a serious posting quality.

Also, on a broader note, can we please get away from the notion that there is some sort of political snobbery at play here? I don't know the first thing about Norwegian gun laws, about the politics of same sex marriage, about Libya, or about the Dublin 15 by-election.
Yet I know that if I am going to express an opinion on one of these threads, it's my own responsibility to try to inform myself on it. Not to simply jump in and post the first thing that occurs to me.

Posting unabashed nonsense is not the work of the 'ordinary Joe Soap'. I can think of posters whose opinions are well worth reading who as far as I know range from graduates of non-political disciplines to the unemployed. Unabashed nonsense is not something that anybody should have to put up with in politics, and it is even more objectionable when it is defended in the name of giving the mythical 'Joe Soap' a voice.

I don't know of anyone who considers themselves anything other than a Joe Soap poster. We are all Joe Soaps, we all have a voice, but it's our responsibility to use it effectively.

Eh, I'm an intellectual snob. Some people are better able to form coherent arguments than others, it was ever thus. I also think democracy is a terrible way of running a country etc.


But anyway, yes, I'm inclined to agree that it's a trade off between volume and quality. The thing that bothers me is, is the forum not there to cater for as many people as possible? If we clamp down hard on standards, won't we alienate a lot of people who want to discuss politics? (This would be my ex-AH mod roots showing through, from *way* before your time )

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Eh, I'm an intellectual snob. Some people are better able to form coherent arguments than others, it was ever thus. I also think democracy is a terrible way of running a country etc.


But anyway, yes, I'm inclined to agree that it's a trade off between volume and quality. The thing that bothers me is, is the forum not there to cater for as many people as possible? If we clamp down hard on standards, won't we alienate a lot of people who want to discuss politics? (This would be my ex-AH mod roots showing through, from *way* before your time )

We could have both a 'Café' and a 'Chamber', the latter being a very tightly moderated and even adjudicated sub-forum. I don't think it would add that much to the workload, because it's the quantity that creates the workload.

Some people would probably view that as capitulation, but to me it's just market segregation in the face of mass interest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Overheal

I don't see a problem with expanded the Politics structure myself. Most people wont venture into Cafe as it is. Hell I didnt even know it was there.

I would simply call the cafe though The Lighter Side. Names that are crystal clear in their intention when Boardsies are navigating the menu.

You could even have a place for soapboxers:

later12

nesf wrote: »

If we clamp down hard on standards, won't we alienate a lot of people who want to discuss politics? (This would be my ex-AH mod roots showing through, from *way* before your time )

That's a decision for the politics moderators and site admins.

Quantity vs quality is really a decision that is not in the hands of those of us who simply use the forum, and if it were the 'quantity' would, obviously, rule.

What I don't understand, and the reason I think less moderators would help, is why nobody is simply making a decision and sticking to it. There is a fatigue surrounding this problem and it seems like an unwillingness to decisively engage with it. There was even a second thread opened there yesterday to discuss what was already being discussed in another thread. It's like watching the decision making process in the European Union on a smaller scale.

Essentially you guys are the guys who are supposed to be making the decisions, and now I think everybody would just appreciate a decison. As gandalf said yesterday, there will be an initial sting - and while in fairness it certainly is easier for us hurlers in the ditch to look on and say ''grab the bull by the horns'', that doesn't make the need for it any less pressing.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

That's a decision for the politics moderators and site admins.

Quantity vs quality is really a decision that is not in the hands of those of us who simply use the forum, and if it were the 'quantity' would, obviously, rule.

What I don't understand, and the reason I think less moderators would help, is why nobody is simply making a decision and sticking to it. There is a fatigue surrounding this problem and it seems like an unwillingness to decisively engage with it. There was even a second thread opened there yesterday to discuss what was already being discussed in another thread. It's like watching the decision making process in the European Union on a smaller scale.

Essentially you guys are the guys who are supposed to be making the decisions, and now I think everybody would just appreciate a decison. As gandalf said yesterday, there will be an initial sting - and while in fairness it certainly is easier for us hurlers in the ditch to look on and say ''grab the bull by the horns'', that doesn't make the need for it any less pressing.

Sure but it's not entirely clear to me what exactly is wanted, how many people want it (main reason for the thread in Politics) and how exactly it should be achieved. One worry I have is that since so few (and it is few) people are calling out for a stricter forum that we might kill the forum if we go too strict.

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

We could have both a 'Café' and a 'Chamber', the latter being a very tightly moderated and even adjudicated sub-forum. I don't think it would add that much to the workload, because it's the quantity that creates the workload.

Some people would probably view that as capitulation, but to me it's just market segregation in the face of mass interest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thinking about it, I'd leave the current main forum as the main forum (with current ruleset/implementation) and have the "Chamber" as a sub-fora people can opt into if they wanted more serious fare.

later12

nesf wrote: »

Sure but it's not entirely clear to me what exactly is wanted, how many people want it (main reason for the thread in Politics) and how exactly it should be achieved. One worry I have is that since so few (and it is few) people are calling out for a stricter forum that we might kill the forum if we go too strict.

I think the silent majority who are not speaking on this thread are obviously quite happy in the way the forum is operating, and that is borne out be their significant, ongoing engagement with the forum.

I think what we have here, in this thread, and in the discussion on the rules in the Pol Forum, is a minority saying we'd like the firmness of the charter to be put into practice. Otherwise, the politics charters condemning unsubstantiated rhetoric, misinformation, blogging styles of posting, and announcing that 'this is a serious forum' clearly need to be revised.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

I think the silent majority who are not speaking on this thread are obviously quite happy in the way the forum is operating, and that is borne out be their significant, ongoing engagement with the forum.

I think what we have here, in this thread, and in the discussion on the rules in the Pol Forum, is a minority saying we'd like the firmness of the charter to be put into practice. Otherwise, the politics charters condemning unsubstantiated rhetoric, misinformation, blogging styles of posting, and announcing that 'this is a serious forum' clearly need to be revised.

Would Scofflaw's idea then be the best route? A sub-forum supplied for serious discussion to allow more serious posters a place to debate with the main forum left as is to cater for the majority who seem to be happy enough.