Politics Forum Split

[Richard Tanner]

Currently there's a thread in politics asking whether or not the Politics forum should be split into two separate forums: Politics and Political Theory.

For those that don't go to Politics often, the majority of the threads there center around topics that would largely qualify as political theory, specifically the difference between the existence of a "state" and anarchy (both in society and the market).

Even Iron, Poly's mod, has lamented the lack of "conventional political discussion" in the forum, and very often threads that start out being about current political issues (the debates, 2008 election, social security, etc) are derailed with theoretical discussion, making an attempt at discussing current events largely impossible.

Splitting the forums would accomplish two major things. First, clarity of discussion in both forums. Neither forum, moderated properly, should be subject to any more derailed threads and protracted debates that amount to little more then ideological flame wars.
Secondly, Iron will be able to enforce the rules in Politics as they're currently written. Too often people that make obvious troll posts are almost immune from punishment because they can shield themselves behind the "extreme ideological" stance. Splitting the forums would allow him to properly enforce the rules.

Any Thoughts?

Cody

[stabn]

Why not just have OP's start threads with Theory: or Current: and moderate away replies that don't fit with the OP's intended thread.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just have OP's start threads with Theory: or Current: and moderate away replies that don't fit with the OP's intended thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Politics lives up to it's reputation as a particularly "heated" forum, and it's not that there is a lack of threads being started, it's that often those threads get hijacked and killed, regardless of the points of the OP. It's a little difficult to describe if you don't go to the Poly forum often, but labels seem unlikely to work.

Cody

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Even Iron, Poly's mod, has lamented the lack of "conventional political discussion" in the forum, and very often threads that start out being about current political issues (the debates, 2008 election, social security, etc) are derailed with theoretical discussion, making an attempt at discussing current events largely impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't see this at all. However if this is the case I've always voiced support behind sane anti-hijacking rules in the politics forum.

[kerowo]

If people don't respect threads now why do you think they'll respect forum boundaries?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
If people don't respect threads now why do you think they'll respect forum boundaries?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd imagine the banhammer (and the ability to use it) would help some.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even Iron, Poly's mod, has lamented the lack of "conventional political discussion" in the forum, and very often threads that start out being about current political issues (the debates, 2008 election, social security, etc) are derailed with theoretical discussion, making an attempt at discussing current events largely impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't see this at all. However if this is the case I've always voiced support behind sane anti-hijacking rules in the politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me shake?
How many threads about other issues are hijacked with Nielsio's "Are they're any jackbooted bearded people I can vote for" comments. And how many threads about current bills or house/senate debates get hit with "Well why don't we just scrap the whole thing".

I know the ACists love it, hell I enjoy those threads, but whenever anything current is brought up, it still falls right into "AC v. Statism" debates. Who knows how many posters we've lost because of that garbage, I should know, as I was one of them for a long while.

Cody

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding me shake?


[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[ QUOTE ]
How many threads about other issues are hijacked with Nielsio's "Are they're any jackbooted bearded people I can vote for" comments.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do see those some times, but it rarely hijacks discussion. However, I'm fine with making it against forum rules to do that.
[ QUOTE ]
And how many threads about current bills or house/senate debates get hit with "Well why don't we just scrap the whole thing".


[/ QUOTE ]
Whole thing meaning government, or the bill? I don't see much on government, and what's wrong with debating the merits of getting rid of law or being against a bill? ACism is just economic conservatism and social liberalism, should we bar both these views from a current events forum?
[ QUOTE ]
I know the ACists love it, hell I enjoy those threads, but whenever anything current is brought up, it still falls right into "AC v. Statism" debates.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I said, I don't notice this but if it is prevelant, make it against the rules. No need to split up an already low trafficed forum.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
I do see those some times, but it rarely hijacks discussion. However, I'm fine with making it against forum rules to do that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good, but I don't see that happening. Also, I doubt Iron has the strength to keep up with all the bans he'd need to give out.

[ QUOTE ]
Whole thing meaning government, or the bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gov't obviously.

[ QUOTE ]
and what's wrong with debating the merits of getting rid of law or being against a bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok this is why I think you're leveling me. Of course there's nothing wrong there, that was the point.

[ QUOTE ]
ACism is just economic conservatism and social liberalism, should we bar both these views from a current events forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intellectual dishonesty. ACism is a dramatic shift in self-government. It's an "anti-government" not just a different point on the same line.

[ QUOTE ]
No need to split up an already low trafficed forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chicken or Egg? Is the forum low traffic because of all the trolling, or is the trolling do to lack of multiple debates. I'd guess it's low traffic because few people want to engage in the kinds of discussions that go on in there now, and fewer still want to be harassed while doing so.

Cody

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Good, but I don't see that happening. Also, I doubt Iron has the strength to keep up with all the bans he'd need to give out.


[/ QUOTE ]
Simply adjusting the forum rules is more likely then splitting the forum (splitting the forum has been discussed a lot in the past). If someone is hijckacking a thread, push the notify the mod button. The fact that it would be known to be against the rules alone would decrease hijackings.
[ QUOTE ]
Gov't obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, well I'm fine with making that against the rules
[ QUOTE ]
Intellectual dishonesty. ACism is a dramatic shift in self-government. It's an "anti-government" not just a different point on the same line.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but what I'm saying is that it's perfectly fine for an ACist to argue against Social security for example without derailing the thread into a AC vs Statism debate (and even though I'm an ACist a hate it when it happens, because invariably the same arguments come up and it's the same people arguing it, so i'm fine with rules against this).
[ QUOTE ]
Chicken or Egg? Is the forum low traffic because of all the trolling, or is the trolling do to lack of multiple debates.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ive been posting in politics since my reg date, when the politics forum was much different (less AC discussion). At least over the last year and a half it's been low traffcked.