Hi

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your pole is not up to the task. I don't consider it credible evidence given the proselytizing nature of AC hereabouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, people are lying about converting to ACism? ACers are bamboozling people into filling out web polls incorrectly?


[ QUOTE ]
My criticism was against certain pompous tactics, not AC in general (which makes a few good points). Puffing up, insulting others and leaving your business all over someone's nice thread is no way to win converts. I'd bet all my chips on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Argue against the tactics all you want. The results speak for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your tacit admission of active proselytization at the expense of forum decorum only fuels the fire of more active modship I would think. I am for a laissez-fair politics forum, I don't think your statement here is particularly helpful pvn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tacit admission? He called the tactics "pompus". Earlier he claimed they were uneffective, and when presented with evidence to the contrary, switched to the pomposity attack. Is pomposity necesarily a violation of some undefined standard of decorum around here?

[/ QUOTE ]

His statement also included "puffing up, insulting others and leaving your business all over another's thread", which you did not see fit to refute.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry about that. I refute it. There, happy now?

Iron has been dealing with personal attacks for quite a while now. There is a whole undercurrent of "Poltics is 'uncivil'" but I'm not seeing it. Is it a tea party? No. But puffing up is not uncivil. "leaving one's business all over another's thread" is meaningless.

Unrelenting dissection of one's arguments is NOT uncivil. It is certainly offputting to some members of 2+2, but so are plenty of other forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unrelenting dissection of one's arguments may not be uncivil per se, however can be pretty damn annoying. If one is continuously attacking another's position based solely on political philosophy, all discussion would therefore necessarily be about the merits of that political philosophy. That discussion is of course vital, but it is the contention of many that the ACists insistence that the very premise of arguments must be dissected at all times has most probably resulted in being a major contributor to the current state of modding affairs.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
Unrelenting dissection of one's arguments may not be uncivil per se, however can be pretty damn annoying. If one is continuously attacking another's position based solely on political philosophy, all discussion would therefore necessarily be about the merits of that political philosophy. That discussion is of course vital, but it is the contention of many that the ACists insistence that the very premise of arguments must be dissected at all times has most probably resulted in being a major contributor to the current state of modding affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, a lot of people seem to be of the opinion that it is possible to discuss politics without discussing political philosophy, it is not!

Example
Person 1: I think law XYZ is good.
Person 2: I think law XYZ is bad, why on earth d'you think it is good?
Person 1: Because of reason ABC.

By the third line it has by definition become a political philosophy discussion. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, the only way to avoid contention is to allow the conversation to move into political philosophy otherwise all conversations will look like this:

Steven: Law XYZ is good.
Sthephen: Bad!
Steven: Good!!!
Stephen: BAAAAAAAAAAAAADDD!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you allow the conversation to move to political philosophy they might reach the source of their contention which is their differing axioms (or a logical inconsistency on one of their parts).

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: lol, i deleted this myself because i phear being banned [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]



There you have it, folks. OK mods, you win. Plant the flag, declare victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's silly because I really don't think I should have had to fear banning for what I was going to say. Heck, maybe it would have been fine. Frankly I have no idea anymore what's acceptable and what isn't. Nice culture of fear being developed.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Unrelenting dissection of one's arguments may not be uncivil per se, however can be pretty damn annoying. If one is continuously attacking another's position based solely on political philosophy, all discussion would therefore necessarily be about the merits of that political philosophy. That discussion is of course vital, but it is the contention of many that the ACists insistence that the very premise of arguments must be dissected at all times has most probably resulted in being a major contributor to the current state of modding affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I look forward to the day when I can argue for my murder-based policy initiatives without having to deal with pesky, annoying questions about the morality of murder. Let's focus on the ISSUES, people!

[Mickey Brausch]

OK, momentary recap : Posters must not

- puff up
- proselytize
- violate decorum
- talk disparagingly about Israel
- talk about billionaires and multi-hecta-billionaires.

And that's only a partial list.

Wow.

If this is the prescription for the cure, it must be one hell of a weird problem...

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unrelenting dissection of one's arguments may not be uncivil per se, however can be pretty damn annoying. If one is continuously attacking another's position based solely on political philosophy, all discussion would therefore necessarily be about the merits of that political philosophy. That discussion is of course vital, but it is the contention of many that the ACists insistence that the very premise of arguments must be dissected at all times has most probably resulted in being a major contributor to the current state of modding affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I look forward to the day when I can argue for my murder-based policy initiatives without having to deal with pesky, annoying questions about the morality of murder. Let's focus on the ISSUES, people!

[/ QUOTE ]

I feared such a response, as my post unfortunately lends itself to it.

Let me try a specific example: On December 4th there was a thread about Greg Raymer's possible run for the Vice Presidency. I made the wholly unremarkable statement that I did not think he was qualified based on a lack of experience or some similar commonplace observation. You felt compelled to interject your thoughts as to the "arrogant elitism" of my wanting a candidate for high office to be qualified. You claimed in part that the winning of an election by an "unqualified" individual was illustrative of the crappiness of the system.

Although you feel it is imperative to debate what the meaning of 'is' is at all turns so as to demonstrate the folly of a non AC system, most folks feel it is way too much. This type of thread derailing, in which one cannot make the most banal of points without philosophical interjection on yours and a few others parts was probably integral to the change in modding standards. I felt it was a tolerable irritation, others found it an unbearable situation apparently.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unrelenting dissection of one's arguments may not be uncivil per se, however can be pretty damn annoying. If one is continuously attacking another's position based solely on political philosophy, all discussion would therefore necessarily be about the merits of that political philosophy. That discussion is of course vital, but it is the contention of many that the ACists insistence that the very premise of arguments must be dissected at all times has most probably resulted in being a major contributor to the current state of modding affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I look forward to the day when I can argue for my murder-based policy initiatives without having to deal with pesky, annoying questions about the morality of murder. Let's focus on the ISSUES, people!

[/ QUOTE ]

I feared such a response, as my post unfortunately lends itself to it.

Let me try a specific example: On December 4th there was a thread about Greg Raymer's possible run for the Vice Presidency. I made the wholly unremarkable statement that I did not think he was qualified based on a lack of experience or some similar commonplace observation. You felt compelled to interject your thoughts as to the "arrogant elitism" of my wanting a candidate for high office to be qualified. You claimed in part that the winning of an election by an "unqualified" individual was illustrative of the crappiness of the system.

Although you feel it is imperative to debate what the meaning of 'is' is at all turns so as to demonstrate the folly of a non AC system, most folks feel it is way too much. This type of thread derailing, in which one cannot make the most banal of points without philosophical interjection on yours and a few others parts was probably integral to the change in modding standards. I felt it was a tolerable irritation, others found it an unbearable situation apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people find it unbearable to have black people live in their neighborhoods.

David S. started a series of threads in the SMP board challeging people to produce someone who is a religious fundamentalist that is smarter than atheists. He was essentially suggesting that they are dumber than atheists, as well as less moral. It was a systematic approach offering cash reawards and challenges, etc in a series of threads. Why did he not get sanctioned for being offensive or what have you? Is it not because religion is controversial, a subject where people are expected to have a thick skin? A topic where it is reasonable to expect that peoples beliefs will be challenged agressively at times?

If one finds speech and communication 'unbearable', particularly when it is typed speech on an internet, and moreso when it is typed speech on a POLITICS board on the internet...

that says something about the persons level of intolerance.

It is the politics behind the politics. It speaks to a persons psychological makeup.

If people do not want their beliefs/opinons challenged maybe politics is not an area they want to engage in discussion. There are chat boards called 'tea time' or what have you were people engage in non controversial discussions about a variety of topics where it is 'against the rules' to question ones assertions. Politics is not one of those areas.

I see nothing really wrong with guiding people with sophisticated political/philosophical knowedge and skills into using kid gloves when interacting with political newbies. But I think it is a disservice to readers and posters to look to intervene to protect 'regular' posters, or posters looking to be regulars. I think a much better approach would be to put the onus on the person starting a thread to state they do not want to defend their core beleifs on an issue or do not want feedback from people who are in party X, Y, or Z.

Alternatively, there is an ignore feature which people can use at their own discretion.

Also, I think the new stuctured debate format as an option is a great addition to the board. I realize it probably feels overwhelming when 5 people from one side of the political spectrum jumps in to rip your assertions to shreads... but behind the scenes angling to use political tactics to intervene in protection of the 'minority' by people with special powers (i.e. mods) is not the solution. The onus of responsiblity shoud be on the thread starter IMO to state in effect: I do not want to/am not prepared to defend my position/assertion/beliefs from AC philosophical examination/scrutiny. Please only Republicans and Democrats apply. The short version would be "no AC please" or "dems and repubs only" or "no ac and no libs please" etc... Having hired guns angling to shoot ACers is a political strategy irrespective of the political affiliation of the people who are the hired guns.

That being said, I realize things will take time to get worked out, and ultimately I have zero power here. I welcome experimintation and new ideas and frown on heavy handed tactics.