Future of the Politics Forum

[Jim]

With the closure of Philosoply & Religion, I need to know if there is any discussion regarding the potential closure of the politics forum.

[ecoli]

That would be a mistake, in my opinion. It's interesting that in a science forum, the R&P and politics board would be the two boards that helped shaped my ideas the most. It's not unexpected, but still interesting.

 

And anyway, it seems to me that the politics board isn't as heated as the R&P board. I think the 'worst' I've seen is discussions about the middle east, specifically Israel and Palestine/Lebanon. Though even there the conversation seemed more civil than in the R&P.

 

As long as the new warning system works, I cast my vote against changing the politics board, however little my opinion may be worth.

[Pangloss]

Just FYI, I'm going to move this thread to the Suggestions/Feedback forum, but I'll leave a stub here so Politics readers will see it.

 

It was discussed a couple of weeks ago by board leadership in private, and then later with the experts.

 

Various suggestions were made, but in the end it was more or less agreed that the Politics board is more closely related to science and than P/RP has been. It's pretty easy to see how politics impacts science. The case for P/RP is not so obvious. And perhaps more to the point, good political discussion goes well with good scientific discussion, so long as it doesn't get out of hand. P/RP... not so much.

 

That's not to say that there's not a lot that one can learn from good P/RP discussion. It's just not what we do here. This board is about science. I actually made the suggestion at one point that we limit threads on the Politics board to areas specifically related to science. But it would be difficult to consistently validate that connection, and it might have a stiffling effect on discussions.

 

So I think that's basically where we are at the moment. P/RP is gone; Politics stays.

[Jim]

It was discussed a couple of weeks ago by board leadership in private, and then later with the experts.

 

Thank you for elaborating Pangloss.

[Dak]

quick question: what happens in political discussions that focus on religon, eg stuff to do with al quaeda?

 

would they be ok because they're political, or not ok because they're religos?

[Pangloss]

If the discussion focuses on politics, e.g. the political implications of the religion, it's fine. If it focuses on religious beliefs and exploring what they mean, how they reward the believer, etc, then it's not fine. It'll be a judgement call in the end.

[Sayonara]

With the closure of Philosoply & Religion, I need to know if there is any discussion regarding the potential closure of the politics forum.

 

No.

 

That's the short answer.

[Dak]

If the discussion focuses on politics, e.g. the political implications of the religion, it's fine. If it focuses on religious beliefs and exploring what they mean, how they reward the believer, etc, then it's not fine. It'll be a judgement call in the end.

 

cheers. seems a bit of a fuzzy line tho (eg)

[Jim]

cheers. seems a bit of a fuzzy line tho (eg)

 

Particularly since just today the thread re the Pope's apology was closed. Here we have a worldwide event with clear political signficance yet it is closed off without any real thought or explanation.

[Sayonara]

Particularly since just today the thread re the Pope's apology was closed. Here we have a worldwide event with clear political signficance yet it is closed off without any real thought or explanation.

I think I made myself perfectly clear.

 

If the OP or the prevailing discussion had pertained to the political impact of this event, it would have stayed. However it did not. It was clearly a religious discussion, and not a political discussion, and is not appropriate content for the politics forum.

 

There is absolutely nothing stopping Martin, or any of his respondants, from starting a new thread to discuss the political implications.

 

Please don't ****-stir. This is a hard enough time for SFN as it is.

[Jim]

I think I made myself perfectly clear.

 

If the OP or the prevailing discussion had pertained to the political impact of this event, it would have stayed. However it did not. It was clearly a religious discussion, and not a political discussion, and is not appropriate content for the politics forum.

 

Where, exactly, did the posts swerve out of bounds? Was Pangloss' point out of bounds? It makes it appear as if even the leaders don't know the lines

 

Was my post out of line? We are judging this by your sense of the "prevailing discussion?" Good lord.

 

I have no clue as to what a political but not religious thread on the Pope's offense and then apology to Muslims would look like. We are left to figure it out but the reality is no one is going to post anything about the political impact of religion unless you make the lines clear. You might as well ban all discussion of religion even in the politics board. Too bad that some of the most important aspects of politics in the coming century have to do with religion.

 

Please don't shit-stir. This is a hard enough time for SFN as it is.

 

Are non-leaders allowed to use four letter words? If I were to characterize your post with four letter words, I bet that would get me a warning.

 

To stray into substance, even asking questions about this radical new policy is s***-stiring? Good grief. Please, think about what you are saying.

 

I've been here since 12/05 posting 4.61 messages a day. Somehow this place has become a part of my daily life and I am distressed by your, above all of the other leaders', for want of a better word - heavy handedness. You close a thread in which even Pangloss contributed without so much as a rational explanation.

 

You make me shake my head at myself that I invested so much of myself here.

[Dak]

this is intended as constructive critisism, not ****-stirring:

 

religon is an inportant aspect in politics. in fact, i think the pope's appology is more politics than religon.

 

im just saying that alot of political discussions might be 'out-of-bounds' due to the religos content.

[GutZ]

Yeah closing the thread was kind of harsh. I understand the P&R had it problems but this is getting far too dramatic.

[Sayonara]

Where, exactly, did the posts swerve out of bounds? Was Pangloss' point out of bounds? It makes it appear as if even the leaders don't know the lines

Read the thread again. I am not interested in debating this with you.

 

Was my post out of line?

The discussion was one that pertained to the religious aspects of an interaction between two religions. I have no interest in picking out single posts that either support or refute that.

 

I have no clue as to what a political but not religious thread on the Pope's offense and then apology to Muslims would look like.

Then you can't have much to say on the politics of it all.

 

We are left to figure it out but the reality is no one is going to post anything about the political impact of religion unless you make the lines clear. You might as well ban all discussion of religion even in the politics board. Too bad that some of the most important aspects of politics in the coming century have to do with religion.

Suits me fine.

 

You have all been told repeatedly that a new forum is being launched to accommodate such discussions. Complaining doesn't make that any less true.

 

Until that forum is available to you, if in doubt as to whether or not you are contributing to a religious discussion, ask for clarification. Or is that too much effort?

 

Are non-leaders allowed to use four letter words?

I am as surprised by that uncensored expletive as you are, and shall investigate immediately, after starring it out manually.

 

If I were to characterize your post with four letter words, I bet that would get me a warning.

That rather depends on the motive.

 

To stray into substance, even asking questions about this radical new policy is s***-stiring? Good grief. Please, think about what you are saying.

Asking everyone in a thread not to ****-stir is not the same as accusing an individual of ****-stirring, is it?

 

I've been here since 12/05 posting 4.61 messages a day. Somehow this place has become a part of my daily life and I am distressed by your, above all of the other leaders', for want of a better word - heavy handedness. You close a thread in which even Pangloss contributed without so much as a rational explanation.

I don't care if Kofi Annan posted in the thread. It was not appropriate content for the forum.

 

You make me shake my head at myself that I invested so much of myself here.

That is much more of a churlish and immature response than I have come to expect from you. The world is not crashing down around your ears Jim, stop being so melodramatic.

 

 

this is intended as constructive critisism' date=' not shit-stirring:

religon is an inportant aspect in politics. in fact, i think the pope's appology is more politics than religon.

im just saying that alot of political discussions might be 'out-of-bounds' due to the religos content.[/quote']

Yes, religion is an important aspect in politics. However the thread in question was nothing to do with politics.

 

There is nothing wrong with having a political discussion that refers to religious issues. However that was not one of them.

 

 

Yeah closing the thread was kind of harsh. I understand the P&R had it problems but this is getting far too dramatic.

Dramatic changes are usually dramatic.

[Saryctos]

How was the thread in question not politically motivated? It spoke nothing about the basis for any religion, nor the beliefs there-of. It only spoke about the actions of those who claim to be of the religions involved. So say for example that pres. Bush vetos a bill based on religous bias, then no one could post about it in the politics forum because it is religous in nature?

 

I don't want to rock the boat more than it already is, but just voicing that I too saw the post as a "dangerous precident" for closing politically motivated threads.

[Sayonara]

Asking everyone in a thread not to ****-stir is not the same as accusing an individual of ****-stirring, is it?

Having re-read it was certainly not obvious that I was making a general request, rather than accusing Jim of ****-stirring, for which I apologise.

[Dak]

Yes' date=' religion is an important aspect in politics. However the thread in question was nothing to do with politics.

 

There is nothing wrong with having a political discussion that refers to religious issues. However that was not one of them.[/quote']

 

in your oppinon. it's not so clear to me, nor apparently to jim, and presumably not to some others either.

 

i'm just trying to point out that, to avoid having to desimate the new threads in the politics forum, it might be advisable to clarify the destinction a bit.

[Sayonara]

in your oppinon. it's not so clear to me, nor apparently to jim, and presumably not to some others either.

Which is why forums have admins and moderators. Because collective opinions don't manage threads.

 

i'm just trying to point out that, to avoid having to desimate the new threads in the politics forum, it might be advisable to clarify the destinction a bit.

Yes I understand that. It had actually occured, funnily enough. You can reasonably expect composing and typing such a post to occupy a period of time, a period which is going to get longer and longer as this pointless discussion continues to go over the same ground again and again and again until it too gets closed, and I launch the bloody lot of you into space on the back of a very smelly camel.

[Dak]

Which is why forums have admins and moderators. Because collective opinions don't manage threads.

 

yes, but a collective oppinon that is inline with the admins and mods tends to take the strain off of said admin/mods.

 

Yes I understand that.

 

well, why didn't you say

 

then i'd have stopped typing before we got to the point where threats of animal cruelty were neccesary.

 

tbh, i was assuming that you'd have typed up the post before implimating the policy, hence why i thought the abscence was an oversight.

[Sayonara]

then i'd have stopped typing before we got to the point where threats of animal cruelty were neccesary.

Don't go rushing to defend the camel until you have actually smelled it.

[ParanoiA]

I think it's pretty obvious from the comments so far, that the politics forum will eventually be moved as well. Or, at least the admins are going to wish it to be. That dividing area between religion versus politics is a bit too gray. They have everything to do with each other in the current climate. I guess we'll see if the new site for P&R will have a Politics forum as well - in that case it will probably work well.

 

But for this site, I don't see how you could really manage the politics forum as an admin and not get worn out partitioning religious threads from political threads and deal with our moaning and groaning about it.

 

I guess the sad reality is, that while I'm interested in science and scientists, I really have no business in here. I like to scan through the threads and something will grab my attention ever now and then, but for the most part I have only posted in the P&R and politics forum.

[Sayonara]

"Religion and Politics" on the new web site ought to fix pretty much all of that.

[Rebiu]

It seems to me that the Political and Religion forums get more traffic than most science forums.

 

The truth is that human dialogue and discourse do not fall into rigid categories. It is folly to believe religion, politics, and philosophy can be separated from discussions people care to have. It should be interesting to see the forum moderators try.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Politics isn't being removed, and philosophy will probably be back. Religion is fairly easy to distinguish. So, that's not a problem.

[Sayonara]

The truth is that human dialogue and discourse do not fall into rigid categories. It is folly to believe religion, politics, and philosophy can be separated from discussions people care to have. It should be interesting to see the forum moderators try.

This point has been shown to be irrelevant several times already. Talking about religion and philosophy in a suitable context has not been prohibited, and if you think that it has, then you are wrong.