All Governments Should Have A Public Online Discussion Forum

[Pozessed]

I think somehow all governments should have a forum in which all representatives are required to have an account, respond to at least one post a week, and all issues that wouldn't hurt national securities be discussed.
I also think any nation that sets up a forum like this should be interlinked so as to squash as many disputes as possible.

Any person in the world should have access to these forums and be able to post after creating an account. To create an account a person must register with a valid ID at a proper location. In America for example, a person could sign up at the BMV, post office, state accredited library, state college, etc.

Officials of the country would have obvious details that signify they are true representatives. Same as moderators and admins have obvious distinctions from normal members of a forum.

Just some thoughts.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Pozessed

[CaptainPanic]

I agree that politicians should publicly discuss and explain the choices they make in parliament/senate or whatever house you have in your country.

 

I am not sure that an online forum is the best way to go. The obvious benefit is that everybody can give direct input. The downside is that this will be a huge mess, and in the end someone will have to make a selection (or you can rely on voting, which means it will have the same intelligence as facebook or youtube comments, and we will ask the politicians about their favorite color or holiday destination). You might as well have some tv-makers read up on public opinion, and ask the questions. In the Netherlands, typically politicians tend to go to talkshows (serious as well as humorous). The importance is obviously that these talkshows then represent the population. This is ensured by making the public channels democratic - the more members a broadcast organisation has, the more time it gets on air. Membership is cheap and it is easy to register.

 

Most countries are simply too large to demand a one-on-one communication with your representatives in the government.

[Prometheus]

It's a nice thought, but online forums, such as this seem to have an optimum number of contributers - probably related to Dunbar's number - which isn't very much relative to the size of democracies.

 

I imagine social media trends will become more influential in politics, though whether that improves things i'm not sure.

[swansont]

Good idea in theory, horrible in actuality.

 

If it was moderated, there would be continual complaints about censorship. If it was unmoderated, the signal/noise would drop to close to zero and it would be dominated by malcontents and trolls.

[John Cuthber]

Well, here's a politician's blog*

https://bobkerslake.blog.gov.uk/2014/03/06/performance-management-addressing-your-concerns/#comments

you can see for yourselves how good a job he does of actually answering questions.

 

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerslake

arguably, since he's not elected, he's not a politician.

I think this still illustrates the problem.

[Pozessed]

Allow the public individuals to only start a thread once or twice a month or once a week. They can respond to any thread they'd like, as long as they remained on topic and non-insulting.

I think any rational person could agree with those terms.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Pozessed

[CaptainPanic]

Allow the public individuals to only start a thread once or twice a month or once a week. They can respond to any thread they'd like, as long as they remained on topic and non-insulting.

 

I think any rational person could agree with those terms.

 

If every individual in the USA is allowed to start a thread per week, that's a maximum 300 million threads per week. Let's assume that only 1% of the population uses this right, that's still 3 million threads per week. At SFN, threads gather on average 10 posts per thread, so using that statistic, the national forum would gather 30 million posts per week.

 

At SFN, we can cope with about 1500 posts per week, with 6 active mods. So, using the same numbers, such a US-national politics forum would require 120,000 moderators to maintain the same moderator coverage as here on SFN. If every citizen of the USA would make use of their legal right to create a thread, you would need 12 million moderators.

 

Obviously, the mods here aren't paid full-time employees of SFN, but still, I hope you start to appreciate the scale of the forum you propose. It's seriously huge.

[Pozessed]

 

If every individual in the USA is allowed to start a thread per week, that's a maximum 300 million threads per week. Let's assume that only 1% of the population uses this right, that's still 3 million threads per week. At SFN, threads gather on average 10 posts per thread, so using that statistic, the national forum would gather 30 million posts per week.

 

At SFN, we can cope with about 1500 posts per week, with 6 active mods. So, using the same numbers, such a US-national politics forum would require 120,000 moderators to maintain the same moderator coverage as here on SFN. If every citizen of the USA would make use of their legal right to create a thread, you would need 12 million moderators.

 

Obviously, the mods here aren't paid full-time employees of SFN, but still, I hope you start to appreciate the scale of the forum you propose. It's seriously huge.

Those points are very true. Sub forums and deletion of repeat posts would diminish those numbers dramatically though I would think. A forum for each state as well as the federal government, and a sub forum in each of those that relate to political issues.

That should make it easy to navigate, and diminish on double posting by individuals.

 

Examples of further sub forums:

 

Agriculture, Arts and Humanities, Budget and Taxes, Civil Rights and Liberties, Climate Change, Consumer Protections, Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement, Defense, Disabilities, etc

 

I do want to conclude that I don't think this idea is impossible, impractical, or unnecessary. With the right kind of innovation I think it could be developed. I am always the optomist though.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Pozessed

[CaptainPanic]

Those points are very true. Sub forums and deletion of repeat posts would diminish those numbers dramatically though I would think.

 

They would diminish the number of posts, but not the work of the moderators... they still have to read those repeat posts, and delete them.

A government has to be very careful to delete posts... Censorship is obviously completely unacceptable if you'd use such a forum.

 

 

I do want to conclude that I don't think this idea is impossible, impractical, or unnecessary. With the right kind of innovation I think it could be developed. I am always the optomist though.

 

It is technically possible. And quite a noble idea as well. I just think there are easier ways to achieve nearly the same.

[Pozessed]

 

They would diminish the number of posts, but not the work of the moderators... they still have to read those repeat posts, and delete them.

A government has to be very careful to delete posts... Censorship is obviously completely unacceptable if you'd use such a forum.

 

 

It is technically possible. And quite a noble idea as well. I just think there are easier ways to achieve nearly the same.

If this were government run, I imagine a program could be made to identify potential repeat posts to make less work for the mods. I mean the government prints money so cost of this program isn't a factor lol.

 

What do you think would be a suitable alternative?

Edited April 17, 2014 by Pozessed

[iNow]

Doesn't this already occur to some extent through Twitter?

[Pozessed]

Doesn't this already occur to some extent through Twitter?

I don't think 40 characters per point is suitable when it comes to having your opinion clearly expressed. Maybe facebook, but even FB is not as advantageous as an actual forum. Mainly because people on FB were introduced to it for useless information and thus they don't realize its potential. At least that's my opinion.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Pozessed

[Pozessed]

To avoid censorship I suggest they could do these 2 things.

 

If a thread is not unnecessarily offenssive but remains questionable a moderator could warn the patron and ask them to clean up their post to be less offenssive. If this person does not agree with the moderators decision they can choose to have their post moved to a section that is dedicated to questioning if people are being censored. This section should be completely viewable by the public and easily noticable.
Also, once the moderator has given the warning and asked the OP to rewrite their post, it should be moved to the "questioning censorship" thread.

 

If a post is completely removed I suggest moving it to a trash thread that is still viewable by the public. In the thread where the original post was made, that post will be replaced with a post containing the usersname of the OP, the offense committed, which moderator blocked the post, and a link to the post in its current position in the trash thread.

I also think that a persons post in the first example should be replaced in much the same way as the second, only the link should be to the "questioning censorship" thread instead of the trash thread.
As well, after a moderator finds a person has altered there post to be acceptable for easier communication and it's enetered into the original thread, a dropdown box should be available showing what they originally said so people understand what is acceptable. This dropdown box should be directly available from the persons newly altered post.

 

Lastly I think people should be able to comment on the posts that were moved to both sections to ensure that they, the public, feels everyone is being censored/uncensored fairly.

 

 

I definitely want to hear SFN mods opinions on this.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Pozessed

[John Cuthber]

"If a thread is not unnecessarily offenssive but remains questionable a moderator could warn the patron and ask them to clean up their post to be less offenssive.

 

That rather depends on the mod.

Is the poster in this story offensive?

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/04/16/north_korea_asks_uk_to_take_necessary_action_against_barbers_bad_hair_day_poster.html

[Pozessed]

"If a thread is not unnecessarily offenssive but remains questionable a moderator could warn the patron and ask them to clean up their post to be less offenssive.

 

That rather depends on the mod.

Is the poster in this story offensive?

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/04/16/north_korea_asks_uk_to_take_necessary_action_against_barbers_bad_hair_day_poster.html

I must ask. If the picture and comment in your link were posted on a government forum designed to help social progress, what would the public or officials be expected to gain or do in hopes of advancing social progress with a post like that?

In my opinion the OP of this hypothetical thread would only be trying to induce humor, so I myself would find it unnecessarily offensive.

 

[John Cuthber]

The point I was making is that, if the North Koreans were in charge of the moderation of the website any criticism of the political leaders would be forbidden.

I think it's reasonable to criticise a regimen on the basis that it dictates what haircuts men are allowed. I also think a poster in a shop window is a reasonable way to express that criticism.

 

Some people found the poster offensive; others didn't.

Which viewpoint is "right"?

If you were a moderator, how would you address the fact that some people's idea of a joke or a valid point is other people's idea of an insult?

Edited April 18, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Pozessed]

The point I was making is that, if the North Koreans were in charge of the moderation of the website any criticism of the political leaders would be forbidden.

I think it's reasonable to criticise a regimen on the basis that it dictates what haircuts men are allowed. I also think a poster in a shop window is a reasonable way to express that criticism.

 

Some people found the poster offensive; others didn't.

Which viewpoint is "right"?

If you were a moderator, how would you address the fact that some people's idea of a joke or a valid point is other people's idea of an insult?

If I were the moderator and it were an issue of political members denying the public simple criticism such as this I think I'd have a very modest approach.

 

I'd point out that the OP is only asking if the official had had a "bad hair day" as that is the only suspicion being addressed. I'd also point out that the officials insecurity is being shown by asking that such material be withdrawn for no other meaningful purpose.

If the official then proceeded to say that their insecurities in their personal appearence makes them depressed or suicidal, I'd point out that they probably shouldn't be an official due to an unsound mind.

[John Cuthber]

Ignore the specific example.

 

If you were a moderator, how would you address the fact that some people's idea of a joke or a valid point is other people's idea of an insult?

You can't please both groups.

[Pozessed]

Ignore the specific example.

 

If you were a moderator, how would you address the fact that some people's idea of a joke or a valid point is other people's idea of an insult?

You can't please both groups.

 

In a forum such as the one I describe, why would jokes be welcome if the sole intent of the joke was to insult? If someone get's upset at a valid point and there was no slander in the process, what would they be insulted by?

 

In a forum such as this I think serious discussions would need to take place. I would moderate in a way that people could speak freely, but I would encourage people to enter the discussions with the interest of thinking critically and not for entertainment.

[John Cuthber]

Ignore the specific example.

If you were a moderator, how would you address the fact that some people's idea of a joke or a valid point is other people's idea of an insult?
You can't please both groups.

 

How do you plan to address the problem that one person's idea of "sensible moderation" is another person's idea of "censorship"?

[Pozessed]

Ignore the specific example.

 

If you were a moderator, how would you address the fact that some people's idea of a joke or a valid point is other people's idea of an insult?

You can't please both groups.

 

How do you plan to address the problem that one person's idea of "sensible moderation" is another person's idea of "censorship"?

Am I suppose to be ignoring the type of forum I have described or the type of insult that you provided as an example? As far as I'm concerned I did ignore your insult example, but I see no reason to ignore the type of forum being moderated.

[John Cuthber]

OK, here's the specific example again.

http://www.thestar.c...day_poster.html

just so you can not pay attention to it (Sheesh!)

 

 

How do you plan to address the problem that one person's idea of "sensible moderation" is another person's idea of "censorship"?

[Pozessed]

OK, here's the specific example again.

http://www.thestar.c...day_poster.html

just so you can not pay attention to it (Sheesh!)

 

 

How do you plan to address the problem that one person's idea of "sensible moderation" is another person's idea of "censorship"?

With the properties in place as I have fathomed, how is censorship even relevant? I have not haltered communication in any way because I have devised methods for people who feel censored to continue their "censored" conversation. I have no reason to really define how I would address this issue when I have given methods on how to please even the most obnoxious outcries of censorship, yet I have.

I'm sorry if my ideas aren't completely clear to you, but if I'm not giving you the answer you'd like and the only thing you have to offer is sarcasm to help construct the conversation then I don't see any point in continuing from this point.

[John Cuthber]

"If a thread is not unnecessarily offenssive but remains questionable a moderator could warn the patron and ask them to clean up their post to be less offenssive. If this person does not agree with the moderators decision they can choose to have their post moved to a section that is dedicated to questioning if people are being censored. This section should be completely viewable by the public and easily noticable.

Also, once the moderator has given the warning and asked the OP to rewrite their post, it should be moved to the "questioning censorship" thread.

If a post is completely removed I suggest moving it to a trash thread"

So the options are to leave it, move it to a "questioned" pile or completely remove it.

Don't you consider the latter two to be censorship?

[Pozessed]

"If a thread is not unnecessarily offenssive but remains questionable a moderator could warn the patron and ask them to clean up their post to be less offenssive. If this person does not agree with the moderators decision they can choose to have their post moved to a section that is dedicated to questioning if people are being censored. This section should be completely viewable by the public and easily noticable.

Also, once the moderator has given the warning and asked the OP to rewrite their post, it should be moved to the "questioning censorship" thread.

 

If a post is completely removed I suggest moving it to a trash thread"

So the options are to leave it, move it to a "questioned" pile or completely remove it.

Don't you consider the latter two to be censorship?

My idea is to have a trash thread much like this site. A place where peoples posts which seem irrelevant or offensive could go. I should have said instead of completely removing or deleting a post it should be moved to a trash thread. I think it would be important for this trash thread to be made public and allow for further posts to be made inside them to further peoples discussions.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Pozessed