|
Koos Group posted:Election 2024 Thread If there will be threads on the two conventions (the libertarian one could probably fit within the general libertarian megathread?), it might be better to relax the usual D&D rules a bit and let them be more "TVIV"-style threads. Mocking the weird choreography and people earnestly or accidentally giving "the Roman salute" for Dear Donald probably doesn't merit that much intellectual scrutiny.
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:Though having moderation that is objective as possible is good for a debate forum where we're trying to avoid bias, we may also need to be more confident when making subjective rulings, by keeping in mind that even the most objective moderation will still produce discontentment and accusations of bias. These are things we'll have to deal with no matter what, which we can't hide from, behind objective rules or otherwise. I'll break kayfabe for a moment here and respond to this seriously. Cinci's success, IMO (as someone who lives next to Russia, so  bias alert) was predicated on three things. First, he was blunt and crude which can be amusing, and this is the least helpful point I suppose. Second, there was a demand for the specific type of approach the thread's tenor took under his reign, namely that Russia were and are conducting a horrifying and international law defying, unprovoked war of aggression, while sprinkling war crimes and crimes against humanity into the mix. Third, there were avenues for the opposing viewpoint (such as is it) elsewhere on the site, as a release valve. This is difficult to generalize; C-SPAM's existence does not seem to ameliorate the liberal-left divide (for lack of better monikers for the "sides", apologies), and as the grudges seem to be fairly deep by this point, the same issues more or less repeat themselves across threads. I think we (as in D&D) have three separate threads, more or less on topic, discussing the moral and health failings of Joseph Robinette Biden at the moment (probably more, I don't read all the USpol-adjacent threads), with similar logical fallacies or debate foibles reoccurring like clockwork. There have been calls for some sort of "thunderdome" every now and then over the years, but this approach would have its own issues. We can't really escape the fact that some people have fundamentally differing axioms with which they approach political issues, and the tools available on the SA forums where serious politics discussion is permissible simply don't allow for soft solutions on squaring that circle. Other than slowly killing off all serious political discussion in Dungeons and Debates, of course, most people eventually get bored.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 06:31
|
|