New politics & religion sub-forum

[JawZ]

IMHO, I think it's time that we relieve the general forum from bearing the burden brought on by the divisive dialogue of politics and religion and create a new sub-forum for such discussion.

Almost every ban, warning, infraction, etc., comes on the heels of political discourse. It's becoming such a divisive area that the gen forum has become a hostile battleground and that is NOT what the intent of the gen forum is imo. The gen forum can and should be a place to laugh, joke, relax, share info, etc.

This new sub forum should be a place where people can have discussions without fear of being admonished by staff. Let we the people police ourselves. There is nothing civil about political discourse. There are facts, lies, distortions, truths, untruths, spin, personal attacks, character assassinations, counter-attacks, etc. Our own elected leaders...leaders of the free world, do not spare each other's feelings or egos.


The fact is this:

The truth does not owe you or me or anyone....compassion. So I, along with many others, are sick and tired of sparing your fragile feelings when pointing out truth and facts as it relates to politics and religion.

I'm sick and tired of seeing partisan lies go unchallenged and invading a space that should otherwise, be a place for good times.


Now of course this new sub-forum would have some very strict rules:

• Enter at your own risk. If you go into the forum and are offended, tough crap, you were warned.

• What starts in the politics and religion sub-forum....stays in that forum. Taking the hate with you to a different forum will result in an automatic warning, followed by a ban if necessary. You get one warning.

• Zero tolerance for retribution. No negative reputation as a result of discussion. No negative profile comments. No negative PM's. Carry out your diatribe in public or don't do it at all. Failure to comply, warning and then ban hammer.

Also, imo, I think it would be best to make this a private forum where only premium members can post. There are currently two methods to get a premium membership, write articles for SG and in turn get membership, or pay for it out of your own pocket and get membership. I would suggest writing articles because that way, SG as a whole gets something in return for this privilege. To me, it's a win-win situation.



That is all I can think of now. What do you all think? Maybe we need to broaden the forum name to the Debate forum....where any kind of debate can rage on without fear of mod/admin repercussions. Maybe Xbox fanboys need to whoop on Wii fanboys....I dunno.

I will say that I am the kind of person that can argue with you for hours on one subject, and the very next minute, be your buddy while gaming or talking about other benign subjects. I can separate the two.

[Sava700]

I agree with this idea!

[JawZ]

I agree with this idea!

thanks, and yes, a couple of mods have also expressed interest in this idea.

[YARDofSTUF]

I think its long overdue.

[TonyT]

While I agree that such topics are best discussed in private forums, and that such topics should be discussed outside of general discussion & technical forums, I strongly believe that discussion of such topics in general has little value for writers and readers overall.

We have our own religious beliefs and rarely, if ever, has someone else's asserted beliefs helped someone else. Same goes for political rants. At best, discussion of these topics only serves to give a person a place to vent their mis-emotions, all too often at the expense of another.

There are already tons of religion only forums/newsgroups on the WWW and tons of political only forums/newsgroups.

Realize that there are spurts of religious and political posts. The spurts parrellel current events in the news. It's election time now and thats what's on people's minds. The spurts fade away and come back when some AP journalist releases his mandatory anti-religion or anti-politico news story, and somone here then posts a link to it, afterwhich the mis-emotions fly because some folks just lack manners or they are bent on harming others.

[Gixxer]

While I agree that such topics are best discussed in private forums, and that such topics should be discussed outside of general discussion & technical forums, I strongly believe that discussion of such topics in general has little value for writers and readers overall.

We have our own religious beliefs and rarely, if ever, has someone else's asserted beliefs helped someone else. Same goes for political rants. At best, discussion of these topics only serves to give a person a place to vent their mis-emotions, all too often at the expense of another.

There are already tons of religion only forums/newsgroups on the WWW and tons of political only forums/newsgroups.

Realize that there are spurts of religious and political posts. The spurts parrellel current events in the news. It's election time now and thats what's on people's minds. The spurts fade away and come back when some AP journalist releases his mandatory anti-religion or anti-politico news story, and somone here then posts a link to it, afterwhich the mis-emotions fly because some folks just lack manners or they are bent on harming others.

[Shinobi]

Realize that there are spurts of religious and political posts. The spurts parrellel current events in the news. It's election time now and thats what's on people's minds. The spurts fade away and come back when some AP journalist releases his mandatory anti-religion or anti-politico news story, and somone here then posts a link to it, afterwhich the mis-emotions fly because some folks just lack manners or they are bent on harming others.

Well said.

[JawZ]

Most warnings are because people aren't mature enough to carry on discussions without insults in all honesty.

Well said.

I disagree because the proof is in the pudding. Prime example....Ghosthunter.

It wasn't a matter of maturity...it was a matter of mental acumen. He didn't have it.

So it's not a matter of insults, or timing of the elections...it is very much a matter of people unwilling to listen. And if they listen, will they accept?

Ghosthunter could not accept and that is why he is history.

Let me ask you guys this: If John McCain were to come to SG and post a message saying that Obama was a terrorist...would you ban him for it? Hell no you wouldn't.

[Roody]

I disagree because the proof is in the pudding. Prime example....Ghosthunter.

It wasn't a matter of maturity...it was a matter of mental acumen. He didn't have it.

So it's not a matter of insults, or timing of the elections...it is very much a matter of people unwilling to listen. And if they listen, will they accept?

Ghosthunter could not accept and that is why he is history.

Let me ask you guys this: If John McCain were to come to SG and post a message saying that Obama was a terrorist...would you ban him for it? Hell no you wouldn't.

We would ban him if he was a consistent rule breaker.

[Gixxer]

"So I, along with many others, are sick and tired of sparing your fragile feelings when pointing out truth and facts as it relates to politics and religion."

if it was done in a civil way you would not have to worry about arguing. it is those who cannot leave out the name calling/belittling etc.. when they might not have their facts straight/misinformed or (god forbid) a different opinion etc...

it usually goes like this:

person 1: i feel/know it is like this, (blah blah blah insert subject)

person 2: no you dumb @#*$@ (blah blah blah rebuttal to inserted subject).

no need for it. point out why you think they are wrong and let them research or just be wrong. it is hard to believe some of you get so mad over somebody else's opinions or misinformation. in your mind, you should be only concerned if you have the (your) facts straight.

on the subject of another "debate" forum, whatever floats the boat of the powers that be.

[JawZ]

if it was done in a civil way you would not have to worry about arguing. it is those who cannot leave out the name calling/belittling etc.. when they might not have their facts straight/misinformed or (god forbid) a different opinion etc...

I disagree wholeheartedly because most of the time, these opinions are here in support of a PERSUASIVE AGENDA!!!!

When the herd moves left, the herd moves left. When the herd moves right, they go right.

So when you "god forbid" something like this, I and others just can't let it go because usually it is something of importance that will socially AFFECT us ALL!!!!

I'm trying to prevent the herd from going over a cliff. You see it as belittling while I see it as saving and securing OUR future.


I do not want to be in the position to say, "I told you so" because "I told you so" means that we LOST. I wish I was wrong, but the $700 billion rescue plan is one of those I told you so moments...and we LOST.


I don't have time to be nice and if you realized what is at stake, you'd understand why.

[Roody]

Although I personally would consider the idea I don't support a forum where people just attack each other. Name calling gets nowhere. Civil disagreements are really the only way a person can convince another to change their views. Name calling rarely is as effective.

[YARDofSTUF]

Although I personally would consider the idea I don't support a forum where people just attack each other.

A forum like that wouldnt need support.

[tr87526]

Although I personally would consider the idea I don't support a forum where people just attack each other. Name calling gets nowhere. Civil disagreements are really the only way a person can convince another to change their views. Name calling rarely is as effective.

Agreed, feelings would spill over to the other forums. If you upset someone in the political forum, they will still be angry at you in the general forum

[Dan]

Agreed, feelings would spill over to the other forums. If you upset someone in the political forum, they will still be angry at you in the general forum

I agree

[JawZ]

I agree

did you guys read my suggested rule set? If it spills over into the other forums.....the ban hammer is one warning away.

Let me ask you this....since it has not been tried here on SG...what makes you believe it will fail when other sites like Ars Technica have this same EXACT model that I'm suggesting and it works great for them?

I might also add that ARS has way more members than SG.

This is a major issue for me and it's difficult to digest it when you say it won't work Dan when it works just GREAT for other forums.

[Dan]

I and others just can't let it go because usually it is something of importance that will socially AFFECT us ALL!!!!

I'm trying to prevent the herd from going over a cliff. You see it as belittling while I see it as saving and securing OUR future.


I don't have time to be nice and if you realized what is at stake, you'd understand why.

well I want to be the first to thank you


.


.
..
I couldn't resist

[David]

if it was done in a civil way you would not have to worry about arguing. it is those who cannot leave out the name calling/belittling etc.. when they might not have their facts straight/misinformed or (god forbid) a different opinion etc...

You are correct. Regardless of the level of education, subjectivity will always enter into the discussion and it is libel to become heated. Which is fair until ad hominem, swagger and threats are in play. Hard feelings will carry across fora, it is human nature to dislike someone who belittles irrespective of the milieu, promoting confusion and aggravation.

I do recall days when religion would be discussed on this site, without the slightest insult. Many look back wistfully to those times.

Adding more sub sections creates difficulty in monitoring.

Members here, like at any other forum, have their needs concerns and desires. Sadly, not everyone will be happy with the environment offered. While some like to share jokes, others like racy pictures. Others have serious political interests, some like chat about college sports. In the general forum, there is no need to feel guilty. Think of it as a mall, with each thread as a store. Not interested in ladies shoes, avoid it. Just because Gixxer is in the store, there should be no reason to enter for the sake of harassment.

that is all for now.

pax vobisum,
david

BTW.... I am only funning you a bit, Gixxer.

[Gixxer]

You are correct. Regardless of the level of education, subjectivity will always enter into the discussion and it is libel to become heated. Which is fair until ad hominem, swagger and threats are in play. Hard feelings will carry across fora, it is human nature to dislike someone who belittles irrespective of the milieu, promoting confusion and aggravation.

I do recall days when religion would be discussed on this site, without the slightest insult. Many look back wistfully to those times.

Adding more sub sections creates difficulty in monitoring.

Members here, like at any other forum, have their needs concerns and desires. Sadly, not everyone will be happy with the environment offered. While some like to share jokes, others like racy pictures. Others have serious political interests, some like chat about college sports. In the general forum, there is no need to feel guilty. Think of it as a mall, with each thread as a store. Not interested in ladies shoes, avoid it. Just because Gixxer is in the store, there should be no reason to enter for the sake of harassment.

that is all for now.

pax vobisum,
david

BTW.... I am only funning you a bit, Gixxer.

1.) thanks. i am not as think as you dumb i am. it is fun to let people make assumptions.

2.) i am a target whether it be from my asking for it or other reasons. no sweat though.

3.) i know you are joking around, but what you have said is true.

[mountainman]

I think its long overdue.

Very, very much.