Future of political talk on the forum

[bud fox]

Bring back the Podium with Yoop and Pckfn as your mods.

As long as it is only for the Podium. Although I agree with most things 23 posts I seem to also argue with him more than any other poster. Yoop I feel will accidentally press the wrong button and blow the whole forum up.

Life preservation here.

[texas]

Bring back the Podium with Yoop and Pckfn as your mods.

As long as it is only for the Podium. Although I agree with most things 23 posts I seem to also argue with him more than any other poster. Yoop I feel will accidentally press the wrong button and blow the whole forum up.

Life preservation here.

Lol Yoop is pretty much by far the biggest violator of stuff spilling over into the other forum. That being said, I don't like not being able to hear his political opinions. He's also always been cool with me, and pretty much everyone for that matter

23 has a worldview that I fundamentally disagree with, but it's not an illogical worldview. My only concern is that he would overuse the censoring powers.

If we're talking lefty moderators I would probably nominate Charon. Idk about a right-leaning moderator. I sometimes go days or weeks without checking in. The thing about right wingers is that all of them would probably be decent because right wingers tend not to censor. Honestly the current mod team is ideal but I understand if they don't want the extra burden.

[Pugger]

I can't even wrap my head around how that would go...

It wouldn't be boring....

[Labrev]

Podium part deux. It's not what brings me here and I can live without it, but I was slightly disappointed that it was done away with.

But I don't really have a good solution to the issue of the topic's inherent divisiveness, tbh. I think there is value in having a separate forum for people to let it out and keep that talk away from the main forum, though (or a dumping-ground to YEET those posts over).

[Willink]

#2

#1 results in this sub-forum being devoid of content seeing as the political talk is dominating the landscape of American society right now and #3 is a needlessly complicated subdivision of a limited user community in the first place.

It's not like you or I don't talk politics with our buddies at the bar, if you can't contend with the nastiness or rather can't articulate yourself without insulting people for the act of disagreeing with you the onus falls on you to perform self-reflection, not the crib everyone else's ability to have discussions.

[Pckfn23]

Pie in the sky. That just doesn't happen. There is a decade of evidence.

[texas]

Yeah honestly I don't think it's that bad minus like a couple of rivalries.

[BF004]

Good discussion here guys.


For those who do not want any political discussion, or at least heavily regulated, I guess my question is if it is contained in another forum, does it really bother you?

image.png (77.43 KiB) Viewed 806 times

[Half Empty]

1. 2 will never work. 1 barely works now and has devolved at times. I can give you 1 VERY specific example and the exact reason why it would devolve quickly if left to it's own devices, PM if you want. Political talk devolves and leads to the decrease in the sense of community. It's been evident for over a decade that that happens on a regular basis. As both mentioned above, the environment is far too hyper partisan to have a real civil debate. Either completely ignore discourse on topics outside or football or severely limit it to topics that may not devolve. Maybe even have a specific level-headed admin who starts topics they deem football/society related. No one else starts said topics.

I would counter by saying that’s your personal perspective on it and add that lingering feelings might be a personality thing and how one reacts to constructive conflict.

The problem, as you have shown here as well, is that people don't want to be constructive, they want to shout at the top of their lungs their opinion, for the most part, without providing evidence of said opinion, same happens in the football forum. They aren't truly interested in learning or sharing, they want to Trump everyone not of their opinion. And I say this as one as well. There has rarely, if ever, been constructive conflict in the Podium. It's too heated. Football at least we have a firm common ground.

One of the reasons I did enjoy the Podium is because the football side it pretty much like this. A few 'experts' will tell anyone with a differing view that they're way off base about coaching, players, draft, formations, rules, et.al. I read the football part for the occasional bit of information, but it certainly isn't entertaining. Throwing out a bone to Mike/Yoop and watching the reaction - now, that was entertaining.

[Carl Gerbschmidt]

People forget this is a social media discussion forum, some want to pretend it is some kind of drama/debate team. You can't state an opinion without 3 sources of information. RELAX.

[Labrev]

Other than when "yoop versus the world" had dragged on for a long time and all involved started getting tired, the discourse was really not that combative if you ask me. Most folks who frequented that subforum were pretty ideologically close anyway. Those of us that had more different views were pretty infrequent contributors, and/or were like me and Sal in not taking it too seriously (or just not engaging when the topic was particularly charged-up).

[YoHoChecko]

I vote against political talk.

It changes the way you see people; the way you interact with them.

Even if you don't bring politics into the football stuff, you can still feel the charged responses of people who had been arguing politics earlier and football later.

I rarely even looked at it--didn't want to know. But occasionally, I found myself curious about a different perspective on an issue and I'd notice that some of the animosity I see on the football forum was ppprrrooobbbably carryover

[Raptorman]

While I miss the podium, I understand why it is not here. For me, I never had a problem separating what was posted there and in the football side. But that's me. There is still no one here I wouldn't sit down with and have beer. If they would have me that is.

[Drj820]

i have a theory that says if you are a right winger, or a left winger...you arent the same in ideology or lifestyle in every other way except politics. All of what encompasses your world view, mental capacity, etc leads to whether you are extreme right or extreme left wing.

So basically we do all have one unifying factor...Green Bay Packers fans.

But i dont think it takes a podium chat room to let differences manifest in other areas. The same differences in world view that leads one to battle it out in the podium against another worldview, would probably cause battles when discussing anything...including the Packers.

I can "usually" tell peoples political views after being around them before they ever mention anything political. Certain types of people just manifest to certain ideologies, while other types of people manifest to the other side. I dont think disagreeing in the politics chat is what led to war in other parts of the forum. I think it is the different seed of the person that led to war in both.

(I like a good political debate, and even have a high tolerance for feisty debate in all forums btw)

[Labrev]

Sorry, but the Covid-19 thread really makes the "no political discussion" rule look silly. The last pages of posts all pretty much delve into political territory. So the rules and moderation do not succeed in preventing it. And that's fine, rules/moderation are not about all-or-nothing; the aim is to increase or reduce things. I get that.

But what is the response, just say 'oops' and let that sit there, or remove those posts entirely from the thread topics where they organically arose? How are those better than having a separate politics forum where those conversations can be had for those who want it?

I see people saying "It affects how we view each other and that can hurt community." If this forum/community was new, you would have a point. It isn't, though. That's already out there for a lot of us.

[APB]

Sorry, but the Covid-19 thread really makes the "no political discussion" rule look silly. The last pages of posts all pretty much delve into political territory. So the rules and moderation do not succeed in preventing it. And that's fine, rules/moderation are not about all-or-nothing; the aim is to increase or reduce things. I get that.

But what is the response, just say 'oops' and let that sit there, or remove those posts entirely from the thread topics where they organically arose? How are those better than having a separate politics forum where those conversations can be had for those who want it?

I see people saying "It affects how we view each other and that can hurt community." If this forum/community was new, you would have a point. It isn't, though. That's already out there for a lot of us.

You raise good points and touch on what the Mod's have struggled with since the new site opened for business.

We want there to be conversation beyond the Packers. We all agree it enhances the community aspect of this forum and allows for discussion during these slow times of the year. We fully understand there will be topics that broach the political realm of discussion organically and have tried - sometimes successfully, sometimes not - to walk a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable. There's a lot of gray there that is near impossible to draw a definitive line between. Hell, at times even we disagree between each other whether something needs to be snipped or not.

That said, we Mods have expressed a unanimous desire among each other to try and not be heavy handed in moderating conversation. Err on the side of conservative snipping, so to speak. Unfortunately, there are times - and topics - where that becomes almost entirely impossible. We agreed to opening this topic for discussion in hopes it would allow us insights to what you all think might work - or might not. So far, as you've likely read, it's a mixed bag.

Social events happening around us inevitably affect each of us differently and, as a result, we all form our own perspectives and social biases. That's entirely normal and a part of our DNA. We can't moderate that out of members. What we'd ultimately like to see is members understanding and accepting these social and/or cultural differences and be able to have discussions without becoming heated or disrespectful. Historically, on this and the previous site, we can all do better - myself included. I think that, ultimately, will be what it comes down to in determining if it'll work or not.

[salmar80]

Summing this thread up a bit, it has been a truly great discussion with no one definitive result as of yet.

There ARE some things everyone agrees upon:

- Politics need to be kept well away from the football side
- No one wants a separate Wild West politics forum on another website
- Everyone wants a good community here. Possible political talk needs to at least not to interfere with it, and preferably help create it
- Moderation of political talk is at least tolerated, details vary

Any objections?

-----------

Otherwise we've had an impressively wide array of opinions. Below I'm asking some generalizing questions. If your opinion isn't represented, comment freely anyways.

I'd like to ask "the proponents of Podium 2.0" to tell me how this new one could be done in a way that builds this community of friends instead creating a platform of making enemies. It would be modded, but how could it be modded in a better way? If you have Podium-only mod suggestions, send 'em to me by PM. But realize no amount nor quality of new mods would change core issues. I need answers to those.

I'd like to ask "the proponents of no politics at all" to tell me how to handle issues that have inevitable overlap with politics. Resolve how the community could discuss this imaginary situation under zero-politics rules: "A Packers superstar player refuses to travel to play in Washington due to that team's name."

I'd like to ask "the Cheesehead Chatter with some politics" crowd to tell me what that would look like in practice: a) A neutered podium (what it kinda is now), b) select political topics allowed to be talked about freely by basis of best human judgement of the Mod team, c) becoming de facto Podium with somewhat more moderation, d) something else?

[texas]

I think it needs to be stated that inflammatory rhetoric doesn't necessitate making enemies. I don't think there is anyone here that I would consider an "enemy", despite my rhetoric being harsh at times, and I'd like to think that's true for everyone (although I guess it's not necessarily true for everyone).

I thought the old level of discussion was perfect, so to that end, I think the main issue is just figuring out a way to lessen the load on the mods because afaik that was the main reason given for removing the podium when we moved over.

Where is yoop in this discussion?

[YoHoChecko]

I think it needs to be stated that inflammatory rhetoric doesn't necessitate making enemies. I don't think there is anyone here that I would consider an "enemy", despite my rhetoric being harsh at times, and I'd like to think that's true for everyone (although I guess it's not necessarily true for everyone).

I thought the old level of discussion was perfect, so to that end, I think the main issue is just figuring out a way to lessen the load on the mods because afaik that was the main reason given for removing the podium when we moved over.

Where is yoop in this discussion?

I would ask why you need inflammatory rhetoric to have a political discussion. Therein lies the problem. Just because you don't see those you inflame as your enemy, you don't fan flames without something burning. Sometimes, you burn a bridge.

[texas]

I think it needs to be stated that inflammatory rhetoric doesn't necessitate making enemies. I don't think there is anyone here that I would consider an "enemy", despite my rhetoric being harsh at times, and I'd like to think that's true for everyone (although I guess it's not necessarily true for everyone).

I thought the old level of discussion was perfect, so to that end, I think the main issue is just figuring out a way to lessen the load on the mods because afaik that was the main reason given for removing the podium when we moved over.

Where is yoop in this discussion?

I would ask why you need inflammatory rhetoric to have a political discussion. Therein lies the problem. Just because you don't see those you inflame as your enemy, you don't fan flames without something burning. Sometimes, you burn a bridge.

There is no problem. You'll notice I never claimed to need inflammatory rhetoric (I only claimed that inflammatory rhetoric doesn't necessitate making enemies (or even hard feelings)).

The problem with viewpoints like yours is that at some level, someone gets to define what it means to be "inflammatory". It's also pretty well-established that men do all sorts of &%$@ talking and it actually can help relations, not hurt them. It is true that everyone's threshold of inflammatory rhetoric before they start taking things personally is different. But rather than stoop to the lowest threshold, it's better to keep the acceptable threshold somewhat high and then let individuals sort it out (i.e. if you can't take it then you shouldn't dish it out).