It’s not like we don’t have these problems now. Plus, other message boards have political forums and they seem to manage.
I don’t see this as a big problem. I don’t see people getting upset because their topic got moved to a different forum. Why would anyone get upset over that?
A political forum should have global politics in the mix. A forum for only U.S. politics is highly ethnocentric. It would also confuse people if they have to look for non U.S. political threads in a different forum.
That’s why the Game Room allows an unnatural alliance among sports, trivia, and video games. It would be confusing to look for “games” anywhere else.
Well **Loach **meet that member. I am interested and in fact it was posters on this board that convince me to vote for Obama rather than Clinton. Of course that was back in January before GD became the 95% political shrieking forum.
(the real one) In the same way they decide if a thread about the history of ice cream goes into CS or GQ.
My suggested ‘rule of thumb’? If it’s about an individual, a political party or a specific one-time event (the Tienanmen Square massacre is a “one time event”, China’s repressive policies isn’t. “Who should Obama pick as Veep?” is a one-time event, “What would be the ideal role of a vice-president in a post-industrial democracy?” isn’t) it’s a Politics thread. Politics wouldn’t be limited to that, but those three are a good measure to start with.
AWG (I know that means global warming but what does the acronym stand for?) could go either place. “Bush sucks for not dealing with AWG” goes to Politics. “Democrats are using AWG to push socialism” goes to Politics. “What are the best steps to combat AWG for an individual” goes to IMHO and “What are the eschatological implications of AWG?” would be a GD.
In other words, it’d be the tenor of the thread and some mod judgment just like it is in all the other forums.
This post is the strongest evidence why there should not be a Politics forum. The fact that you had to use 3 different colors to identify threads that might or might not be Politics threads indicates that the distinction is to vague an esoteric to try and compartmentalize.
Great Debatesis the Politics forum and it’s perfectly designed as a catch-all for all the debatable topics of the world that have a political component. Creating a Politics forum would put a huge burden on the Mods to kick somewhat political discussions back and forth between GD and Politics.
If there’s a problem with there being too many threads on Politics in GD and The Pit it’s simply because too damn many posters are starting redundant and derivative threads. If you want to shrink the footprint of US election talk in The Pit the Mods should create a Sticky thread that’s a catch-all for all Political Flaming. Perhaps 2 threads, one for Obama flames and one for McCain flames. Consolidating all the redundant pissing and moaning would solve the issue. Ditto in GD. People are starting too many pointless threads that ought to be replies to existing threads. Also, too many trolls and threadshitters are popping into distinct debates about distinct topics with off-topic comments and vague partisan sniping which reduces threads to a political morass.
Let’s take a look at the “Football” threads living in the Game Room right now.
Middle Earth FA63 D&D Game. Fourth Adventure. Journey to Rivendell (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Mafia–T2: Behind the Scenes (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5 6 … Last Page)
A-Z Photo Game
video game brag thread (Multi-page thread 1 2)
The new and improved mostly politically correct word association game (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5)
Professional sports rules you’d like changed (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Elder Scrolls: Oblivion (on the XBox)
The Daily Feud: H-E-doubletoothpicks by brujaja (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Roleplaying: Merrie England - the game (Multi-page thread 1 2)
LOTR Online “Manual”?
NFC East 2008 (Multi-page thread 1 2 3)
Let’s play a role-playing game (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5 6 … Last Page)
Baseball Thread September 2008 (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5)
Advice for someone new to World of Warcraft
The 0-16 NFL Season Thread, 2008 Edition (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Worst (as in “evil”) things you’ve done, in an RPG?
Seattle Pub Trivia '08: With a Vengeance (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5 6 … Last Page)
The Daily Feud: Comic Strips by Scarlett67 [Game Over] (Multi-page thread 1 2)
SDMB World of Warcraft guild recruiting!
Anyone playing Warhammer online?
NFL Week 3
Answer the GQ!
Question for mafia game players and game designers
SDMB NFL Pick 'em and Survival Leagues
Test Subjects Wanted (clothing optional) Part II (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Goodbye to Yankee Stadium/Yanks vs. Os, 9/21
Anyone up for a Diplomacy game? (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Help me choose my next console game.
Mega Man 9 on Wii Shop right now!
SDMB All-Pro Fantasy Football
Weird play in little league, ever happen in MLB?
Why is soccer so popular with U.S. tweens&teens, but not as a college/pro sport? (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Fantasy Football Advice - Week 3
Anyone getting Spore? (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4)
The Myron Cope Memorial Steelers March to the Super Bowl Thread (Multi-page thread 1 2)
The omnibus 2008 college football thread
Sunday Night Feud: Colorful Song Titles by want2know [Closed] (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Speculation Drives UP the Price of Poker by 10%!!! SDMB Poker - 3rd Qtr. 2008 (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Help me understand this part of the MLB save rule.
Has anyone played the Sherlock Holmes games?
SDMB Yahoo Hockey Fantasy League
UK football, season 2008/09, forecasts (Multi-page thread 1 2 3)
Warning: Football-Like Substance Found! (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Jeremy Irons. (Multi-page thread 1 2)
D & D on the Straight Dope setup thread. (In Middle Earth FA63) (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5 6 … Last Page)
RNATB Presents Unsolicited Fantasy Advice! (Football, not sex)
PS3 COD4 Double XP Weekend
If an NFL team had ALL it’s quarterbacks injured what are it’s options?
Ryder Cup Thread predictions/updates (may contain spoilers)
Australian Football League finals thread
Clearly it’s time for a Football forum in order to not dominate the forum. :rolleyes:
The argument that The Game Room was created because there were too man “feud threads” in MPSIMS is simply wrong. The Game Room was created because threads about Sports, Video Games, RPGs and MB Games were scattered everywhere because there was no clear home for them. Politics has a very clear home in GD and that’s the way it should stay. If you are worried about too many threads on Politics you should be worried about the posters starting silly, redundant threads without the semblance of a “debate” in the premise. You should be asking the Mods to do a better job of merging threads that are on the same topic and you should be asking the Mods to create a Sticky thread as a repository for all the quick one-off complaints and Political blog posts and news articles that simply support a premise but don’t require a debate of their own.
A Politics forum is a knee-jerk over-reaction that would cause more problems (uncertainty of thread placement, moderation burden, thread starvation of GD, future irrelevance in non-election years) than it solves (too many redundant threads in GD and The Pit). There are easier, less permanent ways to mitigate this. Also, I’m not thrilled by the implicit endorsement of more baseless, partisan, content-free frothing and pandering that a Politics forum presents. If you think the number and quality of election topics are frustrating now, just think what happens when there’s a forum advertising for them!
There were only two colors that might or might not have been politics, and had I the time/inclination to open every thread, there would have been little or no ambiguity.
I was able to define them that easily from just the title alone. And even if you only took the “red” ones that are 100% certainly political, you have clarity on more than half the threads.
No it isn’t. It’s for “For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing.” No mention of Politics there- especially since very few of the Politics threads in GD would be what I’d consider “Great Questions Of Our Time”
Football hijacks don’t usually pop up in unrelated threads the way Political ones seem to. Also, most of the topics in The Game Room are not football related, the way most of the topics in GD are political
Why do you hate the idea so much? If you don’t like the forum, you don’t have to go to it. Those of us who are sick of dealing with politics are having our enjoyment of GD (and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the boards) interfered with because of all the political threads stifling most other discussion in there. We NEED a bloody politics forum, and we needed it a long time ago.
Most of them aren’t even “Moderately Good Questions Of Our Time.” And the utter, banal, mind-dulling repetition of topics–I mean, how many threads do have have to have on Palin’s baby-making ways, or why Obama is/is not the Second Coming of Christ’s Left Testicle–is like a horror film in which you find that even shooting the zombies in the head doesn’t actually stop them.
Other than the requirement for more moderators, I’m not clear what the actual downside would be to having a Politics forum. I don’t think that the proffered explanations from Those Who Rule From Behind–that is, that making such a forum would somehow shatter or diminish Great Debates–really answers the question in any substantive way. And I daresay that non-American posters–a minority though they may be–would probably largely appreciate not being besieged with the silliness that is American politics in addition to their own native absurdity.
But whatever; Great Debates often seems to be a lost cause, anyway, given that so few threads actually rise to the level of an informed, respectful debate. I much prefer General Questions and Cafe Society, where there are still plenty of flakes but they don’t seem quite as persistent or tolerated.
A different tack (one I’ve seen suggested before): A current events forum for simply talking about news items of the day that may or may not be of lasting import and may or may not deal with politics or any other topic but that do not rise to the level of “debate” (great or otherwise) and are not the sort of thing one “pits.”
I strongly disagree with the presumption that there would be little ambiguity. The Financial Crisis is a prime example. There’s a very valid debate on if the $700B bail out is a good idea or not, but is it a political topic? I’m not sure. The government is involved, but it’s not really a clear partisan issue on the hill. There’s a economics debate there that is the crux of the question, but so much of the economics is dependent on the Free Market philosophies. Economics and Free Market dogmas are big parts of the political debate, but I wouldn’t consider them politics. To extend that there’s a good thread about the Glass Steagall and Gramm Leach Bliley Acts that is essentially a chicken-egg debate about the source of the Mortgage Crisis that straddles the line between Politics or non-Politics. Where does it go? There’s another thread about the liability of No Child Left Behind, which is a political doctrine but the debate has more to do with the most effective strategy to deal with less capable students in respect to the overall student body. That’s not really politics, that’s social studies. There’s a recurring debate about the justification of welfare, and the political aspect is pervasive but it’s not a political topic when you focus on the social and humanitarian aspects. There’s a thread about racism and it’s effect on Obama’s campaign. The ostensible topic is the election, but the debate is really more about the predominance or lack there of of racism in the community. Where do you draw the line of politics? Just about every single topic in the forum invites a comment from the Libertarian faction, which treated as a philosophy and not a political affiliation is appropriate. Hell, even all the religious debates have an undercurrent of politics.
Politics are in everything. Philosophy can not be divested from politics. Religious cannot be divested from politics. The Republicans have even ensured that family values is politics. To claim that debates can be unambiguously defined as political or apolitical means that you don’t understand what politics are.
I’ve many times said that the forum description ought to be clarified to include Politics. That’s a failure of the Staff that has precipitated this constant agitating. However, everyone on the MB knows that it’s the place for political debate. The label is of minimal importance. One could make the case that the definition of “politics” is society’s attempt to answer the “long-running discussions of the great questions of our time.”
You’re right, I was just being a little snarky there. The point was that a preponderance of a topic isn’t in and of itself justification for a new forum. You raise a point though, politics does pop up in all kinds of threads! This is at the center of my argument, politics has a habit of popping up everywhere in discussions and debates. Politics is everywhere and trying to compartmentalize it means that all those hijacks would turn a Politics Forum into the Black Hole of the SDMB where all threads eventually were sucked into.
I don’t hate the idea, I just think that it’s a really irrational proposal and overlooks the reality of the situation. People seem to be clinging to it as some sort of panacea for the board, you all are in denial if you think it would somehow quiet the white noise that this election is creating everywhere in the media and here.
An interesting question about gun ownership and totalitarianism. The 2nd Amendment and despotism are political topics, but the question as asked is about historical examples. Various Revolutions (government changes) are mentioned. Politics? Great Debate?
A question seeking unbiased studies about partisanship in FOX News (as well as MSNBC and CNN). The OP explicitly states that he’s seeking objective research, but the objective research he’s seeking is about political bias. Seems like a head scratcher there.
This is a thread that poses the question of if its humane to choose to carry a severely disabled fetus to term. A very loaded topic to be sure, but the OP states that the legality isn’t the point of the question, morality is. That said, the question is couched with a direct reference to the heavily (and shamefully, IMHO) politicized act of the Republican VP nominee. Abortion and Women’s Rights are a lynch-pin in the discussion and religion unsurprisingly shoe horns it’s way in. Hell, there’s even an oblique reference to Zero Population Growth. The thread seems to be trying to not be politics but it just can’t help itself.
This thread asks if a comedy program has some obligation to be balanced. Also, if the accusation of bias is founded. Could be a CS topic really, or it could be a debate about the intent of a series of comedy sketches. It could be a discussion of “equal time” and it’s reach. But, then again it’s got the word politics in the title even though it’s really about SNL. All in all the discussion seems surprisingly non-partisan but is this entertainment or politics?
This lonely sinking thread is asking if an Army brigade’s “dwell-time mission” is a lead up to a police state. It’s a question the OP claims was originally asked by a Libertarian blogger. Does the military and the validity of it’s mission qualify as politics? How much of a conspiracy theorist do you have to be to no longer be considered political?
That’s just a quick taste of the problem. All of those threads could be in the Politics forum, or perhaps none of them. Based on the Title or OP, perhaps they aren’t, based on the bulk of replies perhaps they are. Who wants to be the one making those decisions. How pissed are OPs going to be when they are trying to keep partisan politics out of a debate? After it gets hijacked and bumped into the Politics forum that’s all it will ever be.
Hurray for you, Omniscient. You are fleshing out the reasons I oppose this idea.
Whilst not everything that’s a GD is a current partisan political issue, just about everything that is a GD is political. You cannot take politics out of debate. All of Fenris’ blue threads are political.
As I said above (@26), GD could stand a little consolidation. But of course the Palin threads are “great questions”, albeit at a distance - how should things be decided if we disagree? Who should represent us? How well is the current system working?
As a small side note, as I recall “For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time” originally referred to Picard v Kirk (which now belongs in CS, I suppose). I know this doesn’t support my stance, but it amuses me.
So, basically you want to redefine the focus of the forum so that it covers politics because you admit that its nominal charter does not include that subject area. Right. And modern politics can in no way be described as “society’s attempt to answer ‘the long-running discussions of the great questions of our time,’” unless those questions are, “Who is Candidate A sleeping with?,” “Does Candidate B smoke Camel Reds or American Spirits?,” and the perennial, “Is Candidate C forked?”
I have yet to see any argument, save for the incredibly weak, “What if you can’t tell whether a thread is about politics or not?” (Seriously?) that presents any resultant harm from erecting a Politics forum. We can have a forum pimping Ed’s book, we have the promise of forums for major cities, but we can’t create a forum for a major topic area that otherwise dominates existing, more general fora?
Things here are not arranged by topic. They are arranged by type. The GQ forum is about factual matters irrespective of topic. GD: debates, regardless of topic. IMHO is about inherently unsupported of opinion. The Pit is about flames, regardless of topic.
