# Why nothing's going to change (from the "Bad Precedent" thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 11, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733 "2010-04-11T14:53:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/41 "2010-04-15T03:58:35Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > As noted, we do have non-US mods. We pretty much always have. There’s _one_ Non-US mod, AIUI. That doesn’t really count. Have you got any British or Australian or South African mods? How about appointing a couple? Especially from the Southern Hemisphere area. 😉 > [@](#): > > No. The problem is that not that many staffers think it’s necessary. I’d be okay with it and a couple of us seem to find the idea unobjectionable (based on past conversations) but nobody sees a compelling reason to create one. ‘Some posters don’t want to see politics thread titles’ isn’t an overwhelmingly great reason. But we’re discussing the idea again now. Do the staffers think “Straight Dope Chicago” forums are necessary? Probably not. But they’re still sitting there. The “We have decreed…” attitude by TPBT is one of the many criticisms regularly levelled against the boards, and when a significant number of people are calling for something as simple as a Politics forum and being ignored, it doesn’t send a good message IMHO. The point I’ve made before is that Politics threads are highly exclusionary. It’s not about rolling your eyes every time you see Sarah Palin’s name in a thread title, it’s about having significant chunks of two popular forums inaccessible to anyone who isn’t an armchair pundit. Establishing a Politics Forum isn’t about saving people the inconvenience of reading thread titles they don’t care for, it’s about putting related threads- and there are a _lot_ of them, certainly more than there are about rebuilding old houses or commenting on Cecil’s columns- in one place so that everyone who goes there knows what they’re getting- Politics. And don’t try and be obtuse as to what “Politics” is. Gun Control threads are politics. Healthcare debates are politics. Political personages doing _anything_ are politics. It’s pretty self-explanatory and anyone who says otherwise is, IMHO, being wilfully obtuse. > [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > Actually, I’d prefer seeing politics limited to Great Debates, and out of all the rest of the forums (I hardly go to GD 🙂 ). I’d support this, at least as a “stop-gap” measure until a proper, inclusive discussion of whether or not to establish a dedicated Politics forum could be held. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/42 "2010-04-15T04:27:54Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > There’s _one_ Non-US mod, AIUI. That doesn’t really count. He might disagree. 😉 But like I said the staff has almost always included one non-US mod or more. > [@](#): > > Have you got any British or Australian or South African mods? How about appointing a couple? Especially from the Southern Hemisphere area. 😉 Nobody’s opposed to having mods from those areas and getting some different perspectives, but getting a broader geographic representation isn’t the priority. The important thing is getting people who make good moderators. (And according to some people we’re not even doing very well at that part. :D) We have fewer users from those areas, so we don’t have as many (if any- I don’t know) applicants from those areas. Even if we had a couple of British or Australian mods I don’t think it would change much about this debate. > [@](#): > > Do the staffers think “Straight Dope Chicago” forums are necessary? Probably not. But they’re still sitting there. That’s something of a separate issue. Those forums, and the Chicago-specific Straight Dope columns, were about bringing some new people to the board and not just organizing what we already have in a different way. > [@](#): > > The point I’ve made before is that Politics threads are highly exclusionary. It’s not about rolling your eyes every time you see Sarah Palin’s name in a thread title, it’s about having significant chunks of two popular forums inaccessible to anyone who isn’t an armchair pundit. I think you’re just wrong here. There’s nothing exclusionary about politics threads. You’re either interested in them or not, same as any other subject that gets discussed here. Nobody’s excluded. It’s not like you need qualifications to be an armchair pundit. In fact I thought the whole concept of armchair punditry implied the person had an opinion without any particular qualifications. > [@](#): > > Establishing a Politics Forum isn’t about saving people the inconvenience of reading thread titles they don’t care for That’s not the sense I’m getting here. > [@](#): > > […]so that everyone who goes there knows what they’re getting- Politics. Again, I’m not seeing that as a big problem. People can identify politics threads without a problem. They’re not missing out on those threads because they can’t find them, and there are not that many of them outside of GD and the Pit. And I notice that the people who post about politics the most are not advocating this idea. > [@](#): > > And don’t try and be obtuse as to what “Politics” is. You obviously don’t agree, but it’s true that we’d have to do some work to figure out what counts as politics and what doesn’t. > [@](#): > > I’d support this, at least as a “stop-gap” measure until a proper, inclusive discussion of whether or not to establish a dedicated Politics forum could be held. I don’t agree with this either. When I was just modding MPSIMS I always encouraged some types of political discussion there: some people avoid Great Debates because they’re not interested in the hardcore partisanship that often pops up there. Some political issues are so mundane they don’t belong in GD. (We had a Mark Sanford thread in MPSIMS that lasted about six pages.) I don’t think it’s necessary to put those threads in GD. And if posters just want to curse out Republicans for opposing the health care bill, or Democrats for supporting it, I don’t see that as a GD thread either. It belongs in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/43 "2010-04-15T04:49:26Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > We have fewer users from those areas, so we don’t have as many (if any- I don’t know) applicants from those areas. Even if we had a couple of British or Australian mods I don’t think it would change much about this debate. I didn’t even know you guys _had_ “Applications” for Modship. Seems that I log on one day and there’s a thread announcing that someone I’ve never heard of has been made a Mod; kind of like the Queen’s Honours List in that regard actually. 😉 > [@](#): > > That’s something of a separate issue. Those forums, and the Chicago-specific Straight Dope columns, were about bringing some new people to the board and not just organizing what we already have in a different way. Since they’ve clearly failed, why are they still here then? The point I’ve made before is that a properly run Politics thread _could_ bring more people onto the boards. > [@](#): > > I think you’re just wrong here. There’s nothing exclusionary about politics threads. You’re either interested in them or not, same as any other subject that gets discussed here. **Nobody’s excluded**. It’s not like you need qualifications to be an armchair pundit. In fact I thought the whole concept of armchair punditry implied the person had an opinion without any particular qualifications. (Bolding mine) Yeah, they are. People that don’t follow US politics are excluded, and there’s enough threads on the subject (as **Fenris** pointed out) that it’s an issue- if you’re not interested in US politics there’s a sizeable chunk of the boards that you’re effectively unable to enjoy because of the subject matter. > [@](#): > > Again, I’m not seeing that as a big problem. People can identify politics threads without a problem. They’re not missing out on those threads because they can’t find them, and there are not that many of them outside of GD and the Pit. And I notice that the people who post about politics the most are not advocating this idea. > [@](#): > > You obviously don’t agree, but it’s true that we’d have to do some work to figure out what counts as politics and what doesn’t. > > […] > > I don’t agree with this either. When I was just modding MPSIMS I always encouraged some types of political discussion there: some people avoid Great Debates because they’re not interested in the hardcore partisanship that often pops up there. Some political issues are so mundane they don’t belong in GD. (We had a Mark Sanford thread in MPSIMS that lasted about six pages.) I don’t think it’s necessary to put those threads in GD. You could always make the new forum “Politics & Current Affairs” (since they’re pretty much the same thing on the boards anyway) as a compromise. **That** would solve most of the “Is it politics or not?” issues, I think. The only way this issue is going to get resolved is to at least try it for a few months. If it works, then you can claim it was your brilliant idea and everyone will be happy. If it doesn’t work, then just delete the forum, say “Well, we tried”, and everyone will respect that. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/44 "2010-04-15T04:52:38Z")
> [@](#): > > So…yeah. The board is what it is and there’s no way for user to change it beyond appealing to the mods and hope they grant your plea by fiat. You seem to be confusing “democratic government” with “private forum.” Here, allow me to show you the difference. One, is a government. They tax you, they provide service to you, and you vote on your elected officials. The other one is a private forum, owned entirely by private individuals, where one person or group os in charge, where they pay for the hosting. Sure, they might get reimbursed and even make a profit via ads, but it’s still a private entity. I know that when I ran a forum, my rules were law. I’d let you petition to change them, discuss the repercussions with you, etc. But when it came down to it, if you didn’t like it either you sucked it up or you fucked off to some other, more lenient forum. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/45 "2010-04-15T05:14:01Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I didn’t even know you guys _had_ “Applications” for Modship. Yes, we do. And that’s just the start of it, of course. There’s the written application, in person interview, sanity test, background check, FBI interrogation, personal references, credit check, bank statements, permanent record, the survival test where we drug you and leave you on your own the woods for a week with nothing but a pack of matches, an unsharpened piece of flint, and some chewing gum… anyway my point is we can’t take just anybody. > [@](#): > > Since they’ve clearly failed, why are they still here then? Whether they’re succeeding or failing is not for me to determine. > [@](#): > > Yeah, they are. People that don’t follow US politics are excluded, and there’s enough threads on the subject (as **Fenris** pointed out) that it’s an issue- if you’re not interested in US politics there’s a sizeable chunk of the boards that you’re effectively unable to enjoy because of the subject matter. I really don’t see it that way. I don’t follow American Idol, but I’m not excluded from those threads, I’m just not interested in the subject. If I were interested, I could either start watching or try reading the threads and see if I found the discussion interesting. The same goes for politics. Obviously there are more threads about US politics than American Idol but it’s the same principle. If you’re not interested in politics that still leaves about half of Great Debates, most of the Pit, and almost the entire rest of the site. > [@](#): > > You could always make the new forum “Politics & Current Affairs” (since they’re pretty much the same thing on the boards anyway) as a compromise. **That** would solve most of the “Is it politics or not?” issues, I think. That would probably take care of a lot of it. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/46 "2010-04-15T05:55:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > \sanity test\ So, uh, are you looking for a pass or a fail on that one? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/47 "2010-04-15T06:51:01Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > You seem to be confusing “democratic government” with “private forum.” Actually, I don’t think he did. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/48 "2010-04-15T06:57:19Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > I know that when I ran a forum, my rules were law. I’d let you petition to change them, discuss the repercussions with you, etc. But when it came down to it, if you didn’t like it either you sucked it up or you fucked off to some other, more lenient forum. And now you don’t run a forum anymore! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/49 "2010-04-15T06:58:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The current call for a political forum is almost completely dominated by those who just want to rid Great Debates of the topic. My answer to that would be a question: Do you think that the new forum would be actively used? That’s what matters. Certainly more than trying to group people like you do. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/50 "2010-04-15T10:50:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > My memory may be fuzzy, but it seems to me that quite a few votes for what became Cafe Society were by people that wanted to contribute to it, while the current call for a political forum is almost completely dominated by those who just want to rid Great Debates of the topic. > Am I wrong? A very interesting observation if true. I am not sure about the practical implications of it but interesting anyways. > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > …And don’t try and be obtuse as to what “Politics” is. Gun Control threads are politics. Healthcare debates are politics. Political personages doing _anything_ are politics. It’s pretty self-explanatory and anyone who says otherwise is, IMHO, being wilfully obtuse… Discussion of current proposals to change US Gun Control or Healthcare laws are current politics. I don’t think that general debates of the nature of Healthcare or Gun Control should fall in this forum. Clinton buying a new dog certainly isn’t politics. Non US politics shouldn’t fall here. As Czarcasm points out, this is more about containing the undesirable than about biulding a pedestal to showcase something. What is creating the clutter that drowns everything else is current US politics. If you throw all politics together, it won’t be long until someone complains that European politics and the other stuff is getting buried on all the US stuff. So it is not about defining what “politics” means. It is about separating the big noisy topics from the little quiet ones. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/51 "2010-04-15T12:58:35Z")
I was asked to weigh, as someone who argues politics. I am passionately indifferent about the idea. I.e… I agree that [ul][li]Most of GD is US politics anyway It will get worse as November approaches[/ul][/li] And that it will be difficult to separate out politics from the rest of the topics in GD. I don’t care very much one way or the other. I can see the advantages for non-political debaters, so if the mods want to make this happen, it is fine with me. If they decide not to, also fine. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/52 "2010-04-15T15:36:19Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > My answer to that would be a question: Do you think that the new forum would be actively used? That’s what matters. Certainly more than trying to group people like you do. Agreed. And Czarcasm is incorrect in any case. From one of [the first official CS threads (they moved some current threads over so it’s hard to tell which the first was)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=84312) > [@Eutychus](#): > > " This forum is for discussion about the Arts : music, movies, literature and so forth. We hope that this will be a popular forum as we’ve seen discussion of this sort popping up both in IMHO and MPSIMS and though a proper forum would be desired. Also, from the other [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=84311) > [@Czarcasm](#): > > It may take awhile, but I’m going to transfer the 730 threads involving Star Wars vs. Star Trek, the 1300 threads starting Which (fill in the fantasy series) chick would you do?, and the 4000 (fill in hack band) Rulz! threads to this forum as soon as possible. So, the motive for giving a forum to a topic that’s drowning out other conversation isn’t new and was certainly a primary justification for CS. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/53 "2010-04-15T15:43:20Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Actually, I don’t think he did. Really? Because he appears to have done just that. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > And now you don’t run a forum anymore! Because the need expired. I gave 2 weeks notice and the location of a new forum that would be hosted by a friend for anyone who wanted to continue irrelevant conversation. It would have been redundant to keep the forums I alive when they had no new users, and about a third or so of the old users used the other forum anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/54 "2010-04-15T15:53:29Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Also, from the other [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=84311) > So, the motive for giving a forum to a topic that’s drowning out other conversation isn’t new and was certainly a primary justification for CS. Gee, maybe I should have put a smilie at the end of my post so that you could tell I was joking. No, wait…I _did_. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/55 "2010-04-15T16:03:58Z")
The point isn’t whether you actually moved the threads, it’s the indisputable fact that there were enough CS style posts cluttering up other forums that you could make a joke about them. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/56 "2010-04-15T16:05:22Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Really? Because he appears to have done just that. No. U. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/57 "2010-04-15T16:19:19Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > These aren’t unsolvable problems, but bluntly, the staff has a 100% veto and the posters have little-to-no way to force the issue. “Force the issue” sounds pretty…forceful. Should the posters be able to _force_ things on management? What if _force_ goes against you? Are you expecting your favorite ideas will prevail in a poll? Will you be content if your ideas are shot down in a plebiscite, as long as there was a majority vote of some kind? ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/58 "2010-04-15T16:21:28Z")
Yeah, if “my” ideas get voted down, I’d be satisfied, because it’s better than having them dismissed by fiat. I’ll agree that “force the issue” probably wasn’t the best phrasing though. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/59 "2010-04-15T16:41:38Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Yeah, if “my” ideas get voted down, I’d be satisfied, because it’s better than having them dismissed by fiat. > > I’ll agree that “force the issue” probably wasn’t the best phrasing though. And if they’re popular with the majority, but they still get voted down by management? Then what? “New coke” was popular. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733/60 "2010-04-15T16:58:28Z")
In the proposal I tossed out above (which, as stated, was off the top of my head), the posters and management would vote in one block. Management wouldn’t have an override. But dude, I’m not sure I see what your problem is. I agreed it wasn’t a democracy here in my OP. It says so. If you like things the way they are, swell. I’d like to feel like I had more input into ways to change/improve the board though. If you don’t, keen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-nothings-going-to-change-from-the-bad-precedent-thread/535733.md?page=4)