News, Current Affairs & Politics Posting Guidelines - Considerations (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter anti
- Start date
Ziff
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,366
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Two things I want to raise:
1. The number of deleted or "moved" threads. This is appalling. For a forum that purports to represent free speech and discussion of political issues and news/current affairs issues I find it a bit strange that, even though the person was very poor at expressing their ideas, they were not given a chance. You might say "but the thread was active for X days", but I believe that this in itself is not adequate, issues do not expire after 30 days or so, they are likely to be there for a lot longer and should be discussed. Threads should not be shut down, in my opinion, even if people begin to abuse each other, and this brings me to my next issue.
2. People should not be prevented from expressing ideas but should be prevented from personally attacking their fellow debaters. Swearing and personal attacks, I believe, are not right when discussing and debating issues of significance. I agree, these sort of posts should be regulated or edited - but they should not and neither should the threads they're contained in, be outright deleted. No matter how controversial the issue, argument or debate contained in a thread, it should not be deleted but those who decide to swear or launch personal attacks against other debaters should be reprimanded in some way.
A clearer outline of the acceptable/unacceptable elements within the thread should be developed rather than the simplistic "I'll keep this organised simply by stickying/unstickying and deleting irrelevant or abusive threads. If you have any concerns PM me or post in this thread" edict issued by one of the moderators of this thread.
The area of politics, news and current affairs is very, very delicate. People have many conflicting points of view and conflicting ideas in regards to the issues that contemporary society raises. If you are going to devote an entire area of the forum to it, you should create a sensible set of rules to regulate the forum so people do not get unruly and out of hand but still making sure that no matter how "extremist" a point of view, it's still heard, explored and debated.
The exceptions to that are obviously rude, racist and sexist (etc...) viewpoints that our Western society should not entertain (unless they cause a massive uproar...)...
1. The number of deleted or "moved" threads. This is appalling. For a forum that purports to represent free speech and discussion of political issues and news/current affairs issues I find it a bit strange that, even though the person was very poor at expressing their ideas, they were not given a chance. You might say "but the thread was active for X days", but I believe that this in itself is not adequate, issues do not expire after 30 days or so, they are likely to be there for a lot longer and should be discussed. Threads should not be shut down, in my opinion, even if people begin to abuse each other, and this brings me to my next issue.
2. People should not be prevented from expressing ideas but should be prevented from personally attacking their fellow debaters. Swearing and personal attacks, I believe, are not right when discussing and debating issues of significance. I agree, these sort of posts should be regulated or edited - but they should not and neither should the threads they're contained in, be outright deleted. No matter how controversial the issue, argument or debate contained in a thread, it should not be deleted but those who decide to swear or launch personal attacks against other debaters should be reprimanded in some way.
A clearer outline of the acceptable/unacceptable elements within the thread should be developed rather than the simplistic "I'll keep this organised simply by stickying/unstickying and deleting irrelevant or abusive threads. If you have any concerns PM me or post in this thread" edict issued by one of the moderators of this thread.
The area of politics, news and current affairs is very, very delicate. People have many conflicting points of view and conflicting ideas in regards to the issues that contemporary society raises. If you are going to devote an entire area of the forum to it, you should create a sensible set of rules to regulate the forum so people do not get unruly and out of hand but still making sure that no matter how "extremist" a point of view, it's still heard, explored and debated.
The exceptions to that are obviously rude, racist and sexist (etc...) viewpoints that our Western society should not entertain (unless they cause a massive uproar...)...
Last edited:
After certain exams (within the next couple of weeks), guidelines will be set up.
The fact is, if every member posting in this forum "News, Current Affairs & Politics" could do two things when they are posting, there would be no problems.
1. For a discussion to work, we need people to express their views, and supporting them with valid arguments. Also since this is a public forum, we expect members to treat each other with a certain courtesy (possibly respect). If you disagree with a view, explain why, and don't insult someone for their views. However, obviously certain views will not be tolerated, for example as mentioned above - rude, racist and sexist etc.
2. Don't spam! Spam will not be tolerated, as set out by the "tactic" (Admin).
Many threads were deleted because they did not match requirement 2.
The fact is, if every member posting in this forum "News, Current Affairs & Politics" could do two things when they are posting, there would be no problems.
1. For a discussion to work, we need people to express their views, and supporting them with valid arguments. Also since this is a public forum, we expect members to treat each other with a certain courtesy (possibly respect). If you disagree with a view, explain why, and don't insult someone for their views. However, obviously certain views will not be tolerated, for example as mentioned above - rude, racist and sexist etc.
2. Don't spam! Spam will not be tolerated, as set out by the "tactic" (Admin).
Many threads were deleted because they did not match requirement 2.
Ziff
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,366
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
The term "valid arguments" might be of some contention so I'd hope you explain that. Some people will take examples of situations that have occurred as "valid" whilst others don't even accept some examples as "valid proof". So that term should be expanded upon somewhat.
Actually, the important point out that last post was not the term "valid" but the motivation behind the posting. (Whether something is valid is in the eye of the beholder.)
If people post, as suggested by requirement 1 and 2, there would be less problems.
Also, if people are merely hurling insults at each other, this is not called free speech, but anarchy. Free speech is where people express their views in an understandable manner, and others listening (agreeing being a different issue, altogether).
If people post, as suggested by requirement 1 and 2, there would be less problems.
Also, if people are merely hurling insults at each other, this is not called free speech, but anarchy. Free speech is where people express their views in an understandable manner, and others listening (agreeing being a different issue, altogether).
Ziff
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,366
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
I'm very much against:
a) Personal attacks
b) Swearing
c) A lack of an attempt (by this I mean if someone writes in "crap" English such as "yo h0lm35! tat fuk h0ward...) to spell and express oneself properly
But yes, many things will have to be clearly worded as to avoid ambiguity!
a) Personal attacks
b) Swearing
c) A lack of an attempt (by this I mean if someone writes in "crap" English such as "yo h0lm35! tat fuk h0ward...) to spell and express oneself properly
But yes, many things will have to be clearly worded as to avoid ambiguity!
a) and b) would fall very short of requirement 1, in the lack of courtesy and not contributing to an environment which fosters open discussion.
c) would fall short of both requiremnt 1 (not fostering positive environment for open discussion) and 2 (spam).
What needs to be worded clearly? The guidelines or the actual posts in this forum?
-------------------
I think these two guidelines are sufficient (in fact, 2 isn't necessary, as it is implied by 1):
1. Posts contribute to an environment which fosters open discussion. (This definition doesn't explicitedly spell out everything, but this can be used to gauge whether something should be removed, toned down, etc.)
2. Posts aren't spam.
c) would fall short of both requiremnt 1 (not fostering positive environment for open discussion) and 2 (spam).
What needs to be worded clearly? The guidelines or the actual posts in this forum?
-------------------
I think these two guidelines are sufficient (in fact, 2 isn't necessary, as it is implied by 1):
1. Posts contribute to an environment which fosters open discussion. (This definition doesn't explicitedly spell out everything, but this can be used to gauge whether something should be removed, toned down, etc.)
2. Posts aren't spam.
Last edited:
rumour
Active Member
Most of IHC's were like that!!
santaslayer
Active Member
Both. People need to be able to express themselves in a clear and coherent manner, this would be better improved by utilising the emoticons available on BoS.
The guidelines also need to be worded clearly to avoid both confusion and the possibility of a user being able to argue on the real meaning behind the specific guideline. That's why guidelines should be clear cut-to avoid debate!
rumour
Active Member
What did GWB do to get banned?
Last edited:
santaslayer
Active Member
Insults were directed to an individual forum member.
rumour
Active Member
Re: News, Current Affairs & Politics Posting Guidelines
I better keep my mouth shut then
You can get banned for that??santaslayer said:
I better keep my mouth shut then
