Kevin's Watch

I've been away for quite a while. What happened to the political discussion subforum?

We were never given any specific reasons or examples, just a general "it is an embarrassment" or "it is toxic." Basically, because some people didn't like the tone of a few posters, the entire membership has lost the ability to discuss politics, which (as I continually point out in my signature), the rules and guidelines of this site seem to allow us to discuss. There hasn't been an update explaining the change in policy, leading to everyone tip-toeing around the political line in various sub-forums and threads, wondering exactly where that line is. Clearly, several of us here still wish to talk about things that matter, but we're not allowed.

I have expressed my incredulity in the vague reasons given, noting that the participation in the Tank had basically shrunk to 4 right-leaning members and one left-leaning member (if you can count copy-paste of Catholic articles as participation). Since this move basically silenced 4 right-leaning members and no left-leaners, the justifications given are not satisfactory to those who were silenced (members on the other side of the political aisle cheered the silencing). The net result was one particular political view was silenced, even to the point that they left this site altogether. And since it's the same view that the owners of this site oppose . . . well, you can draw your own conclusions.

There was a thread where the topic was discussed, but that was deleted, too. If we're not careful, this thread will soon be deleted. Things have changed quite a lot since you were last here, changes that seem to reflect our culture in general.

Good to see you around!

It is indeed good to see you back on the Watch, SerScot! You vanished right after the 2016 election; your views on what has transpired since would have been of interest. Hope all is well with you.

Jay, and Jay alone is responsible for excising the Tank. I can't speak to his reasoning, but while I miss the interplay of viewpoints, I have to recognize that the lack of decorum and civility in that forum was such that it did not well-reflect what the Watch aspires to be. That the longer-serving of the two mods of that forum did not moderate in any meaningful sense of the word (instead, being an exemplar of condescension and scorn for those with whom he disagreed) made the situation that much worse.

Jay, as the founder and an occasionally-present admin, was within his prerogatives to remove the Tank from the Watch, even if it was rather abrupt. I'm glad Z did not join those who left in a huff thereafter; hopefully some other valued contributors such as SoulBiter will eventually return.

This is a picture with the official and exact quote from Jay before he deleted the Tank.






I might have paraphrased it a little bit though...
Deleted some swears...
Ok, I really can't remember what he said, honestly.
And it's probably not what he was wearing at the time but maybe it was?
One can only hope because that would have been awesome.

HLT, that strikes me as Idle speculation.

Savor Dam wrote:HLT, that strikes me as Idle speculation.

Nice!

Don't encourage him.

Thanks, Savor Dam. I appreciate the kind words.

I think the Tank could be resurrected. Fair and effective moderation is possible. I don’t see why it couldn’t be operated like a hidden forum where people must apply to be members, a privilege they could lose if they violate the rules (without leading to an outright ban). And if things do get too heated, at least no one has to be worried about new members or potential members seeing dirty laundry aired publicly. No need for embarrassment over how it reflects on the site as a whole. An ‘enter at your own risk’ forum.

Zarathustra wrote:Thanks, Savor Dam. I appreciate the kind words.

I think the Tank could be resurrected. Fair and effective moderation is possible. I don’t see why it couldn’t be operated like a hidden forum where people must apply to be members, a privilege they could lose if they violate the rules (without leading to an outright ban). And if things do get too heated, at least no one has to be worried about new members or potential members seeing dirty laundry aired publicly. No need for embarrassment over how it reflects on the site as a whole. An ‘enter at your own risk’ forum.

I agree 100%. Although, if it was set up that way, there's no need for a mod.

You’re right, Fist, it wouldn’t need moderating, but we’ve already seen how participation dropped in the previous incarnation. I prefer 100% free speech, but if it means more participation, then a few rules is a reasonable compromise. There’s little point in talking to yourself.

Sounds good in theory. But, as you've noted, at the end, it was really only four right-leaning people posting, and Wos' copy-pasting. I don't know why the left-leaning people who traditionally participated a lot stopped. I could make a couple guesses, but they would be nothing more than guesses. Neither of which is because there weren't any rules, because one rule remained, and, if they wanted more rules, they never told me about it. (Nihilo wanted another rule or two, but the Tank was deleted while that was still being discussed.)

Of course, that doesn't mean those who stopped before it was deleted wouldn't come back if it was started again. Maybe a break was needed.

Devil's Advocate says: Why do we need to host a political forum? There are literally billions of political forums. I include reddit. If you want to discuss politics with other people, use them. If you want to discuss politics with members of the Watch, why not pick one of those forums and agree to meet there?

Do you want a relatively closed political forum only involving people on the Watch? Why? I cannot think of good reasons, it sounds a lot like wanting to be a big fish in a small pond to me, but I am mostly ignorant. Still: Why not create a forum somewhere and go do that? Literally anyone can create a forum on the hundreds of sites for that purpose.

The fact that the people who most contributed to the Think Tank had little to contribute to Stephen R Donaldson discussions, and vice versa, is a strong indication that there is no natural synergy between the two.

I've also wondered why the Watch is the preferred place to discuss politics. Of course, another legitimate question is, why should the discussion of politics not be allowed on the Watch?

Zarathustra wrote:There’s little point in talking to yourself.

While one cannot deny the veracity of this statement, it must be realized that quite often, nobody wants to hear your opinion. Rather, they want to hear their opinion coming out of your mouth...

Ah well...onward and upward.

Cheers, y'all!

Well… interesting. I got busy with work then I changed jobs and moved. Then got let go from the new job… found a new job then COVID hit… it’s been an interesting few years. I wasn’t fond of the losing one term twice impeached former President who lives in Florida and loves the Russian dictator. But… I guess that’s enough of politics.

SerScot wrote:Well… interesting.

Talk about 'damning with faint praise'!

And talking about there being "little point in talking to yourself", I can tell you a thing or two about that....

Fist and Faith wrote:Of course, another legitimate question is, why should the discussion of politics not be allowed on the Watch?

We know why. The benefit of the doubt was given with two open hands. Another legitimate question is, if we get fooled twice, shame on who?

I think part of the reason why some like to discuss politics here is because of the history. We've been talking for nearly two decades. That blows my mind sometimes. But this long history means that we know each other's positions and history. It's easier to hold people to account if they've been on both sides of the issue, depending on which party is in power. And, as bad as some of you think it got here, it's pretty tame compared to other places. And having fewer members means that your comments don't get lost in the shuffle so easily, and you don't have to make responding in depth a full time job. 100s of people talking politics is unwieldy.

Also, though I deeply disagree with some here, I do think their intelligence is higher than your average partisans, and the common ground of liking the same author has allowed a common frame of reference numerous times, even in politics.

I suppose a few Tankers had less to say in the Donaldson forums, but I was very active in the Chronicles and Gap forums, participating in group readings and chapter dissections.

A better question might be why do people come here to talk about toilet paper? Or play silly games?

Fair enough. . Still, it's impossible to not touch on politics. There's been a Capital Punishment threat in the Close for seventeen years. The original point seems to be regarding the opinion of individual people have forward it. But there's no such thing as non-governmental/societal Capital Punishment. It's not a question of whether or not I would kill someone who murdered my child. It's a question of whether or not a society should kill someone who murdered. The topic cannot exist free of politics. So should I lock the thread?


Edit:. The above was in response to wf. Z posted before I noticed. So now I add this...

Zarathustra wrote:A better question might be why do people come here to talk about toilet paper? Or play silly games?

Fair enough.

+JMJ+

Fist and Faith wrote:… There's been a Capital Punishment threat in the Close for seventeen years. …

[…]

If that selfsame threat had obtained in the Tank, then Tankers might've been better behaved.