Discussion about the Controversial Topics forum

[Marc]

NOTICE: Controversial Discussions - STAY OUT OF THIS FORUM

if you are offended by controversial discussions, please just STAY OUT of it. Do NOT read the threads. Do NOT complain about threads or posts in this forum. You do not have to read them. You do not have to post in threads.

ENTER AT YOUR OWN EMOTIONAL PERIL....

[Peter West]

Is this a test along the same vein as "don't look down" then you look down.... "STAY OUT OF THE FORUM" so first thing everyone does is take a quick peek . Couldnt resist it, myself. Friday afternoon and things are slllllooooooowwwwwww

[howste]

Is this the forum where I can say things like "If you don't agree with me you're a complete moron!" and get away with it?

[Stijloor]

In Reply to Parent Post by howste

Is this the forum where I can say things like "If you don't agree with me you're a complete moron!" and get away with it?

Marc still expects us to behave professionally...

I guess we can engage in heated dialogues here..

Stijloor.

[Jennifer Kirley]

If he's running a test on the Medusa Effect, then count me in because the title drew me in instantly.

[D.Scott]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jennifer Kirley

If he's running a test on the Medusa Effect, then count me in because the title drew me in instantly.

Me too !!!!

Unfortunately I think it is a serious warning opening up a couple of cans I had hoped were closed long ago.

I will be starting a pool for length of time before critical mass is reached

Dave

[Wes Bucey]

It seems plain to me - TOPICS can be controversial, but we still adhere to the concept we attack IDEAS, not PEOPLE. Therefore, personal attacks or debasements are out-of-bounds.

I guess that means you can say,
"Your IDEA stinks, and here's why . . . "
BUT NOT
"YOU stink, and here's why . . . "

If you can't make a cogent argument for your point of view which might persuade someone else to adopt it, you probably should think very carefully before you post your views.

[Marc]

In Reply to Parent Post by howste

Is this the forum where I can say things like "If you don't agree with me you're a complete moron!" and get away with it?

In Reply to Parent Post by Stijloor

Marc still expects us to behave professionally...

I guess we can engage in heated dialogues here..

Stijloor.

In Reply to Parent Post by Jennifer Kirley

If he's running a test on the Medusa Effect, then count me in because the title drew me in instantly.

In Reply to Parent Post by D.Scott

Me too !!!!

Unfortunately I think it is a serious warning opening up a couple of cans I had hoped were closed long ago.

I will be starting a pool for length of time before critical mass is reached
Dave

In Reply to Parent Post by Wes Bucey

It seems plain to me - TOPICS can be controversial, but we still adhere to the concept we attack IDEAS, not PEOPLE. Therefore, personal attacks or debasements are out-of-bounds.

I guess that means you can say,
"Your IDEA stinks, and here's why . . . "
BUT NOT
"YOU stink, and here's why . . . "

If you can't make a cogent argument for your point of view which might persuade someone else to adopt it, you probably should think very carefully before you post your views.

I'm off to cut up a tree. Keep them coming.

Civil discussion on what and why, please.

NOTE: A Poll will eventually be added, but I WILL BE THE ONE TO MAKE UP AND START THE POLL.

I also want to remind everyone this came out of 'heavy' moderator discussion about a post in this thread: How Bad Will This Recession Get - Tipping Point to A Great Depression?.

Also, for the 'newer' people, here's a brief history. I wrote this in a post in the moderator's forum. Since I had it written already, I figure there should at least be some history in this discussion.

In Reply to Parent Post by Politics and Religion in the Forums

The strict No Politics and No Religion 'rule' started about 8 years ago. It started because people were interjecting political 'analogies' into 'Business' posts. Reviewing some of those old threads and posts, Mike S was the first to really get things started by putting in derogatory Clinton references as analogies in 'Business' threads. There was some politics interjected in some Coffee Break forum threads, which was less of an issue. As some of you remember, the 2000 election was a hot one, for me and many others. I even started a forum to try to confine political posts - Cultural Anthropology - Politics & Religion - To keep politics out of 'Business posts'. While the politics forum was a quite rowdy forum, the main problem was with people who came to the Elsmar forums and instead of just NOT reading the political forum threads, would read the threads and then complain. The forum description was: Long ago my Pappy said to me: "Political discussions, like religious discussions, are black holes of opinion. No individual or cause wins. Ever." Enter and/or participate *at your own risk*. The forum was clearly labeled but it didn't help. That forum was closed and archived because it started to become personal to a number of people here, myself included at times, which started infighting amongst the 'regulars', and some people made it clear they would not keep visiting a place where people discuss politics, even if it was confined in a well labeled forum. Some people would not simply just stay out of the Cultural Anthropology - Politics & Religion forum and would complain that there was such a forum here at all.

The argument against a Cultural Anthropology - Politics & Religion forum, even as a password protected forum, was that Elsmar (then the Cayman Cove - this was in 2000) was supposed to be a 'professional' forum, and a review of 'professional' forums was that none of then discuss politics or religion. The problem then and now is: Should the Elsmar Cove BE a 'typical' 'professional' forum? Most 'professional' forums don't have 'off topic' forums such as out 'Coffee Break' forum. Or do they? I took some time to review some of the old posts and the old forum. Quite a few people liked it and used it.

There are times I would like to bring the old forum back. I don't mind political discussions. I DO mind bringing politics into 'business' threads and even in Coffee Break forum threads. However, we plugged those holes back in 2000 with the 'strict' ban.

The Religion Ban - That was never really a problem here. It came in as part of what we all know are always 'No Win' topics, not to mention topics which significantly stir the emotions of many individuals - Politics and Religion.

Remember that we're going back to the 2000 ban when less than 800 people visited on a busy day. It was a much smaller, more personal group back then. Today, over 10,000 people visit the forums on a normal day. Back then there was no advertising or anything like that. The entire site and those visiting has changed. This may be something we will want to discuss further in a dedicated thread, but for now nothing has changed.

That said, I do agree with Randy and Wes and those who think this is somewhat a non-issue. I think it could have easily been handled by a response in the thread with a reminder that we do not want heated political discussion focusing on specific political parties or persons. I labeled the forum Controversial Discussion Topics for a reason. There are some things people like to discuss that we know will from time to time bring up disagreements (arguments in the extreme). I am at the point where I think visitors are going to have to decide for themselves whether they WANT to go in that forum, and if they decide to, if they complain about it, will be told that the forum is well labeled and to just stay the heck out of it if they're not interested in the contents. Anyone who decides they do not want to visit the forum as a whole because there is a forum where people do get into some controversial discussions will just have to go elsewhere. Personally, I visit a lot of forums with with specific forums where highly charged political discussions (arguments) are routine. I don't see the discussions spilling out to posts or threads in the other forums.

To recap: The strict ban against political posts started because people were interjecting political 'analogies', typically related to 'Clinton failures', into 'Business' posts in 1999 and 2000.