Changes to politics discussion policy

[Greg Bernhardt]

In an effort to remove potentially divisive and toxic political discussions we are making the following changes.

1. Politics discussion outside of education and science policy will be prohibited. (Examples of thread banned: here, here, here, here) (Examples of threads safe: here, here, here, here). You will notice the safe threads are generally void of politicians and party politics.

2. Current News Events sub forum will be removed, threads merged into General Discussion and given a "News" prefix. News posts in the future should be non political. (Examples: here, here, here, here)

3. Replacing the Current News Events sub forum will be an "Art, Music, History, and Linguistics" forum.

4. This change will go into effect one week from now on March 12th. That gives you plenty of time to wrap up any discussions in political threads you currently participate in.

Thanks for your understanding as we try to make PF a more productive and friendlier community focused in its mission.

https://civicswatch.com/

 

[UsableThought]

Politics discussion outside of education and science policy will prohibited.

If I'm correct, does that leave roughly two narrow areas where education & science policy might intersect with political developments? These being first, changes in federal funding & policy for agencies that combine science w/ regulation, e.g. the EPA, CDC, etc.; and second, anything to do with the effect of politics or social disenchantment w/ authority on science education or public belief in science?

There was a recent thread on the latter issue (diminishing public trust in science) that skirted being politically divisive at a couple of points. But presumably these areas are narrow enough that light moderation plus restraint on the part of posters will be enough?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

education & science policy might intersect with political developments

But maybe these areas are narrow enough that light moderation plus some restraint on the part of posters will be enough?

Policy is politics, but as long as the discussion sticks to the science and the policy instead of the politics of a party, politician or ideology then we're good.

If in the future problems still persist we will make further changes.

 

[Ranger Mike]

good show, Greg...im fer it!

 

[StatGuy2000]

Hi Greg. This may be a silly question, but since a new subforum will be created on Art, Music, History, and Linguistics (to replace the Current News Events subforum), would existing threads along those topics be forwarded to that subforum?

 

[Comeback City]

I didn't know political discussions were allowed here to begin with, which was probably for the best...

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

In an effort to remove potentially divisive and toxic political discussions we are making the following changes.

1. Politics discussion outside of education and science policy will be prohibited. (Examples of thread banned: here, here, here, here) (Examples of threads safe: here, here, here, here). You will notice the safe threads are generally void of politicians and party politics.

2. Current News Events sub forum will be removed, threads merged into General Discussion and given a "News" prefix. News posts in the future should be non political. (Examples: here, here, here, here)

3. Replacing the Current News Events sub forum will be an "Art, Music, History, and Linguistics" forum.

4. This change will go into effect one week from now on March 12th. That gives you plenty of time to wrap up any discussions in political threads you currently participate in.

Thanks for your understanding as we try to make PF a more productive and friendlier community focused in its mission.

Even though I contributed, somewhat against my better judgment, to at least one of these banned threads, I support this decision. One reason I am on PF and not on other social media is because it's the only forum I have found to date where there is good moderation of the sort this decision exemplifies. I think this forum is broad enough, because it's not only about physics, but about math, science, and engineering in general. Thanks for maintaining high standards.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Hi Greg. This may be a silly question, but since a new subforum will be created on Art, Music, History, and Linguistics (to replace the Current News Events subforum), would existing threads along those topics be forwarded to that subforum?

Yes contact @Evo to make sure a specific thread you are interested in makes it over on moving day :)

 

[StatGuy2000]

I admit that I have contributed to 2 of the examples of the threads that will be banned in the future, but I too support this decision. Political discussions can have a tendency devolve into partisan arguments that pit one or more groups against another, without necessarily being enlightening, and I so support the good moderation on this forum that contributed to this decision.

Thanks for all the good work you do here, and I promise (despite my past lapses in judgement on this front) that I will do my part while on the forum to live up to the high standards you set.

 

[symbolipoint]

The point #3 to include Linguistics is a good idea.

 

[Dale]

Current News Events sub forum will be removed, threads merged into General Discussion and given a "News" prefix. News posts in the future should be non

Also, current events and news that are specific to some technical forum can be discussed in the technical forum where the relevant technical mentors can keep things non political and avoid fake news.

 

[Evo]

Hi Greg. This may be a silly question, but since a new subforum will be created on Art, Music, History, and Linguistics (to replace the Current News Events subforum), would existing threads along those topics be forwarded to that subforum?

I will be trying to find as many of the old threads as possible, but since the threads weren't tagged (AFAIK) as art, history, etc... it's going to be a rather difficult manual process, I would love it if anyone that finds a thread that falls into the new category would place a link in this thread or PM it to me.

@zoobyshoe do you want your art threads moved there?

 

[Drakkith]

Hi Greg. This may be a silly question, but since a new subforum will be created on Art, Music, History, and Linguistics (to replace the Current News Events subforum), would existing threads along those topics be forwarded to that subforum?

I will be trying to find as many of the old threads as possible, but since the threads weren't tagged (AFAIK) as art, history, etc... it's going to be a rather difficult manual process, I would love it if anyone that finds a thread that falls into the new category would place a link in this thread or PM it to me.

The easiest method would probably be to just report the first post in the thread and tell us that you'd like it moved to the new subforum. That way Evo isn't bombarded with requests and it ensures things happen in a timely manner if Evo leaves to go to a vacation in Hawaii or something.

 

[Evo]

The easiest method would probably be to just report the first post in the thread and tell us that you'd like it moved to the new subforum. That way Evo isn't bombarded with requests and it ensures things happen in a timely manner if Evo leaves to go to a vacation in Hawaii or something.

Brilliant! That is why you are mentor!

 

[haruspex]

Politics discussion outside of education and science policy will be prohibited. (Examples of thread banned: here, here, here, here)

Anything can become "political". (In quotes because political, strictly speaking, means related to policies; the attribute at issue here is party-political.)
I do not feel strongly about this discussion, and I see there is wide support for the ban. But being of a contrary nature, I'll play Devil's Advocate...

The four threads listed are arguably about civil rights, the US legal system, cybersecurity and reliability of news sources. None are remotely about science (so personally I would be unlikely to read them, let alone contribute), but these Forums are not limited to science. The proposed ban, it seems to me, results from the circumstantial linkage to current party politics. In the Fox News thread, for example, it is that organisation's understood linkage to the US right wing.

How might this develop? What if a certain source of tweets were to accuse some Hollywood actors of being anti-American? Would it then be banned to mention those actors on these Forums?

 

[Evo]

How might this develop? What if a certain source of tweets were to accuse some Hollywood actors of being anti-American? Would it then be banned to mention those actors on these Forums?

No, only their political actions.

 

[haruspex]

No, only their political actions.

And who defines whether an action is political?

 

[Comeback City]

And who defines whether an action is political?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary does, of course!Definition of political

1. 1a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
   

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

 

[Evo]

And who defines whether an action is political?

If it has to do with a political party. What we will be looking for as Greg said above is no "politics of a party, politician or ideology".

 

[mfb]

And who defines whether an action is political?

If we could phrase every rule in mathematical precision without any ambiguity, we wouldn't need mentors, a well-written bot enforcing those rules would be sufficient.
We will certainly get cases where we have to discuss how to proceed, but in most cases the new rules should be clear.

 

[haruspex]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary does, of course!Definition of political

1. 1a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

Dictionaries define. They cannot decide for you what fits the definition.

 

[Comeback City]

Dictionaries define. They cannot decide for you what fits the definition.

Well you did ask who defines it... Honestly though, it shouldn't be too hard to decide whether a thread/comment/topic is political or not, based on the context

 

[haruspex]

If it has to do with a political party. What we will be looking for as Greg said above is no "politics of a party, politician or ideology".

I suppose my niggle is that exemptions are necessarily made for education and science policy - this Forum has to be able to fight back against ideological attacks on those - but would retreat from fighting ideological attacks on, say, the media, civil rights, and the truth in general.
But as I wrote, I'm just trying to make sure these broader issues have at least been thought about before coming to a decision.

 

[haruspex]

Well you did ask who defines it.

I agree - I should have said "decides".

 

[Evo]

I suppose my niggle is that exemptions are necessarily made for education and science policy - this Forum has to be able to fight back against ideological attacks on those - but would retreat from fighting ideological attacks on, say, the media, civil rights, and the truth in general.
But as I wrote, I'm just trying to make sure these broader issues have at least been thought about before coming to a decision.

I think Civil Rights, as long as we avoid pointing fingers and naming names which then puts people on the defensive and feel they have to defend their party, no matter what. It's still important and it does affect science because it affects immigration, work visas, etc... So, it's not cut and dried. Do not worry, we aren't going to just stick our heads in the sand. But we want to stop the fighting.

I think we are mature and sensible enough to discuss important issues without the political party fights, and those that can't post without doing so, just won't be allowed to post until they can do so.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Do not worry, we aren't going to just stick our heads in the sand. But we want to stop the fighting.

What fighting? I've seen disagreement and debate, but fighting? PF is a sea of tranquility compared to most other forums. I have a lot of respect for PF members, even when we disagree. And I would think most members would think the same way. I think this community should pride itself in being above that type of thing. However, that being said, I have been a little reluctant to post in those threads recently because I fear that some members will have a negative view of me because I don't share their liberal points of view on some matters. So I'm not so much against the banning of those types of threads. The main reason for my coming to PF is science and physics. So no big deal. I understand your reasoning for banning them, except for the fighting part. I haven't seen that. Or maybe you're deleting the bad posts before I can read them. :)

 

[Comeback City]

PF is a sea of tranquility compared to most other forums.

And we should keep it that way. Even being that I didn't know we even had political debates here to begin with, I have still seen some fairly heated discussions in the science sections. It is my personal opinion that politics brings out the worst in people, no matter which end of the spectrum you are on. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree, but there's really no need to make enemies. It's simply not possible to discuss politics in a respectable manner unless both sides admit they are only about 50% right, and I have yet to see that happen. I agree with the decision.

 

[hsdrop]

I like the change in the rules to the forum, to me it making a conscious effort to focus on what the site is intended for.
just a question: What does politics have to do with teaching and learning physics?

 

[Demystifier]

In Croatia we have a saying: I don't want politics in my boutique.

 

[DrClaude]

What fighting? I've seen disagreement and debate, but fighting? PF is a sea of tranquility compared to most other forums. I have a lot of respect for PF members, even when we disagree.

We'll take that as "job well done." Maybe @Evo's use of "fighting" was a bit strong, but many discussions do go beyond the bounds of civil discourse. We're simply good at cleaning up (and by "we," I mean mostly @Evo ).