What is PF doing having a Politics section

[Art]

Art : You suggest assigning a Mentor for P&WA as a solution to the problem. That is not a solution !

<shrug> 1,2,3 or 10, so long as politics is their primary interest and they can be impartial it doesn't matter?

1. There are about as many reported posts and personal attacks from P&WA as from all the rest of PF put together.

I don't have access to the same information as you but I'll take your word for it regarding the numbers. Two points here, first if the complaints are directed to mentors who are in the area and interested anyway then it's no big deal and secondly have you considered the validity of many of the complaints? I think you will find people often complain about an imagined slight when an argument is not going well for them (I think it would be interesting to see how many complaints emanate from a person who is winning an argument hands down) or people complain when somebody expresses an opinion which they think is almost heretical. Not having access to the data this is supposition on my part based on human nature but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

2. Currently, P&WA takes up the majority of the moderatiing time of at least 3 mentors and a good chunk of time from at least five others.

Again I am curious where you get your info from but I believe my response above addresses this

Based on those numbers, this sub-forum would require at least 3 Mentors to read and moderate everything here.

In addition to the comments I've already made I'd add it is a very popular sub-section and so consequently requires more resources.

Going back to my post replying to Zapper, ultimately it is a management decision whether this is an area they want to allow to grow (and necessarily allocate resources) or whether it is something they would like to put back into a smaller box. As I've said I can see perfectly valid views on both sides of the argument.

 

[Art]

But here's the issue of having a mentor. Unlike Art, I am very skeptical about someone claiming to be "impartial". I would never claim myself to be as that. Knowing and acknowledging that we all have our own prejudices and we filter and process information in our own way is a strength, not a weakness. It makes us aware that while we try to listen to everything, we listen and understand things based on our knowledge, our training, and our point of view.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think being impartial is so difficult once all decisions are rooted in basic principles.

Moving On - Perhaps an interesting experiment would be to change the style of discussion on PWA into one of debate whereby a thread header raises a motion / proposal which is then argued probably for a set period of time and then members vote on whether the proposal is carried or not.

The debate could be done in 2 halves with each member being allowed to post a limited number of times in each half. This should improve the quality of the discussion, reduce the need for moderation and even yield an end result.

Anybody any thoughts on this?

 

[Entropy]

"The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion [...] It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

How the hell does that contradict ID? The universe began with an explosion. Does that say anything about whether or not there is a God?

 

[Amp1]

I've read the first five pages of replies and this page. I generally agree with both sides of the arguments.

Like some other replies, I originally showed up here because I am fascinated by PHYSICS-astro, nuclear, particle- and Math. However, I once posted at a site - R & E - where politics and religion were discussed, complete with flaming rants and raves. I was pleasantly surprised to find a religion board at PF then (no longer present) and enjoyed debating with confirmed atheists. From my POV, the concept of an infinite being or intelligent designer was or is science - a search for knowledge of reality ( which includes this universe) - in fact I still intuit that science will aid in proving this intangible fact/tangible reality. I don't advocate any religion. There are some premises that I do believe constitute a viable foundation for reasoned assertions, these ideas border on the realms of philosophy and metaphysics, as well as, set theory, logic and cosmology and concepts beyond the standard model.

I developed an interest in politics because it impacts my life rather directly and have found the discussions on P&WA noteworthy, amusing, insightful and troubling. Political Science is as mentioned a Social Science and having it in that board seems natural.

I’d like to add, I think SOS, if she has the time would make a superb addition as moderator primarily for the P&WA sub-board.

 

[Evo]

In general though I think it can be concluded from your stated opinions that the PWA section has become a victim of it's own success. Many people are members here primarily to take part in the political discussions and as Antech pointed out the sheer volume of posts directs more folk there through the search engines.

That is what we *don't* want. P&WA is supposed to be a place where the active contributing members can go to discuss current issues. It is not our desire to have people posting in P&WA that do not participate in the academic forum. We do not want this kind of traffic. This is an academic forum.

That doesn't mean that someone that posts only in P&WA can't be valuable in P&WA, but when you attract a disproportional number of people that have purely one sided political agendas they wish to push, it is no longer conducive to productive debate.

Art, you're knowledgeable and although you can be hard edged, I value your input, although I will butt heads with you if I think we need more perspective.

There are a number of posters here that are quite knowledgeable and make P&WA an informative site.

 

[Moonbear]

In any case, I just wanted to point out that it is not all contributors to this sub-forum who do the 'bar-room brawl' sort of argument (except, perhaps, occasionally when they are driven to distraction by the lack of logic of those arguing against them) - quite a few contributers are careful to back their views up with evidence. It's just that there's a core group of participants who consistently sabotage them and ignore all evidence presented. Then the whole discussion degenerates into childish name-calling that's a waste of time and unpleasant to read. Perhaps asking people to just be civil to one another and to carefully consider arguments presented and evaluate the evidence provided would help to bring back the more intellectual level of discussion that you mention used to occur here?

I haven't read through all the responses here that were posted overnight and this morning yet, so if someone already responded to this, forgive me for redundancy. We are aware that this is not a problem of all the participants here, not by a long-shot. For those who are careful in their contributions, I don't think they're going to notice any real impact of our changes. It's those with the barroom brawl mentality who are ruining it for everyone, but the difficulty we're having is that as soon as we ban a few of them, a few more show up, so we can't just get rid of them and resume a peaceful existence again.

As for asking them to be civil, yes, that we have been doing. It is because that approach is not at all working that we are stepping up the approach. As Vanesch pointed out, the mentors are pretty well divided on how to handle this forum, but as we're discussing it, new thoughts and ideas are coming to light, and it's helping to have this discussion here and getting input from the P&WA regulars. One thing I think the mentors are agreeing on is that at least some of us are willing to put in the effort to more heavily moderate in the short term with the expectation that once a respectful tone is restored as the norm, we'll be able to relax and let the discussions carry on without as much babysitting in the long-term.

 

[Anttech]

Any moderators actually fancy posting some data on the amount of Reported bad posts in PWA? Us normal members can't see this information, so its harder for us to gauge what you are talking about? From my perception, the amount of flaming etc here is negligable

 

[Evo]

Any moderators actually fancy posting some data on the amount of Reported bad posts in PWA? Us normal members can't see this information, so its harder for us to gauge what you are talking about? From my perception, the amount of flaming etc here is negligable

You don't notice the problem posts because we usually do a fairly quick *cleanup*, the offending posts are modified or deleted by a mentor before very many people see them. That takes a lot of effort on our part. It's our job to make sure you don't see the disruptive stuff.

 

[Anttech]

Sure.. Would you like to show us some stats? I am interested..

 

[Evo]

Sure.. Would you like to show us some stats? I am interested..

No, we don't log every deleted post.

 

[Moonbear]

I personally have no objection to impartial moderating. I do object when a mentor picks an argument loses it and then 'deletes' his embarrassment. Which goes back to my suggestion if the current moderators see this sub forum as a waste of their time then put in a moderator who's primary interest is politics and who will moderate impartially.

And herein lies the problem. This is exactly the sort of griping the moderators have been continuously putting up with in this forum that is wearing us down. Everyone wants an impartial moderator, and we try to be, but in politics, it seems the moderators are only impartial until they delete someone's posts for personal attacks or insults, or copyright infringement, or making completely unsubstantiated claims presented as fact rather than opinion, or one of the other myriad violations of PFs guidelines we see here every day, then we're suddenly accused of being biased.

I actually see a contradiction in the proposal that someone with a strong interest in politics would be a more impartial moderator. I think, by default, a strong interest in politics comes along part and parcel with a strong opinion on certain views that leads one to be less impartial in their views.

And, because I've heard this same complaint too many times, and seen the accusation thrown about, I think this bears stating clearly and publicly...yes, we do have a few mentors who are very active in this forum, and have made their political views very well-known to everyone. These mentors have also acknowledged to themselves and to the other mentors that they do know they have a bias, and recognize that as a conflict-of-interest in moderating any discussions here. Those mentors do NOT moderate the discussions in this forum. When posts are deleted, it is not because anyone is suppressing an opposing view, it's because they violate PF guidelines. If people cannot discuss a subject without attacking the others in the discussion, or making snarky comments, or derailing threads with their own agenda, the posts get deleted. We used to come through and just edit out the snarky or personal comments, and leave the rest of the content, but this just takes way too much time for anyone, so now we just delete the entire post. People need to be responsible enough to know where to draw the line themselves, and if they can't do that, we're not going to spend any more time cleaning up after them than we absolutely must. When the response to those deletions are more posts accusing the mentors of bias, censorship, and disingenous claims that nothing was wrong with the deleted posts to merit deletion, those responses too get deleted.

If people cannot remain respectful of others in their posts, even when they disagree with them, then we send them packing, just as we do anywhere else on this forum.

We do have mentors who run quite the full spectrum of political views. This is the closest we can get to impartiality, by having opposing views balanced among the mentors.

 

[Anttech]

Its a mysql DB this forum, probably there is a log for purged DB entries..

 

[Evo]

Its a mysql DB this forum, probably there is a log for purged DB entries..

Well, I'll put it this way. "NO".

 

[Anttech]

I think that is a "NO" you won't do it, interesting I can't think of any reasons why not, it would put people minds to rest

 

[Evo]

I think that is a "NO" you won't do it, interesting I can't think of any reasons why not, it would put people minds to rest

I doubt it. So, you're implying that you think we are lying about the number of reported posts, and amount of cleanup? You don't believe us, but if we show you some numbers, you're going to believe us?

If the amount of time and effort wasn't really a problem, why do you think we're discussing ways of trying to reduce the amount of time and effort?

 

[Anttech]

I am not implying anything! I want to quantify what you are saying! Sorry I don't see the problem in what I am asking for! I didnt anywhere say I don't believe that you have to delete posts. Again I just want to gauge the problem for myself.

You don't believe us, but if we show you some numbers, you're going to believe us?

What exactly are you saying here? Let me get this straight, I don't believe you and I am just trying to "annoy" you in some way? This is what you think

Sorry you lost me on this one...

 

[Moonbear]

Sure.. Would you like to show us some stats? I am interested..

Here are the stats I'm willing to tally up for you, but which greatly underestimate the problem, because they don't reflect posts the mentors caught before they were reported, or the fact that post reports from P&WA usually report just one post in a series of posts that are problematic, unlike post reports from the other forums that typically involve a single off-topic, or problematic post that has not degraded into multiple posts requiring deletion.

I just did a quick tally from this week of post reports (from 2/6 to today...I didn't feel like counting more than that). Rounding to whole numbers, 39% of the post reports were from P&WA, all of them requiring moderator action in the form of post deletions, warnings or both, and were not things like spam or other advertising that does not reflect actions of the regular membership. Of the remaining post reports from the other forums, 13% were not bad posts but either errors (someone new accidentally reporting a post instead of replying to it) or homework problems that needed to be moved to an appropriate homework forum, which are very minor issues. Another 17% of those non-P&WA posts were all generated in a very short time due to multiple reporting of a single person causing problems in multiple forums. The remaining 30% were spam and posts of crackpot theories, both of which are handled very quickly and easily. And, as I said before, this does not include the posts the mentors have deleted in P&WA without generating a post report (if you could see this forum from the eyes of the mentors, with the numerous "post deleted" places inserted among the threads, you'd get even more of a perspective of the extent of the problem.

 

[Anttech]

Moonbear! Thank you :)

 

[Evo]

Moonbear! Thank you :)

Ha, you fell for it!







<just kidding>

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Big bad Greg here. I'm going to go close this up and ship it off to Feedback. I think everyone has had the chance to voice their opinion. Now the thread is just slowing down the decision making. The P&WA forum will stay, however expect a couple new policies that will tighen things up. These new policies will help make the forum easier and more efficent to moderate. We feel the policies will be in the best interests of PF in the long run and we hope you respect that.

I am encouraged by the passion of the responses in this thread. We all want to keep PF in it's golden age and the responses in this thread show it.