Political Threads -- To Be or Not To Be

[TampaYankee]

Oz and I have been discussing in background whether to permit Politics Threads in the Forum. He is in favor of permitting politics threads. I am not. He enjoys them, as I do (in an atmosphere of respect and civility). I suspect he believes that others also enjoy the discussions and the additional activity it brings to the boards.

Oz believes that we can manage the 'behavorial issues'. I am strongly dubious. I've seen this tried several times before: here and elsewhere. I have never seen anything that gives me optimism about consistency of civility and respectful behavior over the long run.

Invariably, some feel that moderation is unevenly applied by moderators. That is because the slippery slope phenomenon is involved. It is easy when stark examples of disrespect are exhibited. The problem is the case where an otherwise civil argument slips in a quick zinger or subtle put-down. Where to draw the line of unacceptability? It is a subjective call. Let one go by because of the overall value of the post and the subtlety of the cut and it invites a return shot. In no time someone gets called on it, always unfairly in the eyes of that poster and his supporters.

I really do not want to have to edit posts with any frequency. It is a burden to attempt to be fair when it really can never be absolutely equal treatment. It often tends to be a case of gradualism when the weight of off-comments just accumulate to warrant an edit or deletion. They may not even be soley the remarks of a single contributor. Maybe it is more clear cut for Oz and he has more stomach for riding herd. I'll let him make that case.

Even so, that won't address those who are turned off by strident political postings unless all messages are moderated prior to posting. I do not believe that anyone wants that. Not an option IMO.

So, because the topic of permitting political posts is under discussion between Oz and myself, everyone with an opinion should post or email their feelings on the subject. Email to maleescortreview@gmail.com if you prefer not to post.

I'm against it, Oz is for it. However we both agree that the site ought to provide what members want when practicable. So speak up and be counted.

[AdamSmith]

I would enjoy still being able to discuss politics here.

I grant all the risks that TY names here and in another thread -- that even the best-intentioned discussions, ballasted with facts out the wazoo, can easily tip over into demagogery (or whatever variant of that idea is meaningful here), vitriol, insults, etc.

The only solution I can think of is to cordon off political discussion into its own forum. But even then, not hard to imagine that personal attacks originating there will spill over, if not in content then in tone, to the other forums here.

I know what I want, but not how to have it while guaranteeing that management's expressed preferences for this community will be safeguarded. Anyone?

[lookin]

All things being equal, I'd prefer fewer limits on what can be discussed. Politics are front and center these days, and I usually learn something from the posters here, so I like to hear various viewpoints and add when I can. Unfortunately, some folks haven't yet learned how to disgree with ideas without attacking the person who holds them. And it's not only here that political discussions foster ad hominem attacks. It's often the case that politics and rudeness go hand in hand.

Since this site works hard to eliminate rudeness, it won't be easy to allow political discussions. But I'll throw out a few suggestions that might make it easier. They've probably all been considered, and may have already been rejected, but here goes:

• â— Establish a separate forum for political discussions, so readers can avoid them if they want to.
  â— Consider letting someone else moderate the political forum, since you don't like to.
  â— Set a fairly low bar for getting booted from the site; e. g., three strikes and you're out. There are other sites where civility isn't required.
  â— Make it clear why a post counts as a strike. You don't have to defend your reasoning, just explain it.
  

That said, whatever you decide is fine by me. You've done a great job with this site just as it is, and you've got my vote. Unless of course the SCOTUS has a problem.

[Guest 2hard2tame]

Oz and I have been discussing in background whether to permit Politics Threads in the Forum. He is in favor of permitting politics threads. I am not. He enjoys them, as I do (in an atmosphere of respect and civility). I suspect he believes that others also enjoy the discussions and the additional activity it brings to the boards.

Oz believes that we can manage the 'behavorial issues'. I am strongly dubious. I've seen this tried several times before: here and elsewhere. I have never seen anything that gives me optimism about consistency of civility and respectful behavior over the long run.

Invariably, some feel that moderation is unevenly applied by moderators. That is because the slippery slope phenomenon is involved. It is easy when stark examples of disrespect are exhibited. The problem is the case where an otherwise civil argument slips in a quick zinger or subtle put-down. Where to draw the line of unacceptability? It is a subjective call. Let one go by because of the overall value of the post and the subtlety of the cut and it invites a return shot. In no time someone gets called on it, always unfairly in the eyes of that poster and his supporters.

I really do not want to have to edit posts with any frequency. It is a burden to attempt to be fair when it really can never be absolutely equal treatment. It often tends to be a case of gradualism when the weight of off-comments just accumulate to warrant an edit or deletion. They may not even be soley the remarks of a single contributor. Maybe it is more clear cut for Oz and he has more stomach for riding herd. I'll let him make that case.

Even so, that won't address those who are turned off by strident political postings unless all messages are moderated prior to posting. I do not believe that anyone wants that. Not an option IMO.

So, because the topic of permitting political posts is under discussion between Oz and myself, everyone with an opinion should post or email their feelings on the subject. Email to maleescortreview@gmail.com if you prefer not to post.

I'm against it, Oz is for it. However we both agree that the site ought to provide what members want when practicable. So speak up and be counted.

It is quite obvious that I am one of those people who make you nervous in such a way that you would want to stifle free speech and expression thereof.

Political discussion's are of course my interest, especially in these oppressive times for Regan type Conservatives like me who hold near and dear principles and moral's not held by many on this board.

I can refrain from thus pointed out personal attacks and insults provided that the same is held true for others. When I came back to this site, it was made clear to me that several other members from another site(achoo=boy that was a bad sneeze) that they severely dislike me even tho no one has met me in real life. From the first day I posted on here, I was attacked and verbally raped. Those members, I return the favor to only when first attacked. I'm Israeli, what can I say. ( ok, so im stereotyping myself).

I said all that to say this. As long as the moderators can refrain from showing favor to those who cater to their personal beliefs however subtle it may be, than I think we could have a good thing.

I am fully capable of carrying on discussion's both professionally and respectfully only as long as I receive the same. On that token, i am referring to the idea that people should be able to think how they want, live how they want and speak how they want only as long as it doesn't differ from "my" way of thinking. Kinda one sided really.

In conclusion, I will summon up my run on sentences and line them up nicely.

Ready?

I am in favor of letting these discussions happen as long:

1. Both sides are held to the same standard of respect and honesty.

2. The moderation team does what they are there for, unbiased.

3. Three strike system is flawed and left open to abuse. But without a better solution, meh what can I say.

4. If a conversation degenerates, then whoever threw the first stone should be the one who is forced a timeout.

Warmly, John.

[Lucky]

It is quite obvious that I am one of those people who make you nervous in such a way that you would want to stifle free speech and expression thereof.

Political discussion's are of course my interest, especially in these oppressive times for Regan type Conservatives like me who hold near and dear principles and moral's not held by many on this board.

I can refrain from thus pointed out personal attacks and insults provided that the same is held true for others. When I came back to this site, it was made clear to me that several other members from another site(achoo=boy that was a bad sneeze) that they severely dislike me even tho no one has met me in real life. From the first day I posted on here, I was attacked and verbally raped. Those members, I return the favor to only when first attacked. I'm Israeli, what can I say. ( ok, so im stereotyping myself).

I said all that to say this. As long as the moderators can refrain from showing favor to those who cater to their personal beliefs however subtle it may be, than I think we could have a good thing.

I am fully capable of carrying on discussion's both professionally and respectfully only as long as I receive the same. On that token, i am referring to the idea that people should be able to think how they want, live how they want and speak how they want only as long as it doesn't differ from "my" way of thinking. Kinda one sided really.

In conclusion, I will summon up my run on sentences and line them up nicely.

Ready?

I am in favor of letting these discussions happen as long:

1. Both sides are held to the same standard of respect and honesty.

2. The moderation team does what they are there for, unbiased.

3. Three strike system is flawed and left open to abuse. But without a better solution, meh what can I say.

4. If a conversation degenerates, then whoever threw the first stone should be the one who is forced a timeout.

Warmly, John.

I agree.

[TownsendPLocke]

One persons "professionally and respectfully"is anothers flame war.

If you allow this please set up a seperate "room"(might I suggest it be labled The Crapper"? )so that those of us not interested in the fascinating(HAH)back and forth that occurs in these sort of post do not sully what I,and most of us I suspect,come here for(hint-not political discussion)on a regular basis.

[Guest Conway]

I think that it al has to do with civility. I like to and tend to surround myself with people who are different than me: politically different, socially different, of different age, of different religious beliefs, of different socio-economic back grounds. These people make my life far more interesting than I can do on my own. Thus, I treasure their company.

Several years ago, shortly after our ground forces invaded Iraq, i was at a dinner party with a group of truly interesting, intelligent and eclectic people. During the course of dinner, a mild, but highly intellectual and respectful discussion as to whether or not we had the right to be in Iraq broke out at one end of the table. It went along beautifully for about 25 or 30 minutes with all of the participants offering reasonably intelligent ideas that could be logically supported in some way shape or form.

Then suddenly, our host arrived with dessert and interjected herself into the discussion with some far flung thoughtless idea that the war in Iraq was just a way for Evangelical Christians to force their way down the throats of international society.

The participants were stunned by the hatefulness, thoughtlessness and general nastiness of her comments in a forum that had been previously modeled upon intelligence and respect for the opinions of all involved in it.

The conversation was deflated. The room became quiet and shortly thereafter, the room began to empty.

The beauty of our frank but polite discussion had been ruined by the lack of civility that one person had shown to others in the group.

Think about what you say and how you say it. Just because someone has an opinion that is different than yours doesn't make that person your mortal enemy. It simply makes them a person with a different opinion than yours. in their mind, their opinion (and hopefully yours too) ends up educating the other person and providing them with a calm and rational confidence in their own ideas by considering yours openly.

[MsGuy]

T.Y.: Every time I try to think this thing through I end up channeling Tevye. Too many 'on the other hands.'

One of the factors I've been thinking about is the level of commitment to civility required for a political forum to work here. Self restraint 'above and beyond' seems sine qua non. Refraining from throwing the first punch won't cut it. Letting that sly dig (or elbow in the eye) slide w/o response just might, but how realistic is it to expect that from ourselves?

The public places I go for conversation rarely rely on bouncers. Their customers respect both the premises and each other. I've read quality conversations here and I'd like to see more of them, including political ones, w/o T.Y. and OZ having to break out their stun guns.

As AdamSmith said, I know what I want. Bugger me sideways, though, if I know how to get it.

[Lucky]

One persons "professionally and respectfully"is anothers flame war.

If you allow this please set up a seperate "room"(might I suggest it be labled The Crapper"? )so that those of us not interested in the fascinating(HAH)back and forth that occurs in these sort of post do not sully what I,and most of us I suspect,come here for(hint-not political discussion)on a regular basis.

How about a separate room for threads that do nothing but promote a night club or a Brandon Baker event? I mean, really, if our political discussions belong in the "crapper"...why should I have to wade through threads that are advertisements for events I won't be (hint) attending?

[Guest 2hard2tame]

One persons "professionally and respectfully"is anothers flame war.

If you allow this please set up a seperate "room"(might I suggest it be labled The Crapper"? )so that those of us not interested in the fascinating(HAH)back and forth that occurs in these sort of post do not sully what I,and most of us I suspect,come here for(hint-not political discussion)on a regular basis.

odd, as I recall you are one of the ones who are continually posting threads demeaning the right and worshiping the left.

My point is, don't try to act all separatist, when we all know you are just like me, but opposite sides.

[TampaYankee]

Political discussion's are of course my interest, especially in these oppressive times for Regan type Conservatives like me who hold near and dear principles and moral's not held by many on this board.

...

As long as the moderators can refrain from showing favor to those who cater to their personal beliefs however subtle it may be, than I think we could have a good thing.

So you believe I moderate based on my personal beliefs? No doubt personal sensitivities shade my perceptions no matter how even handed I may strive to be. Obviously you see them. Maybe they are not as apparent to others. Those perceptions are also shaped by your sensitivities and their sensitivies.

I think I know what a Regan conservative is/was. I actually have voted for Regan twice, Bush I twice, Dole, and Nixon(ugh#$%^). Regan conservatives were certainly a much broader group than the present day conservatives who like to wrap themselves in Regan's shroud. This is borne out by his majorities in contrast to the present day conservative minority.

[MsGuy]

So you believe I moderate based on my personal beliefs? No doubt personal sensitivities shade my perceptions no matter how even handed I may strive to be. Obviously you see them. Maybe they are not as apparent to others. Those perceptions are also shaped by your sensitivities and their sensitivies.

I think I know what a Regan conservative is/was. I actually have voted for Regan twice, Bush I twice, Dole, and Nixon(ugh#$%^). Regan conservatives were certainly a much broader group than the present day conservatives who like to wrap themselves in Regan's shroud. This is borne out by his majorities in contrast to the present day conservative minority.

So Ty is a closeted Republican and has been prodded into outing himself by no less than 2h2t. I wonder how he's going to tell OZ?

I cling to the hope that 8 years of aversion therapy may have cured him of these inclinations.

[AdamSmith]

8 years of aversion therapy

[TownsendPLocke]

How about a separate room for threads that do nothing but promote a night club or a Brandon Baker event? I mean, really, if our political discussions belong in the "crapper"...why should I have to wade through threads that are advertisements for events I won't be (hint) attending?

Because Lucky-there are going to be MALE ESCORTS at these events-and the name of this site is MALEESCORTreview.com not letsdiscusspolitics.com or letsdiscusspoetry.com-I come here to have fun-remember what fun is?And to talk about hot guys who might be willing to share some fun times with us and these events have that going for them.

If you start hosting these sorts of events let me know-I will pimp your events also

[Guest FourAces]

Because Lucky-there are going to be MALE ESCORTS at these events-and the name of this site is MALEESCORTreview.com not letsdiscusspolitics.com or letsdiscusspoetry.com-I come here to have fun-remember what fun is?And to talk about hot guys who might be willing to share some fun times with us and these events have that going for them.

If you start hosting these sorts of events let me know-I will pimp your events also

Some cannot even stay on topic and have a intelligent, civil conversation in this thread, so how can admin ever expect anything different from any topic?

TY when I walk into a pub I am not handed a menu of what topics I can and cannot discuss. I would expect that this pub foster the same open dialogue.

On a side note, OZ - So who won the contest?

[Guest 2hard2tame]

So Ty is a closeted Republican and has been prodded into outing himself by no less than 2h2t. I wonder how he's going to tell OZ?

I cling to the hope that 8 years of aversion therapy may have cured him of these inclinations.

Never underestimate me. *giggle

[TotallyOz]

On a side note, OZ - So who won the contest?

Come to Townie's dinner on Friday night and find the answer to your question.

[MsGuy]

Never underestimate me. *giggle

Unless I want an enraged Israeli warrior pounding on my liberal old ass. Hmmm...

[MsGuy]

Thanks AdamSmith. That was like a pat on the butt from the head jock.

My Dad used to say that folks had to elect a Republican now and then to remind themselves why they were Democrats.

[TampaYankee]

So Ty is a closeted Republican and has been prodded into outing himself by no less than 2h2t. I wonder how he's going to tell OZ?

I cling to the hope that 8 years of aversion therapy may have cured him of these inclinations.

I'm comfortable with my past voting record. The only do-overs I'd like to have is my vote for Carter -- I had great hopes for him but he was a foreign policy presidential disaster. I also regret not voting for Gore had I known how disaterous GW would prove to be. Hindsight is what it is.

As for being cured... I see little likelihood that the GOP can, in the near future, reform itself sufficiently in order to attract my vote. They are so out of touch with what appealed to me over the years and show no sign of returning and adapting to 21st Century realities and issues. I saw them as the party of financial restraint and responsibility and military preparedness that has become the party of unabashed greed, military excess and incompetence, and arbiters of the public morality. No thanks.

[MsGuy]

I'm comfortable with my past voting record. The only do-overs I'd like to have is my vote for Carter -- I had great hopes for him but he was a foreign policy presidential disaster. I also regret not voting for Gore had I known how disaterous GW would prove to be. Hindsight is what it is.

As for being cured... I see little likelihood that the GOP can, in the near future, reform itself sufficiently in order to attract my vote. They are so out of touch with what appealed to me over the years and show no sign of returning and adapting to 21st Century realities and issues. I saw them as the party of financial restraint and responsibility and military preparedness that has become the party of unabashed greed, military excess and incompetence, and arbiters of the public morality. No thanks.

Young George was something of a tribulation for us all. Don't sweat it, "predicting is hard, especially about the future."

[TampaYankee]

Young George was something of a tribulation for us all. Don't sweat it, "predicting is hard, especially about the future."

It was clear to me in the 2000 Primary that I couldnt support GW for President. I never voted for him.

[MsGuy]

It was clear to me in the 2000 Primary that I couldnt support GW for President. I never voted for him.

My own guilty secret: Gore bored me so badly I was content that he would be off T.V. for 4 years. That guy could put me to sleep in 15 seconds flat.

[MsGuy]

Back on topic:

I've tried several times to put together a coherent post you might find helpful, but I keep getting lost in all the variables. All I can do is offer some more or less random thoughts. It's not my intention to step on anyone's sore corns, so you find anything below too blunt or otherwise inapropriate for a public post, please feel free edit or delete as you see fit. Won't hurt my feelings one bit nor lessen my affection for your site.

I'm coming at this as someone who initially came here for the reviews (I prefer your format,) lurked the posts for several years and recently registered.

Random thoughts:

At bottom this is a business decision. Style and tone considerations are relevant only to the extent they relate back to your business model. Obviously posting itself is a very small part of the traffic on your site, but it plays (or should play) a major role in adding 'stickyness' and building brand loyalty. I don't know what % of of your visitors are lurkers, but surely converting 2 or 3 times a month review readers into 2 or 3 times a week lurkers plays some part in your business plan. And you need a livelier board to gin up that conversion rate.

T.Y., you and Oz are doing way too much of the heavy lifting on the board side of this site. What % of the threads are started by one of you? How often do you find yourself posting something just to keep someone else's thread alive? You need more people who post regularly and you need a greater diversity of posters. That you're acting out of necessity doesn't change that it's you doing the work not us. A good board wants to be carried by its members, not the moderators. Maybe allowing political posts would add just enough mass for the board to become self-sustaining. Please note that at the other site there exists a substantial overlap between the political posters and the people who initiate and/or sustain threads of a more general interest.

Forgive me, but you also need more reviewers sending in fresh reviews. That's your life blood. Without knowing, I suspect a guy who posts here regularly is far more likely to submit a review here. I fully realize that building a band of loyal reviewers is a long slow process. If it were easy or quick , there would a dozen of these sites instead of two. Maybe a thriving board would help incrementally.

The question of how you open up the board w/o harming its tone is above my pay grade. I can do w/o guys whose idea of wit consists of shouting idiot and moron over and over. And preserve me from that sad case on the other site who posted the picture of a severed human head just to attract attention.

I did notice that the guys who weighed in in favor of all this make up a highly desirable group of posters (& reviewers) but I admit there could be a self selection bias problem with that sample. The anti's, also a desirable bunch, would probably be O.K. with ringfenced political posts.

T.Y., since it's Oz that advocates political threads, make him promise to moderate it. And promise you a trip to Montreal on his tab if (when?) he neglects his duties. You might as well get compensated if you wind up scrubbing out the carpet.

I just reread this post to make sure that I didn't word anything in a way I, myself, would find offensive if our positions were reversed. This post is offerred solely as a token of my gratitude to you two for your work in creating something I've grown very attached to. If low blood oxygen has addled my thoughts or a discussion of business plans is not appropriate here, please delete with my blessing.

[Guest FourAces]

Come to Townie's dinner on Friday night and find the answer to your question.

if i was nearby i would. but that gives me the answer, thanks. oh if i were nearby we could all head over to commerce for some after poker