| 0 |
Subject: The future of the Politics Forum
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 10:31
As most Politics Forum users know, I shut down that forum last Thursday. This was due to a general degradation of the “civility” of the discussion. Several regular users have emailed me since then to thank me for taking that “cooling off” action.
Some time ago, in an effort to elevate the tone of the discussions at that forum, I implemented a civility policy which relied heavily on voluntary acquiescence by users, and voluntary “cleanup duty” by several moderators. Sometimes this seemed to work, sometimes not. In particular, there are a handful of regular posters who are not usually interested in adapting their behavior, and/or incapable of not responding in kind. Unfortunately, these few posters often create an environment that is uncomfortable and unproductive.
I said at the outset of the civility policy that I was willing to completely shut down the Politics Forum. It is not integral to the core purposes of the RotoGuru site, and is not a forum that I usually follow – in part because of behavioral issues. I’m still willing to leave it turned off.
But I’m willing to listen to other suggestions as to how to manage it going forward, if it is to go forward. Some have suggested a more draconian ban on the posting ability of frequent offenders. That’s not always easy to accomplish – especially in a forum that was built without registration controls. But it is still an option that can be attempted, if necessary.
Instead of having me throw out alternatives, I’d rather hear from those who regularly visit the forum (or would like to if the behavioral issues could be mitigated.)
|
| 1 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 11:12
|
I enjoy the politics forum and frequent there. I've had many a good discussion and have seen too many good discussions degrade into childish name calling (admittedly I've probably participated more than I realize).
However, I don't think the behavioral issues are going to resolve themselves as long as a handful (yes, handful, its not just the one person a great many always point fingers at) of people continue posting there. The behavior is too ingrained.
If you want to open it up with more draconian moderation, that may be an option. But I'll be honest I tend to be too light handed or too heavy handed. I'd probably piss more people off by what I remove than I would by what I leave up.
Not sure there is an easy answer to civility as long as the forum exists.
|
| 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 11:23
|
Agreed. And the upcoming presidential election (along with Perm Dude's own forthcoming selection as Mayor of Mount Pocono) is only going to push the emotions even higher.
This last week I caught myself, on a half dozen occasions, about to cut and paste the link to a good piece I came across into the Politics Forum. I'm pretty used to going there everyday. But I sure don't miss the bile.
|
| 3 | Razor
ID: 551031157
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 11:38
|
We've tried the self-policing, easy way. Now it's time to lay down the law and ban posters if they don't comply. I don't think we'll have a problem with users changing IP's or anything to get around a ban. I don't think anyone is that committed to the flame fest, but the value of the politics forum has been diminished by the incessant and uncivil bickering of a few. Further, using the forum as a personal blog is also inappropriate. The forum is designed as a place to discuss and debate among the posters, not to post all the things one feels is personally relevant. Use a blog, tumblr, Twitter, Facebook or another forum for that.
|
| 4 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 11:47
|
I miss the politics forum as it gives a viewpoint different that what I normally encounter, but if we can't self-moderate it shouldn't exist IMO. With no registration it is very simple for someone to continue to post and even banning IPs much, much more time consuming than evading the bans. And Dave would have to do that work (I believe) which can't make the forum attractive to him in any way.
I would suggest that we try and simply shun posters who don't add to the thread and nuke threads that are flame-bait/trolls/personal blogs.
If the shunning doesn't work and people start name calling, nuke the thread, despite how much good debate has gone on. If we can't keep it civil, shut it back down. I don't want that to happen, but I sadly think that is what will happen. There has been some very interesting and thought provoking discussion, but it is sadly the pearls in mounds of crap that was the political board.
|
| 5 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 13:25
|
BTW, if Ido reopen the forum with a stricter "no tolerance" policy, it would be helpful to come up with a list of behaviors that are not acceptable.
I've tried to avoid that in the past, but I think we have come to the point that some specificity might serve a purpose.
|
| 6 | Tree
ID: 227261412
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 13:31
|
i agree 100% with post 3, in particular Now it's time to lay down the law and ban posters if they don't comply and using the forum as a personal blog is also inappropriate.
i am as guilty as the next person for the former, and have always hated the latter.
i think name calling, of any kind, needs to be on the banned list. that includes refering to posters as "trolls", "marxists", "socialists", "nazis", or what have you.
calling someone a liberal or a conservative, a true descriptive term, is non-offensive. the others, however, are.
there needs to be a stoppage on the "you people want this" style of posting...
just a few ideas...
|
| 7 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 13:40
|
I think 1 very obvious 'no tolerance' need (and maybe the only one) is no personal attacks.
Any personal attacks should be removed by the moderators immediately.
Maybe another big one is 'no goading people' into attacks. Those posts that elicit an attack should also be removed.
|
| 8 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 14:18
|
I think post 7, hits the nail on the head. (and yes, I'll admit mea culpa)
|
| 9 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 14:51
|
Guilty as charged, mostly of the "not being able to hold off responding in kind".
I agree with most of what has been said. A few points in particular:
1) I really strongly think a more proactive moderation technique would do wonders; Khahan touched on this in post 7. For the most part, if Person X calls Person Y a (insert bad thing here) -- if you're relying on Person Y to report the post to get it deleted, you're doing it wrong. By the time Person Y has seen the post, the damage has been done, ill feelings have been created and -- especially in a case where there's no further consequences beyond deleting the post -- Person Y is left feeling very aggrieved and for good reason. Plus, Person X will probably be able to get away with the same thing in the future.
I freely admit to having a much thinner skin than I should. However, I will say with certainty that I've never felt the least bit offended, or felt the need to respond to, a single insult (no matter how vile) that was deleted before I read it. Do that more, and you have less sniping problems in general.
And I realize that's sometimes a tough call for the moderators, but I think there's also an element of "well, we'll see if so-and-so has a problem with it" that's seeped in. That's a terrible way of dealing with it, for reasons I've expressed above. I also understand that the moderators are volunteers, and can't (and can't be expected to) do this 24/7.
2) Nuking entire threads if there's good discussion and some bad discussion is also doing it wrong. Nuke the bad parts, err on the side of caution if you have to, but leave the good parts there.
3) A system of even informal, temporary bans can work and be a good thing in some cases. There's probably a few times I could have used a day off, as a cooling off period more than anything. A simple "hey, you're going over the line, take 24 hours off from posting in this forum please" will probably be more effective than you think it would. If they're not effective, escalate times from there. I don't think there's any need for going to IP bans and that -- and you'll know if there is, but I'd lay about 10:1 that there won't be.
4) To Tree's list I'd also add (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone, I'll admit that up front) going after other religions. Don't even bring it up in passing. Off limits. Verboten. It's just going to lead to bad feelings. And it happens probably more than all the other problems on here combined.
|
| 10 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 14:52
|
Regarding forum rules -- I'll shamelessly steal this from another forum I frequent with (IMO) generally very good moderation. Not everything applies, but it's a good start:
1. Attack the argument, not the arguer. This includes calling a user a troll, or announcing that you have or are putting someone on ignore. Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.
2. Don't be a troll.
3. Don't post conspiracy theories or other unsupported hyperbole. Any non-obvious claim about the world should be supported by empirical evidence and an appropriate, reputable citation. The less obvious and/or more radical the claim, the higher the standard will be for supporting evidence and citations. Claims of facts that are refuted by available evidence or that cannot be verified at all have no place in this forum. That includes birther stuff. Birther posts will result in a permaban.
4. No broad-brush attacks on opposing political parties or ideologies
5. No calling for a thread to be locked or for other moderation, and do not criticize moderation decisions in this forum. Use the mod notification button to get a mod's attention, PM a moderator to discuss his modding, or, only AFTER trying the above, PM an admin or go to ATF.
6. Keep posts substantive, particularly new threads. Low-content or off-topic banter belongs in the LC thread or in a designated chatter thread on the subject. Standards here are subjective. If a poor thread was closed that you would like to make a substantive contribution to, PM a moderator with your contribution, and the thread may be reopened.
|
| 11 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 15:38
|
Dwetzel, I like those rules in post 10. There is still a lot of room for interpretation but its a solid base to go on.
I also like the comment in post 9 about not nuking entire threads. One thing I also try to consider: should I nuke an entire post or edit out a particular bad part while trying to preserve the good? I'd rather see as much good discussion as possible preserved.
Quite a few people are offering up initial white flags on bad behavior and admitting to their share of it. Really the only way to find out if we are serious about all this is to give it another chance.
I don't know what the coding would be like for this, if its even possible (or something you'd want to undertake for an off topic forum) but what about a report button?
|
| 12 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 15:50
|
A report button would be fine, though in theory doesn't the moderators email address do the same thing (send a notification to the moderators)? If it doesn't, that is even more of an issue.
As far as "how much to moderate", I mean, use your discretion, but if (for instance) there's a 5 paragraph post that's fine except for one sentence at the end, in my opinion editing out the 1 sentence is infinitely better than nuking the entire post. Mainly because it helps preserve the "good" parts of the discussion, and partly because it gives you more freedom to edit out the questionable bits without having to make an all or nothing decision.
Look at it this way: if I post something, come back, see three posts of discussion without any bad stuff in it, I'm pretty inclined to try to continue in kind. If I come back and see three deleted posts, what are the likely implications of that? What sort of mood does it create for hoping for substantive discussion in the future?
|
| 13 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 29542105
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 16:24
|
Seems to me we have seen this movie before. You cant have a moderator and a poster be the same person. That is a problem. The only moderator should be Guru, Period. If not shut it down.
|
| 14 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 16:39
|
"You cant have a moderator and a poster be the same person."
I can't disagree with this strongly enough. If it's the right person, who's always got the moderator "hat" ready to put on.
Again, part of the problem (from my perspective) is seeing people who I know are moderators responding to, rather than deleting, posts which have always been clearly over the line. I think/hope that's a policy problem more than a personal one -- if the policy is "everything's fine until it gets reported", then that's what they technically ought to do. From the user end though, it looks functionally identical to "moderator doesn't care if Person X insults Person Y" -- which is obviously bad.
|
| 15 | Tree
ID: 51701416
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 17:09
|
no question, you cannot blame one person. as the saying goes, "it takes two to tango." and yes, quite often, the respondent is the one who "gets in trouble."
because of that, i do believe more attention needs to be paid to the initial attacks. this board has ALWAYS had back and forth, but never at the current level.
it's been building for a couple years, in part, because certain behaviors went unchecked for so long, that they became accepted. "ignore and it'll stop" because the rallying cry, when it's pretty clear, ignoring didn't work. instead, what happened, was that good, long-time posters from both sides of the aisle stopped posting.
You cant have a moderator and a poster be the same person.
actually, they NEED to be the same person. a moderator that has no interest in a board isn't going to care enough to be a good moderator.
i enjoy this board. i miss this board.
however, i don't enjoy nor miss the rapid escalation of insults.
again, i've played a role in some of that, and strongly believe that if moderating was slightly more strict with personal attacks, there would be little to no escalation.
|
| 16 | Razor
ID: 551031157
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 17:19
|
Much like steroids in baseball in the early 2000's, the penalties for inappropriate posting are far too low. What's the downside? Either nothing or your post gets deleted. The penalties need to be escalated to something like post deletion, 1-day ban, 3-day ban, 1-week ban, 1-month ban, 3-month ban, 1-year ban, lifetime ban.
|
| 17 | WiddleAvi
ID: 367391416
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 17:39
|
How about a system that people can flag a post. If a post gets flagged by x amount of DIFFERENT people than it is automatically removed. If the same user gets flagged over and over then when he reaches x amount of flags he gets banned either for a certain time or permantly ? I have been on Rotoguru for about 15+ years now. While I used to come for fantasy sports, I now come just to the politics board and would hate to see it go.
|
| 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 17:45
|
That's a very good idea, Widdle. It doesn't even have to be a public flag to work.
|
| 19 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 17:57
|
I like Widdles idea there for a couple of reasons.
(1) The forum would become then, self-policing. The various users, would determine what is/isnt acceptable.
(2) No one person or two, are put in the position of judging the validity/value of posts. The onus of bias, is removed.
(3) By requiring an UNDISCLOSED nr of different flaggers to remove a post, you leave it up to the community. Bringing you full circle to nr 1 above.
|
| 20 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 19:18
|
I don't mind that being AN option, but I'd suggest that if that's your only option for having posts getting deleted, you're going to run into the problem of "well, he wasn't insulting ME, so I don't care"... and the post gets left up long enough for the insultee to see it... and away we go.
|
| 21 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 23:04
|
I was one of the people who thanked Guru for closing down the forum, I think this downtime should lead to some introspection. Each of us should decide if we want this forum to stick around and why. I miss the forum, I have wanted to say something about Paul Ryan. And I really cherish the fact that I know where I can look to read what I thought about Dick Cheney's decision to ask himself to be GW's running mate back in 2000.
Guru asked to hear from the regulars. Most of the responses are not new perspectives, we have heard these promises before.
And we haven't heard from Baldwin. I can only surmise that he is not interested in speaking about his role in this forum.
Therefore, I fear that not much will change, the initial promises will last a few weeks, and those are only from people who are here to make promises.
|
| 22 | Tree
ID: 17039238
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 00:08
|
Charlie - i completely see your point.
i do see that pulling insults when they happen, to be something critical.
it's easy enough to say "ignore it". and, it's easy enough to do so. up until a point. but when you keep poking someone, they will ultimately explode and respond.
there was a bit too much leeway, and in the case of Baldwin, i think it's because he was once a valuable member of this forum. disagree with him or not, at least his posts were rational, contained substance, and were more or less free of being personal attacks.
but something changed.
the discourse, the information, the friendships - those are critical and wonderful things from the political boards.
but the personal attacks - from all sides - need to go, and we've got to do a better job of nipping them in the bud, before they steamroll down hill.
|
| 23 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 29542105
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 05:02
|
You dont let inmates run a prison. That is why you have a warden. You dont let football players throw a flag, that is why you have referees. Batters dont call balls and strikes on themselves, thats why you have umpires. PD being a moderator was just as guilty as the rest of you with some of the post. And by the way 22 should be deleted, its already starting. You cant make this stuff up.
|
| 24 | The Beezer
ID: 96572318
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 05:36
|
I am not a regular in the Politics Forum, but I often would think about posting and was a semi-frequent lurker. I agree with NG that I don't see self-policing leading to a different result. Minor tweaks are not going to lead to a different outcome. I only see a handful of viable options:
- post clear conduct rules and have a "Judge Dredd" style policing of the Politics Forum
- leave it shut down
Frankly, I think it has outlived its usefulness and should at a minimum remain closed until 2013. Prove me wrong but I think poor behavior has been going on too long to expect changes.
|
| 25 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 09:18
|
If we can't be self-policing, we should leave the forum shut down. It isn't realistic to expect someone to police the forums for free. I believe that Guru has stated previously he doesn't want the administrative hassle and I can't image anyone else would either. There have been some interesting suggestions, but I don't believe the message board is capable of supporting them and I doubt that they generate enough revenue to support the expenditure. I actually wonder if they generate enough revenue to support the bandwidth they use.
I believe in the past the moderators have stated they don't want the ability to "modify" posts because it leaves to much open to interpretation. If any part of the post crosses the line, they simply nuke the entire post. I'm ok with that.
While there have been many instances of name calling and behavior that crossed the lines, but how often was it reported and how often did it just get posted and complained about on the boards?
|
| 26 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 09:41
|
I'll come clean here. This very thread has been moderated 3 times. Not a single person noticed or said a thing about it. I think having active mods will work.
|
| 27 | Tree
ID: 17039238
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 10:53
|
You dont let inmates run a prison. That is why you have a warden. You dont let football players throw a flag, that is why you have referees. Batters dont call balls and strikes on themselves, thats why you have umpires. PD being a moderator was just as guilty as the rest of you with some of the post. And by the way 22 should be deleted, its already starting. You cant make this stuff up.
this is neither a prison, nor an athletic competition. as for 22, it was a follow up to 21. until then, no individual had been named.
It isn't realistic to expect someone to police the forums for free.
why? it's how message boards have operated since at least 1982, when i first got online.
I'll come clean here. This very thread has been moderated 3 times. Not a single person noticed or said a thing about it. I think having active mods will work.
indeed. and i honestly don't think the biases that have been portrayed are true. I've had many a post deleted by the mods, regardless of their leaning on the political spectrum.
we do need to police ourselves, and we can do it well, but, we need to be less lenient. the "attack the argument, not the person," really needs to be steadfast.
|
| 28 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 11:50
|
Re: 27
Let me clarify, it isn't realistic to expect someone to police the forums for free, if they aren't participating. I do agree that forums have often been self-moderated, by the participants.
Has the moderator abilities been changed, in the past there would be missing posts, which caused speculation and in some cases anger as to why some posts were deleted, but not others.
One of the rules that we need should clarify if we expect moderators to remove every post that crosses the line, or just the ones that are reported. If we only want moderators to delete posts that are reported, it is up to us as community to report posts that should be removed. If we don't report them, we can't criticize why some were removed and not others.
|
| 29 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 11:52
|
The mods have the power to be pro-active and nuke threads, posts, or edit within posts on their own.
|
| 30 | The Beezer
ID: 0944216
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 11:53
|
I presume the limits on personal attacks would be on anyone, not just forum members. It's one thing to attack what Obama, Romney, or anyone else says. It's quite another to call them a perjorative of choice. Or is this not feasible?
|
| 31 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 11:58
|
I think we can set the rules pretty much where we want them, as long as it results in civil conversation and Guru not having to step in. I could be wrong, but that is the feeling I've gotten over the years.
|
| 32 | Razor
ID: 551031157
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 11:59
|
Mods don't currently have the power to issue suspensions, which is desperately needed. You'll be cleaning posts up until the end of time if you don't have that power.
|
| 33 | Tree
ID: 51701416
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 12:35
|
i'm with Razor. there needs to be some sort of punishment. yes, it makes their jobs tougher, but some sort of slow building ban, like mentioned above, is ideal.
The penalties need to be escalated to something like post deletion, 1-day ban, 3-day ban, 1-week ban, 1-month ban, 3-month ban, 1-year ban, lifetime ban.
although, to be honest, i think the above has too many steps, and really creates a lot of work.
i'd go with 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, lifetime.
if a ban is even doable.
|
| 34 | Razor
ID: 551031157
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 12:43
|
I, for one, doubt anyone who was banned would repeatedly try to access the forum, especially if their posts were all instantly deleted by diligent moderators.
|
| 35 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 12:44
|
I know, from experience moderating another forum, that even a short ban of a day or two makes much more of an impression than one would think.
|
| 36 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 12:55
|
"I, for one, doubt anyone who was banned would repeatedly try to access the forum, especially if their posts were all instantly deleted by diligent moderators. "
Agreed -- and if they do, that's the very rare time to whip out the IP ban.
I think it's also very okay to have some discretion in issuing penalties -- if a post is 98% good and 2% borderline, and we're erring on the side of being borderline, it should be perfectly okay (even encouraged) to edit out the 2% and not ban someone.
Another random thought, which I fully understand the moderators may decide is too much work: it would be very helpful if a post has been edited to get a notification that that's been done. Even on the mild stuff like I discussed above. That's a feedback that serves to say "hey, please watch it" that would help to modify behavior. Honestly, on the forum I moderate, when I do that, most of the time the response is a "thank you" rather than a "oh you #&$(*#@&$(*&@#$".
|
| 37 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 29542105
Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 14:35
|
Its going to be fun to watch the third sequel of this movie.
|
| 38 | C1-NRB
ID: 507261711
Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 12:26
|
All politics aside, does anyone have a copy of the rules/by-laws/constitution (sorry, political slip) for the Poliboard Baseball League?
|
| 39 | Great One
ID: 450312813
Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 23:15
|
No such thing exists, I've been asking for all the rules in one place since I've joined.
|
| 40 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 12:18
|
Guru
I appreciate the considerable generosity you've displayed in providing and maintaining this space for a small handful of us to bicker at and insult one another and less occasionally post thoughtful political and social commentary.
The proper way to show that appreciation is an honest assessment.
Contrary to some rather ingrateful comments that have been made over the years regarding things like free speech, you surely know you don't owe the politics forum participants anything.
Frankly, I don't see how maintaining this forum and the headaches that come with it benefits you. If its just a matter of loyalty to some of your early forum members, I think this group has well shown - after years of proving unable to police ourselves - that we really don't deserve any such benefit.
I'd certainly miss the forum and prefer that it stays but unless there is something worthwhile you get from keeping that space open and active, I'm not sure why you don't just shut it down.
I'm sorry everyone, but about half of this group has time and again proven unable or unwilling to show one another and the space provided to them a proper level of respect. That same group isn't going to successfully enforce respect.
|
| 41 | Tree
ID: 17039238
Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 16:41
|
I'm sorry everyone, but about half of this group has time and again proven unable or unwilling to show one another and the space provided to them a proper level of respect. That same group isn't going to successfully enforce respect.
we've also never had a cooling off period such as this. i think it's been an important time to look into ourselves, and see the value the board holds to us.
while it is ultimately guru's decision, the value to him may be less than the value to us.
i'd like to see the board continue.
there were very good suggestions made above, re suspensions and such, re attacking the argument not the poster, and so forth. if some of these were implemented, i believe change could happen.
|
| 42 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 17:45
|
Thanks for feedback. I don't necessarily agree with all points made, but it has been instructive, and some good ideas have been suggested.
I am planning to reopen the forum - most likely sometime in the coming week.
Posters will be on a shorter leash this time. Posting bans will be implemented for infractions. Minimum "sentences" will be 24 hours, with longer periods for repeat offenders. Attempts to circumvent any ban will be met with harsher constraints, including blocking the offender from the ability to even read posts.
Before reopening the forum, I need to develop several pieces of software:
1. A "Report Abuse" link that will appear after each post. This will make it simple for anyone to report an infraction, and will make it easier for me to identify the particulars, and monitor trends.
2. A more automated way to impose (and lift) a ban. I need to make this process easier to administer.
We'll see how it goes. If we can restore some semblance of decorum, then I think it's a worthwhile effort. If not, then I'll just shut it down.
|
| 43 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 29542105
Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 14:35
|
I think one thing you should do is wipe the slate clean, get rid of all subject matter that was on the political boards. If you are going to start new policies, everything should be new. Just my 2 cents.
|
| 44 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 14:52
|
Some of the stuff had to do with political forum fantasy leagues. I'd rather not see that stuff go away.
If there is a "clean slate" then I'd request the ability to resurrect some threads.
|
| 45 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 20:06
|
I'm going to restart the political forum later this evening.
I'm not going to wipe out what's already there.
I'm still refining some of the needed software to monitor abuse reports and to impose bans. It's in "beta" mode now, but not yet ready for prime time. Moderators, I'll share that with you when it's ready. For now, I'll be monitoring more closely.
|
| 46 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 01:09
|
Thank you, Guru, for bringing this back. I, for one, really appreciate it.
|
| 48 | Tree
ID: 50752315
Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:45
|
i don't think i said thank you. i enjoy the forum, and i like the current direction so far - potential incendiary comments don't seem to stay up long.
so thank you for giving it this chance.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: The future of the Politics Forum
|
|