Restrictions on posting in politics

[Ignatiev]

so I cam here and tried to post in politics and it's NOT WORKING. do you have some liberal elite who can post in politics? that is WRONG

 

just tonight I found out obama has not even met the CEO of BP and THE LAW says he is responsible for cleaning up the oil spill, not BP and there is a $75 mil limit on the money BP should spend at which point it's OBAMA whould should clean up the oil and OBAMA is not doing anything and this is a huge problem.

 

but I guess there are a bunch of liberal elites here who do not want to talk about these topics

[Phi for All]

You need just 30 posts and 3 weeks as a member to qualify for some of the non-science areas. This is to keep people from joining just to talk about Politics and Religion. This is a science forum, so we want science-minded folks.

 

Sorry if that seems elitist to you, but there are lots of political sites out there. We have a special one that focuses on politics with a stricter methodology to our discussions, and we like it like that.

[ydoaPs]

so I cam here and tried to post in politics and it's NOT WORKING. do you have some liberal elite who can post in politics? that is WRONG

but I guess there are a bunch of liberal elites here who do not want to talk about these topics

Think about this for a moment. Rather than using the site's search function to see if there are restrictions for posting, you automatically jump to a conspiracy perpetrated by the evil godless liberals. Did you even peruse the forum prior to making your hypthesis that only the 'liberal elite' can post on this site? I don't think so, as had you done so, you'd see that we have quite a few(including the Politics moderator) conservatives.

 

It seems to me that you may not be mature enough to post in politics. I'm not staff, but I've been around long enough to know pretty much how they work. You show up accusing us(and climate scientists) of dasterdly conspiracies without doing any research. We do, on occasion, bend the restrictions for new users who show interest in the politics section who also show that they are mature enough to discuss politics, but I fear that you've excluded yourself from such rule bending with this thread.

 

By the general sense of your post, I think I should explicitly say this, since you may not infer it(you may actually do the opposite). My thoughts here are NOT based on whether or not you're a liberal, conservative, or moderate; they're based on your posting behaviour.

 

In case you're wondering, we also have restrictions for the religion section.

 

These restrictions are here for a reason. People, in the past, have joined only to discuss politics and/or religion rather than science. While this is a science discussion forum, having a few users posting mainly in non-science areas would not be too bad were they able to do so civilly. Unfortunately, these people(and many other people who do post in politics and religion) are not able to do so civilly. It can be tough at times, since politics and religion tend to lend toward heated discussions since they both usually involve people dedicated to their views.

 

We encourage people to argue against the ideas rather than the people presenting them. We do, in fact, have rules and etiquette guidelines which you agreed to follow by joining the site. If you have any questions, comments, or conspiracy theories, feel free to contact a staff member.

 

I've read you're posts, and it seems to me, that you're not the kind of user that would be productive in the politics section at the moment. Perhaps you'll mature after a while(I sure did over my time here) and demonstrate the ability to discuss these issues civilly and logically, and I hope you do. Note that this is not a requirement to post in the section(although repeated hostility may get you removed from the politics usergroup), but it is a requirement to post in it prior to meeting the restrictions.

 

By all means, prove me wrong. I genuinely hope you're the type of person who can positively contribute to the politics section. It's great to have a new opinion. Or you can completely disregard this post and go nuts after you meet the restrictions, however, I don't reccomend that as it may end up with you being removed from the politics usergroup.

 

 

 

just tonight I found out obama has not even met the CEO of BP and THE LAW says he is responsible for cleaning up the oil spill, not BP and there is a $75 mil limit on the money BP should spend at which point it's OBAMA whould should clean up the oil and OBAMA is not doing anything and this is a huge problem.

Do you have any sources for this? I don't know about oil rigs, but if there is a spill from a ship, the ship's captain is personally responsible for the damages caused. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be similar for spills from oil rigs.

[iNow]

^^Yeah. What he said.

[jackson33]

Note to swansont; Thank you for unlocking this thread, as had the following ready to submit. I do think you might have placed in 'Suggestions', most along this line have been, but at least the author can see how his/her thread developes...

 

 

 

 

You need just 30 posts and 3 weeks as a member to qualify for some of the non-science areas. This is to keep people from joining just to talk about Politics and Religion. This is a science forum, so we want science-minded folks. [/Quote]

 

Phil; Your quote, but this is not intended to you personally, but feel it best explains the staff's attitude.

 

If you don't want people joining your forum, to talk about religion or politics just drop those topics. Most of us have -x- amount of time per day to read and post on the hundreds of various forums and if politics/religions are a persons passion, that time will be spent on those interest. I fail to understand what "science minded folks" would actual mean, or what the differences could possibly be on issues from folks with or without a science background.

 

 

Ignatiev; I doubt you will ever return to see this, but in the event you do and have three weeks and whatever time it takes to make 30 post on issues that may not interest you, then this forum actually does have an active political forum, where both liberal and conservatives participate and I might add a few international participants adding a special flavor. I've found it particularly interesting when trying to understand the 'liberal' mind, often softening some of my own opinions, at least arguments.

 

As for your topic, I'll try to get to it today and enter a thread based on near your exact thoughts and somewhat agreeing with you. I don't like using Obama as the culprit however, knowing he hasn't a glue on how business operates, preferring to call it his administration which does have access to many that should understand what's going on and seem to be ignoring solutions, for reasons that may not be honorable.

 

I'm amused by the image of OBAMA personally cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico, by himself. [/Quote]

 

Sisyphus; I'll have to agree, the image of Obama trying to clean up anything is amusing, but I have a serious problem with the leadership on this issue (and others) and believe the intended thought.

[Phi for All]

If you don't want people joining your forum, to talk about religion or politics just drop those topics.

I said we're not interested in having people join *just* to discuss Politics and Religion. If that's the majority of your interest, that's OK, and you've certainly spent more time in Politics than elsewhere, but you've proven that you're capable of intelligent, logical discussion. You passed your 30 post test long ago.

 

Most of us have -x- amount of time per day to read and post on the hundreds of various forums and if politics/religions are a persons passion, that time will be spent on those interest.

I understand and respect that.

 

I fail to understand what "science minded folks" would actual mean, or what the differences could possibly be on issues from folks with or without a science background.

We try to treat discussions in the non-science areas the same way we treat science topics. We don't want logical fallacies like ad hominem personal attacks, or any of the other bad logic arguments that goes on in so many of the other political and religious forums. Those types of circular arguments waste everyone's valuable time.

 

We hope that someone who really wants to post in our Politics section will do so because it's different here, because you're more likely to have your argument challenged rather than being challenged personally.

[ecoli]

do you have some liberal elite who can post in politics? that is WRONG

 

just tonight I found out obama has not even met the CEO of BP and THE LAW says he is responsible for cleaning up the oil spill, not BP and there is a $75 mil limit on the money BP should spend at which point it's OBAMA whould should clean up the oil and OBAMA is not doing anything and this is a huge problem.

 

but I guess there are a bunch of liberal elites here who do not want to talk about these topics

 

yeah, because if there's one thing that liberal elite loves to do is protect multinational corporations from unflattering forum posts. They also love it when government tries to take a secondary role in environmental affairs.

[jackson33]

Ignatiev quote;

so I cam here and tried to post in politics and it's NOT WORKING. do you have some liberal elite who can post in politics? that is WRONG....

but I guess there are a bunch of liberal elites here who do not want to talk about these topics [/Quote]

 

Phil; As said, this should probably have been dropped to "Suggestion", but I really have only one more comment and will make it here, having discussed this same issue several times in 'Suggestions", always noting "it's really none of my business".

 

The threads author and comments were made on the assumption some one was KEEPING him/her from posting (opposed to a built in filter/blocking, IMO). While the four or five that did bother to go on to "Suggestions" (who knows how many just move on) anything IMO that can be handled after 30 post (in three weeks) can be likewise handled with a first post. I assume he/her was trying to post a reply, not a thread. For all you or I know, as is most likely being a Science Forum, these people get here in the first place over a science issue, finding something more interesting, at the moment in R/P.

 

I'll start another thread based on the authors opinions, hopefully will have enough time for follow up if any needed and maybe one the author can follow.

 

 

ecoli; I think you are mixing things up a bit, his/her complaint was more concerned with actions, which is an issue. Please feel free to respond to someone that can answer (that person cannot) and I will enter a thread today.

[ydoaPs]

It seems to me that you may not be mature enough to post in politics. I'm not staff, but I've been around long enough to know pretty much how they work. You show up accusing us(and climate scientists) of dasterdly conspiracies without doing any research. We do, on occasion, bend the restrictions for new users who show interest in the politics section who also show that they are mature enough to discuss politics, but I fear that you've excluded yourself from such rule bending with this thread.

 

By the general sense of your post, I think I should explicitly say this, since you may not infer it(you may actually do the opposite). My thoughts here are NOT based on whether or not you're a liberal, conservative, or moderate; they're based on your posting behaviour.

 

This thread was just a bad approach. For example, you would have been much better off with an opening post like "I tried to post in the politics section, but it seems that I am not allowed. Can anyone help or tell me why I can't post there?". Notice how this way gets the desired information, but does so in a way that is not hostile or irrational. Hostility breeds hostility; that's why we have the etiquette guidelines.

 

You have the same issue with your thread about climate change. Instead of coming here talking of some conspiracy among the world's scientists, you could have had a better chance just trying to learn more about the science of climate change and then seeing if you should believe the scientists. we've got several threads about the science here, and we've got several very knowledgable members who would be more than willing to point you in the right direction in terms of learning resources. If you've got questions, we're more than happy to help you; That's why we're here. However, if you come at us with hostility, we're less inclined to help.

 

If you don't want people joining your forum' date=' to talk about religion or politics just drop those topics. Most of us have -x- amount of time per day to read and post on the hundreds of various forums and if politics/religions are a persons passion, that time will be spent on those interest. I fail to understand what "science minded folks" would actual mean, or what the differences could possibly be on issues from folks with or without a science background.[/quote']We don't want people to join the forum to only talk about religion and politics. The restrictions also help cut down on religious and antireligious fanatics as well as people who just want to troll politics.

 

I see no need to just drop the forums. The forums aren't just a place to ask science questions; it's also a community. Many members have been here for years and have developed certain friendships despite the fact that most of us have never met in real life. It's only natural that some of us would like to talk with these friends about things not only science related. You're right; there are tons of religion forums and politics forums, but they don't have OUR community.

[StringJunky]

 

If you don't want people joining your forum, to talk about religion or politics just drop those topics. Most of us have -x- amount of time per day to read and post on the hundreds of various forums and if politics/religions are a persons passion, that time will be spent on those interest. I fail to understand what "science minded folks" would actual mean, or what the differences could possibly be on issues from folks with or without a science background..

 

Although I don't contribute much in Politics I enjoy reading contributions from a scientific community that has a definite scientific slant with all the evidential rigor and logical discipline that their profession encompasses. If I wanted a purely philosophical slant I'd frequent a Philosophy forum or if I wanted a moral slant I'd probably look into a Religious one...the point is each professional area in life has its own unique view`and emphasis on certain aspects of any given subject like Politics and we choose which one we wish to align with or view.....I agree with this site's policy of filtering for the more scientific approaches in the non science areas here because that's the nature of this particular beast.

 

If we all here use the same sort of intellectual 'tools' (like the Scientific Method or are at least familiar with it's existence) it makes for a more productive discussion environment...the same applies to the other types of forum otside this site covering different disciplines that have their own etiquette and standard methodologies that are unlike science but no less valid within their own sphere of existence.

 

I think it''s essential for there to be common agreement on the rules and standards of discourse`and here that discourse has science at its heart so it is natural IMO to expect that sort of general approach from any person that posts here regardless of the forum header title here..Politics, Ethics, whatever.

Edited June 12, 2010 by StringJunky

[jackson33]

Although I don't contribute much in Politics I enjoy reading contributions from a scientific community that has a definite scientific slant with all the evidential rigor and logical discipline that their profession encompasses. [/Quote]

 

String; Since you replied here, I'll answer you here. I don't disagree and if the Sub Forum was 'Political Science', opposed to 'Politics' I might actually agree with you. The problem is there are very few interested on 'Political Science' opposed to Political Issues and those issues are NOT based on Political Science, rather emotions. Unfortunately there would be little interest, other than maybe a few (that would not visit a Science Forum) interested in motivating segments of some electorate.

 

 

Political science is a social science concerned with the theory and practice of politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behavior. Political scientists "see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions. And from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works."[1] Political science is comprised of several subfields, including: political theory, public policy, national politics, international relations, and comparative politics.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science

 

I think it's essential for there to be common agreement on the rules and standards of discourse`and here that discourse has science at its heart so it is natural IMO to expect that sort of general approach from any person that posts here regardless of the forum header title here..Politics, Ethics, whatever. [/Quote]

 

I agree; If the general agreement is you can make your first post, on your first day, on Sub Forums based under Science it should be the same on those that are not, which happens to have been the discussion, on this thread and on several others in 'Suggestions'. Many of the issues discussed 'here' for some reason take on Law, which I agree should be approached from a technical and substantiated approach, but very few people even try to understand legal implications, much less are willing to discuss them.

[ydoaPs]

String; Since you replied here, I'll answer you here. I don't disagree and if the Sub Forum was 'Political Science', opposed to 'Politics' I might actually agree with you. The problem is there are very few interested on 'Political Science' opposed to Political Issues and those issues are NOT based on Political Science, rather emotions. Unfortunately there would be little interest, other than maybe a few (that would not visit a Science Forum) interested in motivating segments of some electorate.

Surely proposed policies should be considered on the real world ramifications of the policies rather than on emotion alone.

 

If you determine what course of action ought to be taken without considering the effects of said course of action, then you're not very good at making decicions. The scientific method can and should be used in policy making.

 

1)Note problem

2)Devise possible solution to problem

3)Run simulation to see if solution works

4)Revise solution based on simulation

 

Quite frankly, science does have a place in politics AND its place should be larger than it currently is. Not all opinions are created equal; An opinion based on evidence should outweigh an unsupported opinion.

[jackson33]

ydoaPs; Frankly, I have no idea why I get involved in these issues that are none of my business. It probably stems from understanding a good many complaints as seen by the very few that bother to post here in suggestions, then seem to get lost or just move on. With regards to your formula and from my viewpoint as an occasional poster;

 

1)Note problem; Restricting poster in the 'Political' subforum, apparently to having 30 post elsewhere and over a three week period, IMO makes absolutely no sense. I would think the goal of any 'public forum' from an economic standpoint, would be to encourage (not discourage) participation. Then and I know you won't understand this, but we're not all 'computer wiz-kids and if something is not working (first attempt) or confusing, MOST people will just move on. I don't know the registration/posting ratio here, but would guess those registering, making -0- or one post is far to high.

 

2)Devise possible solution to problem; I can't imagine a problem, if you simply drop the restrictions say for 30-60 days. Pangloss seems to have the temperament to lead newer posters into a discussion and understands 'Politics' is an emotionally driven subject. Although it's a Worldwide topic of interest, for the next 30 months in the US, most every person with a computer, will be searching out places to get information or expressing some of there own.

 

3)Run simulation to see if solution works; Simple, just shut the restriction down, no announcement needed.

 

4)Revise solution based on simulation; If after 30-60 days I am correct, you may have added 20-30 members primarily interested in Politics, Religion or whatever forum is restricted. Whether they have an interest in Science or not, which again should not be the issue. I can't imagine a Wal Mart refusing access to a customer that only buys certain products and I don't believe any forum introduces a topic, just for those already members.

 

Quite frankly, science does have a place in politics AND its place should be larger than it currently is. Not all opinions are created equal; An opinion based on evidence should outweigh an unsupported opinion. [/Quote]

 

All your really saying IMO, is that people with a science background are interested in politics as well. Well, of course they are and to some degree any person that can operate a computer, form a legible post in politics or frankly religion, are likely interested in many fields of Science, more specifically and never mention, technology. Said another way, not meant as criticism, your probably are doing this backwards. The expansion (interest) into Science issues from Politics could be equal or surpass the expansion of Science into Politics...

[swansont]

Restricting poster in the 'Political' subforum, apparently to having 30 post elsewhere and over a three week period, IMO makes absolutely no sense. I would think the goal of any 'public forum' from an economic standpoint, would be to encourage (not discourage) participation.

 

From a moderator standpoint (namely mine), it makes a lot of sense. Not all participation is equal. A while back Pangloss posted a screenshot showing how much spam we destroy on a regular basis, something which the regular user does not see, since posts are screened. A small fraction of spam makes it through the filter, and these posts are duly reported and dealt with, but the screen is perhaps 90% efficient, so for every spammy post that you see, another nine are held in the moderation queue. And these are no-brainer, posts, i.e. not requiring any real deliberation on what moderator action is needed.

 

Posts that must be discussed and debated, and in a prompt manner to avoid derailing threads, are more labor intensive. Pre-screening users by having a threshold for posting in such areas (and also having a baseline behavior to observe) makes the job manageable. AFAICT, the moderators like to be regular users first, discussing things. If the task of moderation took up all of the time we devote to SFN, we probably wouldn't stick around. I know it would be a hard sell in my case. I'm here for the physics, not the shouting (and certainly not the Vogon poetry)

 

We have examples of people who showed up as moderation headaches, but grew into responsible posters. There are a few inexcusable sins, but most people who run afoul of the rules are given ample opportunity to shape up before they are finally shown the door. If one is posting in a forum that is emotionally charged and might lead one to abandon reasoned discourse, such as politics, one might not have the opportunity to settle in before permanently wearing out one's welcome. Which is something we hope to avoid with this policy.

Edited June 14, 2010 by swansont
add link; fix typo

[jackson33]

swansont; What you all do and how you do it, is truly none of my business, but the theme seems to be consistent that somehow posting in Politics, I assume by interested parties, that have made it through the filtering system (agree does a VERY good job) is somehow different than on science issue. I have made my case, think probably 5 times here in suggestion and no doubt will again. The answer is out there, if the administration wish can tell you the ratio of registration and posting, which to some degree will tell you how many first try posting in Politics, can't and move on.

[Pangloss]

We want them to move on. Growth is important, but we are deliberately avoiding the kind of "public" political debate you mentioned in your post #13. Becoming the next Democratic Underground or Free Republic is at the very top of my list of priorities for "things to avoid". Those forums became what they are (ideological group masturbation) because partisan posters were allowed to create dominant factions and steer "public" discussions there, outside of the control (or with the consent) of administration. I want to grow the Politics subforum, but only in a manner that's managed with the specific goal of being egalitarian and non-partisan.

 

I agree with you that it's not so much that we're trying to miss out on the ones who misunderstand or don't read the rules so much, it's more an effort to avoid/limit hit-and-run posting, which has a particularly deleterious effect on political discussions.

 

Another factor that I've always considered vital to the Politics board is the sense of community. The vast majority of the posts in that subforum come from regular members that have been here for years. They all know each other pretty well, which means both broader understanding and deeper discussion.

 

And we're wide open on suggestions as to how we can make the board more welcoming towards intelligent, long-term participation.

[jackson33]

We want them to move on. Growth is important, but we are deliberately avoiding the kind of "public" political debate you mentioned in your post #13. Becoming the next Democratic Underground or Free Republic is at the very top of my list of priorities for "things to avoid". [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; How could you possibly know without ever having seen one post, whether they are legitimate or not.

 

it's more an effort to avoid/limit hit-and-run posting, which has a particularly deleterious effect on political discussions. [/Quote]

 

Well, I'm being kept busy by two would be posters, that have apparently moved on (possibly five people), defending their grievances.

 

Another factor that I've always considered vital to the Politics board is the sense of community. [/Quote]

 

Even the most elite clubs, offer new memberships offering a sense of community. This can and should be whether on the 1st, 500th or any number of post. In my mind, people that do discuss politics are generally respectful to begin with, fully aware half the people are likely to oppose any viewpoint.

 

And we're wide open on suggestions as to how we can make the board more welcoming towards intelligent, long-term participation.[/Quote]

 

My point all through this thread and several others in 'Suggestions', has been to drop the 30 post, three week period for making that first post. I use to baby a 'Political Forum', for reason, that had no restrictions and assure you they had no problems with posters. In fact, I don't recall EVER a deleted post/thread, locked thread or any thread being moved. As for long term, good luck, most posters move around or just get tired of discussing with the same people, none of which is anybodies fault.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss; How could you possibly know without ever having seen one post, whether they are legitimate or not.

 

I don't. I accept that we're losing some number of potentially valuable members in exchange for avoiding a cacophony of unacceptable noise that would cost us far more members over the long haul.

 

I understand that you don't like it, but I have to temper my sympathy for your position with the knowledge that you're probably looking for more populist conservative types here to drown out the progressives, and I'm not okay with that any more than I'm okay with people browbeating the rare conservative voice at SFN. And I'm thinking that you're also probably feeling a bit of siege mentality that comes with being a conservative in scientific discussions in these too-many-years-since-Proxmire days.

 

But I respect your opinion on it, I appreciate the feedback, and my in-box is always open. I should also point out that the restrictions are reviewed and discussed on a regular basis by the leadership team and have been changed a number of times. It's not set in stone, and we have looked at other approaches and will continue to do so.

 

 

Well, I'm being kept busy by two would be posters, that have apparently moved on (possibly five people), defending their grievances.

 

I don't know what this refers to, but I was on vacation last week -- did I miss something?

 

 

As for long term, good luck, most posters move around or just get tired of discussing with the same people, none of which is anybodies fault.

 

Well I think we HAVE had success in this area. Go see for yourself -- take a look at the typical Politics poster. It says right at the bottom of their post how long they've been a member of the forum and how many posts they've made. See if you don't agree that we've established a very regular, consistent political discussion community. I think we have.

[swansont]

How could you possibly know without ever having seen one post, whether they are legitimate or not.

 

You can't. But there is experience with hit-and-run posters and trolls to draw upon. As Pangloss indicates, this is noise suppression, and we're reasonably confident the loss of signal is small.

[jackson33]

Pangloss quote;

I don't. I accept that we're losing some number of potentially valuable members in exchange for avoiding a cacophony of unacceptable noise that would cost us far more members over the long haul. [/Quote]

 

swansont quote;

You can't. But there is experience with hit-and-run posters and trolls to draw upon. As Pangloss indicates, this is noise suppression, and we're reasonably confident the loss of signal is small. [/Quote]

 

I can only offer my opinion and have offered my personal experience on this topic. For now however, IMO your losing far more posters than you think.

 

I understand that you don't like it, but I have to temper my sympathy for your position with the knowledge that you're probably looking for more populist conservative types here to drown out the progressives, and I'm not okay with that any more than I'm okay with people browbeating the rare conservative voice at SFN. And I'm thinking that you're also probably feeling a bit of siege mentality that comes with being a conservative in scientific discussions in these too-many-years-since-Proxmire days. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; And you would be absolutely incorrect!!! I rarely offer a reply to anyone I agree with on the issue being discussed and if that was my wish. Believe me, I am a member of four Political forums (less than 100 post total and none in the past 6 months) that I could spend every available hour slapping backs and pandering each other, was my objective. Basically I'm only interest in rather deep discussion on current affairs, then both in the Sciences and Political or where applicable where history and law can be applied.

 

But I respect your opinion on it, I appreciate the feedback, and my in-box is always open. I should also point out that the restrictions are reviewed and discussed on a regular basis by the leadership team and have been changed a number of times. It's not set in stone, and we have looked at other approaches and will continue to do so. [/Quote]

 

I know YOU ALL do, or I wouldn't bother. What you decide is your business, but I'll hope it somehow brings back the casual posters, these are being lost by all forums that cater to 'one sided' viewpoints, which this forum seems to have rejected.

 

I don't know what this refers to, but I was on vacation last week -- did I miss something? [/Quote]

 

Well, your posting on one now...read the OP....

 

Well I think we HAVE had success in this area. Go see for yourself -- take a look at the typical Politics poster. It says right at the bottom of their post how long they've been a member of the forum and how many posts they've made. See if you don't agree that we've established a very regular, consistent political discussion community. I think we have. [/Quote]

 

Actually as a Science Forum, with an international membership, your not doing bad, but the lack of new blood in the subforum, members with especially 1-30 post is also apparent or even 30-100 is also obvious. Check out posters in Astronomy to see the differences.

 

I'll try this on the staff; If new members can post in suggestions, can I assume any intelligence needed for this is less required than on Political's, where most every person with a computer is likely effected in their daily activity?

[the tree]

I'll try this on the staff; If new members can post in suggestions, can I assume any intelligence needed for this is less required than on Political's, where most every person with a computer is likely effected in their daily activity?

There is no minimum level of intelligence for any part of SFN - the restrictions, as has already been covered, are to weed out poor intent. There are very, very rarely restrictions on the support board of any online forum - for fairly obvious reasons.

[ydoaPs]

1)Note problem; Restricting poster in the 'Political' subforum, apparently to having 30 post elsewhere and over a three week period, IMO makes absolutely no sense.

False. The restriction makes a great deal of sense if you know the goal of the restriction and have had our past experiences.

 

As I said before, the restriction can also be easily bypassed by contacting the moderation staff, should the poster in question be able to handle politics discussion.

 

I would think the goal of any 'public forum' from an economic standpoint, would be to encourage (not discourage) participation. Then and I know you won't understand this, but we're not all 'computer wiz-kids and if something is not working (first attempt) or confusing, MOST people will just move on. I don't know the registration/posting ratio here, but would guess those registering, making -0- or one post is far to high.

The goal of this forum is to encourage quality participation. The staff and I have, imo, made it quite clear that quality of discussion is more important than quantity of discussion. Quality is much more important in sections which tend to be more heated such as religion and politics. This is the goal of the restriction and it works quite well. If you've been here as long as myself, then you'd remember how the forum was without posting restrictions in those sections. It was so bad that we had to close the religion forum entirely.

 

We'd prefer 12 civil and logical posters to 144 trolls.

 

 

2)Devise possible solution to problem; I can't imagine a problem, if you simply drop the restrictions say for 30-60 days. Pangloss seems to have the temperament to lead newer posters into a discussion and understands 'Politics' is an emotionally driven subject. Although it's a Worldwide topic of interest, for the next 30 months in the US, most every person with a computer, will be searching out places to get information or expressing some of there own.

 

3)Run simulation to see if solution works; Simple, just shut the restriction down, no announcement needed.

Been there, done that. In the past, we had no restrictions. Results were in favour of the restriction.

 

I can't imagine a Wal Mart refusing access to a customer that only buys certain products and I don't believe any forum introduces a topic, just for those already members.

They most certainly do refuse access to customers only purchasing certain products. Have you ever tried to buy a crate of Sudafed and some bleach?

[jackson33]

ydoaPs; Since you took some time, I'll respond to your comments, but please note and have said many times, what you all do is your business and I have the choice of accepting or declining the methods. Since, I'm still here, you should understand, I've accepted the system. When asked "suggestions", I will offer my opinions.

 

False. The restriction makes a great deal of sense if you know the goal of the restriction and have had our past experiences.

 

As I said before, the restriction can also be easily bypassed by contacting the moderation staff, should the poster in question be able to handle politics discussion.[/Quote]

 

I'm sorry, I've seen too many interesting forums, drop off the radar screen (ratings and participation), by over moderation.

 

Think, I've seen five posters make it to suggestions, asking "why" and have no doubts in my mind hundreds of would be posters (contributors), simply move on. I will grant you there are a good many 'agenda driven' organizations or media that wish only to read these forums, did myself for awhile for other projects, but for the most part never participate.

 

The goal of this forum is to encourage quality participation. The staff and I have, imo, made it quite clear that quality of discussion is more important than quantity of discussion. [/Quote]

 

There is nothing wrong with this goal, if the consensus of the staff is not in some manner biased, quality then being a judgement not possible with minimal post. I would think, the average person (staff) would be reluctant to discourage participation, based on undeterminable quality.

 

We'd prefer 12 civil and logical posters to 144 trolls.[/Quote]

 

I've have never understood this word "troll or trolling" when banned or where used in arguments with posters, but using the below wiki definition I could very well fit that meaning (most every post) and it's 100% subjective to a staff member or poster. In return, I'd suggest 90% that respond to my post would also fit the definition. To me it's simple discussion, maybe mild arguments, with the exception of going off topic and I don't know of ANY long time poster having not more than once done that. If your expecting people to bother registering and posting to compliment others opinions (the 12) or those that wish to disagree with some comments (suggest the 144), you might be eliminating a vast potential of those that would participate. Frankly, two of your more interesting poster are iNow and bascule, whom also cause many people to join and guess what, it's not always to agree with them, would in fact be trolls.

 

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun “troll” can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in that was an excellent troll you posted. While the term troll and its associated action, trolling, are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with 'trolling' being used to describe many intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

 

Been there, done that. In the past, we had no restrictions. Results were in favour of the restriction.[/Quote]

Case closed then and if that was the determination, reread my first paragraph. I'm just not aware of the practice anyplace else....

They most certainly do refuse access to customers only purchasing certain products. Have you ever tried to buy a crate of Sudafed and some bleach? [/Quote]

Thanks for the trolling example, going off topic, you knew exactly what I meant. Not all people shop Wal Mart Superstores for Groceries, Apparel, Auto parts, to do there banking or to buy a Big Mac (political/science issues) and they don't say your not allowed to buy say a TV set, until you have been here five times buying groceries.

 

There is no minimum level of intelligence for any part of SFN - the restrictions, as has already been covered, are to weed out poor intent. There are very, very rarely restrictions on the support board of any online forum - for fairly obvious reasons. [/Quote]\

tree; It seems to me, intelligence has been the driving force of this discussion. That on a Science Forum a certain level of knowledge is sought for participation, at least when posting. To then imply posting in Philosophy or Politics are held to a higher standard, even as 'weeding out poor intent' would seem to indicate. How can the methods or content of something in one sub forum, predict what will be on another? All in all though, yes I understand actual display of education/intelligence is rarely a requirement on any forum and suggestion is this should mean all sub-forums.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You make fair points. There may be posters who get frustrated because they can't post in Politics or Religion and who don't come back. I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened before.

 

Some sort of access control to the Religion forum was deemed to be necessary after our experiences years ago with the original Philosophy and Religion forum; after the mayhem in that forum, we decided we needed some way to boot out troublemakers and weed out trolls. Hence the creation of a second usergroup that requires a certain number of posts to join.

 

Now, our policy since creating the Religion forums was that we would loosen the restrictions as time went on, on an experimental basis -- if discussions stayed civil, we'd loosen restrictions, but if things got out of control we'd keep restrictions in place to make the forum easy for us to moderate.

 

Since the Religion forums have gone so smoothly, we may consider dropping the restrictions further. I thinks some sort of delay, even a short one, is good, if just to introduce users to our style of discussion.

 

A note about Politics: The original motivation for politics forum restrictions was not post quality or anything like that. The motivation was a particularly stubborn troll, revprez, who would immediately re-register upon being banned, post as normal for a while, and then start trolling again. His favored forum was Politics. He openly declared to the staff that we could not stop him from coming back and posting in Politics... so I imposed the postcount restrictions on Politics, forcing him to make 50 posts in other forums (and reveal himself as revprez, as we all knew his style) before he could troll Politics.

 

The strategy was successful. He came back once or twice more and gave up, after two and a half years of sockpuppeting and annoying us.

 

Since then we lowered the restrictions to 30 posts, and we believe they've had a positive impact on the Politics section's quality.

 

However, the conversion to IPB is perhaps a good time to consider alternate strategies for keeping up post quality.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I've have never understood this word "troll or trolling" when banned or where used in arguments with posters, but using the below wiki definition I could very well fit that meaning (most every post) and it's 100% subjective to a staff member or poster. In return, I'd suggest 90% that respond to my post would also fit the definition. To me it's simple discussion, maybe mild arguments, with the exception of going off topic and I don't know of ANY long time poster having not more than once done that. If your expecting people to bother registering and posting to compliment others opinions (the 12) or those that wish to disagree with some comments (suggest the 144), you might be eliminating a vast potential of those that would participate. Frankly, two of your more interesting poster are iNow and bascule, whom also cause many people to join and guess what, it's not always to agree with them, would in fact be trolls.

 

Generally we apply the term to members who are particularly rude, arrogant or condescending in their posts. Other times we apply it to members who repeat the same points over and over despite them being refuted by other members. (Generally this is in a forum like Physics, where "refuted" means "shown to contradict reality.") Other times we apply it to people like the atheist war guy, who merely comes here to post a diatribe against atheism and then leaves.