Political threads

[Colleen in NS]

And because we THINK about the complaints, and whether or not they ARE out of line, and whether we should change them....every nasty thread eats up energy too.

 

I've never been a board moderator, owner, etc., but this alone would make me want to ban a controversial topic on a board that is not advertised for such. I'd imagine this takes too much time away from your business. There are some "newbies" coming on board, with questions related to homeschooling, and with the General Board's description, it should be the place to ask questions and not have them get lost.

 

However, if you decide not to ban, I'm hoping it's still fine to post "general homeschool questions" on the curriculum board, because I still need the support. And I'm ever so thankful for this place to do so, and I'll advertise your products til the cows come home - I suspect there are a lot MORE people who quietly advertise PHP than the nasty ones who say they aren't ever going to buy your stuff again. We just need a place to talk about the homeschooling methods you advocate, without threads disappearing. :)

 

And I sure hope if anyone else out there feels the same way I do, that they will come vote and maybe comment, cuz I'm feeling awfully uncomfortable writing my minority views here! :)

[Colleen in NS]

It has always served you well to ban election debates in tbe past, and the community has always fared just fine. We've come to accept it as your rule.

 

The sheer volume of people wanting to debate politics is probably more a reason to stay the course and thank goodness you had the rule to begin with, not the other way around. JMO.

 

:iagree: Bold highlight is mine.

[Aunty Social]

There's a reason for the old saying about not discussing politics and religion. I personally just skip the political threads. That doesn't mean I can't understand people wanting to discuss candidates and issues; this just isn't the place. It's a hot topic that is bound to get someone riled up, which gets someone else going.....

 

As another person said, there are political forums. If you have friends on the board that you want to discuss politics with and this is your only way of contacting them, well, that's what pming is for.

[The Governess]

I didn't vote because I'm very undecided.

 

I have been a member of different forums that dealt with the same problems. Most of them solved it by creating a new board for "controversial topics" that users had to have admin permission to view. Lurkers and newbies didn't have access to it or really even know it existed. If a post looked like it was headed downhill, it would disappear from the normal boards and reappear on that board. That board had specific rules you had to abide by. So that's how they dealt with it.

 

Another board I visited didn't allow controversial topics at all. So the members got together and created a separate forum for that purpose. They called it the Underground. :D No moderators, no rules. :boxing_smiley:

 

Since you don't want to make a special board to deal with it, and with all the negativity (which is shockingly immature!!) you are having to waste time on regularly, I can see how a ban is appropriate. But I also think some good discussions would be lost, along with the bad. So, yeah. No vote yet from me.

[Rosie_0801]

Well, what happens in America influences us here in Australia, so I'm appreciating the insight!

:)

Rosie

[Brigitte]

I think some of you may be (slightly) missing my point about our time and energy.

 

When a thread turns ugly, it doesn't just sit there quietly, being ugly. The moderators get bombarded with emails asking us to take it down, ordering us to take it down, explaining in detail how wrong Poster A is about Poster B, explaining in detail how wrong Poster B is about Poster C, berating us for not keeping an eye on the thread, telling us that unless we take better care of the boards they will never buy another Peace Hill Press product, informing us that since our board policies are too repressive/too lax/too Christian/ too pagan, they will be leaving the board forever/posting their exact thoughts on their blogs/emailing all their friends...

 

Do you get the idea here? Yes, we ignore and delete reactions that we think are out of line. But when there are scores, sometimes hundreds of them, it takes time.

 

And because we THINK about the complaints, and whether or not they ARE out of line, and whether we should change them....every nasty thread eats up energy too.

 

And oh, my goodness, if someone is such a persistent breaker of board civility rules that we have to ban or reprove them, the NASTINESS that comes our way is pretty epic. And that's been true for the last eight years.

 

This is NOT just a matter of "We're going to ban this topic because we don't like it." Those of you who have ever had the responsibility of monitoring a board (and have you seen how many members we have here???) will understand.

 

Political debate is OK with me. So are debates about peanut butter. I just want you guys to be clear about the issue. And why I'm inquiring.

 

SWB

 

Given all that, I change my vote. Do away with them. We need you spending your time and energy on more important things. :001_smile:

[Colleen in NS]

I see your point, Colleen, but the general chattiness and off-topic nature of the general board isn't going to change in the absence of political topics.

 

I know, but I'm still thinking of when I first joined 4 years ago or so, and of the people currently joining - it's confusing when you don't get much response to homeschooling questions. If there weren't so many unrelated controversial topics, there is more chance of getting your homeschooling questions answered there.

 

For what it's worth, I don't see the K-8 and High School boards as being limited to curriculum questions only. There are plenty of methodology questions asked and answered in both places.

 

I have come to see them as not being limited to curric. questions, too, only because I saw others going to them after trying the General Board. But I'm still thinking of when I joined and how they are advertised and any confusion new people might have. But ultimately, I'm sure that whatever decision Susan makes, she will still provide a place for homeschooling discussion and I'll be happy with however that works. I'm just trying to point out a few things that have been confusing and frustrating (but easily remediated), that I haven't seen anyone else point out.

 

.

[Old Dominion Heather]

Should I apologize? :glare:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

[Jenny in Atl]

I think some of you may be (slightly) missing my point about our time and energy.

 

When a thread turns ugly, it doesn't just sit there quietly, being ugly. The moderators get bombarded with emails asking us to take it down, ordering us to take it down, explaining in detail how wrong Poster A is about Poster B, explaining in detail how wrong Poster B is about Poster C, berating us for not keeping an eye on the thread, telling us that unless we take better care of the boards they will never buy another Peace Hill Press product, informing us that since our board policies are too repressive/too lax/too Christian/ too pagan, they will be leaving the board forever/posting their exact thoughts on their blogs/emailing all their friends...

 

Do you get the idea here? Yes, we ignore and delete reactions that we think are out of line. But when there are scores, sometimes hundreds of them, it takes time.

 

And because we THINK about the complaints, and whether or not they ARE out of line, and whether we should change them....every nasty thread eats up energy too.

 

And oh, my goodness, if someone is such a persistent breaker of board civility rules that we have to ban or reprove them, the NASTINESS that comes our way is pretty epic. And that's been true for the last eight years.

 

This is NOT just a matter of "We're going to ban this topic because we don't like it." Those of you who have ever had the responsibility of monitoring a board (and have you seen how many members we have here???) will understand.

 

Political debate is OK with me. So are debates about peanut butter. I just want you guys to be clear about the issue. And why I'm inquiring.

 

SWB

 

Maybe there should be a ban on those who complain too much. I honestly think many of these topics would die out if allowed to naturally, instead of being deleted. They seem to fester and pop back up over and over. Again, this is your board and it is a gift for us to gather and talk. I just wonder how effective it is to listen to those who waste your time with endless complaints. I gather they are not just about the political threads either.

[Mrs Mungo]

I didn't vote because I'm very undecided.

 

I have been a member of different forums that dealt with the same problems. Most of them solved it by creating a new board for "controversial topics" that users had to have admin permission to view. Lurkers and newbies didn't have access to it or really even know it existed. If a post looked like it was headed downhill, it would disappear from the normal boards and reappear on that board. That board had specific rules you had to abide by. So that's how they dealt with it.

 

Another board I visited didn't allow controversial topics at all. So the members got together and created a separate forum for that purpose. They called it the Underground. :D No moderators, no rules. :boxing_smiley:

 

Since you don't want to make a special board to deal with it, and with all the negativity (which is shockingly immature!!) you are having to waste time on regularly, I can see how a ban is appropriate. But I also think some good discussions would be lost, along with the bad. So, yeah. No vote yet from me.

 

Yes, this is how most of the boards I've been on have handled it as well. Another possible solution is banning the most contentious topics instead of politics altogether.

[*anj*]

 

I'm totally tracking your vibe.

 

 

 

I'm totally loving this sentence!

Sorry to sidetrack, but I want to thank Beth for giving me my new sig line! :D

 

As for the topic at hand:

I am appalled at the true foolishness of so many adults. It is just incredibly ignorant and immature. I could say more, but I'm taking the Auntie Em Clause.:glare:

[Robin in Tx]

I just wonder how effective it is to listen to those who waste your time with endless complaints. I gather they are not just about the political threads either.

 

But what's the point of having a moderated board if you're going to quit moderating it when things escalate?

[pianoplayer]

 

I voted to ban the political threads not because I have a problem with discussing politics, but because I come to this board for help with issues related to classical education. That being said, the political threads don't bother me--I just skip over them.

Some people are saying, "Yes, Susan, if the political threads are too big a headache for you, drop them for the time being." I get that ~ and lack of time and energy is, as Susan herself said, the only reason a ban might be put in place. Why, though, would one opt to ban a topic simply because one prefers not to engage in the discussion? If it doesn't bother you, if you skip over those threads, why a ban? Wouldn't it be silly if I said, "I don't come here to talk about (fill in topic of your choice). I don't read those threads. Therefore, I'd like that subject to be off limits."

I'm sorry that my comment seemed silly and unclear. Bottom line--it seems to me that these boards are here for the discussion of classical education-related issues and general encouragement of homeschoolers. If that is a correct assumption, then threads on current political issues are off-topic. If off-topic threads are causing a major headache to the site owner/publisher and her staff, it makes sense to me to ban them.

[Jenny in Atl]

But what's the point of having a moderated board if you're going to quit moderating it when things escalate?

 

I'm not saying not to moderate, just don't always delete. But, if a poster is repeatedly spamming the moderator's in box with complaints, then maybe they are as much the problem as the thread.

[HRAAB]

I'm fairly new here, and have been pleasantly surprised at how well everyone behaved themselves during these rather hot topics so I voted to keep the political discussions. Then I read Susan's message, and all I can think to say is those people ought to be sent to their rooms without their computers. I'm embarrassed for them.

 

Janet

[Robin in Tx]

I'm not saying not to moderate, just don't always delete. But, if a poster is repeatedly spamming the moderator's in box with complaints, then maybe they are as much the problem as the thread.

 

I see what you're saying... but it's probably not just *a* poster (or even just a couple of posters)... there are some topics that seem to bring out the worst in us all, kwim? The spamming might be the effect, but the thread is definitely part of the cause...

[Jenny in Atl]

I see what you're saying... but it's probably not just *a* poster (or even just a couple of posters)... there are some topics that seem to bring out the worst in us all, kwim? The spamming might be the effect, but the thread is definitely part of the cause...

 

So say we ban all political threads. What about the other hot topics? Do we really want to limit the general board to classical techniques and progress reports? It would be interesting to know what topics cause the moderators the most headaches.

[Kim in Appalachia]

:w00t:

 

 

:hurray::hurray:

 

:party:

 

 

:willy_nilly:

[Jackie in AR]

When a thread turns ugly, it doesn't just sit there quietly, being ugly. The moderators get bombarded with emails asking us to take it down, ordering us to take it down, explaining in detail how wrong Poster A is about Poster B, explaining in detail how wrong Poster B is about Poster C, berating us for not keeping an eye on the thread, telling us that unless we take better care of the boards they will never buy another Peace Hill Press product, informing us that since our board policies are too repressive/too lax/too Christian/ too pagan, they will be leaving the board forever/posting their exact thoughts on their blogs/emailing all their friends...

 

Do you get the idea here? Yes, we ignore and delete reactions that we think are out of line. But when there are scores, sometimes hundreds of them, it takes time.

 

And because we THINK about the complaints, and whether or not they ARE out of line, and whether we should change them....every nasty thread eats up energy too.

 

And oh, my goodness, if someone is such a persistent breaker of board civility rules that we have to ban or reprove them, the NASTINESS that comes our way is pretty epic. And that's been true for the last eight years.

 

Wow. That is unbelievable.

 

I've waited to vote today as I've thought about the issue, but after reading this post, I say ban them. If I were you, I wouldn't give what we think another thought. You and everyone else at PHP have better things to do than babysit a group of adults.

 

Just wow. I'm amazed that you still provide these boards at all.

[Mom2legomaniacs]

Wow. That is unbelievable.

 

I've waited to vote today as I've thought about the issue, but after reading this post, I say ban them. If I were you, I wouldn't give what we think another thought. You and everyone else at PHP have better things to do than babysit a group of adults.

 

Just wow. I'm amazed that you still provide these boards at all.

 

:iagree: I never knew that folks do that kind of thing! I usually stay away from those threads in general. But wow! Thanks so much for what you have put up with on our behalf. Just incredible!

[Robin in Tx]

I would imagine that the topics that give them the most headaches are the topics they shut down. Just a guess. They've been doing this for eight or nine years and it never has parlayed into disallowing hot topics altogether.

[Kelli in TN]

My contractions are about 5 mins apart so I don't have much time.....

 

If you are going to ban political threads because they are not related to homeschooling, what about the other nonhomeschooling threads like "look at my new kitchen", "what are you reading this summer" or the exercise threads. Or what about the please pray for my family threads, aren't these nonhomeschooling related too?

 

Those who don't care to read them can just move on. We are a community of homeschooling men and woman who enjoy each other's support and company. Many of us come here for adult conversation. Please don't take part of that away.

 

Okay, I think anyone who can string that many coherent sentences together with contractions 5 minutes apart deserves to be listened to!!!!

[sleepy]

Wow. I had no idea.

 

I certainly won't complain if you decide to ban the topic.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Maybe there should be a ban on those who complain too much. I honestly think many of these topics would die out if allowed to naturally, instead of being deleted. They seem to fester and pop back up over and over. Again, this is your board and it is a gift for us to gather and talk. I just wonder how effective it is to listen to those who waste your time with endless complaints. I gather they are not just about the political threads either.

I was about to type one thing, but then I had another thought.

 

These threads mirror real life in a way. These issues are not being solved IRL and that is why they seem to fester and pop back up over and over. People are passionate on both sides. How long do you thing it would take them to die out? How long would SWB and company have to put up with it?

 

Remember I love you Jenny and I think you can have a discussion.:D

[Meljoy]

I like the idea of discussing candidates and politics.

 

This is a challenging election. I welcome thoughts and input concerning the candidates.

 

:iagree:

[Doran]

This is, absolutely, a difficult decision. There is so much to be gained by allowing the discussions to continue, for those of us who appreciate mature debate and are willing to graciously navigate differences of opinion - even strong opinion. Trouble is, there are too many individuals who must have been socially promoted out of kindergarten because they're now all graduated and grown up despite the fact that they never learned how to "play nice". :glare: Like the laws in this dear country of ours (and others'), quite often rules are written more for those who are disinclined to obey. It's not the "nice guys" we have to consider here, and chances are that many (most?) of the folks who have voted or commented in this thread think of themselves as nice. Sadly, it's the others who have the capacity to make life hell for the PHP folks, and even, potentially, the capacity to harm their business.

 

I'm sensing that it's not worth the time, the energy, or the risk to you, Susan, or the PHP business to continue these threads. I'm feeling that I can manage to have meaty discussions elsewhere, if I want to, or that I can use the Private Messaging feature to dialog between a select few (though in this case, I would love to see a "Reply All" option as part of the PM package...have I missed that somehow?...and an increased word count limit). Fear not that our moderators will be rushing off to their respective hot tubs, for I'm sure they'll remain plenty busy dealing with posts about all the other 'hot topics' we are allowed to discuss. ;)

 

September 1 - January 1 seems an appropriate timeframe to eliminate politically contentious threads, in my opinion.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

This is, absolutely, a difficult decision. There is so much to be gained by allowing the discussions to continue, for those of us who appreciate mature debate and are willing to graciously navigate differences of opinion - even strong opinion. Trouble is, there are too many individuals who must have been socially promoted out of kindergarten because they're now all graduated and grown up despite the fact that they never learned how to "play nice". :glare: Like the laws in this dear country of ours (and others'), quite often rules are written more for those who are disinclined to obey. It's not the "nice guys" we have to consider here, and chances are that many (most?) of the folks who have voted or commented in this thread think of themselves as nice. Sadly, it's the others who have the capacity to make life hell for the PHP folks, and even, potentially, the capacity to harm their business.

 

I'm sensing that it's not worth the time, the energy, or the risk to you, Susan, or the PHP business to continue these threads. I'm feeling that I can manage to have meaty discussions elsewhere, if I want to, or that I can use the Private Messaging feature to dialog between a select few (though in this case, I would love to see a "Reply All" option as part of the PM package...have I missed that somehow?...and an increased word count limit). Fear not that our moderators will be rushing off to their respective hot tubs, for I'm sure they'll remain plenty busy dealing with posts about all the other 'hot topics' we are allowed to discuss. ;)

 

September 1 - January 1 seems an appropriate timeframe to eliminate politically contentious threads, in my opinion.

 

Reading the bulk of this thread, I'll have to agree with Doran. Much as it pains me. (Not the agreeing with *Doran* part, but the putting aside what I want part.)

[Jenny in Atl]

I was about to type one thing, but then I had another thought.

 

These threads mirror real life in a way. These issues are not being solved IRL and that is why they seem to fester and pop back up over and over. People are passionate on both sides. How long do you thing it would take them to die out? How long would SWB and company have to put up with it?

 

Remember I love you Jenny and I think you can have a discussion.:D

 

I see what you are saying. I'm still unsure that banning just the political threads will help, or are we going to include abortion, family size, faith or lack of, as political too? I don't see an easy answer to the concerns of either Susan and her moderators or those who find issues with contentious threads.

:grouphug:

[Kelli in TN]

I had not thought about what Susan brought up concerning the reputation of her company. I do know that people have slammed her on their blogs, slammed the products of PHP, slammed Susan as an author and basically as a human being. They did this because they could not abide the very simple posting rules. Sometimes it happened because they were banned, sometimes it happened when they had not been banned but they were just angry.

 

I did not know that so many people spammed the inboxes, but I can see where that would be a time eating exercise in futility.

 

 

I hate it because it's a little scary to step outside your lifetime political box and look at the other side. This is mostly a safe place to do it.

 

But since it's not about me..........

[Carol in Cal.]

I could say more, but I'm taking the Auntie Em Clause.:glare:

 

Ha ha! Best use of the Auntie Em clause I have ever seen!

 

(And I distinctly remember watching this movie, over and over, as a young un, always having forgotten the Auntie Em clause until she SAYS it, and wishing that she WOULDN'T have.)

[Gretchen in NJ]

I see what you are saying. I'm still unsure that banning just the political threads will help, or are we going to include abortion, family size, faith or lack of, as political too? I don't see an easy answer to the concerns of either Susan and her moderators or those who find issues with contentious threads.

:grouphug:

Yes, it is a slippery slope. I sadly see your point and agree if it were not for the few who ruin it.

[Gretchen in NJ]

This is, absolutely, a difficult decision. There is so much to be gained by allowing the discussions to continue, for those of us who appreciate mature debate and are willing to graciously navigate differences of opinion - even strong opinion. Trouble is, there are too many individuals who must have been socially promoted out of kindergarten because they're now all graduated and grown up despite the fact that they never learned how to "play nice". :glare: Like the laws in this dear country of ours (and others'), quite often rules are written more for those who are disinclined to obey. It's not the "nice guys" we have to consider here, and chances are that many (most?) of the folks who have voted or commented in this thread think of themselves as nice. Sadly, it's the others who have the capacity to make life hell for the PHP folks, and even, potentially, the capacity to harm their business.

 

I'm sensing that it's not worth the time, the energy, or the risk to you, Susan, or the PHP business to continue these threads. I'm feeling that I can manage to have meaty discussions elsewhere, if I want to, or that I can use the Private Messaging feature to dialog between a select few (though in this case, I would love to see a "Reply All" option as part of the PM package...have I missed that somehow?...and an increased word count limit). Fear not that our moderators will be rushing off to their respective hot tubs, for I'm sure they'll remain plenty busy dealing with posts about all the other 'hot topics' we are allowed to discuss. ;)

 

September 1 - January 1 seems an appropriate timeframe to eliminate politically contentious threads, in my opinion.

Doran, I thought this was a beautiful post. It was very thoughtful of others.:001_smile:

[*anj*]

Ha ha! Best use of the Auntie Em clause I have ever seen!

 

(And I distinctly remember watching this movie, over and over, as a young un, always having forgotten the Auntie Em clause until she SAYS it, and wishing that she WOULDN'T have.)

 

Absolutely! I always wanted to yell "Say it, Auntie Em, say it!!" :D

[Gretchen in NJ]

Absolutely! I always wanted to yell "Say it, Auntie Em, say it!!" :D

Okay will someone somewhere P-L-E-A-S-E tell me what the Auntie Em clause is?:D

[Carol in Cal.]

Okay will someone somewhere P-L-E-A-S-E tell me what the Auntie Em clause is?:D

 

The wicked witch of a neighbor has just gotten an order from the sheriff to take Dorothy's little dog Toto away to be killed because he has bitten her. He is just a little fluffball of a dog, so this is set up as pure spite. And, of course, it is really harrowing, with orphan Dorothy just horribly upset and everyone sympathizing with her.

 

So then, in a moment of tremendous movie suspense, Auntie Em, her guardian, who has just agreed under duress to give the dog to the neighbor, lectures her about how for all these years she has been throwing her weight around because she is wealthy, and taking advantage of people, etc., and she wraps this up with the weighty words, "For 25 year I have wanted to tell you exactly what I think of you!" (beat beat wait for it) ..."But since I'm a Christian woman, I can't!"

[Gretchen in NJ]

The wicked witch of a neighbor has just gotten an order from the sheriff to take Dorothy's little dog Toto away to be killed because he has bitten her. He is just a little fluffball of a dog, so this is set up as pure spite. And, of course, it is really harrowing, with orphan Dorothy just horribly upset and everyone sympathizing with her.

 

So then, in a moment of tremendous movie suspense, Auntie Em, her guardian, who has just agreed under duress to give the dog to the neighbor, lectures her about how for all these years she has been throwing her weight around because she is wealthy, and taking advantage of people, etc., and she wraps this up with the weighty words, "For 25 year I have wanted to tell you exactly what I think of you!" (beat beat wait for it) ..."But since I'm a Christian woman, I can't!"

Oh! Now, I remember. Thank you Carol.:D

[*anj*]

"For 25 year I have wanted to tell you exactly what I think of you!" (beat beat wait for it) ..."But since I'm a Christian woman, I can't!"

 

:iagree:Yup, what she said! ;)

[Ellie]

it isn't gonna stay nice, and it just drags the board down.

[5kidsforME]

I think some of you may be (slightly) missing my point about our time and energy.

 

When a thread turns ugly, it doesn't just sit there quietly, being ugly. The moderators get bombarded with emails asking us to take it down, ordering us to take it down, explaining in detail how wrong Poster A is about Poster B, explaining in detail how wrong Poster B is about Poster C, berating us for not keeping an eye on the thread, telling us that unless we take better care of the boards they will never buy another Peace Hill Press product, informing us that since our board policies are too repressive/too lax/too Christian/ too pagan, they will be leaving the board forever/posting their exact thoughts on their blogs/emailing all their friends...

 

Do you get the idea here? Yes, we ignore and delete reactions that we think are out of line. But when there are scores, sometimes hundreds of them, it takes time.

 

And because we THINK about the complaints, and whether or not they ARE out of line, and whether we should change them....every nasty thread eats up energy too.

 

And oh, my goodness, if someone is such a persistent breaker of board civility rules that we have to ban or reprove them, the NASTINESS that comes our way is pretty epic. And that's been true for the last eight years.

 

This is NOT just a matter of "We're going to ban this topic because we don't like it." Those of you who have ever had the responsibility of monitoring a board (and have you seen how many members we have here???) will understand.

 

Political debate is OK with me. So are debates about peanut butter. I just want you guys to be clear about the issue. And why I'm inquiring.

 

SWB

 

Wow, obviously I just have never thought it thru to that extent. I am sorry. Obviously if you need to ban politics I say go for it.

[Peek a Boo]

I voted to keep the political threads too. When the debates are civil and respectful then they're great threads.

-----It helps me to remember that when this happens to me:

 

 

 

add a long high ponytail and some red lipstick to that zombie in front of the computer....

 

If we kept the political talk and just one person could be informed that Obama is NOT a muslim and that McCain doesn't actually want a 100 year war in Iraq, then I think the world would be a better place!

 

 

and THIS is actually my number one reason for still wanting to keep political --and other controversial-- topics. There are still SOOO many bits of misinformation going around, we've already seen a few posters respond intelligently TO those views being corrected, and who knows HOW many lurkers have had eye-opening moments that we don't get to hear about?!

 

 

How about yet another suggestion: In the spirit of a classical board, political posts could be allowed if posted (and answered) in an ancient language: Latin, Hebrew, Greek, Sanscrit. Translation will undoubtedly take a lot of the heat out of those posts.

 

THIS is the FUNNIEST --and COOLEST, lol-- suggestion i've seen yet :D

 

I actually think this makes people more interesting. I learned a while ago not to judge someone based on just one of their views. You gotta dig deep if you really want to see what someone is all about. My political views are also not the norm here (don't fit in with either major party), but this does not stop me from listening and trying to understand the views of others. Humans have never agreed and never will. It's just another part that makes us human. Heck, even my dh and I don't see eye-to-eye on every issue out there. I still love him and I think he still digs me. I like having friends who think, believe, and see the world in a way I never can. Keeps me thinking!

 

very true. There are some threads where I vigorously argue w/ Poster X and others where I might be vehemently defending them.

 

I love a good hot thread, yes, i really do, esp for the reasons Jenny posted, but i DO realize that it's not all about me --other people need the discourse, if only as something to follow.

 

 

 

And i KNOW you said you WERE NOT GONNA do it, but I think between this idea:

BUT.... I think I have an idea. Is it at all possible to have some sort of self-policing for the boards? Something, perhaps that could utilize the thread-rating abilities we already have? Maybe there could be an additional rating added along the lines of "Warning! This thread contains unacceptable/offensive posts!" And once a thread received a certain number of these ratings (from unique users, not just one) it would automatically disappear! Perhaps that would lessen the need for admin. intervention, while allowing healthy debate to continue.

 

-Robin

 

and this one:

 

Most of them solved it by creating a new board for "controversial topics" ..... If a post looked like it was headed downhill, it would disappear from the normal boards and reappear on that board. ..... They called it the Underground. :D No moderators, no rules.

..... But I also think some good discussions would be lost, along with the bad.

adjusting the star rating system where if X number of posters [how many posters regularly use the rating system?] rated a thread "send it Underground" it would automatically be sent to a separate board. Maybe temper that w/ a "keep it on the board" rating, lol. But when it received the agreed-upon number of posts, it would be automatically kicked to the other board. Maybe have the ratings be limited to two options....

but as soon as it was kicked over, just let it all hit the fan and scatter mercilessly :D

 

but really, as has been mentioned, it IS your board, so even tho you might not choose my course of action, I will comply, hopefully w/ little to no whining. ;)

[Frankie]

I came here to read when the president thread started, and it just depressed me. I didn't care for the propoganda video (nor would I for the other side, either).

 

I like politics, but not here.

 

Thanks for asking our opinions.

[Heather in the Kootenays]

I'm not a believer in banning topics and I think that we should all be mature enough to ignore posts threads that will upset us

 

BUT

 

In the interest of the wellbeing of PHP and its staff, I'd pick ending the political debate if I had to chose.

 

BUT

 

Isn't there a middle road? Maybe zero tolerance for inflammatory posts and time outs for whining??

[Robin Hood]

Thank you for knocking me upside the head with a proverbial 2 x 4. That cleared things up. My picture of your moderating crew, having no idea of what that is in the first place, was not even on the radar screen. I never knew the incivility went beyond the screen I am reading. Thanks for letting us see the bigger picture, since I am not alone in my ignorance.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Wow I popped up to look at where the vote was, and what a good point about the duties of an admin. I have been in the worst kind of admin h*** with whiners. After taking a stand against it, I was harassed online. When the harassment went further than that, I walked away from the board. A lot of people have NO IDEA what a board admin- especially on a board this size- goes through.

 

If the community is unable to police itself, and the whining is getting too much to bear, I would certainly shut down certain topics. I am all for freedom of speech, but this is a privately owned and operated site and the admin has to have personal boundaries to keep her sanity and to make the mods jobs at least bearable.

 

I will respect, understand, and support whatever decision is made.

 

However, I don't know if the whining would stop or get worse. I would think the whiner types would want a hand in deciding what can and can not be discussed and continue reporting multiple threads.

 

As for my suggestion to help the community self police- I think just as some posts are labeled CC for Christian content, maybe we could have an HT label for "heated topic". That way those who wish to avoid can do so more easily.

[SFP]

I don't see how kicking threads into a Back Alley or Underground section will do anything to lessen the amount of whiny backstabby behind-the-scenes nonsense that Susan says she has to deal with. If people can't behave maturely now, why provide a mechanism that will allow them to behave even worse?

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Some of the best boards I have ever been on have had what was called a free for all section. You applied to be admitted, went there, and said what you want- whatever you want. Any complaints about the section were ignored. Anyone starting any mess on the other parts of the board was banned immediately.

 

That would not work for this board, for obvious reasons.

[Colleen]

Thanks for sharing more, Susan. I can't say it surprises me, though. As frustrating as it is, what you described is par for the course when one owns/moderates a board such as this. A very good friend of mine did just that for several years and even though it was a small group, even though it was a group of close friends, moderating was a headache, to put it mildly.

 

When a thread turns ugly, it doesn't just sit there quietly, being ugly.

 

I had to smile at this because from my perspective, virtually no threads here turn ugly. Oh, I know others may perceive them as so, but debate ~ even heated debate and disagreement ~ doesn't qualify as ugly, imo. But I do understand we all have different tolerance levels.

 

The moderators get bombarded with emails...Do you get the idea here? Yes, we ignore and delete reactions that we think are out of line. But when there are scores, sometimes hundreds of them, it takes time.

 

Yes, I get the idea. The sad reality is that there will always be people who demand attention as per your description. Banning political threads for the next several months isn't going to change that. The kind of person who runs whining to "Mommy" as you described is going to continue doing so. Perhaps the opportunity will arise less often, but such a character will find the opportunity.

 

Political debate is OK with me. So are debates about peanut butter. I just want you guys to be clear about the issue. And why I'm inquiring.

 

I think I'm clear on it, and still I stand by the comments I've expressed in this thread. Owning and moderating a board, particularly one of this size, is a challenging, perhaps burdensome task, Susan. As much as I appreciate this community, I have to admit I wonder if a time has come for you to consider your primary purpose in offering this space to the masses. That, imo, is the heart of the issue. The longer this board exists, the bigger it will become. The more work that will be involved in its operation and moderation. The more people there will be to bombard, as per your description.

 

You mentioned in your initial post that moderating political discussions isn't the agenda here. Some of us pointed out that there are all manner of "off topic" discussions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the original purposes of this community. My question to you (rhetorical in nature) is whether the excessive "off topic" dialogue ~ the massive amount of banter about anything under the sun; the exchanges so many of us have come to expect and enjoy here on the General Board ~ is worth it to you. Because it's only going to increase. And I am led to wonder if now isn't a good time for you to step back and truly consider: What is the agenda? What was your original purpose, and is that purpose being achieved? I think the answer, from my puny perspective, goes well beyond the existence or lack thereof of political discussions.

 

Again, best to you, friend, as you wade through the waters.:)

[Tammyla]

I avoid them and have recently developed an appreciation for the ignore option.

 

Susan, we love this board...it's a gift. Thank you.:grouphug:

[*anj*]

Again, best to you, friend, as you wade through the waters.:)

 

Colleen,

This was a really well written, well thought out post. I'd rep you for it, if I could. I think that you've raised some excellent points. I know that you're not expecting Susan to engage publicly in dialogue concerning her future plans for this forum, but there is definitely interesting food for thought for the rest of us. Hmmmm...I think I'll have to go sit by the pool and ponder this..........

[Robin in Tx]

You mentioned in your initial post that moderating political discussions isn't the agenda here. Some of us pointed out that there are all manner of "off topic" discussions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the original purposes of this community.

 

Yeah, but... they just crop up now and then (speaking of the ones that are "hot"/inflammatory). It's not like the focus that discussions take on during an election.

 

I think that SWB has made it pretty clear what her intent for the boards are... as a matter of fact she's done so very specifically in recent months... but she allows off topic conversations so long as they don't become inflammatory. When they become inflammatory, she shuts them down. And when a particular topic is the root cause of repeated, frequent inflammatory threads then she shuts down the topic altogether.

 

In other words, she would prefer our topics stay homeschool/parenting related, but she doesn't mind the other topics as long as they remain civil and don't unnecessarily tax the moderators... and highly inflammatory topics that are particularly troublesome to monitor are simply nixed.

 

Am I the only one who sees this as very simple and straight forward? I mean... come on... they've already had to lock down at least three threads already and it's not even September. To keep up with it all would require either increased man hours or a decrease in monitoring standards. I don't want to see a decrease in the monitoring standards, and I wouldn't dream of asking them to work overtime just so I could have my off topic debates, kwim?

 

Maybe I'm more comfortable than others with banning the debates because I'm so used to it... she's always banned election debates in the past...