Has anyone started a spin-off board on another site where we can discuss politics?

[BabyBre]

Don't look at me! I haven't the first clue how to do that.

 

I really loved the political discussions and it certainly seems like there is a demand for them from members of the Hive. Can we all meet collectively on a different board somewhere to post our political threads?

[Tracey in TX]

ROFL

I don't know, but I'm game if someone sets up an appropriate board to discuss politics. We just might add a few years to Susan's life! ;)

[pqr]

I understand that Susan bears the cost of this board, but perhaps the solution is another forum. Those who have no interest in politics can stay away, as for the rest of us who want to discuss political issues WITH OTHER HOMESCHOOLERS, we might spend time there. If a thread crosses the line it can be moved from the General Board to the other and there is no harm done.

 

There is value to homeschoolers discussing politics and it seems that many if not post participants on this board would visit such a forum.

Edited February 24, 2009 by pqr

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I have no idea what the deleted posts on the other threads were about other than obviously political discussion. I do think homeschooling was, is, and will remain a political issue. Obviously the moderators feel that politics cannot be discussed here in a civil tone and without the injured parties filling the moderators mailboxes to an unreasonable capacity. It's a shame that a few folks must end an otherwise important and stimulating debate through poor behavior.

It seems that politics cannot be eliminated as a topic and perhaps another forum for such discussion is the answer. It should be an enter at your own risk zone. I will, however, continue to lament that this ban on politics has not prompted more discussion of homeschooling, education, and related topics. Furthermore, that some topics that may be best left for a therapists office or for over coffee with a very close friend are allowed to persist-no matter how distasteful or offensive. It is a strange dichotomy.

[LisaNY]

I might be willing to set something up, if there is enough interest shown. It would definitely be an "enter at your own risk", because, after all, I am a realist.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

"The moderators feel"?

 

The moderators know. When we did allow political discussion, every single moderator address was constantly bombarded with complaints, abuse, and announcements that posters were LEAVING and never coming back. Furthermore, politics swallowed the board. People who wanted to discuss home schooling were giving up use of the boards.

 

That is not the purpose of this forum.

 

Two things to keep in mind.

 

1. The rules for civil debate are clearly posted. Politics was banned because a SIGNIFICANT number of people--not just a few bad actors--ignored the rules as soon a political topic was announced. There were a few interesting discussions, swamped by a sea of name-calling, abuse, and ad hominem attacks.

 

2. I deleted the political threads today not simply because they were political, but because they disintegrated into abuse as soon as the discussion veered into politics. Clearly, nothing has changed. Yet.

 

I regret the ban. I hope that we can lift it eventually; it's never been permanent in the past. I loathe having banned topics of conversation.

 

For right now, though, the ban stays in place. We won't be putting up a politics-only forum because "enter at your own risk" spaces don't work on a forum of this kind; people just carry whatever hostilities were aroused in the "space" back to the general board.

 

Eventually, politics will be allowed. At that point, we'll probably end up booting people who don't follow the rules from the board with very little warning, just to keep it civil. And then those people will announce that they've been treated unfairly and booted because of their ideas, and will go raise a stink elsewhere. I'm not whining here--I'm just describing the phenomenon. Some of you may recognise it.

 

For those who agree with me--thanks. But I'm not posting this so that you'll feel sympathy for the moderators. We're all grown ups and we don't really CARE if bad actors get mad at us; we just lack the time to keep the board user-friendly, at the moment, in the presence of politics.

 

And for those who disagree with me: this is the way it has to be right now. An imperfect solution. Hope y'all can find a place to talk politics until the ban is no longer necessary.

 

SWB

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Don't worry, Sophia, the general board is here to stay. I have learned a tremendous amount from the HSing experiences of others (in fact I think the boards helped make the second and third editions of TWTM more realistic). It's a privilege to get a glimpse of other families' daily lives, and see patterns that are completely unlike mine.

 

SWB

[Susan Wise Bauer]

oh, and so as not to hijack the thread...if any of you want to get that politics discussion site up and going, we'll send people your way. :D

 

SWB

[melissel]

Susan :grouphug: Frankly, I can't believe the discussion over the ban is even still going on! There are SO MANY other forums online to discuss politics. The same way that I go to another board network to discuss gentle discipline because I know it's not particularly popular here, people could go to numerous other places to discuss politics. Why MUST the discourse happen here? I just don't understand it :confused:

[BabyBre]

I might be willing to set something up, if there is enough interest shown. It would definitely be an "enter at your own risk", because, after all, I am a realist.

 

 

It is extremely unfortunate that previous political discussions on this board got so ugly. I think the empassioned nature of those discussions speaks directly to these volatile and uncertain times, and the necessity of political forums. We're currently witnessing some significant events in the history of our nation. It's only natural to feel passionately about it and to want to discuss it with others whose opinions you value. Isn't that why we're on this board in the first place?

 

That being said, Susan's the boss. If she says, "No political discussions," we say, "Thanks for providing this board for us!" I'm embarassed that the Hive couldn't hold their tongues in respect for others' opinions, and that others felt compelled to whine the moderators to the point of censorship. Some acted like children and now we're all being treated like them.

 

So, to get back to the point, I would certainly be interested in a seperate board where we can all act like children if we like! (Just kidding! ;)) Maybe I'm NOT a realist, but we would need a board where everyone acted like the adults we alledge ourselves to be, showing respect for oposing opinions and treating ALL others with dignity. We're all in the same boat, here. Name calling, mud slinging, and obscene and vulgar language is already easy to find on the internet - we don't need a board like that. We need a quiet little haven for invigorating political discussions!

 

Is that too much? Is such a thing possible? I think is. And if it's not, at least I think it's worth a try!

Edited February 24, 2009 by BabyBre

[Tutor]

Before we changed to the current format, I set up a yahoo group to discuss political issues that got too heated and off track here. (WTM Soapbox) I think 3 of us logged in there and it died within a month. There was no interest when it was in a new location. Maybe it was the format? Maybe people don't want to have to check more than a handful of sites a day? I don't know. If someone wants to try a new board, that would be great, but it didn't seem to fly in the past.

[melissel]

It's only natural to feel passionately about it and to want to discuss it with others whose opinions you value. Isn't that why we're on this board in the first place?

 

Actually, no, that's not at all why I'm here. I'm here to gather ideas on how to evolve my home and lifestyle to accommodate homeschooling, and to help others do the same if I can.

 

Maybe I'm NOT a realist, but we would need a board where everyone acted like the adults we alledge ourselves to be, showing respect for oposing opinions and treating ALL others with dignity. We're all in the same boat, here. Name calling, mud slinging, and obscene and vulgar language is already easy to find on the internet - we don't need a board like that. We need a quiet little haven for invigorating political discussions!

 

Can I bring the :lurk5:? :lol: Honestly, no, I don't think it's possible given how it's gone here in the past, where people were ostensibly trying to moderate themselves. I don't hold out much hope for a board where it's no-holds-barred. My experience on another very large and diverse board also bears this out. Their news and current events forums (and their spirituality forum, actually) are very heavily moderated and are constantly being shut down, weeded and pruned, and threatened with permanent closure. IMO, it's so much easier to say things online that you would never say IRL that it makes almost impossible for such discussions to remain kind and/or civil.

[melissel]

Before we changed to the current format, I set up a yahoo group to discuss political issues that got too heated and off track here. (WTM Soapbox) I think 3 of us logged in there and it died within a month. There was no interest when it was in a new location. Maybe it was the format? Maybe people don't want to have to check more than a handful of sites a day? I don't know. If someone wants to try a new board, that would be great, but it didn't seem to fly in the past.

 

I find Yahoo groups so difficult to navigate. You might try http://www.network54.com--their setup is similar to that of the old WTM board.

[BabyBre]

Before we changed to the current format, I set up a yahoo group to discuss political issues that got too heated and off track here. (WTM Soapbox) I think 3 of us logged in there and it died within a month. There was no interest when it was in a new location. Maybe it was the format? Maybe people don't want to have to check more than a handful of sites a day? I don't know. If someone wants to try a new board, that would be great, but it didn't seem to fly in the past.

 

 

I think it may stand a better chance in light of the current situation of the nation. I think there's a lot more interest in national and political issues right now. Just my 2 cents.

[KidsHappen]

For right now, though, the ban stays in place. We won't be putting up a politics-only forum because "enter at your own risk" spaces don't work on a forum of this kind; people just carry whatever hostilities were aroused in the "space" back to the general board. SWB

 

 

Asking respectfully, is this the reason that some threads are deleted instead of simply being closed?

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Yes--when there's name-calling or intolerant language I tend to delete rather than close, so that the offense doesn't sit there for everyone to see. Some of the other moderators are more likely to just close, I think. Judgment call.

 

SWB

[paulcindy]

I have a board that has a politics and economy group. It is an enter at your own risk group. Feel free to pop on over and join.

 

www.homeschoolenterprise.ning.com

[keptwoman]

I'm sorry my thread turned into a political discussion. I thought it was more about government structure than politics but I guess perhaps it was flying a bit close to the wind for people to stay on track.

 

Shall I start one on Coke vs Diet Coke now?

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: Just kidding. Don't ban me please. I'll play nice.

[OnTheBrink]

Yes--when there's name-calling or intolerant language I tend to delete rather than close, so that the offense doesn't sit there for everyone to see. Some of the other moderators are more likely to just close, I think. Judgment call.

 

SWB

 

And, it leads to inconsistent monitoring. I think the rules regarding politics are too vague and subjective and then mods can delete or close, depending on how they feel about it. It leads to confusion.

 

I think a specific definition of what "political" means (can we discuss JFK?) and then a consistent application of the rules would make life easier on the mods, and everyone else. For example,

 

Normally I would leave a discussion like this up. But today seems to require a "no tolerance" approach to politics.

 

So, there are some days that the discussion would have been ok? Some days are "no tolerance" and other days, politics are allowed?

 

I realize Susan calls the shots and can do as she wishes, but it seems to me this sort of inconsistency leads to the envelope being pushed and the mods start deleting threads and people are confused. Wouldn't it be easier on everyone if there were some specific and concrete rules, with consistency on the part of the mods? I'm not trying to be rude here, but it seems to me a lot of this sort of frustration could be curbed with some terms defined and objective moderating done.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Point taken. I will give this some thought .

 

On the other hand...I think there's a danger it could turn into a really, really, really long and nitpicky list. Ideally, posters would understand the spirit of the ban, instead of forcing us to lay out the law. But that's probably unrealistic.

 

But let me repeat what I said above: those threads were not shut down merely because they involved politics, but because they grew almost immediately abusive and were reported by multiple posters. The whole point of the ban wasn't to get rid of politics, but to get rid of abuse.

 

OK...if anyone else REALLY needs to talk about this, I guess you can, but I think I'm done with this topic for the evening...I think I've said everything about as clearly as I can. (That's not directed at your pertinent query, SolaMichella, just at the thread generally.)

[Jennifer in NH]

Personally, I think a spin off board would get just as snarky and heated and flame warish (is that even a word?) as it does here. I love talking politics but not when I am shouted down because of a difference in opinion. I can get that in real life, I don't need to go to aweb site to have it happen.... just my 2 cents.

[BabyBre]

I have a board that has a politics and economy group. It is an enter at your own risk group. Feel free to pop on over and join.

 

www.homeschoolenterprise.ning.com

 

 

Thank you, paulcindy! I'll check it out and I encourage other politically minded WTMers to as well.

[TraceyS/FL]

Well i own a message board - but we don't talk politics or religion. I was a member/moderator at a board that had a "debate board" and that went well for awhile, but then like Susan said - it carries over to other posts.

 

Instead of a debate board i have a "Get it all out" board - you can vent there, and no one can give you anything but a hug. Advice if you ask for it - but then you probably aren't posting to get it all out.

 

But politics have always been a touchy subject from what i have seen over the years.....

[LisaNY]

 

So, to get back to the point, I would certainly be interested in a seperate board where we can all act like children if we like! (Just kidding! ;)) Maybe I'm NOT a realist, but we would need a board where everyone acted like the adults we alledge ourselves to be, showing respect for oposing opinions and treating ALL others with dignity. We're all in the same boat, here. Name calling, mud slinging, and obscene and vulgar language is already easy to find on the internet - we don't need a board like that. We need a quiet little haven for invigorating political discussions!

 

Is that too much? Is such a thing possible? I think is. And if it's not, at least I think it's worth a try!

 

If that were possible, it would have happened here. It didn't. I've seen it happen - just not here. (Actually, there was a time when I experienced it here, but that was quite some time ago.)

[paulcindy]

I welcomed you Breanna, and others are welcome to come over. All are welcome to join. These days with the economy the way it is, I think people need a place to vent and ask questions. :lol::lol:

 

It is small right now, so get all the people you can, the more the merrier:)

 

www.homeschoolenterprise.ning.com

[Apiphobic]

And, it leads to inconsistent monitoring. I think the rules regarding politics are too vague and subjective and then mods can delete or close, depending on how they feel about it. It leads to confusion.

 

I think a specific definition of what "political" means (can we discuss JFK?) and then a consistent application of the rules would make life easier on the mods, and everyone else. For example,

 

 

 

So, there are some days that the discussion would have been ok? Some days are "no tolerance" and other days, politics are allowed?

 

I realize Susan calls the shots and can do as she wishes, but it seems to me this sort of inconsistency leads to the envelope being pushed and the mods start deleting threads and people are confused. Wouldn't it be easier on everyone if there were some specific and concrete rules, with consistency on the part of the mods? I'm not trying to be rude here, but it seems to me a lot of this sort of frustration could be curbed with some terms defined and objective moderating done.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know if there's an easy solution to this problem. It's not always black-and-white or cut-and-dried, because you have differing perceptions.

 

I automatically thought of a passage I'd recently read in The Story of Science: Newton at the Center. The author's talking about Galilean relativity and uses the example of a sailor on a moving ship who drops a ball from the top of the mast to a sailor on the deck just below. The sailor on deck sees the ball drop straight down. But if you're standing on shore looking at the moving ship and the ball, you don't see the same thing. To your eyes, the ball doesn't fall straight down. Instead, because the ship is moving it looks like the ball falls in an arc. So who sees what really happens? Both do. It's relative.

 

So what may seem like "objective moderating" to some may appear to be something entirely different to others. There is no easy answer or one size fits all list. And you know what? Isn't it ironic? Are we seriously asking for ... more rules and regulation? :blink: (Just my woeful attempt at a little humor.)

[5kidsforME]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know if there's an easy solution to this problem. It's not always black-and-white or cut-and-dried, because you have differing perceptions.

 

I automatically thought of a passage I'd recently read in The Story of Science: Newton at the Center. The author's talking about Galilean relativity and uses the example of a sailor on a moving ship who drops a ball from the top of the mast to a sailor on the deck just below. The sailor on deck sees the ball drop straight down. But if you're standing on shore looking at the moving ship and the ball, you don't see the same thing. To your eyes, the ball doesn't fall straight down. Instead, because the ship is moving it looks like the ball falls in an arc. So who sees what really happens? Both do. It's relative.

 

So what may seem like "objective moderating" to some may appear to be something entirely different to others. There is no easy answer or one size fits all list. And you know what? Isn't it ironic? Are we seriously asking for ... more rules and regulation? :blink: (Just my woeful attempt at a little humor.)

 

No, but consistency would be nice.

[LisaNY]

I welcomed you Breanna, and others are welcome to come over. All are welcome to join. These days with the economy the way it is, I think people need a place to vent and ask questions. :lol::lol:

 

It is small right now, so get all the people you can, the more the merrier:)

 

www.homeschoolenterprise.ning.com

 

It takes forever to load. Is this happening for anyone else?

[Colleen]

Are we seriously asking for ... more rules and regulation?

 

No, but consistency would be nice.

 

:iagree:

[Colleen]

I welcomed you Breanna, and others are welcome to come over. All are welcome to join.

 

Thank you, paulcindy, for welcoming us! I popped over and am considering joining. As it stands, though, I don't know that I have the werewithal to be the Lone Ranger amidst a small group of Glenn Beck fans.;)

 

It takes forever to load. Is this happening for anyone else?

 

No. I've had a ton of Internet problems of late, but when I went to the site just now, it didn't take long to load.

[BabyBre]

 

Thank you, paulcindy, for welcoming us! I popped over and am considering joining. As it stands, though, I don't know that I have the werewithal to be the Lone Ranger amidst a small group of Glenn Beck fans.;)

 

 

Come on, Colleen, that's what we're looking for! We can have one-sided discussions until we're blue in the face, but an anti-Glennite could really make things interesting! ;) We want all points of view, so come on over.

[BabyBre]

Paulcindy, what's happenend to the ning board? First I was banned without even posting and now I get a page that says the board doesn't even exist.

 

What happened?

[kalanamak]

ROFL

I don't know, but I'm game if someone sets up an appropriate board to discuss politics.

 

 

alt.education.home-school

 

has had 4 advertising posts this year. That is it. It is "abandoned", moderatorless, free, and you can even munge your address. Have at it, folks, and no one needs to set up anything.

 

The wild and wooly in me loves USENET. Some may even grow thicker skins and broader senses of humor. One of my favourite "revelations" was the witty, ugly, impassioned "hate affair" two posters carried on for months, only to find out they were one and the same person. And that was on a grammar group!