What is the best way to moderate a politics board

Zany, my notion was that Mind Zone would be exactly what you want.

The difficulty seems to be this (let me be frank here)

Those who want polite discussion, don't just want polite discussion - they also often seem to want impolite discussion excluded / prevented

At the moment, this little haven of relative sanity works precisely because it's 'little'.



When I was running PoFoUK, mostly singlehanded as Lewis was away a lot, there was way too much for me to be able to look at and effectively moderate and where I did step into the breach, the aggrieved transgressor could usually find an example of someone else committing the same offence on a thread that I'd missed, inevitably resulting in me being accused of partisanship.



The most effective moderation of a big site that I've ever seen was on PoFo.org in the relatively early days, prior to Siberian Fox selling the site to noemon. When I was first made a moderator in 2009, I was given one specific section to moderate. Similarly, most of the other moderators had only one, or sometimes two, sections each. There were global moderators, but they were only called in as required. When I was made global, apart from dealing with anything I might spot on my own, my primary role was to adjudicate if a moderator found themselves in difficulty with one of their own moderating decisions.



I agree with Monte's comment here in terms of guidelines being preferable to rules. It's human nature to find ways around rules, which undermines their veracity. Also, having written many a 'rule' (binding policy) in my professional life, I also know that no sooner is the ink dry, than someone will come along and point out quite reasonably that there were circumstances I had clearly not considered when drafting my 'rule'. It's the same with case law. The very existence of that body of legal precedent is owed to the fact that parliament often makes bad laws, that then require interpretation, adaptation and exceptions.










I agree with all points here. When I was running PoFoUK I repeatedly made the point that it was supposed to be a discussion board, not an argument board. Having been on these forums now for sixteen years, I can say that however naive I might have been back then, I joined because I wanted to learn more about politics. In other places, I have had genuinely interesting and informative discussions with people whose politics is the polar opposite of mine and I have learned things. There's nothing to learn from an exchange that goes, "I think 'x'"; "Well that's cos your a fcukin' lefty/rightie/nutter etc, etc". As Margaret Thatcher said (and I'm no fan, but I respect her opinion), "if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."



A thoughtful and well written mission statement might help this place to remain one in which contributors of all political persuasions can help to educate each other. As a left-of-centre person, I have always sought to learn why the right think as they do, but the polarity of modern politics has resulted in both the dedicated right and the dedicated left taking the view that, if you believe anything different to them, you must be stupid. That attitude does not support reasonable discussion.

The excitement is beginning to wane. 

Delphi, there would be nothing wrong with taking a quote or two from that discussion and starting a thread with it in Mind-zone. You can do this as much as you want.

There is a rule that you aren't supposed to name a poster in a thread title, but i feel sure this rule would be waived if you simply put "(for the attention of X)" in the title.

By doing this you are dropping the gauntlet and changing the rules..good fun. The trouble with an overly restrictive regime is that it truly doesn't suit most people in our group because it (the group) gathered around a board that had pretty light rules.

In plain speak
What do you want for this forum?
At what level do you want it to operate?
Do you want to "take over" the other or create a diversion?
Or do you want a parallel between which we can choose?
I prefer a forum which refuses certain members of the other because they are why I stopped paying attention to the first renaissance of the forum. They were anchors, not sails.

Just stop trying to be all things to all people, decide on a form and function for this one and declare it. Set boundaries decide what you want, reate an atmosphere to let it happwn and remember..


Nothing we say in this space matters. It is pure chat over a pint. The question is, chat of what quality.

It's possible to be all things to all people, with a little thought.

So you are setting up two ares to discuss the same thing...one full of personal insults and one expressed in a mutually respective manner. Why do you allow erosive discussion that usually becomes a personal contest? And those who use MZ have to puck up the detritus and run with it, in the hopes that we arent interrupted by the same people we didnt want to engage with in the fiest place?
Everyone knows that hurling personal insults is far more fascinating than actually diacussing the subject. For the shallow.

If the mods in here want that then fine. It wont change my life or the lives of anyone else. No one will change their minds or their votes because of this forum.
The potty mouths have open season in social media. Is that what this forum wants? Or does it want a thoughtful platform for open respectful discussion of issues?

Right now, I have no idea.