ATTENTION ALL - New Politics Forum Rule

[HashiriyaS14]

As of today, you will find a new rule in the "Politics Forum Rule Thread". It is rule #11.

The new rule is that posting up a pasted article as a "Wall of Text" will no longer be justification for a new thread. All such threads posted in the FUTURE will be deleted (current threads will be left intact).

My justification for this is that such threads contain zero original thought or opinion, just outside news. This is not a news site, we can all go read the news. Feel free to LINK to an article to help make a point in an existing thread, but just posting up an article is NOT justification to make a new topic. I will not tolerate any more "Walls of Text".

Additionally, just posting a link to an article is not justification for starting a whole new topic.

I think we have way too many threads in here on the same few subjects. We don't need 15 Sarah Palin threads, just one. Please feel free to continue making new topics that discuss actual issues or campaigns.

If you have any questions about THIS rule, ask them in this thread.

[szh]

Thanks for taking this on, Chris!

Z

[wingFeather]

I am glad that I caught this post.

For those who may be new to the political section, is there a way to have an intro screen pop up? Or a "required read" page come up? I have experienced this on other forums... not sure if Zeroforum allows for easy implementation of such functionality.

That may prevent any "Active Topics" clickers from wandering in without seeing this or the rules sticky!!!

[AZhitman]

For now, no.

While we're working on adding more tweaks and functionality to the forums, for now, I'd encourage you guys to direct folks to this thread as needed....

Oh and welcome the n00bs.

[Jesda]

News articles are a great way to spur discussion, and make excellent topic-starters. I'm taking my business elsewhere!

[HashiriyaS14]

News articles are a great way to spur discussion, and make excellent topic-starters. I'm taking my business elsewhere!

That's fine, you take yourself and your curry smell on down the road.

But seriously, articles are fine, if it's a genuinely new topic (i.e. McCain/Obama Texas Ballot situation). If it's yet another article about Palin or Gay Marriage or the Evangelical vote, then no.

I'm trying to keep it to ONE thread per topic. Obviously if it's really something new and novel, then it can be it's own thread. Otherwise, please try to find a thread on the topic of your article and post IN that thread rather than making a new one.

[srellim234]

While articles are a great way to start a discussion, just a link to it and your personal opinion about it are fine for me. Maybe a quick point about why you put it there.

Am I correct in assuming that you just don't want walls of text with no commentary by the poster?

[AZhitman]

That's fine, you take yourself and your curry smell on down the road.

Soda. Nostrils. Burns.

[Jesda]

That's fine, you take yourself and your curry smell on down the road.

Limo lib.

[HashiriyaS14]

Am I correct in assuming that you just don't want walls of text with no commentary by the poster?

Yeah, walls of text OR links.

It's 2 things that I have a problem with:

1.) lack of any original thought or opinion in a new topic

2.) Millions of threads being started on essentially the same subject.

We can't start a new thread every time someone releases an article with a slightly different viewpoint on the same topic or we'll have sixty million Sarah Palin threads. Unless they all have n00dz, we don't want sixty million Sarah Palin threads.

[ishkabibble]

Meh. More NICO government limitations, regulations and restrictions.

Oh, and

[Jesda]

Meh. More NICO government limitations, regulations and restrictions.

Oh, and

Its like John Ashcroft is running the damn place! OBAMA 2008!

/kidding//seriously///I mean really seriously

[dusred]

Oh noes! Obamaites are taking over Nico. Before you know it we will have to pay taxes to Nico for being on here.

Kidding of course.

I'm not sure if I understand this new rule but I'll do my best to comply.

[ishkabibble]

The new rule is change we can believe in.

[Beancooker]

Chris, thanks for taking on the co-moderation of this forum. I appreciate it.

OBAMA 2008!

I'll believe you voted Democrat the day that the sun rises from the West and hell freezes over.

[AZhitman]

The new rule is change we can believe in.

Capitalize that Slogan, Soldier!

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm not sure if I understand this new rule but I'll do my best to comply.

The bottom line of it is this:

If you have a news article or outside tidbit on "topic x", and there is already a thread that deals vaguely with this topic, you need to post your stuff in the existing thread rather than make a new one.

I don't have any issue with the "walls of text" because they're unreadable, I just have issue with millions of threads on the same topics where everyone is arguing the same points in 10 threads at the same time. It's idiotic.

Again, if it somehow proves too ambiguous or unenforceable, I'll can it, but for now, I'm giving it a shot.

[Marenta]

I like this rule. I agree with it whole-heartedly.

I am wondering what happened to rn, though.

[HashiriyaS14]

I like this rule. I agree with it whole-heartedly.

I am wondering what happened to rn, though.

RN didn't go anywhere, he's still a mod of this section. Frankly the traffic and post volume to this section make it a little tough for any one person to competently keep it all straight.

[Jesda]

On second thought, this section of NICO is way too heavily moderated. There's no riff raff, no fun, and not much debate.

Perhaps its the younger crowd here leading you guys to believe there needs to be more control? Still, its a buzzkill. Every thread is micromanaged and every post is nitpicked to death. Its not much fun.

For years I was an operator on an IRC channel, #politics efnet, and we had plenty of crazies. Made it more fun to let them say what they wanted as long as they didn't spam or harass anyone in public or in private /msgs.

At another car club, we have a current events/politics discussion forum where its pretty much a free-for-all, but its an older crowd so while debates get heated and sometimes personal, insults aren't taken very seriously. There's still plenty of knowledge being passed around.

In any event, you guys are taking this way to seriously. The micromanagement is rather annoying.

[HashiriyaS14]

blah blah blah all that stuff

I shot you an email.

[smockers83]

On second thought, this section of NICO is way too heavily moderated. There's no riff raff, no fun, and not much debate.

Perhaps its the younger crowd here leading you guys to believe there needs to be more control? Still, its a buzzkill. Every thread is micromanaged and every post is nitpicked to death. Its not much fun.

In any event, you guys are taking this way to seriously. The micromanagement is rather annoying.

In some ways I agree, but others I don't. Is it heavily moderated? Eh, sort of. Is there not much debate? That's very true because all we debate nowadays are party lines which is getting ridiculous. I would like to have real discussions with people who aren't simply subscribing to partisan politics. Even though there is a lot of debate, there really isn't a lot of debate going on. If you consider yourself a Democrat or Republican, it is not weak of you to agree with something of the other party--I think that's part of the problem of America's politics today.

The younger crowd I don't think is necessarily calling for more control, but I guess that depends on you consider the younger crowd. Myself for instance would like to see less control as I feel I have been a victim on a few occasions of partisan censorship because my posts have been deleted but I rarely see posts of others deleted. The most recent one was for no real reason other than someone thought I was "attacking" him and his method of backing himself up and apparently no more attacks are allowed, but I have yet to see that implemented on anyone else. I would love to see people survive a college course where you have to write papers if the professor told you your methodology and/or logic was wrong.

Posts are nitpicked to death because we have partisan debates in every thread and there is no middle ground for most people here. Plus, we have various people on the extremes of both sides.

On the flip side, deleting real attacks and what not prevents the thread from spinning out of control.

The walls of text were starting to get ridiculous as there really was no original thought occurring. That doesn't mean you can quote parts of an article and discuss them, but just posting up full articles constantly is annoying. If I want to read the news, I can go read the news elsewhere. If I came across such a thread, I wouldn't read the article, I would just read the subsequent posts because that's all I needed to know.

[Eikon]

This forum probably seems heavily moderated because our staff has been very into it. I bet you could pick out say 20 of the most frequent posters in this political forum and I bet 10 of those are moderators. That's a much higher percentage than in the other forums.

I don't think we see that much actual moderation. Very few locked threads, very few slaps on the wrist, and very rare deletion of threads or posts. A lot of posts by staff members - yes. But not a lot of moderation.

[Cold_Zero]

Good rule guys. How many anti-gun threads do we need all spawned by a particular NY Times article? Sheesh

[telcoman]

Good rule guys. How many anti-gun threads do we need all spawned by a particular NY Times article? Sheesh

AAhh maybe one more?