Seriously thoughtful Let's be civil, please

[Logseman]

After being around Mobileread for a while, I've noticed that people tend to overreact and be very sensitive to even innocuous remarks, whether the topic is politics or not. Come on, people, it's WORDS we're issuing here, not violent acts. Unlike a punch, words carry no damage by themselves, we have to give them the meaning which damages us.

[Patricia]

The moderators are discussing this issue.

There is a case for just stopping ALL political threads. However, what exactly counts as political? DRM threads get political at times and its not always easy to see where a line should be drawn.

Last year we tried moving all serious political threads into a forum called the Conservatory. It was a disaster, and generated more rancor and bitterness than we had ever seen on MR. Alex eventually decided to close it because it had nothing to do with our central mission: to promote mobile reading it all its forms.

Now we have a resurgence of overtly political topics and some people have been very intemperate. We'd like to find a solution that allows members as much freedom as possible, without causing gratuitous offence to others. This is more difficult than you might think. For example, we had to ban the so-called "Rattler" earlier because he turned out to be a sockpuppet for Recluse.

[GeoffC]

Perhaps it's a case of letting posters decide themselves, by reporting posts/threads that offend; from that the moderators can decide.

But as I've stated elsewhere, why are threads only closed, and not deleted... (even if with a prefix "deleted due to contravention of guidelines").


By the way Patricia, are you not supposed to be on holiday !

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Patricia

The moderators are discussing this issue.

Difficult job moderating.

A sincere to the folks prepared to take it on, and good luck with your deliberations.

[Patricia]

I think that we generally prefer not to delete threads, Geoff, because:
1. It looks like censorship.
2. Members can see for themselves that rudeness and insult merely lead to closed treads, and draw their own conclusions.

And I am on holiday. I'm writing this on the hotel balcony and looking at the sea view.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Patricia

And I am on holiday. I'm writing this on the hotel balcony and looking at the sea view.

Enjoy ....

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by GraceKrispy

On another board Iʻm on, they had this issue with heated political posts in the lounge area. Their decision was to make a separate issues and politics board. Any political posts posted on the lounge were immediately moved.

Now this kept the lounge free from politics, but definitely made for a heated and volatile politics board! but those who were into it frequented it, and everyone else stayed blissfully away.

The vast majority of people on that board live in the US, and it still is volatile. I think in a completely international board such as this, the discussions could and do get even more heated as we add country loyalties and misconceptions in as well.

Now that sounds most reasonable, and avoids the charge of censorship!

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Now that sounds most reasonable, and avoids the charge of censorship!

We did try a similar solution with the "conservatory" forum. but as Patricia mentioned, it was an unmitigated disaster, and unfortunately the conflict it generated spilled out into the rest of the forum.

I think it's important to keep in mind MobileRead's core mission, which is to be a place for discussion and information about reading, ebooks, and devices. The lounge is a place for all the off-topic banter which comes with any friendly group of people, and plays a central role in building community here. But its vocation is not to take on difficult and controversial issues. There are already plenty of other forums around the internet for those discussions. I think preserving the friendly ambiance and community spirit here is a lot more important than accepting heated and conflictual discussions, personally.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Patricia

The moderators are discussing this issue.

There is a case for just stopping ALL political threads. However, what exactly counts as political? DRM threads get political at times and its not always easy to see where a line should be drawn.

Last year we tried moving all serious political threads into a forum called the Conservatory. It was a disaster, and generated more rancor and bitterness than we had ever seen on MR. Alex eventually decided to close it because it had nothing to do with our central mission: to promote mobile reading it all its forms.

Now we have a resurgence of overtly political topics and some people have been very intemperate. We'd like to find a solution that allows members as much freedom as possible, without causing gratuitous offence to others. This is more difficult than you might think. For example, we had to ban the so-called "Rattler" earlier because he turned out to be a sockpuppet for Recluse.

Yours (as a moderator) isn't an easy task. Great Books contain large ideas, and large ideas inspire controversy. Keeping politics and religion out of the Lounge is an admirable and worthy goal (I speak as one whose hands are not entirely clean), but there should be, I think, a place for those of us who would like to discuss these large ideas with our MobileRead friends who wish to do so. In any case, ad hominem attacks, racial insensitivity, and name-calling should not be tolerated.

Do we want to be a community where only safe and sanitized books can be discussed? Should Plato's works be banned from discussion because his ideas of government were anti-democratic? Should Marx? Should we not allow Tolstoy's War and Peace because of the theological speculation within its pages that Napoleon might be the Anti-Christ?

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Yours (as a moderator) isn't an easy task. Great Books contain large ideas, and large ideas inspire controversy. Keeping politics and religion out of the lounge is an admirable and worthy goal (I speak as one whose hands are not entirely clean), but there should be, I think, a place for those of us who would like to discuss these large ideas with our MobileRead friends who wish to do so. But in any case, ad hominem attacks, racial insensitivity, and name-calling should not be tolerated.

Do we want to be a community where only safe and sanitized books can be discussed? Should Plato's works be banned from discussion because his ideas of government were anti-democratic? Should Marx? Should we not allow Tolstoy's War and Peace because of the theological speculation within its pages that Napoleon might be the Anti-Christ?

that is more or less in a nutshell the problem we face, yes.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

I think preserving the friendly ambiance and community spirit here is a lot more important than accepting heated and conflictual discussions, personally.

I cannot agree with you more.

[jinlo]

Incivility regarding politics is but a symptom of a larger disease. Negative energy has been building here for quite some time. Removing political and religious topics might lessen the number of angry responses, and perhaps that will suffice in reversing the tide, but I’m not so certain.

I’ve seen threads about censorship turn ugly. I’ve seen people attacked for pointing out their opinions as to why Kindles might be lacking. What happens in these cases? Is the next step to stop all threads about censorship and to ban all negative remarks regarding Kindles?

My point is that it is not always the subject matter that causes conflict, but rather the individuals making a post. Some people enjoy conflict and chaos, they thrive under such conditions. I can only assume this is why some of these horrible reality shows are so popular.

I wish you luck in trying to address this problem, but I also wish to warn you that banning certain topics may not lead to the outcome you seek. Individuals will often find other means to cause the conflict they crave.

[Greg Anos]

Comment on the Great Books. They are about ideals, general concepts. Not current details.

If you feel strongly about something, do what generations of people have done over the centuries....write a story about it. I do, and believe me, I am not a great writer. (And no comments about how great my Red stories are. And I mean you, and you, and you!)

There are people you are absolutely going to disagree with. Remember the Golden Rule. If you want to have your opinion, you must let someone else have their own opinion, no matter how wrong you may think they are. it's the underlying requirement of freedom...

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Remember the Golden Rule. If you want to have your opinion, you must let someone else have their own opinion, no matter how wrong you may think they are.

One thing I've long noted is that some people believe is that "freedom of speech" equals freedom from being taken to task for your speech. Person 1 states view, one or more people reply stating opposite views, person 1 cries that everybody is trying to deny his freedom of speech or that they are bullies-- or the old fallback "that is just your opinion!".

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

One thing I've long noted is that some people believe is that "freedom of speech" equals freedom from being taken to task for your speech. Person 1 states view, one or more people reply stating opposite views, person 1 cries that everybody is trying to deny his freedom of speech or that they are bullies-- or the old fallback "that is just your opinion!".

In his first Inaugural Address, President Thomas Jefferson said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Whether one agrees or disagrees with his theory of government, I think the admonition to allow dissension is admirable.