Discussion, not Provocation

[Fierce]

No, unless you're making a false equivocation or some other misrepresentation of whatever _______ is.

That means the "Damned Trump" thread gets to stay?

[Tiberius]

Tiberius, I like the rule very much, but the one point I would raise about it is this:

Let's say someone posts a link to a news article about something stupid a particular political side did, with their brief opinion on how stupid this is and a generalized statement about how stupid those people are.

Whether or not it's "provocative" depends entirely on which political side this article is about. The vast majority of members here are left leaning. So a thread started with a link about something stupid a conservative did with a blanket statement by the OP about conservatives, isn't going to be provocative here. Most people are going to join in and be like "wow, yeah, that's so dumb, they're so dumb... and yadda yadda..."

But if someone posts a link to something stupid a liberal did, with their own blanket statement about liberals, that's going to raise all kinds of Hell. That will certainly be provocative.

So how will this be handled exactly Tibs?

It depends who the target of the "generalized statement" is, and how you are presenting your opinion.

Blanket statements about conservatives that are categorically untrue are provocative, whether there are conservatives on the forum or not. If a conservative says something racist, and someone posts about it with words to the effect of "see, I told you conservatives are racists", then that's a major misrepresentation of conservatives. There's nothing inherently racist about being a conservative.

If however, you post about that conservative and want to start a discussion about conservatism and racism, i.e. "Hey, this conservative is clearly a racist, how pervasive is racism within conservatism? Are there any conservatives here who want to defend / criticize this guy?" etc. then you are fine.

[Catholic_Lady]

Tiberius, I like the rule very much, but the one point I would raise about it is this:

Let's say someone posts a link to a news article about something stupid a particular political side did, with their brief opinion on how stupid this is and a generalized statement about how stupid those people are.

Whether or not it's "provocative" depends entirely on which political side this article is about. The vast majority of members here are left leaning. So a thread started with a link about something stupid a conservative did with a blanket statement by the OP about conservatives, isn't going to be provocative here. Most people are going to join in and be like "wow, yeah, that's so dumb, they're so dumb... and yadda yadda..."

But if someone posts a link to something stupid a liberal did, with their own blanket statement about liberals, that's going to raise all kinds of Hell. That will certainly be provocative.

So how will this be handled exactly Tibs?

It depends who the target of the "generalized statement" is, and how you are presenting your opinion.

Blanket statements about conservatives that are categorically untrue are provocative, whether there are conservatives on the forum or not. If a conservative says something racist, and someone posts about it with words to the effect of "see, I told you conservatives are racists", then that's a major misrepresentation of conservatives. There's nothing inherently racist about being a conservative.

If however, you post about that conservative and want to start a discussion about conservatism and racism, i.e. "Hey, this conservative is clearly a racist, how pervasive is racism within conservatism? Are there any conservatives here who want to defend / criticize this guy?" etc. then you are fine.

Ok, so the rule enforcement will be completely objective. Not based on the forum member's reaction. 

I like this rule. Seems very reasonable.

[Tiberius]

It will be as objective as possible. I like the algorithm Syn posted in this thread. There's three things we don't want to see:

1. Blatant misrepresentation / lying about some information that's easily verifiable.
2. Expressing an opinion that is designed to be provocative / trolling / flaming.
3. Doing it in a manner that makes it clear you aren't interested in actual discussion.

Obviously there's some subjectivity involved in the last two, which is why we're asking the community for help, both with their own posts, and with reporting things that are clearly out of line.

[LadyForCamus]

Tiberius, I like the rule very much, but the one point I would raise about it is this:

Let's say someone posts a link to a news article about something stupid a particular political side did, with their brief opinion on how stupid this is and a generalized statement about how stupid those people are.

Whether or not it's "provocative" depends entirely on which political side this article is about. The vast majority of members here are left leaning. So a thread started with a link about something stupid a conservative did with a blanket statement by the OP about conservatives, isn't going to be provocative here. Most people are going to join in and be like "wow, yeah, that's so dumb, they're so dumb... and yadda yadda..."

But if someone posts a link to something stupid a liberal did, with their own blanket statement about liberals, that's going to raise all kinds of Hell. That will certainly be provocative.

So how will this be handled exactly Tibs?

Not trying to speak for staff here ofc, but in my opinion it should be a problem if the OP author is not engaging in the thread he/she created.  Posting about something controversial like a political news story and then not participating in the discussion that follows it, or even bother to respond to points about the content that members have taken the time to articulate, is against the rules if I understand them correctly.  Ofc, Mod's feel free to bitch-slap me back into my place if I have misspoken.  😝

[LastPoet]

No, unless you're making a false equivocation or some other misrepresentation of whatever _______ is.

That means the "Damned Trump" thread gets to stay?

Trump is clearly a person, not a group.

[LastPoet]

Does that mean there won't be anymore "Damned ________" threads?

If you make a thread "All atheists Poo!" you won't get in trouble. That generalization is allowed.

[LastPoet]

Does that mean there won't be anymore "Damned ________" threads?

I forgot exceptions. Damn "murderers" "rapists" "pedophiles" is something we allow.

"Catholics are murderers", we won't allow. "Hindus are rapists" also no. What are we discussing? The same happens in political threads. It doesn't foster discussion of Ideas. Think of this as "God hardened the Pharao's heart"-

Most of this forum now are polarized political threads, save for Little Rik, but who knows what he is talking about anyway?

Oh and Mafia. $%%&&.

[Athene]

Could've sworn there was an existing "no-trolling" rule suitable enough to address such threads. Perhaps I'm nuts.

Or perhaps the new addendum is somewhat reminiscent of witnessing the perils of micromanagement in the workplace. Only with no overtime to snag if folks get discouraged and don't bother showing up.

[vorlon13]

Coincidentally, as a matter of doctrine (IANMTU) North Korean leading Kim Jung Il neither poos nor pees.

Really.