Another thing that bugs me about this forum (and is not mentioned in this poll) is the following ongoing meta-debate:

A: It would be nice if we made an attempt as reasonable discourse, instead of constant cheap shots against the other side.
B: You're against debate!

My thoughts: A isn't against debate, A is against lazy debates.

It's lazy to come on here are shout "Grouchtarians are pro-sucking it!!!" and get a bunch of "" replies from Bandocrats in a non-productive circle jerk thread.

Wouldn't it be better to explain why you think "sucking it" is bad in clear concise terms? You may even convince somebody.

Everyone has different backgrounds, experiences, and levels of education. I believe people need a guidelines on how to have a political discussion. For example:
<ul><li>When critiquing an essay, it is not sufficient to say, "The grammar and spelling is good." One should comment whether the paper captivates the audience, whether the style of writing easy to follow, and whether the article flows logically from one thought to another, etc.</li>
<li>When critiquing a drink, it is not sufficient to say, “The drink tastes good.” One should comment on the aroma, the touch, the finish, etc.</li>
<li>When critiquing a movie, it is not sufficient to say "The movie is good." One should comment whether the movie captivates the audience, how well were the technical aspects done, whether the color toning appropriate for the type of movie, etc.</li>
</ul>
Similarly, I think people need to know how to critique their own and other people’s comments. If people can learn to critique their own messages, they will raise the level of discourse.

Here are some examples of what I consider poorly thought out arguments:
<ul><li>”Hogwash!” This offers no contradictory evidence. Why is the previous comment hogwash? I am sure the poster has a good reason and I would like to hear it.</li>
<li>”Well the previous administration did it.” or “It doesn’t matter what the previous administration did.” So? Was it legal? Is it acceptable practice? If it is illegal, is it justified to break the law in this instance? Using a non-political example: I think in some situations it is okay to speed. My justification is, I weighed the pros and cons of driving 45 in a 35 zone and think the pros of making it to the hospital 1 minute earlier is worth driving 45 on an empty road.</li>
<li>Generalizations. “You know that.” “I’m not going to tell you, it’s obvious.” Etc. Readers should be allowed to critically examine and comment on posts. If I post “Bush is so right in this decision, it is obvious why,” readers should be able to question me on my reasons and point out that I did not offer a good argument.</li>
</ul>I think readers or moderators should point out poorly thought out arguments and ask that the poster expound on his or her thought. Too often I see posters refusing to participate in good debate because they do not want to expand on a thought or refuse to incorporate new thoughts. Art in the adult forum is a good example. He does not answer people’s question but repeatedly states the same poorly thought out opinion. To me this is a troll: someone who does not want to listen but just wants to post his or her opinion or “argument” without listening.

Who is to determine the argument you make is good or not?

I don't want moderators intervening and telling members 'that's not a good argument.'
They are also partisan - sometimes very partisan.

This forum isn't a peer-refereed journal; people should have the right to post poorly thought out opinions, they just shouldn't blindly attack people with whom they disagree as idiots or traitors and shit like that.

I agree. bwvanh114 has set out some excellent guidelines, but they aren't the sort of things we want enforced as rules.

Apparently they did return.

I'm tired of a certain members being told, "That's against the rules! But we won't edit your post, close the thread or suspend you! So don't do it again or we won't do anything!"

I've got no problems with this forum the way it is. This forum is full of good, smart people that have varying opinions. Some are better at communicating their opinions than others, but i'm just looking for a good discussion not perfection. I'm also not under the delusion that i'm going to change anyone's mind on anything no matter how many links, charts, graphs, or details I provide. It's just a discussion and interesting to hear other points of view. I take nothing personally and have great respect for those I tend to disagree with from time to time (C-Man for example.. even though he doesn't know what he's talking about ). I have a very stressful job and a large staff of people and this forum helps me "get away from it all" for a while. It would be a shame if it went away and/or got absorbed back into the main other forum as I think it would negatively effect the quality of the discussions.

What we need is a forum FAQ on the Iraq War.

My only complaint is old arguments being rehashed time and time and time and time again.

I don't think it needs to be on the same level as the other forums. That's why it is separate.

Yeah, but sometimes I just want to know if it tastes good.

I don't have a stressful job, but I agree with General Zod.

Agreed. Political forums are going to get heated. That's why people don't discuss religion and politics at cocktail parties. I don't see a "Open up a ethnic and gay joke forum" option in the poll so I didn't vote.

But that's the nature of politics - things are rehashed over and over.

The media sees to it.

I find it frustrating when someone starts a good thread and there's a decent discussion going and one person posts something stupid and the mods close the whole thread instead of just deleting the post, sending an email with a warning, and letting the thread continue. Especially when the post before the one that got it locked was MINE where I spent the time responding to 12 different bullet points

I have no problem with deleting a post. But most of the time that is not done. Nothing is done.

That's what happened to me yesterday.

I think certain members have caught onto this trend, and deliberately toss "bombs" like that in threads when they don't like the direction things are going.

This post here demonstrates about four of bwvanh114's suggestions.

1. "Who is to determine"? Well, he said 'readers or mods'. We have seen this happen in some cases where a member says "explain yourself" and the first poster, well, doesn't. Maybe that's when the mod comes in.
And I'm sure there's going to be some variation of interpretation of a 'good argument', but I think most people could agree on some examples of 'bad' arguments.

2. Why don't you want mods telling members 'that's not a good argument?' Again, by 'good' I don't mean 'one I agree with', I mean one that makes virtually any attempt to defend or backup an opinion or change a mind, and not one that is the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

3. Your second line is a non sequitur, and is a generalization. Sure, some mods are partisan, some more than others. But being partisan and being a mod aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I would *hope* that a mod would be able to separate his roles of 'participating partisan member' and 'neutral mod'. That's like saying a partisan person can't be, say, a cop. If that cop only enforced the laws he agreed with as per his partisanship, then I agree, that specific individual should not be a cop. But most cops can do their job without letting their personal viewpoints affect it very much.

"Partisan" technically only means someone who strongly adheres to an idea/platform/party; granted, it has taken on an insulting connotation, but if we remove insults from the discussion, there is absolutely no reason why someone who is partisan can't engage in a decent openminded debate, except that they don't want to. And contrary to the apparent current interpretation, "open minded" does not mean I agree with everything anyone else says. It means I listen to opposing ideas/viewpoints and consider them on their own merits. One can have strong beliefs and still be openminded.

If someone posts a poorly thought-out opinion, well, that's food for a debate/discussion, and something all can benefit from. Maybe when people ask him questions to clarify or support it, the OP becomes more in tune with his own opinions, or is able to state it and the reasons behind it more clearly. Maybe the opinion is solid, but the way it was written came out wrong.

What do people want a 'debate' to be? Is it a grade school, "I win because I made you cry/quit?" Is it "I lasted longer because all I responded with were insults, talking points, or curses?" Or is it "Hey, though we don't agree, I now know more about what you think and you know more about what I think, and I learned something, or got a different view on the topic."

No one really wins an "argument", but everybody wins in a debate.3

Bwvanh114's guidelines reflect the rest of the forum as well, I believe. If someone posts a thread about a movie/dvd, and I come in and say "That movie sucks" or "You're an idiot" or "Hogwash.", is that allowed in those subfora? If not, why is it allowed here?

"What's wrong with 'You don't know what in the hell you're talking about' or 'hogwash'?
I find them, quite often, to be the appropriate response."

Half-right. They can be an appropriate *beginning* of a response, though they are inflammatory and insulting. This word, and a bunch more, should follow: "Because ......."

Repeat: I also believe too many members take this forum a little too seriously

Depending on the nature of the post, deleting is useful, but I prefer the strikeout/"Don't do this again" edit to serve as an example.
Is there policy on when either is done, or is it the mod's prerogative?

Hogwash.

BTW: We don't have debates on this forum.

At most - we have discussions.

Strong agreement.

I would think that for the signficant majority of members on this forum this forum is a place of enjoyment, fun, or simply a nice place to kill time.

I doubt very seriously if very many folks come to the Politics Forum for enlightenment. If so - well, they've come to the wrong place.

Disagree. The subject of this forum is a controversial issue. At one stage or another, every man woman or child will be faced with the issue of this forum. While it has been acknowledged that it has an important part to play in the development of man, it is yet to receive proper recognition for laying the foundations of democracy. The juxtapositioning of this forum with fundamental economic, social and political strategic conflict draws criticism from those politicaly minded individuals living in the past, many of whom fail to comprehend the full scope of this forum. Complex though it is I shall now attempt to provide an exaustive report on this forum and its numerous 'industries'. <p><b>Social Factors</b> <p>Society is our own everyday reality. When Sir Bernard Chivilary said 'hounds will feast on society' [1] he created a monster which society has been attempting to tame ever since. While the western world use a knife and fork, the Chinese use chopsticks. Of course this forum demonstrates a coherent approach, something so lacking in our culture, that it is not recognised by all. <p>Some analysts have been tempted to disregard this forum. I haven't. To put it simply, people like this forum. <p><b>Economic Factors</b> <p>The dictionary defines economics as 'the social science concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services'. We will primarily be focusing on the Fish-Out-Of-Water model using the median instead of the mean, where possible. Of course inflation looms over this forum this cannot be a coincidence. The financial press seems unable to make up its mind on these issues which unsettles investors. <p><b>Political Factors</b> <p> Much of the writings of historians display the conquests of the most powerful nations over less powerful ones. Placing theory on the scales of justice and weighing it against practice can produce similar results to contrasting this forumism and post-this forumism.<p> One quote comes instantly to mind when examining this topic. I mean of course the words of the star of stage and screen Achilles Woodpecker 'Political idealists must ideally deal, for I daily list my ideals politically.' [2] Considered by many to be one of the 'Founding Fathers' of this forum, his words cannot be over-looked. If this forum be the food of politics, play on.</p> I hope, for our sake that this forum will endure.<p><b>Conclusion</b> <p> What can we conclude? Well, this forum is, to use the language of the streets 'Super Cool.' It establishes order, provides financial security, though this forum brings with it obvious difficulties, it is truly this forum.<P>I shall give the final word to star Uma Zeta-Jones 'I love this forum? Yes! Hurray for this forum!' [3]<p><hr size=1><p><font size=2>[1] Sir Bernard Chivilary - Interestingly... - 1904 Badger Books <p>[2] Woodpecker - Serving The Greats - 1990 Palmerston House Publishing<p>[3] It Magazine - Issue 302 - Spam Media Group</font>