Final move edit: Thanks for the help everyone. It was very informative. Unfortunately after I put the poll together it occured to me another good option would have been "do you want to expand the political forum to include other news" but there wouldn't have been enough slots for that anyway. Maybe in a few months we'll do another one of these things to see how it's going then.

Thanks again everyone


1st move edit: For those who haven't visited the political forum in awhile we've been trying to make some changes (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=448146) to keep the place from sinking into the mire you frequently find in political discussion on the I'net. This thread was started to get some feedback from people to see how they think it's going and if other changes might be needed. I'm going to leave this in the general Other Forum for a couple of days now to get some reflections of people who may have previously visited the Political forum but don't now. The first part of next week this thread will be moved to it's proper location in the Feedback forum.

Thx

Original Message:
Perhaps this would be better for the Feedback forum, and maybe after awhile I'll move it there. I wanted to get people's general impressions on whether or not they think the Political Forum is still a useful part of DVDtalk, has it sunk into complete anarchy/partisanship, have the new rules helped quash some of that or are they hindering "free speech" (in quotes since we really don't have a right to free speech on DVDtalk ), etc? As I just pointed out in another thread I think the traffic level here has really dropped off, now maybe it's part of a cyclical thing but when looking around in other Feedback forum threads (and other threads where it is mentioned) it seems a lot of people have just stopped coming around. Is this something that is of concern or should the political forum just be for the self-selected few who want to come in and rehash the same topics over and over again? Finally is it time to just give up on it and roll it back into the main other forum (not that I have the power to do that and I don't know how the admins/Geoff feel about that... I'm just asking these questions on my own)?

Regarding the poll the last two questions are really more for when it is moved out of the Political Forum to Other or the Feedback forum. As said I wanted to get some initial impressions here first. Also if you vote for anything that has a ________ in it please fill in the blank in your post in an explicit way (copy the first part of the phrase you are responding too and then fill in the blank).

Where's the poll?

Same problem we had w/ you the other day... they take a little time to write

There's really not a lot new to discuss, which I think is partly to blame for the lack of interest. What's discouraging to me is the large number of threads which are started by highly partisan individuals, which serve no purpose but to attack the other side. Rarely do these threads or related posts improve the level of discourse, or add much of anything to the proceedings. They largely act to drive people away, which is probably their intended purpose.

I just voted.

I don't see the problem with the politics forum - other than the fact that I think some threads obviously belong in the Other Forum.

I don't want the politics forum being combined with the Other Forum.

I don't think criticizing this forum for the amount of traffic it gets is fair... Book Talk, anyone?

People are going to discuss politics whether there's a specific forum for it or not, so why would you want to go back to annoying people by rolling it back into Other?

We have a Book Talk



That is one of the arguments for not doing it... I'm just curious what people think about it all. I suspect we are going to leave it as it's own forum but it's a valid topic for discussion IMHO (in the general context I've established here).

While I haven't left this subforum, I don't come here quite as often, and when I do I find I rarely have much to say. I feel that I've always tried to improve the discussion here, by attempting to steer things away from cheap partisanship and nasty rhetoric and towards a factual, data-driven discussion of politics and cuurrent issues, but hardly anyone seems interested in much besides tossing feces back and forth.

Pls. don't combine this forum with Other Forum. I don't care to sift through all of those 'my wife just left me - what am I to do' personal threads on the Other Forum.

What I really think needs to be done is that a few members need to be suspended for a LONG time, or just banned outright.

Leave politics as it's own sub-forum. Recently, it's been getting better here, although better enforcement of the rules is needed. In particular, I would like to see 24-hour suspensions from this forum only when somebody breaks the rules. We have a lot of repeat offenders who will keep it up if all they are getting is the occasional slap on the wrist.

Strong agreement. I think this is one forum where it would be appropriate to suspend people if they show a pattern of partisan hackery and a refusal to contribute to the elevation of discourse. The actions of a few have a tendency to drag everyone else down with them.

I'm interested in your posts.

As someone who is rarely offended I like it the way it is.

I love wendersfan and VinVega.

I also like CRM and classicman and dick grayson and Lord Rick and...

Without debate, what is politics?? B-O-R-I-N-G

I agree that some people do take stuff too personal, and some people take it too far. But I've always liked the saying "if you don't like the heat; stay out of the kitchen." If you can't take it; don't dish it out. If you dish it out; you best be able to take it!

Well, there's a difference between debate and argument/mudslinging/trolling. I'm all for debate, even though it's highly unlikely anyone's minds will be changed. In a debate, both sides learn something, even if they don't change their minds. In most of the political 'arguments', there's too much trolling, flaming, or snarky comments that serve only to 'jab' the other person/side. And no one profits or learns from that, except to know who can respond in a debate and who relies on 'smartassery'.

I agree it should stay a separate subforum; traffic is quite likely to pick up a lot as we approach midterms. I also think the 'sub-forum only' temporary [or permanent, if needed] suspension/ban would be a useful tool. If not for 'teaching' or 'correcting' the offender, then at least for briefly increasing the signal-to-noise ratio.

The problem isn't the forum. The problem is the political news these days. I think the forum is simply an accurate reflection of the political climate- which sucks.

If you want to make the political forum interesting again, you're going to have to call your congressmen and get us into a new war.

Blech. I prefer less rules. If some people post "partisan hackery" or "refuse to contribute to the elevation of discourse," ignore them. Mods continually going through threads and trying to determine what is "partisan hackery" is silly. What marks the line?

Personally, I find posts that do not "elevate" the discussion to be worthwhile, as it gives opportunities to point out the absurdity of following the party line on everything.

I'm in the same boat. As a Repub, I'm used to being called names.

Anyway, I say keep Politics its own sub-forum. There is always plenty to discuss and at times unproductive things are said that do serve no purpose whatsoever (from both sides). When that happens, I don't place too much importance on it. It basically says that the other person has nothing better to say in their defense of an argument or their lack of intellect.

I sort of agree with you, but there are a very few posters that almost never contribute anything of substance. They just annoy people. Plus, like it or not, politics is more volitile than any other forum topic around here, and to keep it on the level of those other forums I think stricter rules are required.

I'm relatively new to participating in this forum and I appreciate reading different views when they are expressed without denigrating an opposite view. As a "moderate", I find that I can actually change my mind on certain stances ( ) when given good information that counters what I thought to be "fact".

I feel that separate areas are still the best way to go.

I like the partisanship (yes, even the blind, rank partisanship) on this forum. It gives life to the discussions.

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.

Myself - I don't want to see only esoteric discussions. They tend to be boring.

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

I like the partisanship (yes, even the blind, rank partisanship) on this forum. It gives life to the discussions.

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.

Myself - I don't want to see only esoteric discussions. They tend to be boring.

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

I like the partisanship (yes, even the blind, rank partisanship) on this forum. It gives life to the discussions.

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.

Myself - I don't want to see only esoteric discussions. They tend to be boring.

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

Is c-man filibustering this thread?