Rules for political discussions

[filbert]

I proposed the following rules governing political discussions here, and the moderators have agreed that they're good overall guidelines:

No personal attacks or insinuations regarding posters or candidates;

No impugning of motives by anyone of any side;

And otherwise hold the discussion to exceedingly high standards.

(That will, of course, cut out about 80-90% of political discourse, but that's the way it is -sad grin-.)

And also posters are reminded that the election will be over soon enough and they'll need to live forever with the words they post here . . . relationships and friendships have been lost for a single stray word . . . so our suggestion as moderators is to approach these discussions extremely cautiously and with respect for opposing views.

If you want to piss off people, go post on the Argus' web site, rather than here.

If you can keep it respectful to those who disagree with you, then we'll allow political talk.

But it will be tightly moderated, and we will pull the plug at the first sign of intemperate discourse.

Just keep at the top of your mind a respect for those who you disagree with, and everything will be cool.

[rabidrabbit]

Re: Rules for political discussions

I proposed the following rules governing political discussions here, and the moderators have agreed that they're good overall guidelines:

No personal attacks or insinuations regarding posters or candidates;

No impugning of motives by anyone of any side;

And otherwise hold the discussion to exceedingly high standards.

(That will, of course, cut out about 80-90% of political discourse, but that's the way it is -sad grin-.)

And also posters are reminded that the election will be over soon enough and they'll need to live forever with the words they post here . . . relationships and friendships have been lost for a single stray word . . . so our suggestion as moderators is to approach these discussions extremely cautiously and with respect for opposing views.

If you want to piss off people, go post on the Argus' web site, rather than here.

If you can keep it respectful to those who disagree with you, then we'll allow political talk.

But it will be tightly moderated, and we will pull the plug at the first sign of intemperate discourse.

Just keep at the top of your mind a respect for those who you disagree with, and everything will be cool.

If you want to get your post count up at AnyGivenSaturday.com for future voting, go into the Lounge Political Wing I avoid it like the plague, but leading posters are VERY active in the Poli wings.

[jackrabit1]

Re: Rules for political discussions

I posted this on my blog, "The Jackrabbit's Den". It pretty much sums up my thoughts on political discussion in a sports-oriented show (or board, in this case.)

"Sports and Politics Don't Mix."

Recently, a colleague of mine in Sioux Falls had to make an on-air apology during his sports talk show when he made the comment about America having (or is it being?) terrorists. This came during a discussion over Becky Hammon's decision to play for Mother Russia during the Olympics.

Some in the Blogosphere would think that the announcer shouldn't have to apologize for exercising his First Amendment right. And if the program was one of the millions of politically-based talk shows out there, I'd agree (even if he was dead wrong). BUT from a programming standpoint, he is clearly in the wrong.

Sports talk shows stir up plenty of controversy. Just listen to "Mike and Mike" or watch "Pardon the Interruption" and you'll probably want to strangle one or both hosts at one point or another during the program. Hell, Jim Rome has made a career out of tweaking die-hard fans. But what you won't see in these programs is politics.

While we will disagree vehemently about our sports teams and our athletes, we tend to normally keep the discussion civil, friendly, and funny... unless you're a Packers fan; then you're just obnoxious! But we all agree that a political discussion has no place in our little world of sports. We cringe when Congress holds Steroid hearings (don't they have anything better to do, like trying to do something about the gas prices?), and we boo lustily when politicians throw out the first pitch at a ball game. Why are we so vehement about this?

Simple.

Sports, for all intents and purposes, is a diversion. It's a way for fathers and sons to find common ground when they disagree about everything else. It's an opportunity to forget about all the ugliness that is in the world and in our lives and to take in the sights, sounds, and pure joy in the action of a baseball game, a boxing match, or a basketball game. It's a great way to take three or so hours and "take a break" from reality.

When someone puts politics into the mix, it disturbs us... "harshes our mellow" as it were. It brings that ugliness back into what is (normally) a pure and beautiful thing. And frankly, we don't need it.

Politics celebrates our failures and thrives on what is bad in our lives. Sports celebrate our accomplishments and thrives on what is good and decent in our lives. Things like sportsmanship, giving maximum effort for maximum gain, and battling through what seems like a hopeless situation to come out victorious.

Let Limbaugh, Boortz, Schultz, and O'Reilly keep the politics on their shows, and keep it out of our sports!

[UTH]

Re: Rules for political discussions

If you want to get your post count up at AnyGivenSaturday.com for future voting, go into the Lounge Political Wing I avoid it like the plague, but leading posters are VERY active in the Poli wings.

The political wing is a pus-filled zit on the otherwise pretty face of AGS. It makes for interesting reading on occasion, but it still takes up a metric crap-tonne of valuable bandwidth on that site. It is a great misfortune what that site has become, IMHO.

Discussing political issues is one thing that is sometimes absolutely unavoidable, but there is no room for partisanship on sports forums like AGS, BV, and SDSUfans. They put up with it (read embrace it) on AGS and it is very self-enforced on BV. The second someone drops a politically (partisan) charged post on BV, responses to STFU are swift in coming and a moderator normally deletes any evidence of partisanship pretty quickly.

While it is nice to see that SDSUfans came up with an official policy for political discussions, it is my sincere hope and desire that people do not challenge its limits and ruin an otherwise very clean forum. I hope that we can keep the scope of these political discussions limited to issues that DIRECTLY affect our sports programs and academic communities.

[jackrabit1]

Re: Rules for political discussions

To be honest.. there's a half-million different political websites and chat boards where people can be as vile and snarky as they want to be.... Do we REALLY want that on this board?

I urge the mods to re-think their policy and ban political talk altogether. Let's not be the Argus Leader Chat Board; let's be above that!

[filbert]

Re: Rules for political discussions

Moderators are considering the issue . . . might be best to avoid it altogether but I personally don't want to make that decision on a snap basis . . . further member input is invited.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Rules for political discussions

Moderators are considering the issue . . . might be best to avoid it altogether but I personally don't want to make that decision on a snap basis . . . further member input is invited.

I'm for keeping it off. I enjoy sdsufans.com for sdsu athletics and campus happenings. Don't need it for a political soundoff. True, I can skip it. But if it is allowed, it can show up anywhere. A vote for banning it.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Rules for political discussions

I think this is the same as the pictures of the tennis players, lots of places to find them on the net. The pictures could also pose a safety issue to members computers while this topic can cause a safety problem for members friendships.

[UTH]

Re: Rules for political discussions

I think that certain parameters should be set concerning the scope of issues that may be discussed. A big issue that is always allowed on BV is funding directed toward NDSU, especially for building new facilities.

This thread is a good example of what I mean in the above paragraph.



*OTOH, there are certain words that pop up like big red flags for immediate moderators' attention (democrat, republican, conservative, liberal, etc). There are also certain names... (President ________, Presidential candidate __________, Governor ________, etc).

[EQguy]

Re: Rules for political discussions

Personally, I enjoyed the way the commentary went on ballot measure #10. I had seen the commercial and wondered what it was all about. I now know more about the issue thanks to members of this community. As long as people post rational thoughts and don't get into infighting about who's more right or wrong.

I don't mind people giving their opinion about a voting issue but I don't want to discuss whether President Bush is a good President or who's more wrong between dems and reps.

[jackmd]

Re: Rules for political discussions

I'm fully in support of political discussion on this forum as long as its civil. I respect the current moderators and there ability to decide when an issue has gone beyond the expectations of the majority of this board. Not so sure I would have agreed with some previous moderators but thats water under the bridge, as they say. So, let civilized discussions on any topic continue.

[West-River_Jack]

Re: Rules for political discussions

A political section is ok but I would request that a special section be created and all political discussion be kept in it. Then it is easy to skip if I choose to do so. It should be locked and placed in the archives forever on the day after election day.

[Nidaros]

Re: Rules for political discussions

I question if we can keep it civil. If we start discussing a very present topic such as the 700billion bailout, I don't think it will be civil. There are tons of newpspapers who have forums for which the passionate can drop off their opinions and maybe that is better option.

When I started the thread on Measure 10, I think JackJD said a mouthful about respect for one another. We seem to have different opinions about tailgating and game atomsphere, and even that seems to yield strong opinions and you only hope it will not result in making enemies. We are Jacks and since this is a a board for and by SDSUFans, lets stick to campus topics and sports. With sports we have better chances of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

[jackrabit1]

Re: Rules for political discussions

Don't want it, don't need it, it won't add to the quality of this board and all it'll do is tick off a lot of people. Not to mention the spammers and die-hard idiots that'll be on here spewing off on their candidate or how 9/11 was staged by the Government.

We've got a good thing here... it's one of the few POSITIVE places people can post and not worry about being attacked (unless you're a USD Fan that likes to spout off their mouth without thinking!) I implore you... DON'T DO IT!!!

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Rules for political discussions

A political section is ok but I would request that a special section be created and all political discussion be kept in it. Then it is easy to skip if I choose to do so. It should be locked and placed in the archives forever on the day after election day.

I've already indicated my preference: drop it. But if it is to be kept on the board, I agree with WRJ...make it a section, like The Lounge, where I can ignore it, and keep the rule that political comments on other threads are verboten.