Poll: A controversial discussion section?

[2012 Wont Happen]

I think it would be a good idea, threads that are controversial are still going to be pooping up here and there so why not put them in their own special place where they can be discussed. The only part that kills this idea are the posters themselves and whether or not they can be reasonable.

I've seen myself that escapist posters can carry on quite controversial issues being very reasonable. I started a gay marriage poll a while back and, despite for one brief spell where a few people were discussing whether gays caused the fall of the Roman empire or not, there was no flaming. And that discussion never got disrespectful it was just a bit odd and off topic.

 

[Kiutu]

I do not know how to prevent flame wars, but to just avoid the topics is very...conservative. Controversial topics if never discussed will never be answered or solved, and more often the ignorant side will win. Thats how things happen though. Black Rights in the U.S. resuled in plenty of real life 'flame wars' but if no one started em up, and left things all 'peaceful' then black people would still be second class citizens.

 

[realguypablo]

Absolutely, unequivocally, emphatically, NO.

We do not need to encourage people to act like they do everywhere else online.
Maybe we should have a quiz for newcomers, which covers the rules of posting and topic creation, though. And until they pass it, they cannot post or create new topics.
That could stop some of the problems.

A quiz seems very reasonable indeed. No mistakes no excuses.

 

[cowbell40]

That is a good point, but it seems to me that, with such an intelligent community as the one we have here, intellectual discussion on controversial topics might really give us some new insight on these issues.

Actually, what tends to happen with such controversial topics is that the two opposing parties simply argue their respective points and no one involved really listens. The more one side intelligently defends their stance, the more the other side rejects. Thus, while a lot of good points are thrown out, it usually seems as if nothing is ever accomplished. Then, once an argument has gone on for many quotes, it has the tendency to devolve into your standard issue flame war.

 

[Simalacrum]

well, if we limited the type of stuff they can say... for example, just random hating on a subject is bad, but what if there were a specific rule in which any given argument MUST have a good, proven reasoning behind it? I think it would need much, much MUCH more limiting, but it could work... also, if we made sure that the threads in this section of the forum did not pop up on the front page, so they remain inside that section of the forums, so only people who want controversial topics see them?

No matter how well thought out the original post would be, it's a guarantee that somewhere down the line, whether it's one post or twenty, someone will forget themselves, ignore the whole part about conducting themselves properly, and start spewing off at the neck.

Noble intentions, yes, but I fear it would end in tears and a fair bit of blood.

hmmm... well, ok, how about a far more lethal banhammer in that part of the forums (i.e. immediate ban if found flaming in that section of the forums)? make it more dangerous to flame in that section, where, hopefully, all the flame-risk threads will eventually concentrate themselves.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I do not know how to prevent flame wars, but to just avoid the topics is very...conservative. Controversial topics if never discussed will never be answered or solved, and more often the ignorant side will win. Thats how things happen though. Black Rights in the U.S. resuled in plenty of real life 'flame wars' but if no one started em up, and left things all 'peaceful' then black people would still be second class citizens.

This is exactly how I feel

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

A decent idea. We're all smart and civilized, right? Well, most of us are. And reporting may weed out inherent trolls and flamers anyway. I'd say ok to it, and since you guys are all smart enough to realize that flame wars are bad, you won't be the ones starting them. Right?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

well, if we limited the type of stuff they can say... for example, just random hating on a subject is bad, but what if there were a specific rule in which any given argument MUST have a good, proven reasoning behind it? I think it would need much, much MUCH more limiting, but it could work... also, if we made sure that the threads in this section of the forum did not pop up on the front page, so they remain inside that section of the forums, so only people who want controversial topics see them?

No matter how well thought out the original post would be, it's a guarantee that somewhere down the line, whether it's one post or twenty, someone will forget themselves, ignore the whole part about conducting themselves properly, and start spewing off at the neck.

Noble intentions, yes, but I fear it would end in tears and a fair bit of blood.

hmmm... well, ok, how about a far more lethal banhammer in that part of the forums (i.e. immediate ban if found flaming in that section of the forums)? make it more dangerous to flame in that section, where, hopefully, all the flame-risk threads will eventually concentrate themselves.

That's a good idea.

 

[Pilot Bush]

Feh, all issues should be disscussed, not hidden or left unspoken

 

[Neonbob]

hmmm... well, ok, how about a far more lethal banhammer in that part of the forums (i.e. immediate ban if found flaming in that section of the forums)? make it more dangerous to flame in that section, where, hopefully, all the flame-risk threads will eventually concentrate themselves.

That might actually be somewhat helpful in keeping the peace.
And yet my initial objection still stands.
We don't need a section with a very high potential for a mass flame war.

I do not know how to prevent flame wars, but to just avoid the topics is very...conservative. Controversial topics if never discussed will never be answered or solved, and more often the ignorant side will win. Thats how things happen though. Black Rights in the U.S. resuled in plenty of real life 'flame wars' but if no one started em up, and left things all 'peaceful' then black people would still be second class citizens.

This is exactly how I feel

One other point:
This is not the real world.
We do not need to have a bunch of controversy stirred up in a website primarily focused on gaming.
I, for one, am quiet content in keeping the sticky issues of reality out of the place I go to ignore all those problems.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

hmmm... well, ok, how about a far more lethal banhammer in that part of the forums (i.e. immediate ban if found flaming in that section of the forums)? make it more dangerous to flame in that section, where, hopefully, all the flame-risk threads will eventually concentrate themselves.

That might actually be somewhat helpful in keeping the peace.
And yet my initial objection still stands.
We don't need a section with a very high potential for a mass flame war.

Well, a thread that derails into a mass flame war can just be locked, can't it? Maybe?

 

[PhiMed]

I'd like to think that the members of this website are not babies. Thus, I don't think they need to be warned that they might get their delicate wittle feewings hurt.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

No, it is a half assed measure. It won't do a lick of good either. If you want a controversial section then it must remain largely unmoderated thus flame wars totally valid.
Tessmage had a section like that and very quickly most of the members ditched other areas and just posted in that. Sure he still watched out for shit like people posting child porn and crap but any topic of conversation was up for grabs.
There was even one asking why having sex with minors is soo wrong. As long as they hit puberty it should be fair.
It was honestly the most interesting section as the community was small enough to avoid the idiot spamming trolls.

That is interesting

 

[realguypablo]

No, I think we should stay out of those things altogether. If you give people the opportunity they will just abuse it.

That is a good point, but it seems to me that, with such an intelligent community as the one we have here, intellectual discussion on controversial topics might really give us some new insight on these issues.

I like your thinking, Wont Happen, I would also think that such an intelligent community would also be mature enough to debate such controversial topics intelligently, without creating problems. Unfortunately, many of these same topics bring out a lot of personal feelings and many are either too close minded to listen to other opinions or simply are not mature enough to leave a debate as a debate.

 

[The Kangaroo]

Yes this would give us a place where http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.132342#2950967 this won't happen

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

No, I think we should stay out of those things altogether. If you give people the opportunity they will just abuse it.

That is a good point, but it seems to me that, with such an intelligent community as the one we have here, intellectual discussion on controversial topics might really give us some new insight on these issues.

I like your thinking, Wont Happen, I would also think that such an intelligent community would also be mature enough to debate such controversial topics intelligently, without creating problems. Unfortunately, many of these same topics bring out a lot of personal feelings and many are either too close minded to listen to other opinions or simply are not mature enough to leave a debate as a debate.

From what I've seen here, most times that discussion of controversial issues was allowed, discussion was reasonable.

 

[Neonbob]

Well, a thread that derails into a mass flame war can just be locked, can't it? Maybe?

yeah, it can, but isn't it better to leave well enough alone?
Rather than asking people to come up with controversial stuff to post about, howzabout just leaving the whole thing at the door?

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Well, a thread that derails into a mass flame war can just be locked, can't it? Maybe?

yeah, it can, but isn't it better to leave well enough alone?
Rather than asking people to come up with controversial stuff to post about, howzabout just leaving the whole thing at the door?

Hopefully, people won't use the section to post controversial stuff for the hell of it. They should have to have good reason to post in the first place and have a defined direction they want conversation to go. That section probably shouldn't get super extensive just for that reason, but get some good thought-provoking conversation going. Threads that don't have an obvious direction in the OP and seem to just be controversial posts for the hell of it can be locked.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Here's how I see it; as long as people are civil and engaging in the bandying of ideas then most things are fine most of the time. Off-topic is the place for non-game discussion, and I stress the word discussion. When you give a forum to these powderkeg threads you condone them as an argument or proving ground for the sharp of tongue. It ceases to be a discussion and becomes a competition, a fight to be won. You can't do that kind of thing on the internet, you get nowhere and cause heads to explode.

By the same token, Off-topic can't be flooded with those kinds of posts all the time, especially given they go nuclear in the end without exception. Hence the lockhammer (Smaller and more ornamental than the banhammer).

That's how I see it, anyway, I think Nilcypher locks them because he feeds on the souls of the threads he defeats.

He's a scary, scary man.

 

[realguypablo]

From what I've seen here, most times that discussion of controversial issues was allowed, discussion was reasonable.

So have I. Unfortunately, there are also too many, that simply do not want the controversial issues discussed. As soon as a controversial issue is brought up, someones red flag goes up that a flame war must be brewing, a moderator is told about a "bad" thread, and the thread is locked. I understand the moderators' position to stop flame wars, but ultimately we are the ones that alert them to the "bad" thread, whether it is the subject of a flame war or not.

Honestly, if someone does not want to take part in a thread then there is no need to, but I have seen people view a thread, answer intelligently, and then say how quickly the thread should be closed or sometimes they have simply stated how they want no part in the flame wars to come. If some were mature enough to simply leave a thread they don't want to be a part of then there'd be no problem. But as I've just shown, some just can't.