Poll: Role of Political Advertisement on ChiefDelphi

[Guest]

Does political advertisement have a role on the ChiefDelphi forums? Recently, the ChiefDelphi Rules banned putting political ads in users' signatures. So why is it still permitted in threads where the only purpose is pushing a certain political ideology? The only discussion that comes out of this is insulting each other on the basis of their political beliefs. I'm specifically referring to the most recent example that was soon closed by a moderator (David Kelly) after a few shots were fired by both sides:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32030

What do you think? (Multiple poll choices allowed)

[Adam Y.]

To be honest if we could have a sane arguement on poltics it would be ok. Generally this is how the conversations end/start. This isn't just from chiefdelphi but from personal experience.
Your wrong.
No your wrong.
No your wrong.
No Im right.
No yoru wrong.
No Im right your wrong.
Your a hardlined conservative your a facist.
Your a hardline liberal your a treehugger or whatever people call liberals.

[Joshua May]

As long as debates are kept civilized and informed, I'm all for political/religious/whatever threads, in fact I've participated in many of these.

[Bharat Nain]

I feel sometimes these arguements should just stay out of ChiefDelphi. People have extremely strong feelings about something and it turns into a flaming fight rather than a debate[Not referring to the recent one]. It's happen in the past. Moreover, lets discuss robots, its more fun:p

[Koko Ed]

I am a veteran of numerous messageboards polarizing subject matter like politics and religion are almost always I'm right/your wrong nonsense (remember most messageboard don't have a logical presence like Ken suggesting that people use communication skills when posting instead of being rude idiots. The moderators are there just to deal out justice not to guide the posters to better posting behaviors).
There is a possibility that Chiefdelphi could actually have reasonable debates here instead of inane shouting matches that eventaully turns into brutal trolling (my favorite messageboard is rife with annoying political discussion that has caused both liberals and conservatives to not only produce obnoxious threads that are for no otehr purpose than name calling but also has cause posters to create alias that are direct insults to other posters.

[Bill Gold]

I (obviously) think that politically oriented conversations should be allowed to remain on these forums.

Like I said before in a different thread…

“Let it go. It's chit-chat. If we can talk about unimportant stuff like Foreign Music, iPods, Facebook.com, modding XBOX cases, The Sims, and all sorts of other threads in Chit-Chat, then we should be able to talk politics without people telling us “this isn’t the place to be talking about it.” Politics actually has an impact on our lives and how we’re going to be living for the rest of our lives.”

I can think of many other reasons why politically oriented conversations should be allowed on these forums, but since I haven’t seen a legitimate argument against it, I’ll refrain from sharing them for now.

I also feel that anyone who starts a thread asking for peoples’ opinions on completely subjective matters should post their own, too. So keeping with that belief, how do you feel about this SilverStar?

-Bill

[David Kelly]

I (obviously) think that politically oriented conversations should be allowed to remain on these forums.

Like I said before in a different thread…

“Let it go. It's chit-chat. If we can talk about unimportant stuff like Foreign Music, iPods, Facebook.com, modding XBOX cases, The Sims, and all sorts of other threads in Chit-Chat, then we should be able to talk politics without people telling us “this isn’t the place to be talking about it.” Politics actually has an impact on our lives and how we’re going to be living for the rest of our lives.”

I can think of many other reasons why politically oriented conversations should be allowed on these forums, but since I haven’t seen a legitimate argument against it, I’ll refrain from sharing them for now.

I also feel that anyone who starts a thread asking for peoples’ opinions on completely subjective matters should post their own, too. So keeping with that belief, how do you feel about this SilverStar?

-Bill

You hit it right on, Bill. (How often do we ever agree on something?? :eek:) Politics is embedded into just about every aspect of our lives. I think it will make us all better people for expressing our ideas and thoughts and hear those of others. Hey, perhaps we can learn something from each other and become better and more complete as human beings. But there is a certain extent to which we can have political discussions because no matter what kind of disclaimer somebody puts, they are representing their team, FIRST, Pontiac Central HS, Delphi and all other sponsors or associations with FIRST.

Game on :]

[Max Lobovsky]

One of my main complaints with ChiefDelphi is that it seems so extremely worried about any sort of conflict. I can't imagine why any sort of discussion (as long as it doesn't degenerate into a flamewar) should be banned from the Chit-Chat forum.

[Bill Gold]

You hit it right on, Bill. (How often do we ever agree on something?? :eek:) Politics is embedded into just about every aspect of our lives. I think it will make us all better people for expressing our ideas and thoughts and hear those of others. Hey, perhaps we can learn something from each other and become better and more complete as human beings. But there is a certain extent to which we can have political discussions because no matter what kind of disclaimer somebody puts, they are representing their team, FIRST, Pontiac Central HS, Delphi and all other sponsors or associations with FIRST.

Game on :]
See everyone? I (a liberal) can get along with and agree with David (a conservative) on things. It really is possible.

[Guest]

So keeping with that belief, how do you feel about this SilverStar?
Political discussion is fine - I have no problem with it. But, as I titled this thread, its advertisement that is the problem. The specific thread I mention had the original poster advertise a link for a political organization, and then another user (a moderator, at that) provide reasons why said organization was evil. Such advertisements do not discuss political beliefs, but are just another form of commercial advertisements. How would people like it if I started a thread advertising some company? Or if I replied to such a thread by explaining why the company is evil?

[Bill Gold]

How would people like it if I started a thread advertising some company? Or if I replied to such a thread by explaining why the company is evil?
You mean like this? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30129&highlight=andymark) ;)

No offense, Andy. I love your company, and I'll be plugging it out here the day before kickoff :)

[Koko Ed]

You hit it right on, Bill. (How often do we ever agree on something?? :eek:) Politics is embedded into just about every aspect of our lives. I think it will make us all better people for expressing our ideas and thoughts and hear those of others. Hey, perhaps we can learn something from each other and become better and more complete as human beings. But there is a certain extent to which we can have political discussions because no matter what kind of disclaimer somebody puts, they are representing their team, FIRST, Pontiac Central HS, Delphi and all other sponsors or associations with FIRST.

Game on :]
Somewhere along the line the individual should be divided from the team because I garuntee you not every X-Cat (mentor) voted for John Kerry and not every X-Cat voted for George W. Bush. I mean everybody remebers that obnoxous mystery man SilenceNoMore from earlier in the year and he was a class A jerk who hid like a coward behind an alias but whatever his team was they shouldn't be held soley accountable for his inane actions. We may be part of a team but we also individuals. We only make robots we aren't robots ourselves.

[Max Lobovsky]

There have been numerous threads in the technical threads "advertising some company". Take the DeWalt drill transmissions. Of course, you will say, "but that is useful for other readers". Well, so are interest groups. Many people may find them useful while others may not find them useful. Keep in mind it was in the Chit-Chat forum so it doesn't have to useful and FIRST-related.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I think political discussions have a place here as long as they don't turn into flame wars. I'm also unsure that people necessarily represent their team in everything they do and say on CD. I think it could be said that the way they express themselves represents their team, etc. But I find it silly to say their opinion on topics represents the team, as everyone is an individual and all.

At any rate, I think moderators should just check up on the threads and make sure they don't get out of hand. I feel it necessary to comment on the fact that in the above mentioned thread, the first reply was from a mod and seemed rather inflammatory given the nature of the original post. And then the same mod closed the thread before any other discussion could really happen. But that's just me.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I most definitly think that these discussion should remain, however, I selected "Moderators should keep a very close watch on these threads" for a reason. Referring a recent thread, moderator David Kelly quickly closed it after noticing the pattern it took. See thread in chitchat. It was necessary and it was taken care of. I've also noticed that there are a few users out there who make it a point to step in and try to help sort things out when there is a conflict.

No matter how much conflict we allow, there is a line between personal attack and discussion, and it's battled like mad every time there is a controversial thread. If one can't control their behavior in a post, they're generally informed about it in a reply or a private message. I don't think there is any need to ban political threads if this self - moderation continues, but it's still unreasonable to expect a large number of educated people in this situation to pull off a flawlessly sportsmanlike discussion.

[Guest]

So is there a reason behind the banning of political material from signatures? Personally, I think our signatures should be held to the same account as our posts: fine as long as its not personally attacking someone. Banning signatures because they are of a political nature does not seem fair. Why isn't this ban extended to religious or ideological signatures also? Drawing the line on the topic of discussion, instead of the type of argument seems dangerous.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=30697

[David Kelly]

I think political discussions have a place here as long as they don't turn into flame wars. I'm also unsure that people necessarily represent their team in everything they do and say on CD. I think it could be said that the way they express themselves represents their team, etc. But I find it silly to say their opinion on topics represents the team, as everyone is an individual and all.

At any rate, I think moderators should just check up on the threads and make sure they don't get out of hand. I feel it necessary to comment on the fact that in the above mentioned thread, the first reply was from a mod and seemed rather inflammatory given the nature of the original post. And then the same mod closed the thread before any other discussion could really happen. But that's just me.


Well, I think I mis-spoke on the comment in regards to representing a group. To a certain extent, people will associate a comment from somebody with a particular organization they may be a part of. We're not supposed to do that, but we're humans, and thats what humans do.


In regards to this 'mod' who posted and closed this thread, I will defend my position. I may be a moderator but I also have the right to comment on a subject or post just like everybody else. If I was going around and editing posts or deleting posts/ threads for something that I don't agree with, that would be a problem. I was asked by many people to close the thread via AIM and there were several people reported the post via the forums. With being the only moderator that was online at the time, as most are out of town on vacation or Christmas break, I felt it would be best to just close it then. There would be no since to continue to leave it open when the community is asking to close it. This is not the first time I have been accused of closing a thread that I participated in, and I doubt it will be the last. It may not seem like I'm being transparent to some of you folks, but I am being fair. If you don't like the way I do something, oh well. I'm not perfect.

I stand by my actions, and if you don't like it, oh well.

[J Flex 188]

I guess the main reason is because of the fact that this website has a corporate affliation along with its name. If this were a standalone website with its own private funding and host with a reasonably benevolent ;) leadership it would likely invite a heightened (though not necessairly more civilized) level of discussion leading to more conflict. Thats one thing I acutally liked about chiefdelph in particular. Well I may feel stymied 5 minutes after an engaging thread is closed, I often come back a day or two later glad to see that it was nipped in the bud while it was in its relative infancy, but only when it was beginning to degenerate into something unrelated to the original topic or obviously below any sort of civilized discussion.

Ultimately its up to whoever pays the bills, although it may not seem fair, it is their own right to dictate their policies.

One of my main complaints with ChiefDelphi is that it seems so extremely worried about any sort of conflict. I can't imagine why any sort of discussion (as long as it doesn't degenerate into a flamewar) should be banned from the Chit-Chat forum.

[Tristan Lall]

Ultimately its up to whoever pays the bills, although it may not seem fair, it is their own right to dictate their policies.I don't think that's completely correct; let's say that Lockheed-Martin was the prime sponsor of the United Way. In the absence of an agreement detailling the specific rights of each organization, if Lockheed didn't like some United Way policy, they could withdraw funding, but they wouldn't be in a position to change that policy themselves. Similarly, depending on the nature of the sponsorship agreement between Delphi and team 47, I surmise that funding and other support, but not editorial control could be in jeopardy if objectionable material were to present itself on the forums. (Of course, the easiest way to prolong support is to avoid offending the benefactor...which may have the same effect as granting them the right to make editorial decisions.)

Now, as for political advertisments, I can't say that I like them--the Bush/Kerry/etc. graphics here and in other forums were just as tasteless as election signs littering the cityscape. On the other hand, a thread devoted to the discussion of politics is perfectly acceptable; I'd say that by posting the thread with a link to the ACLU, Leon invited comment on the ACLU itself, even though his intention seemed to be the promotion of a particular petition. That's fair game in the Chit-Chat forum (and nowhere else, I might add).

I don't think that closing the thread in question was necessary, largely because I feel that the pressure to avoid the potential for offence is too strong on this forum. Far too often, we, as a community are ignorant of the (not-quite-clear-cut) distinction between a personal attack and a disputation of fact. A vigourous rebuttal of unsubstantiated, inconsistent contentions might seem harsh, but (at least in my case), I endeavour to argue the merits of the issue, rather than attack the person. For example, while I often insist that someone is grossly wrong, I rarely accuse them of being an imbecile.

Also, as it relates to that particular case, it might have been preferable for David to refer the thread to another moderator for closure, as it does create the unfortunate question of whether he was using moderator functions for personal advantage (namely to avoid the argument). I'll admit that this was my first thought when I saw that the thread had been locked (as I was making an edit to clarify my post there) "because nothing good is going to come out from either side". Since he offers a reasonable explanation of his actions above, I disclaim any accusation and merely leave this as a point for moderators to consider in the future.

[Cory]

How would people like it if I started a thread advertising some company? Or if I replied to such a thread by explaining why the company is evil?

All Microsoft bashing must stop immediately :ahh:

[Joe Ross]

I'm ambivalent about whether political discussions/political advertisement should continue on chiefdelphi. However, there is another issue that occurred it that thread that I think should be addressed.

I don't think that a moderator should moderate a thread in which he/she participates. The outside observer is left with the question as to whether the thread was locked because it became a flame war or whether it was locked because people disagreed with the moderator who posted in the thread. This sense of impropriety shouldn't exist in a serious discussion forum.

I propose that moderators should deliberately abstain from posting their opinion in potentially divisive threads. A divisive thread isn't just one about politics or religion but often occur in rules discussions and accusations against other teams. The disadvantage that this suggestion holds is that the moderators are often some of the most respected posters on chiefdelphi, and we would lose their insight in some of the most important threads.

An alternate suggestion is to not have a moderator perform any moderator functions in a thread in which they share their opinion. Rather then David closing the thread, I think it would have been more appropriate for someone else to have decided that it needed to be closed. I think that for this to work, the number of moderators on chiefdelphi would need to be increased by a minimum of several people.

Just to clarify, I don't think that any impropriety occurred in the thread, but rather that there was the possible appearance of impropriety that should be avoided.

[Steve Howland]

I am one of those who voted for no political advertisement threads.

ChiefDelphi is a very valuable and important resource and gathering place for tons of FIRST participants from practically every team. Nobody should have to risk their privileges of participating because of a heated political debate.

Many times people at my school have argued endlessly about elections and political parties, and the only results are hurt feelings and added frustration. Although our moderators are very good and I do not find that political debates get out of control when a close eye is kept on them, if one erupted when no moderator was there to stop it somebody could lose their CD account (or all credibility on the site) due to rash behavior on a topic for which these forums were not fully intended.

There are plenty of places to discuss politics, such as in chatrooms or other forums, however ChiefDelphi is just too terrific and precious a place for people to lose. If we could all be gracious and professional all the time, we could have these threads. Unfortunately that is not the case and it would be a shame if anybody was unable to be a part of this community just because of a different political belief that they failed to express in an acceptable way.

It was mentioned earlier that political discussion and attacks are hard to distinguish from one another sometimes, and to avoid attacks I believe it is necessary that political stances not be taken on a robotics-based site. We all are entitled to our opinions, I am just afraid that they will breed anger or cause the loss of use of these forums to even a single person.

-Steve Howland

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

So is there a reason behind the banning of political material from signatures? Personally, I think our signatures should be held to the same account as our posts: fine as long as its not personally attacking someone. Banning signatures because they are of a political nature does not seem fair. Why isn't this ban extended to religious or ideological signatures also? Drawing the line on the topic of discussion, instead of the type of argument seems dangerous.

I have not seen a single signature on this site with a caption similar to "My religion is better than yours because...". You make a good point that it needs to apply, but I think this is a reasonable ban. While I had no problem with political banners, a few users did, and it was getting to the point that people were arguing over their signatures. I think if there was a problem with religiousness in the signatures, it would be brought to light and fixed. The question is, what do you define is a problem?

[Kims Robot]

I'm a little torn on this issue, as I personally choose to abstain from nearly all political and religious debates, as I dont think I have ever seen one change someone's mind, or make someone feel better. Those just seem to be two topics that people take personally, and get very stubborn about (myself included). At the same time I agree with freedom to discuss, and I guess I would say such threads should be carefully watched, but could remain on CD. If it were my forum, I think I would disallow them, but I guess since CD is such a huge community, well, its a touchy subject, and get involved if you wish. As for advertising a business, go right ahead, but there will always be someone who disagrees with the advertisement... but at least we know its out there.

That said, I did have one comment on:
I don't think that's completely correct; let's say that Lockheed-Martin was the prime sponsor of the United Way. In the absence of an agreement detailling the specific rights of each organization, if Lockheed didn't like some United Way policy, they could withdraw funding, but they wouldn't be in a position to change that policy themselves. Similarly, depending on the nature of the sponsorship agreement between Delphi and team 47, I surmise that funding and other support, but not editorial control could be in jeopardy if objectionable material were to present itself on the forums. (Of course, the easiest way to prolong support is to avoid offending the benefactor...which may have the same effect as granting them the right to make editorial decisions.)
On my team we ran into such a situation. Harris decided they wanted us to do one thing, while the team was already doing it a different way. It was made clear to us that Harris had the final say, and this happens in the real world. If LM were the ONLY sponsor of the UW, and their only way of obtaining money for that year, I highly doubt that UW would not change their policy towards LM's rule. Unfortunately, having the cash in cases like these, means having the power. Luckily Delphi seems to allow these forums to take on their own issues, and the moderators deal with them well, and seemingly to Delphi's code of conduct.

[Bharat Nain]

I have not seen a single signature on this site with a caption similar to "My religion is better than yours because...". You make a good point that it needs to apply, but I think this is a reasonable ban. While I had no problem with political banners, a few users did, and it was getting to the point that people were arguing over their signatures. I think if there was a problem with religiousness in the signatures, it would be brought to light and fixed. The question is, what do you define is a problem?
Not only that, some banners were jumbo sized, most of the time larger than any posts they ever made on CD. No offence meant to them, but it got annoying, and did not create an friendly-family type of environment. I like debates and stuff, but not to the point people go bluntly and attack each other. Some of the banners clearly had inappropriate content. In all seriousness, all it takes is common sense, think before you post.

[Steve W]

For the record, I was one of the people that requested that the political banners AND size of banners be addressed. I am Canadian and really don't care who you vote for or support. I do care that I come to CD for robotics. I really got tired of seeing half page political banners every post or two while I was trying to read a thread. I guess you should ask the question "Why are you here?" If for politics, I ask why CD. There are plenty of places that you would be welcome to debate politics.

To support David Kelly, I would have closed the thread if he hadn't. As moderators it is impossible to get to all of the threads just as they are starting up. As it is I spend 2 - 4 hours a day on CD and the amount of posts at times makes it tough to keep up.

The only way that I would agree to see political discussions on CD would be under a Politics thread. I could then disable it from appearing on my portal. I wouldn't ask to be a moderator so to me it would be as if it didn't exist.

When I was growing up (no comments) my mom gave me some good advice. "Don't talk about religion and politics." To have a one on one discussion with a person I know is even tough. People tend to be as passionate about politics as they are about FIRST maybe even more so. What do you think would happen if people started talking the opposite side of FIRST on these threads?

Let's stick to FIRST and robotics, that's why I am here and that's what I believe that CD is about.

[Jeff_Rice]

Note: I'm using myself as an example in this post

Looking at this thread, I noticed it had not input from anyone with a rep less than 4, so I figured I would try to represent that group. It seems to me that the majority of people on chiefdelphi are here as spectators, occasionally dropping a post here and there.

Something such as political discussion often just seems like clutter. Most of the time you aren't going to change anyone's opinion. It usually takes a vocal encounter to do that in my experience.

The reason? Chiefdelphi is on the Internet. It is hard to trust anything on the internet, as your English teachers no doubt will tell you when you are doing a research paper. Though it has a decent reputation, it is made up of people, and people are fallible, and will let their ideal end (changing the opinion of the reader) justify their means.

As such, many people avoid such threads, having informed themselves of issues via more reliable sources than an unrestricted membership forum. Most of them already have an opinion based on the information they have gathered, and reading what others say on that topic probably won't have any effect beyond wasting their time. To these people, the thread in question is just a link taking up space, bumping the one they were interested in down one notch.

To sum that up, to the casual surfer, the political threads are a small annoyance. That annoyance is outweighed by the benefits of good healthy debate experienced by the people who choose to participate in it.

[Wetzel]

Argument - A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood.

The discourse would be much better if people wrote on it as if it were a formal paper. Rather than just 'Lavery is an idiot', support it! 'Lavery is an idiot because he let us know where he lives.'

Also, looking at the list of people who don't post in those threads speaks volumes about what they don't say.

Wetzel

[Koko Ed]

Argument - A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood.

The discourse would be much better if people wrote on it as if it were a formal paper. Rather than just 'Lavery is an idiot', support it! 'Lavery is an idiot because he let us know where he lives.'

Also, looking at the list of people who don't post in those threads speaks volumes about what they don't say.

Wetzel
They casual poster may not be posting here but they are reading it and making thier own decisions. Just not here.

[Wetzel]

They casual poster may not be posting here but they are reading it and making thier own decisions. Just not here.

I was trying to say something along the lines of - look at those with high rep and see who doesn't post in the political and other polarized chit-chat threads. It is a fairly big list.


Wetzel

[JohnBoucher]

IMHO The discussion on CD should be free from politics and religion. I appreciate the focus here. CD has the final word on this forum. Period. EOS.
If users want different discussions, please open up your own site and host those discussions.

[Ryan Albright]

I like the political discussion and watching the political threads before the election, i was very pleased on how everyone acted. We had quite a few debates about John Kerry and George Bush but for the most part everyone respected each other and had a logical debate and for the people that tried to be idiots, the moderators were on top of it and did a very good job. The reason why i think we can hold political threads in CD, is because we are all peers or colleagues and have a mutual respect for everyone here, even if we have never met each other we have all grown together reading each others post and threads.

[Melissa Nute]

Moderators need a keep a close eye on the political threads. Before the election, the amount of political posts was getting out of control. I remember posting in one thread(http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=283109#post283109) listing the multitude of them.

A while back, someone posted a link to a site that political debates were commonplace. That link should be posted in the political threads when the debate turns too sour for CD's taste or when there are multiple requests to close it.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I dont think threads involving political issues should be banned, but they should be taken care of. Throwing them in the Chit-Chat section IS NOT taking care of them. The Chit-Chat forum covers such a broad area of topics.. which is pretty much everything, beside FIRST robotics. I enjoy reading and posting on certain topics in the chit chat section, but I do not enjoy seeing political chat on this website. But, does my opinion speak for everyone else on these mesage boards.. No. I am simply a user of the system, and therefore my opinion is exactly that.. an opinion.

I believe that people should have the right to express their opinions, whether they be over politics, religion, etc... but I also believe there should be an option for the common users to be able to choose whether they see these posts of opinion or not. Whether this may be a new sub section of the chit chat area or an option to classify your post as "off topic and possibly offending", I (and possibly others) hope that in the future this issue will be addressed.

Also, this brings up an issue with CD that many people notice but few talk about. While this is a serious discussion forum, it is still a DISCUSSION forum. We just happen to talk about robots here. Robots are machines that work with little need of human input. They dont show emotions, have a sense of humor, or argue. They do what they are told by creator.... People do in fact have all of those things. Now, there are many people on these forums who I would say act more like robots than a humans. People are going to argue, its in their blood. People are going to say stupid things, its in their blood. Bad Talking/neg repping/closing off/banning these people and their posts is not going to do any good. I believe the CD community as a whole needs to just.. cheer up and exersize that sense of humor that I know everyone has. Theres a time for serious business.. but 95% (guess) of the people who post and look at these boards are teenagers, and most teenagers arent very serious. I'll stop now before it turns into a rant.

Tom

[phrontist]

Everything is politics. If you have a group of people, interacting, and if even one of them has an opinion, it's politics. I personally don't see why the ACLU thread was closed, but I do think it would have been better if the origional poster had written a careful explanation of why he thought people should support the ACLU on this plan of action.

Full Disclosure: I'm a card-carrying ACLU member, so I guess I'm biased.

[phrontist]

Oh, and isn't this kind of metaironic...

This is a political thread!

How about a politics forum? Keep it seperate from everything else? It could be a chit-chat subforum. Read it if you want, forget it even exists if you don't. Everyone is happy.

[Yan Wang]

Oh, and isn't this kind of metaironic...

This is a political thread!

How about a politics forum? Keep it seperate from everything else? It could be a chit-chat subforum. Read it if you want, forget it even exists if you don't. Everyone is happy.

If the ACLU thread were under that forum, the same problem could've occurred. Relabeling its category does nothing to change the fact that rude posts could be made. Some people will certainly not look at that forum, but I think many more will. Perhaps since the chit-chat forum is an island apart from the rest of the forums, different moderators could be employed to monitor it than the rest.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

If the ACLU thread were under that forum, the same problem could've occurred. Relabeling its category does nothing to change the fact that rude posts could be made. Some people will certainly not look at that forum, but I think many more will. Perhaps since the chit-chat forum is an island apart from the rest of the forums, different moderators could be employed to monitor it than the rest.
Whats rude to you may be acceptable to someone else.

What if... a sub category was created that could only be viewed by MEMBERS of the forum who chose to be a part of it. So, new members would never even see this forum, or knew it existed until they read a certain sticky thread and signed up to be able to read it.

[JohnBoucher]

We are guests of ChiefDelphi, and so we should act like it. Thanks for inviting us over ChiefDelphi.

[Brandon Martus]

There have been many thoughtful and insightful responses in this thread.

In the very near future, I plan to sit down with the coaches of our team and come up with an official response (either in this thread, a new thread, or in the rules) which will expand the rules, moderation policies, and hopefully clear up much of what was talked about in this thread. We've talked about many of the things you've brought up (allow no political/religious/chit-chat/non-robotics, allow all discussion, allow with heavy moderation) and never come down to a definite solution.

The biggest problem, I think, is there are thousands of you (the general user) and less than 30 of us (the moderators/administrators) and it's really hard to keep track of everything and continue on with our normal everyday life. It will probably come down to just adding more moderators, and making a better set of 'what to do when...' rules.

So ... stay tuned.

[Andy Baker]

You mean like this? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30129&highlight=andymark) ;)

No offense, Andy. I love your company, and I'll be plugging it out here the day before kickoff :)


This is a good point. What is spam and what is not spam? I think that if someone is bringing attention of something that FIRST teams may want to buy, then it is productive advertising. There is a fine line there, and I have seriously wondered where "crossing it" is.

As for the political stuff, I enjoy the discussions, as long as points of view are accepted and respected. We really do have a wide variety of backgrounds, spiritual views, and political influences here on the CD boards. Most of us, I assume, hang out with people who are "like us" in our daily lives. We either mingle with friends who are "like us", or we work with people who are "like us". I find that this FIRST community has opened my eyes to smart people who think differently than I do about issues. Even if they are wrong - :) - we can still get along here, build robots, and inspire each other along the way.

Andy B.

[MrToast]

<TwoCents>
Personally, I don't give a hoot what anyone thinks politically. I believe what I believe, I know what I know, and I make my decisions based on what I believe and what I know. I don't like it when I express my opinion on (for example) politics and somebody responds "You're wrong, idiot." That really gets me. First, no one here knows anything about me, or the experiences I've had that have led me to my current beliefs. For someone to blatantly attack my personal beliefs with no foundation for how I came to arrive at those beliefs is wrong.

OK, I'm reading this and I think I'm rambling. So I'll get to my point.

I don't think CD should allow political threads. This is a robotics site. Not a political opinion site. HOWEVER, I do realize that people are guaranteed by the First Amendment to say whatever they want to say. Therefore, I think a separate "politics" subforum should be created, with an option in the User preferences to hide/show it. That way the people who want to see and participate in political threads can do so, and the people who don't particularly care for them (like myself), can easily ignore them (because they wouldn't be visible).

However, this would probably take a lot of work on Brandon's part to implement.

</TwoCents>

Dave

[Guest]

<TwoCents>
HOWEVER, I do realize that people are guaranteed by the First Amendment to say whatever they want to say. Therefore, I think a separate "politics" subforum should be created, with an option in the User preferences to hide/show it.
</TwoCents>
DaveThe First Amendment does not say that websites have to let you say whatever you want to say on their websites (as in, their property). But hey, that's bordering on a political argument...

[Ken Leung]

There have been many thoughtful and insightful responses in this thread.

In the very near future, I plan to sit down with the coaches of our team and come up with an official response (either in this thread, a new thread, or in the rules) which will expand the rules, moderation policies, and hopefully clear up much of what was talked about in this thread. We've talked about many of the things you've brought up (allow no political/religious/chit-chat/non-robotics, allow all discussion, allow with heavy moderation) and never come down to a definite solution.

The biggest problem, I think, is there are thousands of you (the general user) and less than 30 of us (the moderators/administrators) and it's really hard to keep track of everything and continue on with our normal everyday life. It will probably come down to just adding more moderators, and making a better set of 'what to do when...' rules.

So ... stay tuned.

Ok guys, let's wait to hear from the Chief Delphi leaders for the final answer. Team 47 is nice enough to provide a service for the FIRST community, it is their website and their forum, and they are the ones who decide the policy around here. Our opinions, as always, are only opinions and suggestions.

You guys have provided lots of great opinion about this matter, like Brandon said, your voices are heard and will be considered as always. I trust the fine folks of 47 to make the final decision.

Thank you Chief Delphi for your hard work for the FIRST community.

[suneel112]

I definitely think the name calling and "baby jesus" rant in the linked thread should not be allowed, but to ban politics completely, that is also not a good idea.
To ban politics would mean that politics has no place in FIRST, which is completely wrong. FIRST has become a huge program, and government funding of FIRST teams could help continue growth of the program and allow the less-affluent teams to go to competitions. This all has to do with politics. I think discussing politics on ChiefDelphi is great, as long as it is FIRST related. Bush policies on FIRST and science and engineering should be discussed, as it would create more intelligent discussions on ChiefDelphi. In addition, discussing the relation of the political world to the scientific world could come in handy in the future, whether you are applying for a job at NASA, applying for a research grant, or working for the defense, telecommunication, or energy industry.
I do, however, think that religious fundamentalism (the baby jesus quote was fundamentalism) has no place on the forums. The quote showed contempt and utter disdain for the other cultures that make up this wonderful country.
If you must digress to express your political views, here are some forums to express your views:
Liberal Forums:
Move On PAC (http://www.moveon.org)
George Bush, the Officious Website (http://www.georgewbush.org)
Conservative Forums: (I don't know too many of these, though)
The Free Republic (http://www.freerepublic.com)

To sum it up, I think political discussion should take place, as long as it is FIRST-Related (or science and engineering related).

[Adam Y.]

Personally can we aslo remove the reputation points system from any political discussion. I found it odd that I got negative reputation from one person and then positive reputation from another on the same post. If I really wanted to have someone approve of my political opinions I would have become a politician. Questions related to robotics yeah but not politics.

[MikeDubreuil]

I was very leery to post in this thread but finally have decided to. I try not to say things If I don't have anything nice to say but I think I have some important things to say about that thread.

1.) I was slightly upset that the original poster simply asked everyone to sign a petition without offering a reason. If you feel strongly enough to ask us to sign a petition you support, you should try to persuade us into it. I'm fairly unfamiliar with the ACLU and the petition page offered little information as to what the petition was for other than the meaningless "I'm a democrat and Bush is bad" ideology.

2.) David Kelly is a Chief Delphi moderator and initiated the replies with a very negative ACLU and pro-Christian post that ended with the following "The ACLU makes baby Jesus cry." I understand he is from the so-called "Bible Belt" of the United States, but not everyone on this forum shares his zealous sentiment for the Christian religion. I do realize that the term "makes baby Jesus cry" is often used as a humorous joke, but it is generally considered inappropriate.
When Tristan Lall explained why the ACLU wasn't as bad as David made it out to be in his first post, even correcting him on the improper use of the word fascism, he closed the thread.
Whether it may be the case or not, from the casual observer it looks like David Kelly initiated a heated discussion, when it became clear he was wrong he closed the thread.

I personally, did not see a reason for closing the thread. Everyone besides the first replier, David Kelly, responded with a carefully thought out and un-inflammatory post.

I think that political and religious conversations should be allowed. I think that as a group we collectively represent the technical elite of the world. There's some really bright people here and I want to hear about their views on other topics in addition to robotics.

Be it as it may but the Chief Delphi team hosts the forum for the whole FIRST community. And for that we share an immense gratitude to them. Given the circumstances, I think Chief Delphi should allow the "hot topic" discussion because there isn't another forum out there with this type of community.

However, it takes class and tact to reply in a responsible manner in a political or religious thread. You have to act with Gracious Professionalism. We all embrace this concept at competition, why not on the forum?