Poll: Role of Political Advertisement on ChiefDelphi

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by J Flex 188

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.

[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.

[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:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

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.