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)
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
