As I just mentioned to Phila, if you guys focused solely on the over the top personal attacks and name-calling, the vast majority of problems will go anyway. No need to police ideas. The attacks are what have spiraled the board and most threads.Having spent some more time perusing the board overnight, I totally understand how it is difficult - especially in today's political climate - to discuss politics without offending someone. I also understand that it is hard to prune off the seemingly outlandish posts without people claiming that the moderator is favoring one political side over the other. I guess my big question here is: Would people feel that way if all the moderators did was prune off the direct, personal attacks on one another?
I quickly read through one of the gun threads, and there were only three posts that I would consider pruning:
- "You're extra whiney today. Trump is definitely your guy."
- "What are you doing here today? I thought you would be hiding in horror of melting from all the smelly women you obsessively post about."
- "You're just mad that these high schoolers are influential while you mow their lawns."
I post that above fully understanding that I don't know the dynamics of their relationship. For all I know the people involved in those exchanges are good friends and were just kidding with one another.
I'm wondering if a simple rule to follow would be: "Attack the message, not the person." Can that be followed without people feeling like their freedom of speech and political leanings are being threatened?
(I am only bringing this up because our moderators were having an email discussion about these same issues, and we didn't reach a consensus. I thought, "Maybe this is a more cut-and-dry issue among the readers. Let's ask.")
Hey, besides, all of that stuff breaks the long established board rules anyway.