Alley of Lingering Sighs Forum Opens

First off, BTA posts a lot more than Tal in the alley. The problem might be that Tal is a bit more confrontative (is this a word?) than BTA and even I who agree with Tal on most political issues find his style to be quite provocative. I can actually understand if some people for example on the American right feels themselves singled out by Tal's often quite aggresive stance. If you find yourself facing the administrator of a site in a heated discussion you naturally feel vulnearable and may start fear reprisals even if it is unescessary. I do not think many of the Europeans for example feels threathened by BTA in the same way even if the discussions can be just as heated.

That said, I trust Tal to not confuse his admin role with his debate role and I would think that those facing him in a debate would be able to do the same. One always needs to distinguish between the "office" of a person and the person itself when you discuss things with the person and when you are in disagreement. I think many have a problem with this and feel that they are debating the main authority on the site when Tal tosses himself into the debate and they feel uncomfortable doing so. In my opinion that is just a matter of getting past that irrational sentiment and see the person behind the office so to speak.

To put it shortly I think these forums would be sorely lacking if the moderators would be hindered from posting in political threads. Especially since the two most active mods actually represents two quite differing viewpoints which should ease the worry of biased moderating of any sensible person.

 

I've struggled quite a bit with this over the weekend, and given it some serious mulling-over. Here are my thoughts:

Should the admins stop posting in the Alley? No, that's just plain silly - indeed, most of the admin-posts that I've seen recently have been in the Alley (I mean, really, how exciting would it be to just trudge the forums sweeping up messes all day without actually getting to participate in stimulating coversation that doesn't involve an inordinate amount of hand-slapping?) At some point, posting about how to beat Kangaxx the Demi-lich or create the best Druid multiclass build becomes a bit redundant, and you need to go "a bit deeper" - hence, The Alley(s). So removing mod-posting from political discussions? Silly at best - masochistic at worst.

Second - Political discussions. I pretty much agree with most of the posts here (Chandos, Splunge, Chev, etc.) - it's enlightening, enriching, and exciting (even though I tend to read rather than participate). Don't get rid of it.

Now, to the meat of my post: I pretty much find myself in agreement with Takara and Darkthrone. I don't dislike the Alley, but I do choose not to participate in most of the arguments there. It's not the percieved "anti-Americanism" (which I don't really see) or the "Bush = All Americans" (which I don't see all that much), but the constant chest-pounding, horn-blowing, my-dick-is-bigger-than-yours posting that goes on there. This isn't something that we can make a rule about, nor something that should be proactively curtailed, but it is something to think about. Those kinds of posts are first, exhausting to read. Second, they tend to repeat each other. Third, they are the source (at least to my eyes) of much of the emotional outbreak over this issue. When someone picks a sentence out of your post and basically calls you an idiot for saying such a thing, it tends to not make you want to engage in rational discussion. (Again, not something that should be curtailed, but something to be aware of.) I agree with Takara - being bullied is exhausting, and that's the main reason why I don't post that much in the Alley. Do I think we should close them? No. Do I think we should change the way they are moderated? No.

I fully expect that American foreign and domestic policies will be critiqued and ridiculed. It's part of the whole "tall tree, lots of wind" thing. I expect it, and it doesn't upset me. And indeed, sometimes I think that people just get a little TOO upset about the percieved attacks on America and Americans. Some of us need to be more careful about the things we say and the way we say them, but others of us need to put on some armor and DEAL. Nine times out of ten, I agree with it anyways. If Tal wants to criticize American foreign policy, let him - it's his opinion, and he has just as much right to it as I do mine.

Asking someone to pass over posts that might be offensive or upsetting? Completely acceptable - if you don't like it, don't read it. This isn't my Literature class, you know!

Asking people to move all "American" discussion to a new forum? A bit silly, in my opinion (although perhaps what's done is done) - again, this isn't an "American Site" - it's an International Site - we don't all have to love/respect/admire the U.S. - just each other, as human beings, as memebers of a community. We might as well have a Finnish Forum, a Slovenian Forum, a French Forum, and a German Forum. Now wouldn't that be fun?

 

Here are some thought of a non-poster in the Alley (except a few on a subject I will never believe in)

I post nigh nothing in the alley for the following reasons:

I take pride in my english language skills as an inhabitant of a non-english country. But some of the stuff being uttered in the Alley goes to far for me and I am afraid I misinterpred issues that would start a flamewar.

Second if I have an opinion of something I know I'm right in I won't even go into discussion (sounds arrogant?, well it is but even so I don't care). I do respect anyones opinion though and I would sooner lie to them about my opinion (in cases that go to far) than go into discussion.

Thirdly and most importantly I don't care......
With 90% of all topics in the alley I see I think to myself: Who give a flying **** about that!. I care absolutely nothing about politics, why bother about actions and games you cannot have any possible influence on except by voting for someone you don't know personally. I don't see the point and therefor will not enforce/voice my opinion about it.

It's safe to say such point of view stated above won't contribut much in the alley so I don't

Topics about Abortion, Ethenasie and other controversial subject I do occasionally mingle in because these subjects matter in my opinion.

As for banning all political from the alley or remove the admins from these posts is ridiculous. People came here for the games covered on SP initially, I did at least. People become comfortable enough to share topics like the ones in the alley after a while. People leave because they get offended in the alley. The people who left should wonder why they came here in the first place. If one wants to keep the community feeling they should keep to the other forums.

The problem with SP is not the alley in my opinion. SP has developed a culture over the last year. In fact it has developed a family culture which when becoming to friendly will take any kind of offense personal and too deep.

Don't change a thing Admins, keep covering games. People who leave because one forum lost the overall picture of the community and that's their loss. The open minded will stay. Even if the 'Bullies' scare every person out of the alley.....well who's left for them to bully after that. Things start over from there, old people will leave new ones will come....it's not a thing you can stop by not involving the admins in the discussion or banning certain topics.

EDIT: Get rid of the alley of lingering sighs, create a sticky for US politics in the alley of dangerous angles.

[ January 24, 2005, 17:25: Message edited by: Apeman ]

 

To repeat and expand upon things I said in the FAI...

My participation int the Alley is sporadic at best. I read some and post less, for the primary reason that I simply don't have the time to read and research the issues to the depths that some others do. However, when a topic interests me, I generally find that SP'ers post an amazing breadth of knowledge and background information. That's not to say that I don't have to sort through a fair amount of crap to find it, but I do find a degree of education here. I'd really miss that, if it went away.

Unfortunately, I'm sure I miss out on quite a bit of enlightenment when I stop reading threads due to bashing, flaming, or general chest-beating. C'est la vie.

Tal, a community is comprised of people, and wherever there are people there will be politics. I think trying to ban political discussion would cause you more frustration in the long run than the departures you're currently seeing, just because enforcement of such a ban would be a non-stop job.

 

Sorry, I don't agree with the "Laches, I'm so bothered, I'm leaving" as a real problem with AoDA. He did not like some things that were said, and rather than just show some good form, and take a break, he decided to try and "nuke AoDA" with his comments. In other words, because he could not get his way, he tried stir things up and ruin things for those who did not agree with him, using others to do the real complaining. IMO, it was pure manipulation.

 

As someone involved in the topic that seemed to precipitate AoLS, I should say that I enjoy the discussions in AoDA, even when I find them frustrating, and in fact often go straight to AoDA without visiting any of the other forums. As a yankee, it's rare that I find anti-american statements that I think are not done in good faith; that is, they reflect an opinion that I can either agree with or dispute, and are not given simply as insults. The political discussions on AoDA, as much as the discussions on Whatnots, the Sensorium, etc, are a vital part of the culture of Sorcerer's Place and a way of getting to know all of the personalities that come together in this site. So I don't see SP as a "gaming site" as much as a "site of gamers," if that distinction makes sense.

I'd hate for the admins to have to take a pass on posting on political issues; it's hard to imagine that Tal, Chev, BTA, and Beren would completely agree on any political issue, let alone push a monolithic political agenda on SP, and also, cutting chev out of the AoDA action would probably reduce the total SP posting word count by 1/2.

While the decision to move all US topics into a separate forum doesn't seem necessary to me, I don't have Tal's perspective or understanding of the effects of the AoDA on SP membership. But it would be a shame to limit political discussion here as IMO that would take away from the richness of the SP experience.

Finally, I should say I respect the fact that so many SP posters aren't native English speakers, and that they are afterall coming together to celebrate a form of media, PC gaming, that is still a bit US-centric in terms of its funding, authorship, development, and target audience.

 

Well Chandos, That’s not the way I saw it, but I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

More on Takara’s And Falstaff’s reasons for staying out if the Alley (and for Laches leaving):

The person I find myself disagreeing with most often – Grey Magistrate.
A person whose posts I always enjoy reading – Grey Magistrate.
A person with whom I enjoy debating – Grey Magistrate.
And one of the people who I respect the most in the Alley – Grey Magistrate.

Why? Because his posts are eloquent, well thought out and, most importantly, respectful. He doesn’t get into the chest thumping or quoting every single word his opponents say and refuting them. Instead, he makes his point, backs it up, and counters your arguments – all with respect for the other person’s opinion. And because of the way he writes his posts, he rarely gets flames coming back at him – and if he does, he just takes the high road. His posting style has influenced the way I write my posts, and hopefully that comes across.

Now, Grey obviously isn’t the only one who is respectful in the way he posts, but he’s probably one of the best examples (IMO anyway). Granted, not many people can match him for eloquence, but it would be nice if everyone would try to copy his approach in how he deals with others. It’s just too bad that he isn’t around much anymore.

One other point – I think one of the fundamental problems with the Alley(s) has to do with people’s expectations of what the results of a particular debate will be. Specifically, I think many people think that they will be able to change the minds of those they are debating with, and then get frustrated when that doesn’t happen. Well, frankly, I think that’s an unreasonable expectation. For example, if a Bush supporter and a Bush detractor get into a discussion over whether Bush is a good president, it is extremely unlikely that, by the end of the debate, someone will have changed their views, no matter how respectful the parties were towards each other. Perhaps over time someone will change their position, but it’s not likely to happen within the few days that a particular thread is active. To me, the Alley is a place to present opinions, listen to other people’s opinions, get and give some clarification, and then go away and think about it. But don’t think that you’re going to change anyone’s opinions before the thread dies – someone who is, say, anti-abortion is not going to become pro-choice in a couple of days.

 

I love the idea, Tal. It's nice to look in one and simply find debate, while I can look in the other and find all the depressing politics.

 

Actually, I think that's probably the best idea to be spewn from this controversy. I'll vote for it.

 

Falstaff made a good point really. I guess the Alleys cant really be closed down. I, afterall, really want to discuss current affairs. My problem, is what Darkthrone alluded to, and especially what Splunge was getting at.

For some of the more forceful and regular posters, they have developed their own methods of debating. However, the respect for others, at least to me, seems to have been lost. It almost feels like they are so convinced they are right, then our opinion MUST be wrong. And so our opinions and posts are browbeaten and quoted, and generally rubbished, to PROVE how wrong we are. The thing that gets forgotten is that in matters of opinion, you can rarely prove that theirs is wrong.

Respect for others' opinion gets lost, and it becomes a race to see who can shout their opinion the loudest. It is insulting and patronising.

I know I said close the alleys altogether, and perhaps I was wrong. What I feel might be best is a different approach. First, the AoDA and AoLS should be merged to re-form a no holds barred Alley. The new forum should be an Alley light. An alley on Valium as it were. A place where people can gather and talk about current affairs. No chest thumping, no debates. The sort of thing you get with people talking over a coffee, or a joint. A place where opinions are really considered, and the foremost thing is that nobody's opinion is wrong. To them it is very right, and instead of challenging, or attacking that iopinion, instead we try to discuss and understand it.

Now I'm not naive enough to believe things wont ever get heated. Even I have got into heated debates in a mild mannered discussion. But all we need is a couple of moderators, perhaps for that forum alone, who will break it up so to speak. When things get heated, they can call a time out, give people a chance to cool off.

Maybe I'm in lala land here, but I think it would be nice to have somewhere for those, who dont want AoDA type discussions, to go and talk about current affairs.

 

What is politics and what isnt politics? Is religion and theology politics? Is science politics? Me as an old political scientist see politics in everything and would find it very hard to distuingish between serious thread A as political and serious thread B as non-political.

 

Interesting point, Takara. I must agree that there's a lot of unmerited aggression in the Alley. People are young, but they are on their own in the cyberspace. They face facts and process information and form opinions, even claims. Those opinions are strong, while sometimes the process of learning politeness and courtesy is not yet finished. Various cultures clash and they have different ways of solving disputes - what is considered civil in one may be quite rude in another. And things aren't often black or white, either. I've seen people hold extreme views but still get along well with people holding exactly opposite and equally extreme views, wheres I've also seen people try to enforce moderate and affirming views. Which is better? Personally, I would say that freedom of conscience can bear no limitation while freedom of expression is only derived from freedom of conscience and subservient to it, while sometimes people who profess a belief in freedom of expression will tell you you're wrong and an evil bastard for even thinking something. I say something, another guy says the exact opposite, fine. But then a third guy chimes in and says something like "There's obviously no agreement here. You guys should be more tolerant towards each other. I don't have an opinion, but I believe that everyone's opinion is equally as valid and everyone should be more tolerant. And you guys can't say that because other people might not agree and you can't tell others what to do or what to think. And you should be more tolerant." See?

Some people simply miss the distinction between the well established principle that everyone's opinion matters the same and a belief that all beliefs are equally true. What point having an opinion if all opinions are equally true? Just hear everyone out and respect his beliefs to the farthest extent possible. It doesn't mean don't question it or avoid expressing disagreement. Just be respectful.

I don't mind my posts being cut into single sentences and refuted to death from close distance (though I tend to return the favour) so long as the person isn't taking it out of the context or twisting the meaning. And, believe me... quoting is nowhere near to as annoying as summarising can be. In some debates, where precision is important, quoting fragments verbatim may well be essential, if only to avoid being accused of misquoting or the eternal "you didn't answer my question" problem.

Another example from the collection of my favourites is the so called Bible Thumping. When we discuss morals or ethics in the AoDA, it will always come to religion. Sooner or later but always.

Now, I don't pull religious arguments on people who don't profess the same faith. Morals, ethics, philosophies, natural law... sure, but not religion. But, sooner or later, someone who isn't even a believer will wake up and shout, "Hey, it's not like I'm a Christian, but IMHO you guys are interpreting the Bible the wrong way." Et voila, when I reply to that and defend the internal consistency of the religion, someone will immediately accuse me of forcing the Catholic dogma on them or some such.

One day, when I was particularly fed up with that kind of debating, I assembled this list: http://www.chevalier.boo.pl/misc.php?disp=4#text . However, some of that behaviour is unavoidable and thick skin is what helps - as well the practice which dealing with it over and over gives. Another thing that helps is knowing that sometimes people don't come across as they want to be perceived and my arguments may look like that to other people, as well, and sometimes even rightfully so. After all, no one is infallible.

Except the Pope, of course.

It can be even more complex. We can admire the US for the great things and still criticise what's wrong. Sometimes people who feel more familiar, more connected because of the good things, also feel they have more right to be critical of the bad things - whether it's right or wrong.

[ January 25, 2005, 00:29: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I think a pretty large issue is the moderation of the forum. People don't like it when a moderator who has been arguing in a thread starts warning people or locking the thread. Regardless of the cause of the warning or the locking, it gives the impression to the casual observer that the moderator is using his powers to reinforce his opinion. Of course, the mods shouldn't be stoppped from posting in political threads, but I think people would be happier if it wasn't a mod who had been participating in a thread that does any official business.

We have over 31 different subforums now, and I imagine with only three mods, it gets pretty hectic. Perhaps it would be a good idea to bring one or two more people on board, if only to deal with two or three specific sub-forums.

 

Good idea.

 

Splunge - Being one of the most liberal, and to the left on this board, I still manage to get on with most of the American conservatives quite well, at least it seems that way to me. In fact, if Grey is in DC this summer, and doesn't go home, I hope to meet up with him in the RW. He invited me to attend church with him. Since, we will be so close by, perhaps I can persude him to make the pilgrimage with me to Monticello, Jefferson's home in VA. I think it would be great fun.

The problem is not right versus left here. But we can put that behind us. For my part, I don't intend to complain again about "America bashing", since it may be a case of too much national pride and that I am being overly sensitive here. Maybe...

 

I dont post on the AoDA but I agree with Tal's decision in splitting it. AoDA looks so much better and more inviting without all the Bush whacking.

 

Pshaww!

Chandos, you're a closet Moderate.